Should America have gun control?

K_Michael

The reason we shouldn't have gun control: What does it do to make owning guns illegal? The violent people that are the only valid reason for gun control are already breaking the law by being violent. They won't care if they break another law. And now there will be less responsible, law abiding citizens with guns to protect themselves.

TTKDB

@Applesauce:

Do you recall the below being addressed to you, and Zombieguy 1987 both?

@Zombieguy1987 

@Applesauce 

Why do the two of you view the below points of view as irrelevant?

Do you two maybe view the ATF as irrelevant?

Do you two maybe view the FBI as irrelevant as well? 

The theme of the forum;

"Should America have gun control?"

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act

From their website:

"Gun Control Act

Gun Control Act of 1968

This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, "prohibited persons", and licensing provisions.

Assassinations And Gun Control

After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act.

Incorporated Acts of the GCA

• Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
• NICS Improvement Act of 2008"

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics#External-Resources

From their website:

"National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers. 

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas). Please be advised that calls may be monitored and recorded for any authorized purpose"

Now, where is your proof, to support your claims? 

"You’re brainwashed by leftist media"

"Not liars, but they're being brainwashed by leftist media to push gun control."

(The 200,000 people who voluntarily went to the event, are liars as well?)

"Brainwashed..."

I was there, are you calling me a as well?

"Brainwashed (Slightly ignorant at that)"

@Zombieguy1987: 
Where is your real factual evidence to support your brainwashed points of view at?

From the ATF, FBI, the police department in your own town?

Here's a thought, you could use 
the provided websites, to see if the (March For Our Lives survivors or members) are mentioned on their websites?  

What say you, both of you? 

The above, is addressing the both of you.

So then, this was your next response:

@TTKDB 

Why do the two of you view the below points of view as irrelevant?

"I view you as irrelevant, hence my lack of replies to you other than insults, take the hint."

Then I followed up with the below:



@Applesauce 

Again, why do you, maybe view the ATF as irrelevant?

And why do you, maybe view the FBI as irrelevant? 

From you:

"I view you as irrelevant, hence my lack of replies to you other than insults, take the hint."

Take what hints?  


What an original way to dodge the questions, addressed to you in regards to the (ATF/ Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and the (FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation)?

Then your response, was the below, 

"you are making false allegations as to my views, cease and desist your assumptions."

Below is my response to you:

Show me, where I've done any such thing? 

Here is your most recent response:

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce 

"you are making false allegations as to my views, cease and desist your assumptions."

Show me, where I've done any such thing? 

Again, why do you, maybe view the ATF as irrelevant?
And why do you, maybe view the FBI as irrelevant? 

"Show all the readers where I ever made or eluded to those claims you made.
since I have never addressed or discussed the ATF or FBI you are a ."

@Applesauce:

All I did, was ask you some questions, and I haven't made any false allegations as to your views.

Your responses are yours, I didn't have anything to do with how you, responded to them? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

"Should America have gun control?"

There's already gun control in the United States, since 1968.

@CYDdharta

If there is ever an actual national crisis, where this is happening:

And the words from you below, become a reality, 

"This is all about creating a backdoor gun registry for future confiscation efforts and eliminating the 2nd Amendment."

And any law abiding gun owner, or gun owners, for whatever reasons their own weapons become (confiscated) because a backdoor gun registry became a reality, and at the same time the Second Amendment becomes eliminated, based upon the scenario you illustrated with your words.

I will make it point to go to Washington DC, to see the pro gun rally, that was organized to protest the hypothetical elimination of the Second Amendment, and the law abiding gun owners who hypothetically had their weapons taken from them? 

Would you protest them confiscating assault rifles, as they're already doing in New Jersey?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

Do you mean the magazines that go with the weapons, or weapons themselves?

Looks like they are talking about the magazines? 

Because if the gun control that you're talking about, is in reference to gun magazines specifically, then wouldn't that be a separate conversation from (magazine control) verses gun control?

Applesauce

@TTKDB

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce 

"you are making false allegations as to my views, cease and desist your assumptions."

Show me, where I've done any such thing? 

Again, why do you, maybe view the ATF as irrelevant?
And why do you, maybe view the FBI as irrelevant? 

"Show all the readers where I ever made or eluded to those claims you made.
since I have never addressed or discussed the ATF or FBI you are a ."

@Applesauce:
All I did, was ask you some questions, and I haven't made any false allegations as to your views.
Your responses are yours, I didn't have anything to do with how you, responded to them? 

you claim to know my view which you don't and lied about in the framing of your questions.  If you had asked me my thoughts on the ATF and FBI that would be one thing.  Let's examine your lies shall we?

you asked,  "why do you" that phrase is an accusation, assumption and attributes motive, then you go on "maybe view the * as irrelevant" just because you stick in maybe doesn't change the fact that it's a statement and claiming I have a view which you lied about.  You can't cover up your lie, not even a good try.  Stick with it though and show everyone who you truly are.
So let's save some typing, now you'll play dumb and not understand marking a post as "irrelevant" is saying that it's irrelevant to the topic and not what is actually said.  A post can be true and I could even agree with the content but it doesn't mean it's relevant to the topic/thread, but you know that already, play dumb if you like either way you make yourself look worse and worse.

