Stephen King weighs in on gun control

[A.K.A]

That's a pretty decent argument, I suppose. Anyone who wouldn't willingly spread their cheeks and give up their constitutional rights, personal property and ability to defend themselves, their family and their property while they wait patiently for 911 to respond, doesn't deserve to have a firearm. Of course right now the federal gov doesn't have a complete list of everyone's firearms, so they would either have to do an illegal search and seizure or take my word for it. I'm hoping for the latter if they ever decided to get that oppressive.

I'm not arguing for the confiscation of anyones firearms and I don't really care either way. Just trying to interpret all information logically. If people had been out protesting the illegality of personally owned rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets and the such then I would understand the argument for no gun laws whatsoever. I don't understand why there is no public outcry for anything more powerful than an assault rifle then when an assault rifle ban is proposed thats where the cutoff is when it comes for personal protection. The only purpose of an assault rifle is personal protection, but if your country could take out an entire geographic portion of your country with one bomb, then your rifle is essentially useless. Who do people feel they need to protect themselves from that requires a military arsenal?

[A.K.A]

That's a pretty decent argument, I suppose. Anyone who wouldn't willingly spread their cheeks and give up their constitutional rights, personal property and ability to defend themselves, their family and their property while they wait patiently for 911 to respond, doesn't deserve to have a firearm. Of course right now the federal gov doesn't have a complete list of everyone's firearms, so they would either have to do an illegal search and seizure or take my word for it. I'm hoping for the latter if they ever decided to get that oppressive.

Forgive me if I don't address the absurdity of the average person disabling 7 attackers with 7 bullets in the middle of the night, especially say a small woman who can't handle the recoil of more than a .22 or .25.

No average person is going to be able to take out more than one armed intruder, if they're lucky they may get 1. If more than 1 attacker has the element of surprise and the cover of night your weapon of choice is likely insignificant. The average person believing their firearm makes them Rambo is fantasy, but it seems to be a popular argument for some reason.

[2shameless]

I'm not arguing for the confiscation of anyones firearms and I don't really care either way. Just trying to interpret all information logically. If people had been out protesting the illegality of personally owned rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets and the such then I would understand the argument for no gun laws whatsoever. I don't understand why there is no public outcry for anything more powerful than an assault rifle then when an assault rifle ban is proposed thats where the cutoff is when it comes for personal protection. The only purpose of an assault rifle is personal protection, but if your country could take out an entire geographic portion of your country with one bomb, then your rifle is essentially useless. Who do people feel they need to protect themselves from that requires a military arsenal?

Well that's certainly a change from the usual "you can't fight tanks with your pea shooter" argument, but I'm not sure "the gubmint will just nuke your whole state, muthafcka" is any better.

No average person is going to be able to take out more than one armed intruder, if they're lucky they may get 1. If more than 1 attacker has the element of surprise and the cover of night your weapon of choice is likely insignificant.

I think most intruders are unarmed, but even so I believe that single moms should be afforded the ability to defend themselves and their kids even if they are. The 7 round number of chosen specifically to allow the outlawing of an extremely popular weapon that has remained essentially unchanged for over a century. You seem to be fine with it, I am not.

Just to be clear, I am not "outraged" that career politicians are seeking further infringement on one of my constitutionally protected rights, as something like the NY legislation has zero chance of passing nationwide. Nor am I averse to a little civil discussion on the matter, as long as it is honest, realistic and straightforward.

[A.K.A]

Well that's certainly a change from the usual "you can't fight tanks with your pea shooter" argument, but I'm not sure "the gubmint will just nuke your whole state, muthafcka" is any better.

The government won't nuke your entire state, that is the point. Any government who isn't willing to kill a large percentage of its population doesn't need people with assault rifles to protect other people from them. Do we honestly believe the fact that people have guns prevents any consideration for new laws that oppress the people? The Patriot Act infringed on a ton of personal liberty and the gun owners sat at home polishing their rifles. If the only right you're going to protect with firepower is the right to own guns in the first place then you've already lost.

I think most intruders are unarmed, but even so I believe that single moms should be afforded the ability to defend themselves and their kids even if they are. The 7 round number of chosen specifically to allow the outlawing of an extremely popular weapon that has remained essentially unchanged for over a century. You seem to be fine with it, I am not.

