Citizens suing California over 30 round magazine ban...it's about time.

[JakeStarkey]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

As an American, I can't think of one reason why you'd forget it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

Slippery slope fallacy, Taz. You don't need and you don't have an every day right to a bazooka.

We aren't talking about weapons that can blow up a dump truck.

Thank you for that.

Though I can think of several sanitation trucks I would like to blow up at 4AM in the morning when they are collecting the bins.

 

[namvet]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No...you anti gun assholes are the wack-jobs.......you focus on people who do not break the law....and could not care less about the actual criminals......that is nuts.

Not “nuts”, but evil. They are on the side of violent criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. This is why they openly support laws that benefit criminals, to the detriment of law-abiding citizens.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly specifies to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly states to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Not now, it is not, thanks to Heller. That was a good opinion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

No reason? What the hell does a citizen need a thirty round magazine on a semi-auto for? I do realize they come in real handy in clearing out grade school classrooms and crowded movie theaters. We require a special license to own and shoot a .45 Thompson. That same license should be required for high capacity magazine in semi-automatic guns.

 

[Old Rocks]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

Me either but its better to have it than need it and not have it.

What the hell would one need a thirty round magazine for? Whom are they going to war with? If you cannot handle the situation with a five or six shot gun, perhaps you should not have that gun.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

As an American, I can't think of one reason why you'd forget it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

We regulate what kind of weapons a citizen can own already. We regulate that by requiring special licenses for certain kinds of weapons. The semi-automatic is capable of firing 30 rounds in under 10 seconds. Now what is the difference between that and a .45 Thompson? Both will kill a lot of people before anyone can do anything.

It is long past time to regulate who has these guns.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because wack-jobs desire to own one. Got it!

I have one. My best friend has several. We've never been committed or diagnosed with any mental deficiencies, nor have we have killed anyone.

Why don't you just go all the way, and claim no one has killed a lot of people with this type of weapon? How many people alive today have killed people with a .45 Thompson. But we have stringent regulations on who can own that type of weapon. As Clausewitz stated, you don't judge by present intentions, you judge by capabilities. North Korea has not nuked anyone with a long range missile. But everyone has the right to be worried about a nation with an unstable dictator having long range nuclear capability. It is the same with these assault weapons. The capability of them in the hands of someone mentally unstable is horrid. We saw that at Sandy Hook.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

As an American, I can't think of one reason why you'd forget it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

Slippery slope fallacy, Taz. You don't need and you don't have an every day right to a bazooka.

We aren't talking about weapons that can blow up a dump truck.

But one sure worked good at killing a lot of children. And they have been used in other attacks on innocent people. Hard to defend yourself when you are somewhere you don't expect violence, and the miscreant has a weapon that he can shoot 30 rapid shots and then reload in under 2 seconds.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What the hell would one need a thirty round magazine for?

Again, when did the Bill of Rights get renamed to the Bill of Needs?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why don't you just go all the way, and claim no one has killed a lot of people with this type of weapon? How many people alive today have killed people with a .45 Thompson. But we have stringent regulations on who can own that type of weapon. As Clausewitz stated, you don't judge by present intentions, you judge by capabilities. North Korea has not nuked anyone with a long range missile. But everyone has the right to be worried about a nation with an unstable dictator having long range nuclear capability. It is the same with these assault weapons. The capability of them in the hands of someone mentally unstable is horrid. We saw that at Sandy Hook.

You do realize that millions of these guns exist in private hands and 99.9% of them have never been used to slaughter anyone, so your fears are entirely unfounded. It's nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

 

[OnePercenter]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

Me either but its better to have it than need it and not have it.

A thirty round magazine is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading. That's it, no other reason.

 

[OnePercenter]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

that answer there just told me you dont own guns....

Then why does more than half of the income for the NRA come directly or indirectly from gun manufacturers?

 

[jasonnfree]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

Me either but its better to have it than need it and not have it.

A thirty round magazine is designed and manufactured to kill multiple people without reloading. That's it, no other reason.

So what should the limit of rounds be?

 

[2aguy]

states rights, boyo, until you say it is not states rights

courts will throw it out and you know it

The Second Amendment explicitly states to whom the right belongs, and it is not the states.

Not now, it is not, thanks to Heller. That was a good opinion.

Nope...Heller protects arms that are "in common use" and you can't get any more common than 30 round magazines.....

8 million rifles that are magazine fed, the 30 round magazine works on at least 5 million AR-15s not including AK variants......since the AR-15 is the most common used rifle for civilians and police and 30 round magazines are used by everyone......they are protected....

 

[2aguy]

Claifornia first banned the buying of new 30 round magazines....then, since book burners/gun grabbers won't stop till they get all guns....then, commie governor jerry brown outlawed the previous grandfathered 30 round magazines...now, 5 California citizens....all law abiding...are suing the morons in the California government for violating their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms...

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Why don't you write the real reason; To increase profits for gun manufacturers for which the NRA is a marketing concern.

that answer there just told me you dont own guns....

Then why does more than half of the income for the NRA come directly or indirectly from gun manufacturers?

It doesn't asswipe. You have been shown this before....

 

[DarkFury]

They may have waited this long because political powers and scotus now backs them.

 

[2aguy]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

As an American, I can't think of one reason why you'd forget it's called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

Slippery slope fallacy, Taz. You don't need and you don't have an every day right to a bazooka.

We aren't talking about weapons that can blow up a dump truck.

But one sure worked good at killing a lot of children. And they have been used in other attacks on innocent people. Hard to defend yourself when you are somewhere you don't expect violence, and the miscreant has a weapon that he can shoot 30 rapid shots and then reload in under 2 seconds.

8 million of these rifles...how many people were killed with rifles with a detachable magazine....167.....in 34 years.........and the shooter at Sandy Hook had lots of magazines and changed them out several times.....making a ban on 30 round magazines based on mass shootings irrational, and stupid...but that is the very trait that makes up book burners and gun banners...

 

[OnePercenter]

As a gun owner, I can't think of one reason I would need a thirty round magazine.

BEcause they desire to own one....that is all they need. There is absolutely no reason to ban them unless you are irrational and hate guns.

Because wack-jobs desire to own one. Got it!

No...you anti gun assholes are the wack-jobs.......you focus on people who do not break the law....and could not care less about the actual criminals......that is nuts.

How can I be anti-gun, I'm a gun owner, but I am smart enough to see a profit motive behind everything the NRA does.

This isn't a gun rights issue, it's a profit issue. Quit being such a dumb-ass.

You are essentially a book burner....but for guns.......the typical.."I own guns...but...I support every stupid anti gun law the anti gunners want......"

The only reason we still have guns is the NRA, and the 2nd Amendment foundation fight morons like you...

No. I look at a gun as a tool, not a significant other.