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Do you mean the magazines that go with the weapons, or weapons themselves?

Looks like they are talking about the magazines? 

Because if the gun control that you're talking about, is in reference to gun magazines specifically, then wouldn't that be a separate conversation from (magazine control) verses gun control?

Since the assault rifle is relatively worthless without a magazine, no it's not a separate conversation.

So how about it, are you going to protest in New Jersey?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"Since the assault rifle is relatively worthless without a magazine, no it's not a separate conversation.

So how about it, are you going to protest in New Jersey?"

Is any assualt rifle, relatively viewed as worthless, with the factory provided magazine that goes with it? 

Getting into the weeds, with how some gun owners, maybe view the manufactured accessories to a weapon?

I've gone into plenty of gun shops, and whats evident, is that your standard semi automatics, are sold with a factory provided clip to house the ammunition in right?

I've seen it with a slew of them, the 9mm, 45 Cal, 40 Cal and so on.

I've seen the magazines that go with an A-15, you know, the factory provided magazines? 

So the probable gripe is maybe with the clips or magazines, that hold more ammo than the factory provided clips or magazines do then right? 

So, is that the probable gripe, when it comes to the extra capacity clips or magazines, the probable gun owner politics in how an extra capacity clip or magazine that is bought to be used for the factory made A-15, or 9mm, 45 Cal, 40 Cal, or even the 357 magum for that matter? 

CYDdharta, is that situation, what the apparent gripe is over, it's about the extra capacity clips or magazines?

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Since the assault rifle is relatively worthless without a magazine, no it's not a separate conversation.

So how about it, are you going to protest in New Jersey?"

Is any assualt rifle, relatively viewed as worthless, with the factory provided magazine that goes with it? 

Not just relatively worthless, how about a felony.  If I had this S&W rifle that I bought at America's largest hunting chain in New Jersey, I'd be committing a 4th degree felony.  The Glock Model 17 is the most popular model of the best selling pistol in the world.  The standard magazine capacity is 17 rounds.  Possessing a Glock Model 17 with it's factory equipped magazine is also a 4th degree felony in New Jersey.  The same is true of most of the nation's best selling pistols.

Getting into the weeds, with how some gun owners, maybe view the manufactured accessories to a weapon?

I've gone into plenty of gun shops, and whats evident, is that your standard semi automatics, are sold with a factory provided clip to house the ammunition in right?

I've seen it with a slew of them, the 9mm, 45 Cal, 40 Cal and so on.

I've seen the magazines that go with an A-15, you know, the factory provided magazines? 

So the probable gripe is maybe with the clips or magazines, that hold more ammo than the factory provided clips or magazines do then right? 

So, is that the probable gripe, when it comes to the extra capacity clips or magazines, the probable gun owner politics in how an extra capacity clip or magazine that is bought to be used for the factory made A-15, or 9mm, 45 Cal, 40 Cal, or even the 357 magum for that matter? 

CYDdharta, is that situation, what the apparent gripe is over, it's about the extra capacity clips or magazines?

Nope, you have it all wrong.  The gripe is that states are even banning factory standard magazines.  So when are you going to New Jersey to protest the erosion of the 2nd Amendment?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

What's wrong with a revolver?
22, 32, 38, 44, or 357? 

What's wrong with a standard rifle to defend ones own property with? 

If you think about it, what weapons were being used, during the times when the Constitution was being written?

Single shot Muskets? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

What's wrong with a revoler?
What's wrong with a standard rifle to defend ones own property with? 

A Smith and Wesson M&P 10 Sport is a standard rifle.  A Glock Model 17 is a standard handgun.

Applesauce

@CYDdharta

they don't understand what "standard" means, in that the stuff that comes with the gun is standard equipment.  If a handgun is designed to hold 17 rounds then a 17 round magazine would be 'standard' for that gun.  Automobiles come with standard sized tires....
(I have the m&p 15 and 15-22 <span></span>)

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

If you think about it, what weapons were being used, during the times when the Constitution was being written?

Single shot Muskets? 

...and also multi-fire guns and guns that would be classified as automatics today;

On the other hand, what difference does that make?  The printing press was about the only form of mass media available when the Constitution was written.  Does that mean that freedom of the press should be limited to that medium only and should not extend to the internet?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

A Smith and Wesson M&P 10 Sport is a standard rifle. 

Your mentioned weapon, looks (assualt rifle) like to me?

So an assault rifle is a standard rifle?

So a lever action rifle isn't a standard rifle then?

 A Glock Model 17 is a standard handgun.

The Glock 17, looks like a semiautomatic pistol to me?

So the 22, 32, 38, 44, or 357 revolver isn't a standard pistol? 

Deeper into the weeds, it would seem? 