I just don't see anything to be be upset about. 7 shots against an unarmed attacker is now putting peoples lives at risk? I also don't see how the design of the gun is relevant to the argument for the need for larger magazines. For what reason are large clips needed? Not for hunting, not for protecting yourself against multiple intruders, it requires more reloading if you shoot it for sport, but thats a minimal issue.

Just to be clear, I am not "outraged" that career politicians are seeking further infringement on one of my constitutionally protected rights, as something like the NY legislation has zero chance of passing nationwide. Nor am I averse to a little civil discussion on the matter, as long as it is honest, realistic and straightforward.

Im only attempting to understand the opposite side of the argument. I really have no real interest either way, I just don't understand what people feel the government is preventing them from doing by proposing large magazine bans.

[2shameless]

The government won't nuke your entire state, that is the point.

Then I'm missing the point. The idea of nuking an entire state because of the insolence of a few people is so completely devoid of reality it would make Kim Jong Un gasp.

Any government who isn't willing to kill a large percentage of its population

Large percentage like the 625 thousand people who died during the Civil War, 5% of the entire population?

doesn't need people with assault rifles to protect other people from them.

What is an assault rifle? Of course such a government, or your regular garden variety oppressive govt wouldn't want or need people with assault rifles as a check against ratcheting up such oppression.

Do we honestly believe the fact that people have guns prevents any consideration for new laws that oppress the people?

Well we know that was part of the intention of the framers. Whether it still provides a check on tyranny I don't know. The fact that it has been kept at bay for 240 years leads me to believe that something is working.

The Patriot Act infringed on a ton of personal liberty and the gun owners sat at home polishing their rifles. If the only right you're going to protect with firepower is the right to own guns in the first place then you've already lost.

The Patriot Act didn't drastically affect the lives of 10s of millions of Americans the way an outright gun ban would.

Im only attempting to understand the opposite side of the argument. I really have no real interest either way, I just don't understand what people feel the government is preventing them from doing by proposing large magazine bans.

I think you're missing the point on the 7 round legislation. It outlaws over 90% of handguns in New York and was drafted intentionally that way.

[Kenny MF Powers]

Of course not, we have the 2nd Amendment. Not to mention the logistical impossibility and dire consequences of attempting to confiscate every gun in America. Doesn't change the fact that this senior Senator would have confiscated millions of legally purchased guns from Americans if she could have. Her current proposal outlaws the purchase and transfer of anything with a magazine. Existing owners get grandfathered in, but registration becomes as difficult as current ownership of a silencer and permission from local law enforcement is needed for each and every one. This also makes gun collections worthless.

Thats not what her proposal is at all. Its 10 rd mag and now only 1 characteristic of an assault rifle. As of right now that number is 2 in Cali. Its only an attempt to limit the number of loopholes people use to get around the law right now. Things like bullet buttons, and thumbhole stocks. Its really not much different than what they have in place now...

I think most intruders are unarmed, but even so I believe that single moms should be afforded the ability to defend themselves and their kids even if they are. The 7 round number of chosen specifically to allow the outlawing of an extremely popular weapon that has remained essentially unchanged for over a century. You seem to be fine with it, I am not.

So you talk about these women being unable to handle the recoil from a .22-.25, which is ridiculous in itself, but now youre talking about these same women being limited to 7 rounds in a .45..? Come on now...

[2shameless]

Thats not what her proposal is at all. Its 10 rd mag and now only 1 characteristic of an assault rifle. As of right now that number is 2 in Cali. Its only an attempt to limit the number of loopholes people use to get around the law right now. Things like bullet buttons, and thumbhole stocks. Its really not much different than what they have in place now...

Incorrect. Or are you talking specifically about California's draconian gun laws? Either way you are wrong.

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip, flash suppressor, like this

even if you only have a single 5 rd clip for it.

All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel like these .22s

So you talk about these women being unable to handle the recoil from a .22-.25, which is ridiculous in itself,

You might want to reread that particular post. Yes some women, or men for that matter, are uncomfortable with recoil. Likewise they are more comfortable with smaller calibers like a .22, like this one (now illegal in NY.)

but now youre talking about these same women being limited to 7 rounds in a .45..? Come on now...

