To all Gun Grabbers

[Flash]

The Libtard Moon Bats have to disarm us before they can transform the US into a socialist shithole in order to get their free stuff. They know it and we know it.

 

[Flash]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

Even a 40 round AR or AK magazine is heavy.

The most reliable magazines are the USGI 20 rounders.

 

[Hale]

The topic of this thread is a law that wants to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, so let's take a look...

Anyone with reasonable competence can fire 3 rounds per second from a semi-automatic firearm and change a magazine in 2 seconds. Here's the difference between three 10 round and one 30 round magazines:

30 rounds from one 30 round magazine: 10 seconds
30 rounds from three 10 round magazines: 14 seconds

Let's assume a mass shooter fires 90 rounds. This means it will take him 34 seconds with the large magazines and 46 seconds with the small. Wow - our shooter saved a whole 12 seconds! That should give the police plenty of time to stop him, right?

Bottom line: Anti-gun people think they know something about firearms, and they just don't. This is why we are laughing at you.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

The bank robbery in Cali in the late 90s was committed with 100 rd drum mags.

 

[Rigby5]

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

I've used them at the range. I don't go shooting people either.

So we have to make massacres easier so you don’t have to reload at the range

Wouldn’t want to inconvenience you

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.
Never has, never could.
But the ban would make a million current honest people into felons and make all cheap surplus magazines illegal. All that does is increase the price by preventing the purchase of surplus.

Minor inconvenience to gun owners

Major inconvenience to mass killers

Wrong.
If 100 round magazines were so deadly, then the military, police, mass murderers, and gangs would all be using them exclusively.
Ever wonder why they are not?

The only mass murderer that used a 100 round magazine that I know of was the Aurora, CO shooting, and his jammed on him, making it impossible for him to continue shooting.
It is not that the 100 round drum is heavy, but the ammunition to fill it weighs more than the rifle, depending on caliber.
The spring tension is tremendous and causes lots of jams.

About the only use I know of for 100 round magazines are in gangster movies. Nobody uses them in real life, because they get in the way.

 

[Rigby5]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

Seems like nobody needs them
No big deal if they are banned

Except the some have already been sold, it is illegal to change that now, and any federal weapons law is inherently illegal.
And they not only want to ban 100 round magazines, but all surplus 30 round magazines, so that only expensive ones are left for sale,

 

[Rigby5]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

The bank robbery in Cali in the late 90s was committed with 100 rd drum mags.

Apparently you are correct.

But since they both died, did not get away, and did not kill anyone but themselves, it hardly seems like much of a example.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

Lovely, a Canadian attacking the United States Constitution.

Fuck you.

That is Dragon Lady, not me.

Ah, so an American betraying her nation.

Do you think people should have to prove to government officials a need before they leave the city they live in? Why or why not? To REALLY regulate what people are doing, it's important that our rulers can know our movements. If you disagree, you promoting mass shootings from those not supervised.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind because they had just finished a war for independence and because we had no standing army.
If it wasn't all about a militia, that clause about the militia would not have been in there.

The need for a militia is no longer necessary. We have the largest military in the world. Joe Schmoe and his six shooter is no longer a necessity leading to a "right."

False.

The 2nd was written as a right of the PEOPLE, just as the 1st was - which is why they both specify "The PEOPLE."

The militia is all able bodied men - now people.Your war on civil rights has no basis in fact, only in your desire to dictate the lives of others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

Communists hate the second.

Almost as much as they hate the first. Democrats are at war to end the first as well.

 

[buckeye45_73]

We've seen you operate dozens of times. Never again.

And when have you used your gun to resist? You understand we have elections for that right cowboy?

For what? So if the government becomes tyrannical OR if someone invades your home, you're defense is voting?

If you're that paranoid, you should go live in a cave in the wilderness somewhere.

It is called being realistic, just like people in Kansas who have a tornado shelter.
It is very hard to predict when you will need it, but it is certain that you will eventually.
There has never been any society that has gone for more than about 400 years without a major upheaval, like civil war, rebellion, invasion, catastrophe, large natural disaster, etc.
If you think that periods as long as hundreds of years is not worth planning for, then you belong in the extinct species category.

And frankly, this country likely is WAY over due for a major upheaval.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, tortured at Guantanamo, lied about WMD, assassinated Qaddafi, tried to invade Syria, overthrew the elected government of Egypt, etc.
The government in the US is WAY out of control and constantly committing serious war crimes.

Got it, and you're expecting our government to attack us next. Isn't that what you thought Jade Helm was?

And you think all governments are good?

 

[NoVote]

America has become a bunch of wannabe pussies. IMO, the only ones allowed to carry guns are ex military and that should be mandatory until age 35, much like Israel, where everyone over 18 serves.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

Shooting children is against the law. Why do you advocate doing it? Will they not stay off your lawn?

No shit, it's like the only thing we can do would be to execute the killers, yet the left would rather let them off after a few years......because they behaved so well in prison.

 

[BULLDOG]

And when have you used your gun to resist? You understand we have elections for that right cowboy?

For what? So if the government becomes tyrannical OR if someone invades your home, you're defense is voting?

If you're that paranoid, you should go live in a cave in the wilderness somewhere.

It is called being realistic, just like people in Kansas who have a tornado shelter.
It is very hard to predict when you will need it, but it is certain that you will eventually.
There has never been any society that has gone for more than about 400 years without a major upheaval, like civil war, rebellion, invasion, catastrophe, large natural disaster, etc.
If you think that periods as long as hundreds of years is not worth planning for, then you belong in the extinct species category.