So somewhere along the way, the original M-16 assualt rifle (that was used for military combat in Vietnam) and the other assualt rifles that have followed since then, have been decreed as the standard rifle?

Who thought that up?

So a lever action rifle, isn't good enough then to defend ones own property with? 

Or a revolver, isn't good enough then to do the same when it comes to defending ones own property with as well? 

So basically, if a weapon doesn't have a clip or a magazine being fed into the frame of the weapon, it doesn't count as a standard rifle, or revolver then maybe right? 

A hypothetical question, how many rounds from an assault rifle, would be well to defend ones own property with?

A second hypothetical question, how many rounds from a semiautomatic pistol, would be well enough to defend ones own property with? 

Evidence

John_C_87 said:

Evidence

CYDdharta

TTDKB

Again our 1st United States Constitutional right is independence by seniority, when the shooter is held to blame by the known negligence of legislated law. Presented as a Bill of Right after an initial right has been set in place, it can become an unlawful application made by the alteration. Why civil litigation is only addresses the negligence of the one person in relationship to a common defense to the general welfare.

Which children, and how many children could be saved had there been a common defense allowed to be held in place. This does not only mean fire-arm a ballistic shield is also a common defense to the general welfare here. We have precedent in medical treatment with the understanding of truth with the deployment of wounds with first aid kits, fires with fire alarms, Wars with weapons. This restriction is also an act of negligence on the part of person and/or people and subject to law suit litigation.

The idea’s used as motivation presented by children are not expressing an experience of wisdom to promote prompt service to the impartial action of a Constitutional separation. It is a form of politicking for manufactured forms of justice and not constitutional practicality.

@John_C_87 and this is regarding to "what" part of what I said exactly?

Evidence

@TTKDB said - 

Assassinations And Gun Control

After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over "destructive devices," including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act.

So all the government has to do is exterminate one of their own, like John F. Kennedy, then pass more restrictions on us the sheeple!?

Create a War on Iraq and pass more stricter laws on us? But the 'Terrorists" used plastic knives to start this war, .. so how does that work?

TTKDB

@Applesauce:

"you asked,  "why do you" that phrase is an accusation, assumption and attributes motive, then you go on "maybe view the * as irrelevant" just because you stick in maybe doesn't change the fact that it's a statement."

I asked you questions that ended with a question mark, didn't I?

The below are some of the questions that I asked you and Zombieguy 1987 as well? 

Why do the two of you view the below points of view as irrelevant? (I asked a question, it wasn't a statement.)

Do you two maybe view the ATF as irrelevant? (Again, I asked a question, it wasn't a statement.)

Do you two maybe view the FBI as irrelevant as well?  (Another asked question, it wasn't a statement.)

Why do the two of you view the below points of view as irrelevant? (Another question.)

"I view you as irrelevant, hence my lack of replies to you other than insults, take the hint."

Is the above from you a statement? Because I don't see a question mark at the end of the statement, do you? 

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"On the other hand, what difference does that make?"

It depends, I guess on what an individual gun owner, views as a reliable property protection weapon? 

An assault rifle, with a (30 round magazine?) Or a Glock 17, with a (17 round magazine?) verses a level action rifle, or a 38 revolver?

"The printing press was about the only form of mass media available when the Constitution was written."

What does a printing press have to do with gun control? 

"Does that mean that freedom of the press should be limited to that medium only and should not extend to the internet?"

Why do you feel the need to pull the (freedom of the press and the internet) into a debate about on gun control, when people have murdered innocent people with their mass shooting, gun violence crimes? 

Has anyone ever killed anyone with the freedom of the press as their individual weapon of choice? 

Has anyone ever killed anyone with the internet as their individual weapon of choice? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

A Smith and Wesson M&P 10 Sport is a standard rifle. 

Your mentioned weapon, looks (assualt rifle) like to me?

So an assault rifle is a standard rifle?

So a lever action rifle isn't a standard rifle then?

 A Glock Model 17 is a standard handgun.

The Glock 17, looks like a semiautomatic pistol to me?

So the 22, 32, 38, 44, or 357 revolver isn't a standard pistol? 

Deeper into the weeds, it would seem? 

So somewhere along the way, the original M-16 assualt rifle (that was used for military combat in Vietnam) and the other assualt rifles that have followed since then, have been decreed as the standard rifle?

Who thought that up?

So a lever action rifle, isn't good enough then to defend ones own property with? 

Or a revolver, isn't good enough then to do the same when it comes to defending ones own property with as well? 

So basically, if a weapon doesn't have a clip or a magazine being fed into the frame of the weapon, it doesn't count as a standard rifle, or revolver then maybe right? 

A hypothetical question, how many rounds from an assault rifle, would be well to defend ones own property with?

A second hypothetical question, how many rounds from a semiautomatic pistol, would be well enough to defend ones own property with? 

A semi-automatic (assault) rifle is a standard rifle.

A lever action rifle is a standard rifle.

A semiautomatic pistol is a standard handgun.

A revolver is a standard handgun.