You've never seen a woman shoot a .45? Yes a 1911 .45 kicks considerably less than a Glock 27 .40, for example.

[A.K.A]

Then I'm missing the point. The idea of nuking an entire state because of the insolence of a few people is so completely devoid of reality it would make Kim Jong Un gasp.

Then what are we protecting ourselves from exactly? I thought it was against government oppression, if our government oppresses us to the point it requires an armed rebellion they're just going to stand idly by while the government is overthrown? I would assume a regime that oppressive would have no quarrels with eliminating the threat any way possible

Large percentage like the 625 thousand people who died during the Civil War, 5% of the entire population?

The government used the biggest weapons available to it at the time to destroy its enemy, the game has changed since the cannon ball was king. The government won then when the odds were much closer and the rebels much tougher, todays men would either defect or kill themselves if presented with the conditions the rebel forces faced.

What is an assault rifle? Of course such a government, or your regular garden variety oppressive govt wouldn't want or need people with assault rifles as a check against ratcheting up such oppression.



Well we know that was part of the intention of the framers. Whether it still provides a check on tyranny I don't know. The fact that it has been kept at bay for 240 years leads me to believe that something is working.

The South attempted to resist tyranny with guns, it didn't work.

The Patriot Act didn't drastically affect the lives of 10s of millions of Americans the way an outright gun ban would.

That's where we just have a difference of opinion, so no need exploring that any further.

I think you're missing the point on the 7 round legislation. It outlaws over 90% of handguns in New York and was drafted intentionally that way.

Can 7 round clips not be purchased for that firearm?

[2shameless]

Then what are we protecting ourselves from exactly?

Most gun owners are protecting themselves from intruders while they wait 30 min for 911 to respond.

I would assume a regime that oppressive would have no quarrels with eliminating the threat any way possible.

Yeah I still don't understand how any sane person would think of nuking an entire state to stop a small % of the population who would refuse to be willingly enslaved.

The government used the biggest weapons available to it at the time to destroy its enemy, the game has changed since the cannon ball was king. The government won then when the odds were much closer and the rebels much tougher, todays men would either defect or kill themselves if presented with the conditions the rebel forces faced.

People today are undoubtedly softer, but there are enough heavily armed veterans and such to make a Pol Pot type think twice about attempting to usurp in this country.

The South attempted to resist tyranny with guns, it didn't work.

I think I could live with "tyranny" comprised of asking me not to own people. Maybe that's just me.

That's where we just have a difference of opinion, so no need exploring that any further.

On the Patriot Act and an outright gun ban both, I'm sure.

Can 7 round clips not be purchased for that firearm?

As I said, 90% of handguns are affected. Will they all design and construct new magazines to comply with a single state's new law? I don't know, but there are a fair number of New Yorkers who aren't going to be able to protect themselves until then.

[A.K.A]

Most gun owners are protecting themselves from intruders while they wait 30 min for 911 to respond.



Yeah I still don't understand how any sane person would think of nuking an entire state to stop a small % of the population who would refuse to be willingly enslaved.

I see the argument as silly as saying people need rifles to defend themselves from a much, much better equipped government. Neither scenario is plausible.

People today are undoubtedly softer, but there are enough heavily armed veterans and such to make a Pol Pot type think twice about attempting to usurp in this country.



I think I could live with "tyranny" comprised of asking me not to own people. Maybe that's just me.

So, all an armed society produced in this case was a bunch of unnecessary death to both the government side and their own side. It's never been attempted since, so its a terrible example to show how guns protect us from oppression. It seems more likely based of the history that a bunch of armed crazies band together to fight an oppression that doesn't exist and gets a bunch of people killed in the process.

On the Patriot Act and an outright gun ban both, I'm sure.



As I said, 90% of handguns are affected. Will they all design and construct new magazines to comply with a single state's new law? I don't know, but there are a fair number of New Yorkers who aren't going to be able to protect themselves until then.

How many people ward off intruders with gunfire each year? I can't imagine it being a significant amount of people.