And frankly, this country likely is WAY over due for a major upheaval.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, tortured at Guantanamo, lied about WMD, assassinated Qaddafi, tried to invade Syria, overthrew the elected government of Egypt, etc.
The government in the US is WAY out of control and constantly committing serious war crimes.

Got it, and you're expecting our government to attack us next. Isn't that what you thought Jade Helm was?

And you think all governments are good?

Without government, we would be living in caves. I don't think our government is going to attack us. Do you?

 

[buckeye45_73]

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

2 Things
First governments do not confiscate automobiles to oppress a population...…..but they do with guns. Do you know the klan passed laws to have "gun control
for blacks" so they didn't have the ability to fight back, so they got lynched.
Second, there is an amendment specifically for arms(aka weapons), no other items are listed in the Constitution.....not horses, cars, or anything you can think of...….why? See answer 1

 

[buckeye45_73]

For what? So if the government becomes tyrannical OR if someone invades your home, you're defense is voting?

If you're that paranoid, you should go live in a cave in the wilderness somewhere.

It is called being realistic, just like people in Kansas who have a tornado shelter.
It is very hard to predict when you will need it, but it is certain that you will eventually.
There has never been any society that has gone for more than about 400 years without a major upheaval, like civil war, rebellion, invasion, catastrophe, large natural disaster, etc.
If you think that periods as long as hundreds of years is not worth planning for, then you belong in the extinct species category.

And frankly, this country likely is WAY over due for a major upheaval.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, tortured at Guantanamo, lied about WMD, assassinated Qaddafi, tried to invade Syria, overthrew the elected government of Egypt, etc.
The government in the US is WAY out of control and constantly committing serious war crimes.

Got it, and you're expecting our government to attack us next. Isn't that what you thought Jade Helm was?

And you think all governments are good?

Without government, we would be living in caves. I don't think our government is going to attack us. Do you?

See, I agree, that no government is as bad as oppressive government. Now if you could tell your commies (or Utopian Socialists) that then we're on to something. The only reason to like socialism is the promise of Utopian Socialism...….which cant and wont be achieved
Do I think the government will attack us? Not in the near future, but it's certainly possible......You need to learn history to see what people are capable of and why the Founders were so smart to put these protections in.
Do you not think humans are capable of unimaginable horrors?

 

[progressive hunter]

For what? So if the government becomes tyrannical OR if someone invades your home, you're defense is voting?

If you're that paranoid, you should go live in a cave in the wilderness somewhere.

It is called being realistic, just like people in Kansas who have a tornado shelter.
It is very hard to predict when you will need it, but it is certain that you will eventually.
There has never been any society that has gone for more than about 400 years without a major upheaval, like civil war, rebellion, invasion, catastrophe, large natural disaster, etc.
If you think that periods as long as hundreds of years is not worth planning for, then you belong in the extinct species category.

And frankly, this country likely is WAY over due for a major upheaval.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, tortured at Guantanamo, lied about WMD, assassinated Qaddafi, tried to invade Syria, overthrew the elected government of Egypt, etc.
The government in the US is WAY out of control and constantly committing serious war crimes.

Got it, and you're expecting our government to attack us next. Isn't that what you thought Jade Helm was?

And you think all governments are good?

Without government, we would be living in caves. I don't think our government is going to attack us. Do you?

UMMMM,,,we were living in houses long before any government existed,,,

just sayin

 

[buckeye45_73]

Murder is a central theme in communism throughout their rule, even after they confiscate weapons.....to the tune of 100 million in the 20th century.

But that resulted from the religions of Leninism and Stalinism, not from any specific idea found in Communism. And before you get sand in your giney: no, that is not an endorsement of Communism.

The problem is, it ALWAYS ends that way, Cult of personality dictatorships that kill people. "You can put in China, Vietnam, Loas, Cambodia, Chile, Nicarauga, Cuba, East Germany, The French Revolution, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy...…..socialism is horrendous...…..

 

[buckeye45_73]

Lenin was a marxist. There was no religion there.

Utter nonsense. Leninism was, itself, a religion. People like him, Stalin, and the Kim family push out religion, because they don't want competition.

Wow you now sound like a right winger.
So what is the left in our country doing? Pushing out religion(I could go for days on examples) and embracing socialism, sounds familiar....
but yeah it'll never happen here /sarcasm

 

[buckeye45_73]

yeah, but it still applies.....because your question is naïve....but you cant tell us how many shots we need, because you couldn't possibly know the answer.....that's why you ignored my question

I didn't ignore your question. Shoot at someone with your gun. You get six chances. If you still haven't managed to hit anyone, change the magazine. This can be done in a couple of seconds with no problem whatsoever according to the many, many gun owners here who have told me that time and time again.

6 shots? that's it? then you reload? 6 shooters are revolvers not many magazine based guns...…so now that we know you dont know much about guns....you must be one of those people that would shit your pants if you saw one in person.

So for you six shooter and your reload, did you calculate:
How many enemies?
What kind of gun is it?
What caliber is it?
Do you know how many shots it takes to kill someone with a specific caliber?
What weapons or armor they may have?
Their training and experience?
Your training and experience?
The location?
What kind of cover they have?
What kind of cover you have?
Are there others around?

I'm sure others can think of more variables.....but those are the basics....sorry I hate criminals...I'd rather they end up dead.....and not innocents.

You can adequately defend yourself without high capacity magazines and I don't care if you ask me a page full of questions. I was kinda guessing on the number of bullets in an average mag. So I just googled it and the "average" is 8 or 9!!!! If you can't hit your target by then, you need to hit the range.

This is a standard drum mag. This is adequate home defense.

Never know when a squirrel will get loose in your house

or a Tyrone that needs crack money