All of those firearms are in common use by the public in general.  They all have their strengths and weaknesses, tasks for which they excel and tasks that they're a poor choice for.  If the criterion for selecting a standard firearm is sales, however, then semi-automatics are far and away THE standard firearms.

The original M-16 was NEVER an assault rifle, not the sense the term is used now.  The original M-16 was capable of fully automatic fire.  AR-15 assault rifles are NOT capable of fully automatic fire.  So no, they were NEVER standard rifles unless the discussion is specifically about standard MILITARY rifles.

Lever action rifles and revolvers are ok, they're certainly better than nothing, but they're not the best choices for self defense.  If they were, police agencies would be equipping their officers with them.

As for how many rounds are enough, that depends on the situation.  More is better.  The only thing that can be said for sure is that you can't have too many rounds for self defense.

John_C_87

@Evidence ;

I’m going to go with you find it ironic that the most heavily armed nation in the world advocates gun control.

The United States of America always did advocate gun control.

So where does your right to own a gun come from?

Where does my right to own a gun come from?

A hint. The 2nd Amendment simply gives me a right to be in the NRA without a fire-arm.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

If say (hypothetically speaking) a gun owner, owns enough weapons, to equip a platoon of citizens underneath one roof, along with say,  1,000-2,000 rounds of ammunition, what kind of a scenario could a home owner maybe be trying to equip themselves for? 

And what if that (hypothetical gun owner,) lives in a neighborhood where the crime rate is fairly low to begin with? 

"As for how many rounds are enough, that depends on the situation.  More is better.  The only thing that can be said for sure is that you can't have too many rounds for self defense."

Is more better, and a gun owner can't ever have too many rounds for self defense? 

If it's OK to ask, are you maybe a prepper? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism

"Survivalism is a primarily American movement of individuals or groups (called survivalists or preppers) who actively prepare for emergencies, including possible disruptions in social or political order, on scales from local to international. Survivalism also encompasses preparation for personal emergencies, such as job loss or being stranded in the wild or under adverse weather conditions. The emphasis is on self-reliance, stockpiling supplies, and gaining survival knowledge and skills. Survivalists often acquire emergency medical and self-defensetraining, stockpile food and water, prepare to become self-sufficient, and build structures such as survival retreats or underground shelters that may help them survive a catastrophe. "

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

If say (hypothetically speaking) a gun owner, owns enough weapons, to equip a platoon of citizens underneath one roof, along with say,  1,000-2,000 rounds of ammunition, what kind of a scenario could a home owner maybe be trying to equip themselves for? 

And what if that (hypothetical gun owner,) lives in a neighborhood where the crime rate is fairly low to begin with? 

"As for how many rounds are enough, that depends on the situation.  More is better.  The only thing that can be said for sure is that you can't have too many rounds for self defense."

Is more better, and a gun owner can't ever have too many rounds for self defense? 

If it's OK to ask, are you maybe a prepper? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism

"Survivalism is a primarily American movement of individuals or groups (called survivalists or preppers) who actively prepare for emergencies, including possible disruptions in social or political order, on scales from local to international. Survivalism also encompasses preparation for personal emergencies, such as job loss or being stranded in the wild or under adverse weather conditions. The emphasis is on self-reliance, stockpiling supplies, and gaining survival knowledge and skills. Survivalists often acquire emergency medical and self-defensetraining, stockpile food and water, prepare to become self-sufficient, and build structures such as survival retreats or underground shelters that may help them survive a catastrophe. "

OK, what does your hypothetical situation and survivalism have to do with anything?

And the alternative to not having too many rounds for self defense is not having enough.  Which would you choose; having too many rounds, or not having enough?

Applesauce

TTKDB said:

If say (hypothetically speaking) a gun owner, owns enough weapons, to equip a platoon of citizens underneath one roof, along with say,  1,000-2,000 rounds of ammunition, what kind of a scenario could a home owner maybe be trying to equip themselves for? 

let me help ya with some math here, a platoon is around 40 people, if you have 2000 rounds of ammo that's 50 rounds per person or one box of ammo generally speaking.  It's common to use MORE than one box when going to the range to shoot targets.  It appears you aren't very knowledgeable on this subject, 2000 rounds is not that much.  Glad I could help.

And what if that (hypothetical gun owner,) lives in a neighborhood where the crime rate is fairly low to begin with? 

goody for them?  if you live in a good neighborhood crime doesn't happen?  people shouldn't be able to shoot for recreation?

Is more better, and a gun owner can't ever have too many rounds for self defense? 

I dunno how many people are attacking in the hypothetical situation?  do they run after one shot?  how many times does the defender miss?  Even in gang violence how many shots are fired and how many actually hit their target?

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"let me help ya with some math here, a platoon is around 40 people,"

A platoon size is I believe dependent upon the job description?

I've haven't seen a platoon with 40 soldiers in it. 

I have seen a squad of 4 soldiers in a platoon, x 4 which would give you 16 soldiers in a platoon? 

