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

[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.

I doubt you'll find retired women doing much training with guns. They are likely to miss a lot, so 30 shot magazines are exactly what they need.

Brings to mind......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Government can't ban anything without a valid reason.
If nothing else, it deprives the maker of their means of livelihood, without compensation.
The only source of any government authority comes from the defense of the inherent rights of individuals.
Since ARs have valid defensive uses, I don't really see how they can legally be banned by any one.
If you can ban an AR, any and all weapons can be banned.
And clearly that is not legal or tolerable.
And the proof is that police and the military have them.
That shows they are necessary, so then everyone should be able to have them.
The legal basis for police and military having them is because we all can.
If we can't have them, then we would not be able to delegate and authorize police and military to have them.
Government is not a source of any authority.
If government can have these weapons, it is because we authorize them, not government.

Using Heller V and such, your argument was thrown out already. You are trying to say that the fact that the AR has Military Applications because the Government, I.E. Cops, have them means that you need them. Doesn't legally hold water anymore. The cops didn't get them because they wanted them. They just tired of getting their asses kicked because they were so outgunned by the bad guys because the bad guys had them. The Cops were no better armed than the average citizen; sidearm, shotgun, maybe a Model 700 308. The Bad guys were geared up for war. If you think an AR-15 can't go toe to toe with a M-16 or a M-4 you would be wrong. The cops just got tired of burying their own.

You keep posting things that have no basis in reality......

Wow, you are really taxing the award system. Here is your award.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

 

[Flash]

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...

Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.

Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.

Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.

Seems to me that just singling out ARs and their clones is inherently illegal because it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

It is an improvement over the 1993 Assault Weapons ban that included foolish characteristics like pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.
But clearly almost any weapon can be optimized for assault purposes, and what they are then really trying to legislate against is effectiveness. And clearly any law that tries to ban any defensive weapon that is effective, is illegal.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the population is supposed to act like citizen soldiers, so then should the latest military grade weapons. So then actually full auto, like an M-4, must then be legal. You could try to somehow constrain these weapons to use only at approved ranges or something, but I see no legal basis for any weapons being arbitrarily banned.

Government has no arbitrary authority.
It only had secondary, delegated authority, only when it defensed the rights of individuals.
Clearly a general population with military grade machineguns is far better than only an elite, mercenary, military having them.
In fact, it would seem suicidal to a democratic republic to implement such gun control.

That argument ship sailed in 1939. And each and every time it's brought up in courts it gets sent down the river.

You are confused about that like you are confused about other things.

In the Miller case the court said that the sawed off shotgun that Miller had was not protected by the 2nd Amendment because that weapon was not in use by the military. The Second protects military style weapons according to the ruling.

However, the Court was wrong on one thing. They didn't do their homework. The military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. If the Court had done their research they would have found in favor of Miller according to their criteria because he was using a firearm that the military used.

 

[Flash]

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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...

Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.

Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.

Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.

Seems to me that just singling out ARs and their clones is inherently illegal because it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

It is an improvement over the 1993 Assault Weapons ban that included foolish characteristics like pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.
But clearly almost any weapon can be optimized for assault purposes, and what they are then really trying to legislate against is effectiveness. And clearly any law that tries to ban any defensive weapon that is effective, is illegal.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the population is supposed to act like citizen soldiers, so then should the latest military grade weapons. So then actually full auto, like an M-4, must then be legal. You could try to somehow constrain these weapons to use only at approved ranges or something, but I see no legal basis for any weapons being arbitrarily banned.

Government has no arbitrary authority.
It only had secondary, delegated authority, only when it defensed the rights of individuals.
Clearly a general population with military grade machineguns is far better than only an elite, mercenary, military having them.
In fact, it would seem suicidal to a democratic republic to implement such gun control.

That argument ship sailed in 1939. And each and every time it's brought up in courts it gets sent down the river.

You are confused about that like you are confused about other things.

In the Miller case the court said that the sawed off shotgun that Miller had was not protected by the 2nd Amendment because that weapon was not in use by the military. The Second protects military style weapons according to the ruling.

However, the Court was wrong on one thing. They didn't do their homework. The military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI. If the Court had done their research they would have found in favor of Miller according to their criteria because he was using a firearm that the military used.

No, I am right. In subsequent rulings, the fact that something is used for Military Use does not preclude it's use nor justify it's use in the civilian world.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

In some ( and I'll say most) cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired

 

[Blues Man]

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

 

[Flash]

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.

In some ( and I'll say most) cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired

I agree.

Having a weapon in your hand can be a pretty damn good deterrent.

It is not good to ever have to pull the trigger on a weapon in a self defense situation.

However, if you do you need to have adequate fire power for the threat. In some case it be only one round but in other cases you may need several magazines.

I have a good shooting buddy that is a retired police officer. He is a pretty good marksman and he was trained in street combat.

He said he only got into one shoot out in his career. It was at night and his partner and him each fired two magazines at a bad guy at pretty close range. Over 60 rds were fired but only two rounds hit the thug, This was trained police officers.

He said that after that he always carried extra magazines with him.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

In some ( and I'll say most) cases a shot doesn't even need to be fired

There is nothing more terrifying than the sliding action of a Remington Mode 870 Shotgun.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

 

[Blues Man]

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

Once again, who determined that you get those rights? Did you just pick them out of thin air? Did some super powerful being give them to you? Or do we determine those rights by our votes.

What makes you so damned special.

 

[Blues Man]

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

Once again, who determined that you get those rights? Did you just pick them out of thin air? Did some super powerful being give them to you? Or do we determine those rights by our votes.

What makes you so damned special.

Did we vote for any right?

No

Here have your nanny read this to you or translate into pictures

Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Flash]

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

The little Moon Bat doesn't understand what the Bill of Rights is all about. He is confused.

 

[Flash]

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

Once again, who determined that you get those rights? Did you just pick them out of thin air? Did some super powerful being give them to you? Or do we determine those rights by our votes.

What makes you so damned special.

Did we vote for any right?

No

Here have your nanny read this to you or translate into pictures

Bill of Rights Institute

Actually, those rights WERE voted for in a Federal Republic method. Every eligible voter of the time voted for a person that they sent to Philly to vote on their behalf and those rights were voted into the Constitution of the United States. And more have been added throughout the years using much of the same method. Plus, some were added and subtracted by the Courts when the Constitution did not cover them. The ONLY time the Courts do this is when the Legislators don't do their friggin jobs. And we seem to have a lot of that lately. But you get those rights from some type of Government ruling. In other words, you get those rights from my vote.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

 

[Blues Man]

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

Once again, who determined that you get those rights? Did you just pick them out of thin air? Did some super powerful being give them to you? Or do we determine those rights by our votes.

What makes you so damned special.

Did we vote for any right?

No

Here have your nanny read this to you or translate into pictures

Bill of Rights Institute

Actually, those rights WERE voted for in a Federal Republic method. Every eligible voter of the time voted for a person that they sent to Philly to vote on their behalf and those rights were voted into the Constitution of the United States. And more have been added throughout the years using much of the same method. Plus, some were added and subtracted by the Courts when the Constitution did not cover them. The ONLY time the Courts do this is when the Legislators don't do their friggin jobs. And we seem to have a lot of that lately. But you get those rights from some type of Government ruling. In other words, you get those rights from my vote.

Once again look up the word INALIENABLE

Tell you what you go turn in all your guns to the local police then maybe you can tell me I can or can't own guns