Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[PratchettFan]

If they are changing magazines then you have the time to do one of two things, if you do anything at all. You have the time to get up, thus marking yourself as the next target. Or you have the time to pull your own weapon, assuming you are carrying one. You do not have the time to get away. Try it. Lie down and time yourself to see how long it takes you to get up and than factor in the time it will take you to realize the guy is out of ammo and changing mags. You'll probably find the guy will be shooting at you before you even straighten up. Remember, if the guy is incompetent, you have three seconds tops.

I see no reason to create a limitation which will have no effect on the desired outcome. What it will hurt will be the manufacturing companies who make those magazines and the people who make their living there. It will hurt the retail stores that sell them. It will hurt the ancillary businesses that sell to the employees of the manufacturers and the suppliers of raw materials. My favorite carry weapon has a 13 round magazine, so I don't know how a 10 round limitation would effect me. But if I have to turn it in, that hurts me. All for nothing but an illusion to allow politicians to pretend they are doing something. That's a pretty hard sell from my perspective.

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

i'll change out a mag in less than a second. while shooting, I'll have the next one pulled out and ready to go in. a push of a button the spent mag drops and the next one goes in. you or any one of the 20 other people won't even know the change happened. if you aren't armed, it wouldn't matter if it took 10 seconds. trust me, under fire, you aren't focused on when that mag is empty. you won't even know. did he stop shooting because he is out? or is he just looking for a target? you're dealing with fear and looking to get away or take cover. and you have legislated yourself out of a competive advantage. the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

Same with me. What takes me the longest is that I tend not to just drop my mag when I switch out. So my left hand is occupied until the empty is laid down. Under real conditions I'd just drop it out while I was grabbing the next mag. It certainly doesn't take me more than one second for the whole process.

This is just a feel good idea. It will have no impact and I don't see why I should be restricted just to make other people feel good. Show me something that will actually have an impact and I will be happy to consider it and possibly even support it. But this is just ridiculous.

 

[Brain357]

Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

I did. When I was a young man, two armed burglars broke into our home. I had a Ruger .223 with a 30 round magazine. The bad guys had high capacity magazines as well...over twice the number of rounds I had. Having that firearm and magazine allowed me to not only prevent harm coming to me and my family, but also prevented me from shooting one of the bad guys, which I would of HAD to do with a double barrel shotgun or bolt action rifle. As it turned out, I was able to 'waste' a round by firing into the couch (scaring the shit out of both of them), while still having plenty of rounds to hold them until the police arrived.

So there you go, someone that needed a high capacity magazine.

Other examples? Look no further than the Korean store owners that defended their lives with AR riles and high cap mags against hundreds of rioters. They could not have done that with a revolver!

Please share a news article documenting this shoot out.

 

[Spoonman]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine? Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

who needs a car that will go 150 mph? who needs alcohol stronger than beer? who needs a house more than 1000 sq ft? when did it ever become about need? its a right. a right to own uninfringed.

 

[Spoonman]

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.







I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.


Firearms are the issue, not "Life, Liberty, etc..." that has everything to do with being a threat to the US Constitution and the reason it is a ratified document - why even have laws or a Constitution if it is presupposed that individuals have a right to settle their issues themselves by using force of "Arms" to do so.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms. The Declaration of Independence is neither the Constitution nor a law. If you don't realize where the phrase ""life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes from, I will be happy to refer you to some history books.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms.


then you have no problem with:

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

that isn't how the framers who wrote the constitution saw it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.







I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.


Firearms are the issue, not "Life, Liberty, etc..." that has everything to do with being a threat to the US Constitution and the reason it is a ratified document - why even have laws or a Constitution if it is presupposed that individuals have a right to settle their issues themselves by using force of "Arms" to do so.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms. The Declaration of Independence is neither the Constitution nor a law. If you don't realize where the phrase ""life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" comes from, I will be happy to refer you to some history books.

I agree the Constitution and laws are the issue, as well as the question of firearms.


then you have no problem with:

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Oh sure, I have a problem with it. I don't think it would be found constitutional. I don't think it is constitutional. But I am willing to see what the courts have to say about it. Not that I think it is going to come up.