So times that  x 4 per platoon and you get 64 soldiers, that equals a company of soldier's along with the respective chain of command, (The First Sargent, along with the Company Commander (Captain) and the Company XO, the second in command behind the Captain?) 

So which branch of the military are you are lamenting over that has 40 soldiers in a platoon? 

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

Just getting the feeling that maybe some of the individuals who are maybe pro gun extremists, are maybe preppers as well?

So in viewing, your probable Individual philosophy, on your pro gun views? 

"And the alternative to not having too many rounds for self defense is not having enough. Which would you choose; having too many rounds, or not having enough?"

An individual pro gun Individual, may view (gun control) as maybe some sort of an (infringement) on their right to bear arms?

And I'm looking at how a collection of weapons, along with say (2,000 rounds of ammunition) is hypothetically covered via the given definition of the Second Amendment, with the right to bear arms?

Applesauce

@TTKDB

so you agree 2000 rounds isn't much, glad we agree on something
my searches reveal, so 25+60=85/2=42  I rounded down so there would be more rounds per person
Fireteam: 4-5 
Squad: 8-16 
Platoon: 25-60 
Company: 70-250 
Battalion: 300-1000 
Brigade: 3000-5000 
Division: 10,000-20,000 
you can look here too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon

And I'm looking at how a collection of weapons, along with day (2,000 rounds of ammunition) is hypothetically covered via the given definition of the Second Amendment, with the right to bear arms?

that's under the "shall not be infringed" part

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"let me help ya with some math here, a platoon is around 40 people,"

Where is your response to the below? 

A platoon size is I believe dependent upon the job description?

I've haven't seen a platoon with 40 soldiers in it. 

I have seen a squad of 4 soldiers in a platoon, x 4 which would give you 16 soldiers in a platoon? 

So times that  x 4 per platoon and you get 64 soldiers, that equals a company of soldier's along with the respective chain of command, (The First Sargent, along with the Company Commander (Captain) and the Company XO, the second in command behind the Captain?) 

So which branch of the military are you are lamenting over that has 40 soldiers in a platoon?  

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Just getting the feeling that maybe some of the indIndivils who are maybe pro gun extremists, are maybe preppers as well?

So in viewing your probable Individual philosophy, on your pro gun views? 

"And the alternative to not having too many rounds for self defense is not having enough. Which would you choose; having too many rounds, or not having enough?"

An individual pro gun Individual may view (gun control) as maybe some sort of an (infringement) on their right to bear arms?

And I'm looking at how a collection of weapons, along with say (2,000 rounds of ammunition) is hypothetically covered via the given definition of the Second Amendment, with the right to bear arms?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, private ownership of both guns and ammo are protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

Now, lets get back to your promise to go to a pro-rally if/when guns are banned.  Are you going to go to New Jersey to protest their "assault" rifle ban?  This is a simple yes or no question.

TTKDB

@Applesauce

What statement did I make in regards to this from you?

"so you agree 2000 rounds isn't much, glad we agree on something"

Applesauce

@TTKDB

do you disagree that 2000 rounds isn't much?

How many rounds does an average person use at the range for practice?

are you being pedantic in that you only need one well placed bullet to defend yourself?

what is the maximum number of rounds a person should have and what would that be based on?

what if i want a gun and ammo to target shoot and hunt with but not use for self protection can I have more ammo and guns then?

TTKDB

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

"2017 Las Vegas shooting

"Twenty-four firearms, a large quantity of ammunition, and numerous high-capacitymagazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds apiece were found in the suite.[1][110][111] Fourteen of the firearms were .223-caliber AR-15-type semi-automatic rifles: three manufactured by Colt, two by Daniel Defense, two by FN Herstal, two by LWRC International, two by POF-USA, one with a .223 Wylde chamber by Christensen Arms, one made-to-order by LMT, and one by Noveske. The others were eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles, one .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle, and one .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 revolver.[1][112][113][114] The AR-15 rifles were fitted with vertical forward grips and bump fire stocks,[1][112] the latter of which allowed for recoil to actuate their triggers at a rate of 90 rounds in 10 seconds.[115] The AR-10 rifles were equipped with various telescopic sights and mounted on bipods.[1][116][117] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that the firearms found in his hotel room, along with more guns found in his homes, had been legally purchased in Nevada, California, Texas, and Utah.[118] In the month preceding the shooting, he had attempted to purchase tracer ammunition, but the gun dealer he approached did not have the item in stock.[119]He bought tracer ammunition from a private seller at a Phoenix, Arizona gun show.[120]

During subsequent investigations, ammonium nitrate (often used in improvised explosive devices) was found in the trunk of his Hyundai Tucson SUV, along with 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 pounds (23 kg) of Tannerite, a binary explosive used to make explosive targets for gun ranges.[121][122]Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said that while Paddock had "nefarious intent" with the material, he did not appear to have assembled an explosive device.[119][123] "

@CYDdharta

@Applesauce

The Vegas shooter apparently had 1,600 rounds of ammunition, along with 24 weapons?

