Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[2aguy]

Actually, if you analyze it, the problem is that people are killing. Why don't we regulate that? Oh yeah...

I am perfectly willing to regulate which people gain access to guns

That's not the issue. The issue is that murder is illegal and yet you repeatedly advocate shooting children. If we start regulating who an gain access to guns, we need to start with you.

You have yet to provide any reason for a 50 round magazine other than slaughtering school children

You need 50 rounds to hunt squirrels?

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am perfectly willing to regulate which people gain access to guns

That's not the issue. The issue is that murder is illegal and yet you repeatedly advocate shooting children. If we start regulating who an gain access to guns, we need to start with you.

You have yet to provide any reason for a 50 round magazine other than slaughtering school children

You need 50 rounds to hunt squirrels?

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

That's not the issue. The issue is that murder is illegal and yet you repeatedly advocate shooting children. If we start regulating who an gain access to guns, we need to start with you.

You have yet to provide any reason for a 50 round magazine other than slaughtering school children

You need 50 rounds to hunt squirrels?

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

The lower courts are ruling against the Supreme Court rulings...they are breaking the law. Heller is specific as is Scalia when he states the AR-15 rifle is protected....

Just because you sound intelligent in your own brain doesn't mean you are.....read the actual Supreme Court rulings......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You have yet to provide any reason for a 50 round magazine other than slaughtering school children

You need 50 rounds to hunt squirrels?

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

The lower courts are ruling against the Supreme Court rulings...they are breaking the law. Heller is specific as is Scalia when he states the AR-15 rifle is protected....

Just because you sound intelligent in your own brain doesn't mean you are.....read the actual Supreme Court rulings......

Scalia voiced the dissenting views. What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. That's the losing side. His dissenting views written on paper are worth as much as used toilet paper. Now, if he gets a ruling in his favor and gets that into the ruling then you would be right. Instead, he just ran off on the mouth. No legal precedence was set. To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear that and the lower courts rulings have stood. There are many reasons why the Supreme Court might refuse to hear a lower court challenge but most of the time it's that the lower court ruling should stand. IOWs, they agree with the Lower Courts ruling. You are trying to read into things that just aren't there. Here, you get your award.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As for common sense firearms regulations, get used to them. More and more states are adopting them. I won't try and justify either way on this one. It only suffices to say that the majority of the population is for common sense gun regulations. If you can't figure out what common sense gun regulations are, you are somewhat lacking in common sense.

Ironic, given there isn't any sense at all in any firearm regulation described by anti-gun loons as "common sense".

You just confirmed what I was talking about the lack of common sense on the one side.

Well yes - the lack of sense on the anti-gun side is legendary.
None of the restrictions they seek have any rational basis -- and thus, cannot have any sense at all.
Thanks for agreeing.

Sorry, you already got your silver oak leaf cluster. Only one oak leaf cluster per day to any and all fruitcakes.

And there you are again, running away form another point you know you cannot defend.

 

[Rigby5]

3?

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

 

[Rigby5]

Lol
Just the existence of the Second Amendment is needed... obviously

When has our country ever needed a second amendment to defend our freedom?

Every day, moron. Just look at Venezuela. Do you imagine Maduro would still be in power if the civilians were armed?

<sob>. But....but....what about Venezuela?

This ain’t Venezuela Finger Boy

It will be if douchebags like you ever get their way. One of the first things Chavez did is implement strict gun control.

Hey Finger Boy
We are not Venezuela....not Somalia either

We are far worse than Venezuela or Somalis, since neither Venezuela nor Somalia ever invaded innocent countries like the US did in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

 

[2aguy]

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

The lower courts are ruling against the Supreme Court rulings...they are breaking the law. Heller is specific as is Scalia when he states the AR-15 rifle is protected....

Just because you sound intelligent in your own brain doesn't mean you are.....read the actual Supreme Court rulings......

Scalia voiced the dissenting views. What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. That's the losing side. His dissenting views written on paper are worth as much as used toilet paper. Now, if he gets a ruling in his favor and gets that into the ruling then you would be right. Instead, he just ran off on the mouth. No legal precedence was set. To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear that and the lower courts rulings have stood. There are many reasons why the Supreme Court might refuse to hear a lower court challenge but most of the time it's that the lower court ruling should stand. IOWs, they agree with the Lower Courts ruling. You are trying to read into things that just aren't there. Here, you get your award.
View attachment 253490

View attachment 253491View attachment 253492

Moron........Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller...then after Heller, he wrote in Friedman v Highland Park that the AR-15 rifle is protected.....you don't know what you are talking about...Heller protects all bearable arms, in particular those that are in common use for lawful purposes.......as repeated in Caetano and now used in the magazine ban injunction in California...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

3?