 

[Spoonman]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

i'll change out a mag in less than a second. while shooting, I'll have the next one pulled out and ready to go in. a push of a button the spent mag drops and the next one goes in. you or any one of the 20 other people won't even know the change happened. if you aren't armed, it wouldn't matter if it took 10 seconds. trust me, under fire, you aren't focused on when that mag is empty. you won't even know. did he stop shooting because he is out? or is he just looking for a target? you're dealing with fear and looking to get away or take cover. and you have legislated yourself out of a competive advantage. the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

Same with me. What takes me the longest is that I tend not to just drop my mag when I switch out. So my left hand is occupied until the empty is laid down. Under real conditions I'd just drop it out while I was grabbing the next mag. It certainly doesn't take me more than one second for the whole process.

This is just a feel good idea. It will have no impact and I don't see why I should be restricted just to make other people feel good. Show me something that will actually have an impact and I will be happy to consider it and possibly even support it. But this is just ridiculous.

make other people who are clueless feel good on top of it. its is amazing how officials who are elected to uphold our constitutional rights are so quick to try to destroy them

 

[PratchettFan]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine? Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I don't hunt. I take pictures. Do I need a high capacity mag? Who knows if I will or not. The point is that I want them. I see no reason I can't have what I want, that I am willing to pay for and willing to take responsibility for, just because you don't like it. I am not telling you that you have to have them. You are the one who wants to restrict me, not me restrict you. The burden is on you to show there is a valid reason for it and you have failed to do so.

 

[eflatminor]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't.

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers

Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine?

If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

 

[Brain357]

You seem to be assuming I'm the only target. If there are say 20 victims you bet it will let people get away. It's foolish to think it wouldn't. Your 3 seconds doesn't include dropping a magazine or having trouble grabbing the next one.

As mentioned I've only heard of these being used for evil. I'm not going to feel bad for the makers.

i'll change out a mag in less than a second. while shooting, I'll have the next one pulled out and ready to go in. a push of a button the spent mag drops and the next one goes in. you or any one of the 20 other people won't even know the change happened. if you aren't armed, it wouldn't matter if it took 10 seconds. trust me, under fire, you aren't focused on when that mag is empty. you won't even know. did he stop shooting because he is out? or is he just looking for a target? you're dealing with fear and looking to get away or take cover. and you have legislated yourself out of a competive advantage. the shooter doesn't give a rats ass about your gun control laws.

Same with me. What takes me the longest is that I tend not to just drop my mag when I switch out. So my left hand is occupied until the empty is laid down. Under real conditions I'd just drop it out while I was grabbing the next mag. It certainly doesn't take me more than one second for the whole process.

This is just a feel good idea. It will have no impact and I don't see why I should be restricted just to make other people feel good. Show me something that will actually have an impact and I will be happy to consider it and possibly even support it. But this is just ridiculous.

If you really believe it makes little difference then you have no reason to be against restricting magazine size. Unless of course you don't even believe yourself.

 

[eflatminor]

Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

I did. When I was a young man, two armed burglars broke into our home. I had a Ruger .223 with a 30 round magazine. The bad guys had high capacity magazines as well...over twice the number of rounds I had. Having that firearm and magazine allowed me to not only prevent harm coming to me and my family, but also prevented me from shooting one of the bad guys, which I would of HAD to do with a double barrel shotgun or bolt action rifle. As it turned out, I was able to 'waste' a round by firing into the couch (scaring the shit out of both of them), while still having plenty of rounds to hold them until the police arrived.

So there you go, someone that needed a high capacity magazine.

Other examples? Look no further than the Korean store owners that defended their lives with AR riles and high cap mags against hundreds of rioters. They could not have done that with a revolver!

Please share a news article documenting this shoot out.

One bullet into a couch is not a shoot out, but you knew that. Don't believe me, I couldn't care less. PLENTY of articles of how those Korean store owners defended their lives with AR rifles during the LA riots.

 

[Brain357]

That requires the massive assumption that the bad guy is going to follow the law and not possess a high capacity magazine. Now who would be so ridiculous to think criminals will all of a sudden begin to follow that particular law?

And please, don't come back with the idea that we'll eliminate high cap magazines! There are millions of them already out there and they're made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring! It's not rocket science to extend an low cap magazine (every one can be) or build a new one from scratch.