"On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Perpetrator Stephen Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 58 people and leaving 851 injured, over 400 of them by gunfire and hundreds more in the ensuing panic. The shooting occurred between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT; about an hour later Paddock was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains unknown."

Applesauce

@TTKDB

do you disagree that 2000 rounds isn't much?  if you won't answer i will have to assume you don't disagree unless you say otherwise, but that doesn't fit your narrative so you won't answer, which is fine.

How many rounds does an average person use at the range for practice?

are you being pedantic in that you only need one well placed bullet to defend yourself?

what is the maximum number of rounds a person should have and what would that be based on?

what if i want a gun and ammo to target shoot and hunt with but not use for self protection can I have more ammo and guns then?

how many guns did he use?

so you would make some kind of conclusion from one event?

Do you know what that is called?

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

"2017 Las Vegas shooting

"Twenty-four firearms, a large quantity of ammunition, and numerous high-capacitymagazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds apiece were found in the suite.[1][110][111] Fourteen of the firearms were .223-caliber AR-15-type semi-automatic rifles: three manufactured by Colt, two by Daniel Defense, two by FN Herstal, two by LWRC International, two by POF-USA, one with a .223 Wylde chamber by Christensen Arms, one made-to-order by LMT, and one by Noveske. The others were eight .308-caliber AR-10-type rifles, one .308-caliber Ruger American bolt-action rifle, and one .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 342 revolver.[1][112][113][114] The AR-15 rifles were fitted with vertical forward grips and bump fire stocks,[1][112] the latter of which allowed for recoil to actuate their triggers at a rate of 90 rounds in 10 seconds.[115] The AR-10 rifles were equipped with various telescopic sights and mounted on bipods.[1][116][117] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that the firearms found in his hotel room, along with more guns found in his homes, had been legally purchased in Nevada, California, Texas, and Utah.[118] In the month preceding the shooting, he had attempted to purchase tracer ammunition, but the gun dealer he approached did not have the item in stock.[119]He bought tracer ammunition from a private seller at a Phoenix, Arizona gun show.[120]

During subsequent investigations, ammonium nitrate (often used in improvised explosive devices) was found in the trunk of his Hyundai Tucson SUV, along with 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 pounds (23 kg) of Tannerite, a binary explosive used to make explosive targets for gun ranges.[121][122]Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said that while Paddock had "nefarious intent" with the material, he did not appear to have assembled an explosive device.[119][123] "

@CYDdharta

@Applesauce

The Vegas shooter apparently had 1,600 rounds of ammunition, along with 24 weapons?

"On the night of October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Perpetrator Stephen Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 58 people and leaving 851 injured, over 400 of them by gunfire and hundreds more in the ensuing panic. The shooting occurred between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT; about an hour later Paddock was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains unknown."

Do you have a point?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"Do you have a point?"

The below is the point:

1,600 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think?

A hypothetical amount of ammunition, 2,000 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think? 

Or if a hypothetical individual has 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and say a mix of 25 semiautomatic weapons, rifles and pistols, would you or would not maybe view a cache like that for a single Individual or a handful of pro gun Individuals as a bit much, for any Individual whether they live in a city, of say almost a million people, or in a town of say 20,000-50,000 people?

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, private ownership of both guns and ammo are protected by the 2nd Amendment."

So if a pro gun Individual or Individuals have a cache of 2,000 plus rounds, and a mix of 25 semiautomatic rifles, and pistols, the Second Amendment as it was written back in the day, individually entitles any gun owner today, to have 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and 25 semiautomatic weapons at any given time in any city USA? 

Because I wonder how many non weapons owning US citizens, may view a gun owner, owning that amount of ammunition and weapons at any given time? 

That kind of a question, would make for a very interesting poll question, wouldn't you say? 

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"do you disagree that 2000 rounds isn't much?

 "If you won't answer i will have to assume you don't disagree unless you say otherwise,"

Did I give you any permissions to assume anything about what I don't disagree with you on? 

"but that doesn't fit your narrative so you won't answer, which is fine."

I don't have a narrative, (Other than being pro community, pro family, pro second amendment, and pro  law oriented.)

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Do you have a point?"

The below is the point:

1,600 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think?

A hypothetical amount of ammunition, 2,000 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think? 

Or if a hypothetical individual has 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and say a mix of 25 semiautomatic weapons, rifles and pistols, would you or would not maybe view a cache like that for a single Individual or a handful of pro gun Individuals as a bit much, for any Individual whether they live in a city, of say almost a million people, or in a town of say 20,000-50,000 people?

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, private ownership of both guns and ammo are protected by the 2nd Amendment."

So if a pro gun Individual or Individuals have a cache of 2,000 plus rounds, and a mix of 25 semiautomatic rifles, and pistols, the Second Amendment as it was written back in the day, individually entitles any gun owner today, to have 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and 25 semiautomatic weapons at any given time in any city USA? 

Because I wonder how many non weapons owning US citizens, may view a gun owner, owning that amount of ammunition and weapons at any given time? 

That kind of a question, would make for a very interesting poll question, wouldn't you say? 