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

 

[Rigby5]

When has our country ever needed a second amendment to defend our freedom?

Every day, moron. Just look at Venezuela. Do you imagine Maduro would still be in power if the civilians were armed?

<sob>. But....but....what about Venezuela?

This ain’t Venezuela Finger Boy

It will be if douchebags like you ever get their way. One of the first things Chavez did is implement strict gun control.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good thing.

View attachment 253296

All of Europe has gun control

The US owns 40 percent of the weapons in the free world
That is why we have 33,000 gun deaths a year

That makes no sense at all.
The weapons owned in the US are mostly owned by the police and military.
The civilians in Switzerland and Israel have more guns per person as we do, and they have no problem.
Nor are you being remotely fair, since half those 33k deaths are suicide, which we likely do not want to prevent by force. People have a right to suicide. It is how I plan to go eventually.

What you are claiming is that the mere existence of a gun in the home is more than people can handle, and that somehow the gun induces them to commit murders they would not otherwise have done.
And clearly, that is ridiculous.
We know what the causes of crime are.
They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc.
No where is access to weapons on the list of causes of crime.
In a democratic republic, everyone is supposed to have weapons access.
That is how you avoid the dangers of a police state.

 

[Rigby5]

3?

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I said nothing about what was the safest action.
I merely pointed out that multiple gunshots are loud and intimidating, so a large capacity magazine has additional value other than killing lots of people.
Suppressing fire is a valid tactic.
Not necessarily recommending it, just that it does work, and requires a large capacity magazine.

 

[Rigby5]

Scalia's opinion in Heller has self sustaining logic.

{...
Read more: FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


In his Second Amendment analysis in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia included this minor discussion:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.” (citations omitted)

...}

And I believe Scalia wrote the majority ruling in Heller?

 

[2aguy]

Every day, moron. Just look at Venezuela. Do you imagine Maduro would still be in power if the civilians were armed?

<sob>. But....but....what about Venezuela?

This ain’t Venezuela Finger Boy

It will be if douchebags like you ever get their way. One of the first things Chavez did is implement strict gun control.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good thing.

View attachment 253296

All of Europe has gun control

The US owns 40 percent of the weapons in the free world
That is why we have 33,000 gun deaths a year

That makes no sense at all.
The weapons owned in the US are mostly owned by the police and military.
The civilians in Switzerland and Israel have more guns per person as we do, and they have no problem.
Nor are you being remotely fair, since half those 33k deaths are suicide, which we likely do not want to prevent by force. People have a right to suicide. It is how I plan to go eventually.

What you are claiming is that the mere existence of a gun in the home is more than people can handle, and that somehow the gun induces them to commit murders they would not otherwise have done.
And clearly, that is ridiculous.
We know what the causes of crime are.
They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc.
No where is access to weapons on the list of causes of crime.
In a democratic republic, everyone is supposed to have weapons access.
That is how you avoid the dangers of a police state.

They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc

actually, there is one primary cause that allows the above to turn an individual into a criminal..... broken homes....homes without fathers.....during the depression we had all of the above, but families were intact....we had very little crime...dittos in Black neighborhoods in the 1950s....it wasn't until Black families began to be destroyed by the welfare system that you saw a spike in crime....

 

[2aguy]

Scalia's opinion in Heller has self sustaining logic.

{...
Read more: FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


In his Second Amendment analysis in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia included this minor discussion:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.” (citations omitted)

...}

And I believe Scalia wrote the majority ruling in Heller?

He followed that up in Friedman v Highland Park, where he wanted to hear the case, but there weren't enough Justices voting to hear it....he wrote in Friedman......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Rigby5]

<sob>. But....but....what about Venezuela?

This ain’t Venezuela Finger Boy

It will be if douchebags like you ever get their way. One of the first things Chavez did is implement strict gun control.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good thing.

View attachment 253296

All of Europe has gun control

The US owns 40 percent of the weapons in the free world
That is why we have 33,000 gun deaths a year

That makes no sense at all.
The weapons owned in the US are mostly owned by the police and military.
The civilians in Switzerland and Israel have more guns per person as we do, and they have no problem.
Nor are you being remotely fair, since half those 33k deaths are suicide, which we likely do not want to prevent by force. People have a right to suicide. It is how I plan to go eventually.

