The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[Wildman]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
there ain't no such thing as "semi-automatic assault rifles", please get educated about guns OK ?
below is the best i can help you with.

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[ChrisL]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

 

[Iceweasel]

And you can't give a single example of anyone having the need. 300 million guns and many years to work with and you don't have a single one. How many people have been hit by gang banger strays because of hi cap magazines? We both know a lot!

There are many examples, I've seen some posted to you. That and the fact that you think I need to spend time soothing your irrational feelings is why I'm convinced of your brain damage. You want something outlawed so the onus is on you, not everyone else.

 

[Brain357]

Gang stray:
Two teens in court for involvement in death of South Bend 2-year-old

 

[Brain357]

And you can't give a single example of anyone having the need. 300 million guns and many years to work with and you don't have a single one. How many people have been hit by gang banger strays because of hi cap magazines? We both know a lot!

There are many examples, I've seen some posted to you. That and the fact that you think I need to spend time soothing your irrational feelings is why I'm convinced of your brain damage. You want something outlawed so the onus is on you, not everyone else.

Provide some examples. I have never seen one.

I have however given several examples of how a restriction would save lives.

 

[JoeB131]

..they became assholes. Some law firm enticed them with a bunch of zeros and now they're going to exploit the "good fortune" of their children being killed and laugh all the way to the bank.

I have the utmost compassion for anyone who loses a child, especially to a senseless act of violence. But that compassion dries up quickly when the victims become the agressors, filing a lawsuit that has no merit because people generally understand you can't hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product because that is entirely out of their control.

Except that the product isn't out of their control. They made the decision to take a weapon that was designed for the military and market it to people like Nancy Lanza and Joker Holmes.

 

[Brain357]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

 

[ChrisL]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

 

[Brain357]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

 

[ChrisL]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

 

[Brain357]

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. As the pro gunners so often say, it's only 3 seconds to reload. Try again.

 

[ChrisL]

"I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know."

I do too. Seriously. He has a case of the super stupids.

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. Try again.

That's good that nobody was shot and killed. Their method of self defense was quite successful. You are just not making any sense now. Lol.

The only thing your proposals would do is to put innocent people at risk. It would not prevent the criminals from obtaining anything they want because they would just get what they want through illegal means. It's really as simple as that.

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Gun-control advocates frequently use scare tactic to mislead the public into supporting laws that unnecessarily restrict Second Amendment rights.

In New Jersey, the most stringent firearms laws in the country don’t satisfy the rabid activists there. They are pushing to lower the legal magazine size from 15 to 10.

“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, told NJ.com on Friday. The group’s sole purpose is pushing for more gun control. Its primary tactic is to hold “prayer vigils” outside firearms stores.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Mr. Miller claimed.

Mr. Miller neglected to mention that virtually all law enforcement uses firearms with more than 10 rounds. And of course, so do millions of law-abiding Americans.

Frank Jack Fiamingo is the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a grass-roots gun rights group that opposes the magazine ban.

“We want the innocent homeowners to be able to defend themselves against a group of thugs determined to invade their home and hurt or kill them and their family,” he told me.

“If it takes that individual 30-round magazines to offer a proper defense, families are certainly well within their rights to own them.”

The firearms industry has been fighting back against these new limits to magazine size that have passed in the past year in states such as New York (seven rounds) and Colorado (15 rounds).

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

You really put a lot of faith in those 3 seconds it takes to swap out magazines. You demonstrate again and again that you really don't know much about the guns you want to ban.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Your suggestions would strengthen and embolden the black market for weapons and make matters worse, MUCH worse. Kind of like the drug situation. Now you wouldn't be able to easily trace ANY of those weapons anymore.

By relegating such things to the black market, you make them more difficult to regulate and control, not easier.

Plus lets face it, the gun nuts are the ones who will be hoarding all the hi cap magazines. After a few years they will be the only ones with them. Nobody really needs them unless you are a mass killer, but gun nuts will be the ones who want them. Criminals don't need them to rob somebody so they won't bother getting one. They have them now because they are common.