How many firearms do you think is a proper limit?  What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific?  Likewise for ammo.  BTW, the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammo is particularly notable, the Civilian Marksmanship Program sells ammo by the 1,000 round case.

And again, are you going to go to New Jersey to protest their "assault" rifle ban?  Yes or No

Applesauce

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce

"do you disagree that 2000 rounds isn't much?

 "If you won't answer i will have to assume you don't disagree unless you say otherwise,"

Did I give you any permissions to assume anything about what I don't disagree with you on? 

"but that doesn't fit your narrative so you won't answer, which is fine."

I don't have a narrative, (Other than being pro community, pro family, pro second amendment, and pro  law oriented.)

did I ask for permission?  do I need to?  no, therefore I will assume you agreed with me that 2000 rounds is not a lot, unless and until I hear differently from you, change my mind.
your purpose is to keep threads alive, you don't fool me, this is why you post the same b.s. and never add any substance, so I figure I may as well play your game, fun isn't it.

what does it mean to you to be 'pro second amendment'?
how does it align or differ from groups like the N.R.A. or you can pick whatever pro gun group you like.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"How many firearms do you think is a proper limit?  What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific?  Likewise for ammo.  BTW, the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammo is particularly notable, the Civilian Marksmanship Program sells ammo by the 1,000 round case."

The theme of the forum is about gun control.

So how do your pro gun oriented questions have anything to do with the theme of the forum:

"Should America have gun control?"

How many firearms do you think is a proper limit? 

Why do you think, that your above question, is pertinent to the gun control conversation?

"What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific? Likewise for ammo."

Why do you think, that your above questions, are pertinent to gun control conversation? 

"BTW, the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammo is particularly notable, the Civilian Marksmanship Program sells ammo by the 1,000 round case "

What Office of the Federal Government, told you CYDdharta, that the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammunition is particularly notable?

And does the (Civilian Marksmanship Program) selling ammo by the 1,000 round case, have anything to do with the theme of the forum? 

"Should America have gun control?"

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"did I ask for permission?"

No, you didn't.

"do I need to?"

Yes.

Because, I've not given Applesauce, any permissions to meddle around with my words, because the brain in his own skull has apparently in a sense, self decided to do so, as the case apparently seem to be?

The above is a set of questions, based upon your individually chosen narratively driven actions, right Applesauce? 

"no, therefore I will assume you agreed with me that 2000 rounds is not a lot, unless and until I hear differently from you, change my mind."

Again, you don't have my permission to meddle around with my words, now do you? 

"your purpose is to keep threads alive, you don't fool me, this is why you post the same b.s. and never add any substance, so I figure I may as well play your game, fun isn't it."

What are your thoughts on the Vegas shooter, allegedly killing innocent people with guns? 

"what does it mean to you to be 'pro second amendment'?"

It's self explanatory:

(I'm pro community, pro family, pro second amendment, and pro law abiding oriented.)

I believe that when an individual with a gun, commits a crime with gun violence, that that offender, used the second amendment to infringe on the rights of the innocent people that they either harmed, or killed via their gun violence crimes.

"how does it align or differ from groups like the N.R.A. or you can pick whatever pro gun group you like."

Is the NRA participating in this forums debate?

Or any other pro gun group, for that matter?

Why don't you apply your games with them, and see what their answers are? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

How many firearms do you think is a proper limit? 

Why do you think, that your above question, is pertinent to the gun control conversation?

"What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific? Likewise for ammo."

Why do you think, that your above questions, are pertinent to gun control conversation?

You brought up Paddock's guns and ammo collection.  Why did you think it's pertinent?  My initial reaction, if you recall, was;

Do you have a point?

"BTW, the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammo is particularly notable, the Civilian Marksmanship Program sells ammo by the 1,000 round case "

What Office of the Federal Government, told you CYDdharta, that the federal government doesn't seem to think 2,000 rounds of ammunition is particularly notable?

And does the (Civilian Marksmanship Program) selling ammo by the 1,000 round case, have anything to do with the theme of the forum? 

"Should America have gun control?"

Since the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a federally chartered program originally created by Congress, that seems to answer both of your questions.

How about you answer mine, are you going to go to New Jersey to protest their "assault" rifle ban?  Yes or No

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"You brought up Paddock's guns and ammo collection."

"Why did you think it's pertinent?"

"Stephen Craig Paddock (April 9, 1953 – October 1, 2017)[2] was an American mass murderer responsible for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[3][4][5] in which he opened fire into a crowd of approximately 22,000 concertgoers attending a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip.[6][7] The incident is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in United States history, with 58 fatalities (excluding Paddock) and 851 injuries (including over 400 by gunfire).[1] Paddock committed suicide in his hotel room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.[8] "

He allegedly killed 58 innocent people with alleged gun violence?

The killing of 58 innocent people, isn't a pertinent conversation point in regards to the gun control conversation?

Or the students and the adults who have been killed by the various individuals via their (school) mass shooting violence? 

