CDZ Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

[rightwinger]

By so high you mean not arbitrary.

Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot possess firearms.

But yet they are able to get them.

So the system is broken and needs to be fixed. If that means you have to jump through a few more hoops to get a gun, I don't have a problem with that.

Well, the process for verifying one's eligibility to vote is broken too. So, let's apply the same logic there as well. How about valid, government issued, photo ID to prove you are who you claim to be? Or is that an undue hardship? Remember, you need to provide that very same ID to board a plane, and that isn't a right.

I agree

Lets provide EVERY citizen with a valid Government ID
Once that is done, we can require one to vote

 

[rightwinger]

10 rounds?

Screw that

Someone wanting to shoot up a church or elementary schools needs as big a magazine as he can get

Go troll somewhere else.

Getting to you?

Is there any other purpose of a 50-100 round magazine?

 

[rightwinger]

I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state

But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range

Again, in most of these crimes the perp could have done just as much damage with 10 round mags and a few hours practice swapping them out.

Actually, no

Having to carry multiple small capacity magazines and efficiently swap them out under extreme stress is no easy task.
If it was just as easy......Mass killers would use smaller capacity magazines....They don't

For a trained person it's a matter of convenience only.

Its more than convenience. It is efficiency in killing

 

[martybegan]

I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state

But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range

Again, in most of these crimes the perp could have done just as much damage with 10 round mags and a few hours practice swapping them out.

Actually, no

Having to carry multiple small capacity magazines and efficiently swap them out under extreme stress is no easy task.
If it was just as easy......Mass killers would use smaller capacity magazines....They don't

For a trained person it's a matter of convenience only.

Its more than convenience. It is efficiency in killing

Most of these shooter could have efficiently killed with 10 round mags, considering the response time of law enforcement.

 

[jillian]

If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx

sooooo why do NRA ijitis insist that if something doesn't stop 100% of lunatics shooting up the joint then it shouldn't be explored?

waiting for a rational response.

How about you attempt to reword that in a way that is not an insult?

why would you take an insult to the NRA as a personal insult? I was careful in my target. I'm afraid I have no reason not to insult an organization that gets 75% of their funding from gun manufacturers and acts only in the interests of those manufacturers.

 

[BULLDOG]

Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas

Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock

Die suckers....Die

If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?

 

[oldsoul]

If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx

sooooo why do NRA ijitis insist that if something doesn't stop 100% of lunatics shooting up the joint then it shouldn't be explored?

waiting for a rational response.

How about you attempt to reword that in a way that is not an insult?

why would you take an insult to the NRA as a personal insult? I was careful in my target. I'm afraid I have no reason not to insult an organization that gets 75% of their funding from gun manufacturers and acts only in the interests of those manufacturers.

Never said I took it as a personal insult. I am, however, sad to hear that you cannot maintain civility because of where the funding for an organization comes from. It speaks volumes about your character as far as I'm concerned.

 

[BULLDOG]

From what you've told me about NYC gun laws, and I highly doubt that you have given a complete description of them, they could be. Unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I will defer to what the State or Federal Supreme Court says. The constitution assigned them that job. Have either of those courts ruled on those laws?

Why can't you form your own opinion?

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The page seems to be a bit wonky on my browser, highlight the text to read it if you have the same issue.

Because I'm not qualified to make rulings on constitutionality of NEW York laws. They seem kinda stiff, but the SC said they were fine. I don't have a problem with them.

You are qualified to have an opinion. So far the SC has never directly ruled on NYC's handgun laws, any challenge usually dies in the lower courts.

And your deference to authority is noted, and not admirably.

Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

 

[martybegan]

Why can't you form your own opinion?

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

The page seems to be a bit wonky on my browser, highlight the text to read it if you have the same issue.

Because I'm not qualified to make rulings on constitutionality of NEW York laws. They seem kinda stiff, but the SC said they were fine. I don't have a problem with them.

You are qualified to have an opinion. So far the SC has never directly ruled on NYC's handgun laws, any challenge usually dies in the lower courts.

And your deference to authority is noted, and not admirably.

Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

 

[BULLDOG]

Because I'm not qualified to make rulings on constitutionality of NEW York laws. They seem kinda stiff, but the SC said they were fine. I don't have a problem with them.

You are qualified to have an opinion. So far the SC has never directly ruled on NYC's handgun laws, any challenge usually dies in the lower courts.

And your deference to authority is noted, and not admirably.

Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

 

[martybegan]

You are qualified to have an opinion. So far the SC has never directly ruled on NYC's handgun laws, any challenge usually dies in the lower courts.

And your deference to authority is noted, and not admirably.

Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

I can trust progressives to go to it when they run out of actual arguments.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you sure the state SC hasn't looked at it? If not, could it be that there is just not enough opposition to the laws you mention to make it necessary?

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

I can trust progressives to go to it when they run out of actual arguments.

You're the one with debilitating trust issues. Not me.

 

[martybegan]

When it comes to a right "enough opposition" isn't a concern. There is "enough opposition" to Roe in places like Alabama but for some reason you don't seem to care about popular opinion in that situation.

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

I can trust progressives to go to it when they run out of actual arguments.

You're the one with debilitating trust issues. Not me.

I trust people who earn my trust.

When Dems propose a gun control bill that says it bans "assault weapons" but actually bans any semi-automatic weapon, why should I trust them?

When they propose a universal background check law that would make picking up your buddies gun for him during a hunting trip a crime why should I trust them?

When NYC's laws continue to persist despite them being obviously infringing, why should I trust new laws proposed by the same type of people not to go that far?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never said I did.

But you missed the point that magazine size is irrelevant to anyone hell bent on killing people

But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.

With a 100 round magazine you can look like a badass at the shooting range
But it serves you no practical purpose

It is highly desired by someone who wants to slaughter small children in an elementary school or shoot up a church

actually stupid, 100 round magazines are useless they are to heavy and jam too easy. you should hope some one tries to use them they will spend all their time unjamming the firearm.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas

Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock

Die suckers....Die

If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?

the military does NOT use 100 round magazines because they do not work.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're talking about little pockets around the country. I'm talking about the country as a whole.

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

I can trust progressives to go to it when they run out of actual arguments.

You're the one with debilitating trust issues. Not me.

I trust people who earn my trust.

When Dems propose a gun control bill that says it bans "assault weapons" but actually bans any semi-automatic weapon, why should I trust them?

When they propose a universal background check law that would make picking up your buddies gun for him during a hunting trip a crime why should I trust them?

When NYC's laws continue to persist despite them being obviously infringing, why should I trust new laws proposed by the same type of people not to go that far?

In your case, there is no answer that would satisfy you. That's why I suggested a compound in the wilderness.

 

[rightwinger]

Should it be 10 rounds or 15 rounds?
I really don't care

But should you be able to go out and buy 50-100 round magazines?
No way

 

[rightwinger]

I never said I did.

But you missed the point that magazine size is irrelevant to anyone hell bent on killing people

But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.

With a 100 round magazine you can look like a badass at the shooting range
But it serves you no practical purpose

It is highly desired by someone who wants to slaughter small children in an elementary school or shoot up a church

actually stupid, 100 round magazines are useless they are to heavy and jam too easy. you should hope some one tries to use them they will spend all their time unjamming the firearm.

If that is the case, you should have no issue with banning them

 

[martybegan]

What i am talking about is respect for rights throughout the country. If NYC can get away with infringement like this, why should any gun rights person trust any gun control person?

Especially when every law proposed has flaws that show either intentional overreach or blind ignorance of how firearms actually work.

If I can't get a simple handgun for home use in NYC without spending hundreds of dollars, waiting up to 6 months, and basically having to do a dog an pony show for some faceless NYPD bureaucrat, why should I trust anyone who proposes more laws?

You're right. Looks like you can't trust anyone. Your best bet would be to just build a compound in the wilderness so you wouldn't have to deal with the untrustworthy society.

Argumentum ad absurdum.

I can trust progressives to go to it when they run out of actual arguments.

You're the one with debilitating trust issues. Not me.

I trust people who earn my trust.

When Dems propose a gun control bill that says it bans "assault weapons" but actually bans any semi-automatic weapon, why should I trust them?

When they propose a universal background check law that would make picking up your buddies gun for him during a hunting trip a crime why should I trust them?

When NYC's laws continue to persist despite them being obviously infringing, why should I trust new laws proposed by the same type of people not to go that far?

In your case, there is no answer that would satisfy you. That's why I suggested a compound in the wilderness.

or maybe let me get a revolver without all the bells and whistles.

I would love to move out of NYC but family commitments prevent it. I had my fun in my 20's and 30's being able to stay out past 2 AM.

 

[BULLDOG]

Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas

Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock

Die suckers....Die

If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?

the military does NOT use 100 round magazines because they do not work.

Did I say they used 100 round magazines?