This is the problem with Leftists, thinking they can decide what people do and do not need. It's not up to you. One thing you can't seem to get through your thick skull is that our right to have and carry guns is protected by a constitutional amendment that has NOTHING to do with self defense. A whelp like you that's never seen battle has no idea how fast ammunition depletes in a firefight. Soldiers tape 2 thirty round magazines together so when the first runs out, they can flip it around and reload. The 2nd amendment has precisely in mind that normal citizens may one day have to be soldiers defending their rights against a government that's gone tyrannical.

And people like you are very much what they had in mind.

 

[Brain357]

Why do you bother posting? You don't offer anything. I give you examples and that is all you have? Pathetic.

Give examples of how the law abiding would be negatively effected.

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. Try again.

That's good that nobody was shot and killed. Their method of self defense was quite successful. You are just not making any sense now. Lol.

The only thing your proposals would do is to put innocent people at risk. It would not prevent the criminals from obtaining anything they want because they would just get what they want through illegal means. It's really as simple as that.

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Gun-control advocates frequently use scare tactic to mislead the public into supporting laws that unnecessarily restrict Second Amendment rights.

In New Jersey, the most stringent firearms laws in the country don’t satisfy the rabid activists there. They are pushing to lower the legal magazine size from 15 to 10.

“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, told NJ.com on Friday. The group’s sole purpose is pushing for more gun control. Its primary tactic is to hold “prayer vigils” outside firearms stores.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Mr. Miller claimed.

Mr. Miller neglected to mention that virtually all law enforcement uses firearms with more than 10 rounds. And of course, so do millions of law-abiding Americans.

Frank Jack Fiamingo is the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a grass-roots gun rights group that opposes the magazine ban.

“We want the innocent homeowners to be able to defend themselves against a group of thugs determined to invade their home and hurt or kill them and their family,” he told me.

“If it takes that individual 30-round magazines to offer a proper defense, families are certainly well within their rights to own them.”

The firearms industry has been fighting back against these new limits to magazine size that have passed in the past year in states such as New York (seven rounds) and Colorado (15 rounds).

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I just watched a video of the store owners. They had plenty of time to reload if they had to. You need to do your research.

You can defend with 10 round magazines. I've seen a video of a woman successfully defending against 3 armed crminals with .38 revolver. Criminals don't want to be shot.

 

[ChrisL]

It would be restricting their rights to determine their own needs. It is not up to you to determine what another person might need. YOU are nothing.

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. Try again.

That's good that nobody was shot and killed. Their method of self defense was quite successful. You are just not making any sense now. Lol.

The only thing your proposals would do is to put innocent people at risk. It would not prevent the criminals from obtaining anything they want because they would just get what they want through illegal means. It's really as simple as that.

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Gun-control advocates frequently use scare tactic to mislead the public into supporting laws that unnecessarily restrict Second Amendment rights.

In New Jersey, the most stringent firearms laws in the country don’t satisfy the rabid activists there. They are pushing to lower the legal magazine size from 15 to 10.

“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, told NJ.com on Friday. The group’s sole purpose is pushing for more gun control. Its primary tactic is to hold “prayer vigils” outside firearms stores.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Mr. Miller claimed.

Mr. Miller neglected to mention that virtually all law enforcement uses firearms with more than 10 rounds. And of course, so do millions of law-abiding Americans.

Frank Jack Fiamingo is the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a grass-roots gun rights group that opposes the magazine ban.

“We want the innocent homeowners to be able to defend themselves against a group of thugs determined to invade their home and hurt or kill them and their family,” he told me.

“If it takes that individual 30-round magazines to offer a proper defense, families are certainly well within their rights to own them.”

The firearms industry has been fighting back against these new limits to magazine size that have passed in the past year in states such as New York (seven rounds) and Colorado (15 rounds).