Three seconds would be the slowest magazine change I've ever seen. Only a complete incompetent, with no experience would take that long. Every guy I shoot with can change magazines in well under a second.

But again, the point is moot. The bad guy is going to have whatever size magazine he wants. It's only law abiding citizens that would be burdened. Now why would anyone want to do that?



Hunting is evil? Protecting one's family and property is evil? Ensuring the last measure of protection against tyranny is evil?

Wow. That's one hell of a world view you have there.

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.

What hunter needs a hi capacity magazine?

If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

Your story is not yet well documented. Just how many shots did these store owners fire? Document that.

 

[Spoonman]

Again I've never heard of anyone needing a high capacity magazine for defense.

I did. When I was a young man, two armed burglars broke into our home. I had a Ruger .223 with a 30 round magazine. The bad guys had high capacity magazines as well...over twice the number of rounds I had. Having that firearm and magazine allowed me to not only prevent harm coming to me and my family, but also prevented me from shooting one of the bad guys, which I would of HAD to do with a double barrel shotgun or bolt action rifle. As it turned out, I was able to 'waste' a round by firing into the couch (scaring the shit out of both of them), while still having plenty of rounds to hold them until the police arrived.

So there you go, someone that needed a high capacity magazine.

Other examples? Look no further than the Korean store owners that defended their lives with AR riles and high cap mags against hundreds of rioters. They could not have done that with a revolver!

Please share a news article documenting this shoot out.

i do believe providing an article that gave out personal information regarding himself would get him banned

 

[eflatminor]

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.



If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

Your story is not yet well documented. Just how many shots did these store owners fire? Document that.

And how would one determine exactly how many rounds were fire...by multiple people across a city the size of LA, all during a riot? Good God man, you're not that thick are you?

While not a lot of reporters stuck around, there are a few videos showing the store owners protecting themselves and their families:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SiG9Q7MGqvw]LA Riots - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs]LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube[/ame]

Perhaps the most telling remark came from Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. In the May 19, 1993 edition of the Washington Post, he stated "You can’t get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement.”

But once again, the point is that you don't get to decide what another man needs.

 

[westwall]

Why aren't all criminals using machine guns then?

Because machine guns are far from the best tool for the job. Even in the military, machine guns are used to lay down suppression fire...to get the bad guys to take cover while the good guys move into a new position. If your job is to kill someone, you're much better off with a semi auto rifle that you use to take aim with...not just 'spraying and praying'. This was proven equivocalably with the North Hollywood shootout. Those criminals had fully automatic AK47s, shot thousands of rounds, and didn't manage to kill anyone.



If you hunt hogs, there is no better platform than an AR with a high capacity magazine. Get into a singular wild hogs when they're mad and you'll wish like hell you had more ammo.

I also hunt varmints with an AR. Nothing better for short range varmint hunting, where multiple targets can appear at once.

But the point really is that we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs. You don't get to determine what another man needs.

Name a real example of someone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense.

I needed one when armed thugs broke into my family's home. The Korean store owners needed them when the LA rioters threatened their families.

But again, I don't get to tell you what books you do and don't need. Same for all other inalienable rights.

Your story is not yet well documented. Just how many shots did these store owners fire? Document that.

Ask him, or him. They know more about it than you ever will.

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

Ignorance is bliss.

In that case you must be one extremely happy mother fucker

Says the guy who runs away every time we debate.

 

[RDD_1210]

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

so just how many times in your life have you been acosted with a gun?

How many times have you stopped a raping with your big bad gun?

 

[Spoonman]

Ignorance is bliss.

In that case you must be one extremely happy mother fucker

Says the guy who runs away every time we debate.

i never run away. lol at you calling spreading liberal propoganda debating. in that case joseph goebels was a great debator

 

[Spoonman]

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

so just how many times in your life have you been acosted with a gun?

How many times have you stopped a raping with your big bad gun?

i kept my ass from getting kicked by 3 pissed off bikers who mistook me for someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

taking away our rights is funny?
Fuck you people

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In THAT order.
Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

My ownership and/or simple posesssion of a firearm - any firearm - neither harms you nor places you in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger.
As such, your right to life does not come into play.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

You are very clearly unaware of the current jurisprudence on this issue.