The purpose of a handgun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is simple: it allows you to fire more rounds before having to reload. Some would try to say this is more dangerous somehow, but after watching a man fire 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in about 3 seconds, I have to wonder why...

A military sniper rifle is simply a hunting rifle, just built with better quality control and a camouflage paint job. Seriously: the most popular hunting rifle and the most popular military sniper rifle are both Remington Model 700's...

The purpose of "any military weapon" is impossible to say, seeing as there is such a wide variety. Or are you saying a bayonet and a landmine fulfill the same purpose?

Same with the bombs: flash-bangs and nukes are both technically bombs, with completely different purposes.

"assault grips" is a new one for me, but I guess you're talking about pistol grips and secondary vertical grips. The purpose is simple: to allow an ergonomic hold of the weapon, providing better aiming and control. Same as non-"assault" grips...

I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.

The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.

You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?

If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?

Redundant "for me" is redundant for me...

The windows update site worked for me just fine for me this morning...

In a strictly technical sense, the purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile. That's it. Choice of project is left to the intent of the user, as is the target and the intended use of the gun.

An olympic target pistol is just as lethal as a "saturday night special". A simple change of ammunition turns a deadly shotgun into a less-than-lethal shotgun.

Nobody has yet to explain how a $0.50 pistol grip magically makes a gun more dangerous. They've offered lame hollywood-inspired suggestions, but nothing that pans out. Perhaps you know something I don't? How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle better at harming people?

A flash suppressor is designed to redirect the muzzle flash out of the shooter's field of vision. This allows the shooter to still be able to see after firing a shot in low-light conditions. That's it.

Why would someone want such a thing? For me, personally, it makes target shooting at the range after work (at night) a lot more comfortable. Not to mention prevents damage to my eyes, as staring into bright lights tends to be bad for them.

The fact that you don't know why somebody would buy a flash suppressor, yet seem to want to ban it anyway, is a big chunk of the problem right there...

the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute either. To use a classic analogy: free speech doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. By extension, having a right to own and carry a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it however/wherever you want.

However, in the same vain, we don't execute prior restraint on 1st amendment rights, do we? We don't duct tape people's mouths shut upon entry to theaters. So why should the 2nd Amendment be subject to prior restraint?


If you don't want your kids to be at a school where everybody is armed, you're free to do that. You have the right to choose where your kids go to school. However, you don't have the right to demand the school system be changed to suit your comfort. Isn't that what we [attempt to] tell the "I don't want my kids learning evolution" and "don't teach my kids gay stuff" folks?

Gun interlocks wouldn't make a responsible gun owner's operation of the gun any safer. In fact, the theory is they won't impact the gun owner's operation of the gun at all. And if you're worried about other people using the owner's gun while he's not around, then a $5 cable lock does the exact same thing as this overpriced and untested technology. Frankly, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Are you uncomfortable around armed police officers? If not, then yes, your discomfort is irrational.

Because your kind refuses to meet us in the middle. You only propose more and more restrictions, obstacles, and etc. You offer no concessions as a compromise.

"find ways to compromise and come to consensus. it doesn't have to be black or white."

Allow me to use someone else's analogy, whom I can't find the source for at the moment:

Let's say I have this cake. The cake represents gun rights. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
You keep nibbling away at the cake -- we'll call these compromises the Clinton Executive Orders, the Lautenberg Act, the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement, the Brady Law, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act, and so on.

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

Does that seem like genuine compromise to you?

"Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts."

Except in New Jersey in about 3 years. The law is already on the books, just waiting for a "smart gun" to be sold somewhere. CA and other states have been trying to get the same laws passed...

Until he takes his gun back, which will now fire...

"if we change how we look at stuff stuff will change"

Let's start by not looking at "gun violence" like some special phenomenon, and simply treat it as "violence"

Are you saying they're not trying?

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. ” Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases." U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest.

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

Should I continue?

"Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection"

You mean the bug that was spotted by a non-Apple researcher after reviewing Apple's publicly posted source code? The bug Apple didn't want to admit to, tried to quietly fix for *some* devices, understated the problem, then spent several days delaying the fix for the rest of their devices? What was the point you were trying to make again?