What you are claiming is that the mere existence of a gun in the home is more than people can handle, and that somehow the gun induces them to commit murders they would not otherwise have done.
And clearly, that is ridiculous.
We know what the causes of crime are.
They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc.
No where is access to weapons on the list of causes of crime.
In a democratic republic, everyone is supposed to have weapons access.
That is how you avoid the dangers of a police state.

They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc

actually, there is one primary cause that allows the above to turn an individual into a criminal..... broken homes....homes without fathers.....during the depression we had all of the above, but families were intact....we had very little crime...dittos in Black neighborhoods in the 1950s....it wasn't until Black families began to be destroyed by the welfare system that you saw a spike in crime....

Good point. Something has changed. I was beginning to wonder if it was things like pesticides or anti-depressant drugs contaminating the food/water supplies?
Family role models could be a key?

 

[Rigby5]

Scalia's opinion in Heller has self sustaining logic.

{...
Read more: FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


In his Second Amendment analysis in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia included this minor discussion:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.” (citations omitted)

...}

And I believe Scalia wrote the majority ruling in Heller?

He followed that up in Friedman v Highland Park, where he wanted to hear the case, but there weren't enough Justices voting to hear it....he wrote in Friedman......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Yes, point well taken that with so many millions of ARs not being abused, there is no compelling reason to ban.
Clearly ARs are no more dangerous than anything. If less recoil allows for quicker shots, then you would have to ban all semi auto pistols before getting to ARs.

 

[2aguy]

It will be if douchebags like you ever get their way. One of the first things Chavez did is implement strict gun control.

Raise your hand if you think gun control is a good thing.

View attachment 253296

All of Europe has gun control

The US owns 40 percent of the weapons in the free world
That is why we have 33,000 gun deaths a year

That makes no sense at all.
The weapons owned in the US are mostly owned by the police and military.
The civilians in Switzerland and Israel have more guns per person as we do, and they have no problem.
Nor are you being remotely fair, since half those 33k deaths are suicide, which we likely do not want to prevent by force. People have a right to suicide. It is how I plan to go eventually.

What you are claiming is that the mere existence of a gun in the home is more than people can handle, and that somehow the gun induces them to commit murders they would not otherwise have done.
And clearly, that is ridiculous.
We know what the causes of crime are.
They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc.
No where is access to weapons on the list of causes of crime.
In a democratic republic, everyone is supposed to have weapons access.
That is how you avoid the dangers of a police state.

They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, in education, jobs, housing etc

actually, there is one primary cause that allows the above to turn an individual into a criminal..... broken homes....homes without fathers.....during the depression we had all of the above, but families were intact....we had very little crime...dittos in Black neighborhoods in the 1950s....it wasn't until Black families began to be destroyed by the welfare system that you saw a spike in crime....

Good point. Something has changed. I was beginning to wonder if it was things like pesticides or anti-depressant drugs contaminating the food/water supplies?
Family role models could be a key?

If you want to see this problem, look at the book "Life at the Bottom," about the British welfare state and the damage it is doing over there.....you see the same issues coming into play, single teenage girls having children in fatherless homes.......that is why their violence rates are increasing now too....

 

[2aguy]

Scalia's opinion in Heller has self sustaining logic.

{...
Read more: FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


In his Second Amendment analysis in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia included this minor discussion:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.” (citations omitted)

...}

And I believe Scalia wrote the majority ruling in Heller?

He followed that up in Friedman v Highland Park, where he wanted to hear the case, but there weren't enough Justices voting to hear it....he wrote in Friedman......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Yes, point well taken that with so many millions of ARs not being abused, there is no compelling reason to ban.
Clearly ARs are no more dangerous than anything. If less recoil allows for quicker shots, then you would have to ban all semi auto pistols before getting to ARs.

They want to use the AR-15 as the gateway to ban all other semi-autos....they will say...if the AR-15 is too dangerous and you let us ban that....the other semi-autos are no different in function so now we get to ban those too.....they are already saying it.

 

[2aguy]

Magazine makers are now selling their magazines to California again.......

Brownells, Other Retailers Shipping Magazines to California as Fast as Possible - The Truth About Guns

 

[Flash]

3?

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

You obviously have no understanding or training in firearms.

If 4 or 6 rds is all anybody needs then why do police and military have more?

You need as much as you need. In some circumstances it may be only one bullet in others it may be 100.

I sure as hell don't want or need the filthy ass government dictating to me on how many I can carry. I will make that decision myself.