"My initial reaction, if you recall, was: Do you have a point?"

Their murders are point.

The offenders killing them via their various gun violence crimes, are the point.

Or do you maybe, view the above points of view as invalid, to the gun control conversation? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB
you seemed confused or delusional if you believe you can tell me what to think and say, ask permission LOL good one, if you disagree with what I said just simply say so and try to change my mind, very simple, even for you.  If I'm mistaken let's clear that up.  Unlike your lying you may correct me if I'm wrong on what I think we agree upon.

Applesauce

too many?

Copper Plated Hollow Point Case of 5250 Rounds $175.90 After Rebate Price: $140.72

TTKDB

@Applesauce

If you have an issue, please take it up with Aarong?

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"You brought up Paddock's guns and ammo collection."

"Why did you think it's pertinent?"

"Stephen Craig Paddock (April 9, 1953 – October 1, 2017)[2] was an American mass murderer responsible for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[3][4][5] in which he opened fire into a crowd of approximately 22,000 concertgoers attending a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip.[6][7] The incident is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in United States history, with 58 fatalities (excluding Paddock) and 851 injuries (including over 400 by gunfire).[1] Paddock committed suicide in his hotel room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.[8] "

He allegedly killed 58 innocent people with alleged gun violence?

The killing of 58 innocent people, isn't a pertinent conversation point in regards to the gun control conversation?

Or the students and the adults who have been killed by the various individuals via their (school) mass shooting violence? 

"My initial reaction, if you recall, was: Do you have a point?"

Their murders are point.

The offenders killing them via their various gun violence crimes, are the point.

Or do you maybe, view the above points of view as invalid, to the gun control conversation? 

Good Lord, when you post, HAVE A POINT!!!!  You posted about the number of guns and rounds of ammo Paddock had.  What was your point for posting?;

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Do you have a point?"

The below is the point:

1,600 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think?

A hypothetical amount of ammunition, 2,000 rounds, is a lot of rounds, wouldn't you think? 

Or if a hypothetical individual has 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and say a mix of 25 semiautomatic weapons, rifles and pistols, would you or would not maybe view a cache like that for a single Individual or a handful of pro gun Individuals as a bit much, for any Individual whether they live in a city, of say almost a million people, or in a town of say 20,000-50,000 people?

"I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but yes, private ownership of both guns and ammo are protected by the 2nd Amendment."

So if a pro gun Individual or Individuals have a cache of 2,000 plus rounds, and a mix of 25 semiautomatic rifles, and pistols, the Second Amendment as it was written back in the day, individually entitles any gun owner today, to have 2,000 plus rounds of ammunition, and 25 semiautomatic weapons at any given time in any city USA? 

Because I wonder how many non weapons owning US citizens, may view a gun owner, owning that amount of ammunition and weapons at any given time? 

That kind of a question, would make for a very interesting poll question, wouldn't you say?

ANSWER MY FRIKKIN QUESTIONS!!!!!

How many firearms do you think is a proper limit? 

What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific? 

Likewise for ammo. 

And again, are you going to go to New Jersey to protest their "assault" rifle ban?  Yes or No

Applesauce

@TTKDB

nope no issue at all, just happy we agree <span></span>

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"and try to change my mind, very simple, even for you."

It's not my purpose to change your mind, is it?

Your "mind," has no bearing on my life whatsoever, now does it?

Just as my "mind," has no bearing on your life whatsoever, now does it? 

But when an offender, illegaly uses the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people by committing their various gun violence crimes, against innocent people, the various views of those lost lives have been changed forever, haven't they Applesauce? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB

you are exceedingly obtuse

But when an offender, illegaly uses the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people by committing their various gun violence crimes, against innocent people, the various views of those lost lives have been changed forever, haven't they Applesauce? 

if a criminal who is prohibited from having a gun, therefore does not have a 2a right "commits various gun violence crimes" how does he "use the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people"?

you only need to change my mind if you don't agree that 2000 rounds of ammo isn't all that much, if you agree that 2000 isn't much there's nothing further you need to do

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce

But when an offender, illegaly uses the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people by committing their various gun violence crimes, against innocent people, the various views of those lost lives have been changed forever, haven't they Applesauce? 

No one can illegally use the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people, that's why it's ILLEGAL.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"No one can illegally use the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people, that's why it's ILLEGAL"

Why not reach out to some of the families who lost family members, in the Vegas shootings, and see if some of those families, if they might agree with your point of view? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"No one can illegally use the second amendment to infringe on the lives of innocent people, that's why it's ILLEGAL"

Why not reach out to some of the families who lost family members, in the Vegas shootings, and see if some of those families, if they might agree with your point of view? 

I'm sure they do, they don't seem like dullards.

WHY NOT ANSWER MY FRIKKIN QUESTIONS!!!!!

How many firearms do you think is a proper limit? 

What criteria are you using to make that judgement and is it scientific? 

Likewise for ammo. 

And again, are you going to go to New Jersey to protest their "assault" rifle ban?  Yes or No