So, now an "Assault" weapon is any gun holding more than 10 bullets...we told you...

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

Why does the IRS or FBI need weapons?

 

[Pilot1]

The 2nd Amendment is based on the existence of a militia.

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Even if it were tied to a Militia, and it is NOT, by U.S. Code we are ALL in the Unorganized Militia. So we are covered both ways.

Also, limiting the number of rounds (cartridges) that a gun can hold is certainly and unreasonable, and illegal INFRINGEMENT. The "bullet" is actually the projectile which is a component of the entire cartridge. So, please educate yourself.

 

[cnm]

and thats not the intent

George Washington disagrees.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's hard to say who has the least respect for our laws: Illegals or democrat Party leadership

 

[cnm]

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Even if it were tied to a Militia, and it is NOT, by U.S. Code we are ALL in the Unorganized Militia. So we are covered both ways.

So much for George Washington.

 

[progressive hunter]

and thats not the intent

George Washington disagrees.

militias and armed people is the result/action not the intent,,,and george agrees since hes one of the ones that made it so

 

[progressive hunter]

It's hard to say who has the least respect for our laws: Illegals or democrat Party leadership

dont forget the republicans,,,they are the latest gun grabbers

 

[OldLady]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

who put your pants on for you this morning???

do you need us to call the front desk and have a nurse come to your room???

sounds like you need help thinking

 

[martybegan]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

Worthless statement.The 2nd amendment is in the Constitution.

Fuck the 2nd Amendment. There is no militia anymore.

Then try to repeal it. Again your understanding of the amendment is flawed. Having a militia is a right of the State, it was to prevent all armed force from being the right of only the federal government.

The PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, not just the militia.

Before you discuss a topic try to know something about it, you dried out old hag.

 

[martybegan]

Worthless statement.The 2nd amendment is in the Constitution.

Fuck the 2nd Amendment. There is no militia anymore.

yes there is you ignorant fool,,and those dont matter since it says the people not militia

people create the militia, not the other way around

WTF? You sound like the Mad Hatter this morning.

how so???

what I said was true, what you said was make believe

The 2nd Amendment is based on the existence of a militia.

No, it isn't. The ability and right of the States to have militias is based on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

thats not what the 2nd was for

Scalia and other posters in this thread disagree. Otherwise they'd be members of a well regulated militia and submitting to its discipline.

You really need to actually read what Scalia wrote......in D.C. v Heller and Friedman v Highland Park...

 

[Pilot1]

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Do you live in fear of your house burning down, or having an auto accident? No? But you still carry Homeowners, and Auto INSURANCE, huh?

You are sadly mistaken in all things firearm related. Very sad an American would think this way.

 

[2aguy]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Try changing a magazine when someone is shooting back at you, or when you are injured, or have an injury to one hand or arm.....that is why extra bullets count for civilians protecting themselves.....

 

[martybegan]

and they are based on the peoples right to keep and bare arms

I don't believe anyone has suggested sleeves are compulsory.

Suns out, guns out.

 

[2aguy]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

what if there are 11 bad guys???

This is NOT a war. You are NOT a cop. 11 bad guys?
2AGuy likes to say that just showing the bad guys that you have a gun is enough to stop many many many crimes. So no, you don't need 30 bullets or whatever the hell you're talking about. Just show 'em the gun and they'll be gone, 2AGuy promises.

No, I don't promise they will be gone, that is just how many of the criminals behave...since they don't want to die. You don't get to tell people how many bullets they get to save their own lives or the lives of their families considering they have committed no crime, and they are not criminals.....

Yes, the laws most certainly CAN tell them how many bullets can be in their gun at one time. If it slows down a mass shooting, that's a good thing.

It doesn't slow down a mass shooting...as actual research shows. Magazine capacity has no bearing on the deaths in a mass shooting......however, armed citizens have a 94% success rate in stopping mass shooters and/or limiting the injuries and deaths.......

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd Amendment is based on the existence of a militia.

In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Even if it were tied to a Militia, and it is NOT, by U.S. Code we are ALL in the Unorganized Militia. So we are covered both ways.

Also, limiting the number of rounds (cartridges) that a gun can hold is certainly and unreasonable, and illegal INFRINGEMENT. The "bullet" is actually the projectile which is a component of the entire cartridge. So, please educate yourself.

If 2AGuy can call it a "bullet," so can I.

 

[2aguy]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Yes....you are. D.C. v Heller specifically protects these items...

 

[OldLady]

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

what if there are 11 bad guys???

This is NOT a war. You are NOT a cop. 11 bad guys?
2AGuy likes to say that just showing the bad guys that you have a gun is enough to stop many many many crimes. So no, you don't need 30 bullets or whatever the hell you're talking about. Just show 'em the gun and they'll be gone, 2AGuy promises.

No, I don't promise they will be gone, that is just how many of the criminals behave...since they don't want to die. You don't get to tell people how many bullets they get to save their own lives or the lives of their families considering they have committed no crime, and they are not criminals.....

Yes, the laws most certainly CAN tell them how many bullets can be in their gun at one time. If it slows down a mass shooting, that's a good thing.

It doesn't slow down a mass shooting...as actual research shows. Magazine capacity has no bearing on the deaths in a mass shooting......however, armed citizens have a 94% success rate in stopping mass shooters and/or limiting the injuries and deaths.......

If it doesn't slow anything down, what is everyone bitching about?

 

[Pilot1]

The Police neither have a duty to protect you, nor are they physically able to protect you. They CAN NOT ANTICIPATE CRIME. So, you are on your own for your own defense, and safety. Home invasions by multiple attackers happen all the time. Why would anyone want to VOLUNTARILY limit their ability to defend themselves from that threat.

Wait, let me call my insurance agent. I'm going to reduce my Homeowner's Insurance to only cover SMALL FIRES. If a large one happens, oh well.