Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
If there are (special) pistol magazines made with more than 15 round capacity (I haven't seen them) they would be impractical in terms of concealment. In terms of functionality a large capacity magazine would have a greater malfunction potential. So considering it only takes a second or two to shake out and replace a spent 15 round magazine there really is no pressing need for extended capacity.I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.[...]
This nut on CNN tonight was lamenting about how the Co. tragedy could have been averted with strict gun control laws...............
[...]
How about we limit the amount of ammo per clip?
15 rounds/clip sounds about right to me, it's what the cops have.
But the reality is banning all firearms outside the reach of a motivated "loon" who really wants one is quite impossible. Where guns are concerned the toothpaste is out of the tube.I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.
Interesting. Most I know like the idea of walking around town without having ot worry if some loon is going to go postal because they didn't get ketchup with their fries...
Glock 30 round magazineIf there are (special) pistol magazines made with more than 15 round capacity (I haven't seen them) they would be impractical in terms of concealment. In terms of functionality a large capacity magazine would have a greater malfunction potential. So considering it only takes a second or two to shake out and replace a spent 15 round magazine there really is no pressing need for extended capacity.I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.
How about we limit the amount of ammo per clip?
15 rounds/clip sounds about right to me, it's what the cops have.
I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.[...]
This nut on CNN tonight was lamenting about how the Co. tragedy could have been averted with strict gun control laws...............
[...]
How about we limit the amount of ammo per clip?
15 rounds/clip sounds about right to me, it's what the cops have.
You never stated how many rounds there were per clip, just that you had high capacity clips for target shooting. How many rounds do they carry?
30 rounds.
So, it's just too much work to change a clip after 15 rounds?
Wow...................talk about a lazy fucker.
BTW.................should AR-15 owners be allowed 100 round clips if they're just target shooting as well?
You simply don't want to think, do you?
But you can read. Start with these:
1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712
2..Digital History
3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001
Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.
If the Army was formed AFTER the start of hostilities, who was doing the fighting prior to it's formation?
After it's formation, who joined?
Under-armed, under-fed, under-trained farmers and shopkeepers, that's who, along with a whole bunch of 15 & 16 year old kids.
Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.
I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.
Interesting. Most I know like the idea of walking around town without having ot worry if some loon is going to go postal because they didn't get ketchup with their fries...
You simply don't want to think, do you?
But you can read. Start with these:
1. Amazon.com: 1776 (9780743226714): David McCullough: Books
www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712
2..Digital History
3. History On-Line essay by Richard Jensen revised 3-11-2001
Washington took three years to fight a major battle to a draw, and eight years to conduct a campaign in alliance with a French army and a French navy to beat the British professional army. In other words, American victory required a professional standing army and alliance with a major European power to make the war no longer worthwhile for the British.
Look Jake, I'm well aware of the history of the Revolution. It took France 3 years to join in, and without them we wouldn't have won, but the fact remains that there was NO 'standing army' in the Colonies, other than the British, and America fought them with farmers, shopkeepers and kids. The 'militia'.
You have a vague understanding of the revolution. George Washington did not lead a bunch of minute men. He had a standing Army which was funded by Congress. Washingtons Army was supplemented by local militia forces. While at first, our soldiers may have been farmers, shopkeepers and kids...by the end of the war, they were soldiers. But that's the way it always is with an Army
Yes, you were wrong, and you can't admit it graciously, can you?
That's right Jake, because unlike you, I can admit when I make a mistake.
Not to you, Jake, because I have to remind you of what a dishonest, chickenshit little worm you are every time I get the chance.
Found anything in Miller or Heller yet?
You misdefine and misargue. Yes, the government has the right to define what is permissible and not permissible to own., as Henry and Miller are very clear.
What do you expect, they can't even define 'assault weapon' and they want to ban them...
Idiots!
What the fuck is henry and miller?
Told you so above, bigrebnc.
Guy has already been disabused of Miller and Heller as a defense for his beliefs.
He immorally and stubbornly refuses to admit he has been beaten, yes?
And bigrebnc will come along and ignore that he has already proven that Miller does not do it for the gun nuts.
Watch.
And bigrebnc will come along and ignore that he has already proven that Miller does not do it for the gun nuts.
You have it wrong, son: it is Heller and Miller. And you and Guy have already proved that they don't permit "common usage' as you wish to apply it.
Are you trying to say McDonald and Heller dumb ass?You misdefine and misargue. Yes, the government has the right to define what is permissible and not permissible to own., as Henry and Miller are very clear.
Heller and Miller, bigrebnc, which you proved does not work for "common usage".
But the reality is banning all firearms outside the reach of a motivated "loon" who really wants one is quite impossible. Where guns are concerned the toothpaste is out of the tube.I've observed over the years that with very few exceptions people who are strongly opposed to gun ownership know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, or all three.
Interesting. Most I know like the idea of walking around town without having ot worry if some loon is going to go postal because they didn't get ketchup with their fries...
Consider that the Nation has been nudged to the doorstep of a police state to ban recreational drugs but any drug one might want remains readily available within ten miles of any inhabited part of the U.S. A gun ban would achieve only to foster a new black market within which smuggled guns would move in the same channels as illegal drugs.
