College coaches now speak out against hi cap guns on ESPN.

[harold63]

On ESPN TV, two college basketball coaches have now questioned why we have a need for guns that can "rattle of that many rounds" like the Conn. shooter did. My answer is so simple, a doofus can understand it: The second ammendment was put in place so we can protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. HTF are we going to do that if the soldiers have 30 round mags and we have ugotz? The government is now doing everything it can to show it is approaching tyranny. It isn't just government tyranny, but the tyranny of bad guys, as well. That should be easy to understand.

[jerryg]

The uneducated have no idea how fast someone can swap out a magazine.

[Lexington]

The uneducated have no idea how fast someone can swap out a magazine.

The uneducated are too busy listening to what the liberal leadership spouts off to think for themselves.

Now, as far as the powers that be go, they are not ignorant. And to think they are is fallacy, and dangerous fallacy at that.

I firmly believe the progressive agenda is most effective through the use of encroaching incrementalism, whereby they spoon-feed us a little bit of socialism a piece at a time, slowly taking over in an almost imperceptible manner not unlike the cold-blooded, maniacal narrator of "The Tell-Tale Heart" slowly opening the shutter on the lantern so that the narrowest beam of light could fall upon the old man's blind eye without him noticing until it was too late.

They know exactly how ineffective a restriction on high capacity magazines or so-called assault weapons will be as a deterrent to crime and mass murder. If restricting certain weapons would stop murder, then surely the 1934 machine gun ban would have been enough, right?

Fully-automatic weapons were the weakest link early last century. Then in the 1990's semi-automatic "assault rifles" became the weakest link, and have remained so to this day. If they can get a ban on such weapons to stick, do you think they will stop there?

Of course not. Next they'll go for any semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine. And then any weapon with an internal magazine of more than ten rounds. And then five rounds. And then one round.

Before we know it, we'll only be allowed a bow and arrow, and only one arrow at that. This arrow:



That is the ultimate agenda of those in power. To neuter us completely and utterly, to turn us from citizens into subjects, from master into slave. And they don't care how many children have to die before that happens. They are simply a means to an end.

[Mity2]

THey say anything for the rating I guess?

[Hokkmike]

I wouldn't say this anywhere else but here among friends, but if all they do is require 10 round or less capacity magazine then I would be happy and leave it at that. Unfortunately, I think we are in for much more than that!

But - we have a chance. We must muster ourselves politically and fight back.

We are not the bad guys. We do not kill nor condone the killing of children. The remedy for that tragedy should not laid across our backs.

Do not blame us our the guns we use... We are the educated, serious, safe ones.

[codename]

Who gives two craps what a basketball coach has to say about this? It reminds me of 9/11 when MTV has Ja Rule weigh in.

Another point is how many of the sheep use ESPN as a news source? They should stick to covering the antics and careers of idiot athletes.

[ShooterInPA1]

I was waiting until the coaches gave their opinion to help formulate mine.

Now I am just waiting for the actors guild to chime in./s

[wallyone]

Maybe ESPN should spend sometime telling us how college coaches feel about athletes killing team mates in DWI crashes.

[Grey Bearded One]

I wouldn't say this anywhere else but here among friends, but if all they do is require 10 round or less capacity magazine then I would be happy and leave it at that.

That's what Bill Ruger was thinking when he supported the magazine ban. I have also thought that if the antis would carve into stone that if we would agree to live with ten round mags that they would fold their tents and go home, I would agree to that in a heartbeat. I've been dealing with these issues for my entire adult life which has been longer than most forum member have been alive and, quite frankly, I'm tired of it. I want to shoot, not write letters.

Sadly, the anti-gun crowd always cries that they just want this or that as a compromise, as a "reasonable law" but when that compromise or reasonable law doesn't stop the bad guys, they recant and demand more.

The even sadder truth is that many of the public who support the anti-gun crowd believe in the idea of "reasonable laws" and don't realize that their leaders just want to ban all forms of self defense.

So, what does this mean? It means that this guy with the grey beard will spend his remaining years writing letters and trying to educate people and not shooting as much as he would like.

[God's Country]

I think college sports should be banned because it has nothing to with academia. Especially in colleges/universities where tax dollars are spent.

If the idiots went to schoool to be educated instead of bouncing a ball and shooting their loads maybe they would understand what a well regulated militia, freedom, and shall not be infringed means.