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I just watched a video of the store owners. They had plenty of time to reload if they had to. You need to do your research.

You can defend with 10 round magazines. I've seen a video of a woman successfully defending against 3 armed crminals with .38 revolver. Criminals don't want to be shot.

Your opinions and anecdotes mean nothing.

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

You really put a lot of faith in those 3 seconds it takes to swap out magazines. You demonstrate again and again that you really don't know much about the guns you want to ban.

That is what the gunners say. I recall at least one in this very thread. Should we call him out if you think it isn't accurate? Maybe you have examples of defenders needing more than a 10 rd magazine? If you don't the time to reload really doesn't matter.

 

[Brain357]

Then give us some examples showing that anyone would ever need a hi cap magazine. If nobody has ever needed one, then the only ones being restricted are criminals. Are you against that?

I already gave you several instances. One was a looting instances where hundreds of looters were converging on a store, and the owners fought them off.

Yes hundreds of looters and nobody was shot and killed. Sorry that doesn't show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was actually shot I think they had plenty of time to reload. Try again.

That's good that nobody was shot and killed. Their method of self defense was quite successful. You are just not making any sense now. Lol.

The only thing your proposals would do is to put innocent people at risk. It would not prevent the criminals from obtaining anything they want because they would just get what they want through illegal means. It's really as simple as that.

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Gun-control advocates frequently use scare tactic to mislead the public into supporting laws that unnecessarily restrict Second Amendment rights.

In New Jersey, the most stringent firearms laws in the country don’t satisfy the rabid activists there. They are pushing to lower the legal magazine size from 15 to 10.

“Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size,” Bryan Miller, executive director of Heeding God’s Call, told NJ.com on Friday. The group’s sole purpose is pushing for more gun control. Its primary tactic is to hold “prayer vigils” outside firearms stores.

“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster,” Mr. Miller claimed.

Mr. Miller neglected to mention that virtually all law enforcement uses firearms with more than 10 rounds. And of course, so do millions of law-abiding Americans.

Frank Jack Fiamingo is the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a grass-roots gun rights group that opposes the magazine ban.

“We want the innocent homeowners to be able to defend themselves against a group of thugs determined to invade their home and hurt or kill them and their family,” he told me.

“If it takes that individual 30-round magazines to offer a proper defense, families are certainly well within their rights to own them.”

The firearms industry has been fighting back against these new limits to magazine size that have passed in the past year in states such as New York (seven rounds) and Colorado (15 rounds).

MILLER Gun grabber says magazines over 10 rounds are only for domestic terrorists and gangsters - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I just watched a video of the store owners. They had plenty of time to reload if they had to. You need to do your research.

You can defend with 10 round magazines. I've seen a video of a woman successfully defending against 3 armed crminals with .38 revolver. Criminals don't want to be shot.

Your opinions and anecdotes mean nothing.

It's just facts. Watch the video it's easy to find. Tell me at what point they couldn't have reloaded. They were mostly just shooting at unarmed people who weren't even very close to them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

You really put a lot of faith in those 3 seconds it takes to swap out magazines. You demonstrate again and again that you really don't know much about the guns you want to ban.

That is what the gunners say. I recall at least one in this very thread. Should we call him out if you think it isn't accurate? Maybe you have examples of defenders needing more than a 10 rd magazine? If you don't the time to reload really doesn't matter.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
​

Where do you get from this that our rights are only for self defense?

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

You really put a lot of faith in those 3 seconds it takes to swap out magazines. You demonstrate again and again that you really don't know much about the guns you want to ban.

That is what the gunners say. I recall at least one in this very thread. Should we call him out if you think it isn't accurate? Maybe you have examples of defenders needing more than a 10 rd magazine? If you don't the time to reload really doesn't matter.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
​

Where do you get from this that our rights are only for self defense?

Nobody is a well regulated militia. Machine guns are restricted, doesn't the military use those?

So far reasons not to save lives are extremely weak and selfish. I suppose you claim to be pro life?