To all Gun Grabbers

[buckeye45_73]

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?

Desperate red herring. Nobody is arguing against only 100 round magazines. You are trying to change the subject, because you made up something that was stupid and wrong. And you know it. Recant or shut up.

I'm jumping in......so if they aren't arguing against 100 round magazines, what are they want?

Well, a lot of people want capacities over 15 banned, for instance. But if you would like to take up the idiotic position where rigby the fantasizing goober left off, you can argue how they dont help mass shooters kill more people than low capacity magazines.

And...go!

Easy, because people who intend to kill others, do this thing, it's called planning, so they take More clips....and then reload
The problem with this, is the people who dont plan (the victims) and have guns, dont have 10 clips, probably at most one......so the few bullets mean they have less chances to kil the bad guys, while the criminals (aka planners) already have 10 clips loades and can fire away...….so again......it doesnt hurt the crazies.....but putting mentally ill people in crazy hospitals(which the left hates) or executing people who commit these crimes(which the left hates) will help reduce and prevent these crimes...…

how do I know? Because tehse events didn't happen pre 90s, when there was little to no gun control...…..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you think that 30 round magazines should be outlawed, then are you willing to take them away from police and the military?

No.

And by the way, in Congressional hearings, 100 round magazines are all they are ever talking about.

And there's another lie. You just can't help yourself.

It seems as though you have chosen to abandon the moronic claim you made earlier. Good for you.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Wrong. First of all, the government does not do anything for your home, food, job, clothing, etc.
In fact, government does nothing at all to protect you from robbery, disease, or almost anything.
We are forced to pay the government about $4 trillion a year, and do almost nothing for us.
I don't think the government is going to attack us as long as we are their slaves, paying them over $4 trillion a year in extortion. But if we ever want to stop paying that extortion, and want to get government to stop invading innocent countries like Iraq, then YES, the government is and has attacked us. In case you forgot, the federal government murdered US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco. What do you think the War on Drugs is, if not an attack on us? The War on Drugs is not to protect anyone, but an attack on us to make money from bail, court costs, fines, asset forfeiture, etc.

No we do need government, Humans are despicable things that need government. Having said that, we need a small amount of military, police and maybe currency and a market, beyond that, we don't need government......

I do not think we NEED government, since they really don't do us much good, cost way too much, and are out of control, like lying to use about WMD.
Most government bureaus, like BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., are evil, illegal, and just plain wrong.

We do WANT some government, but only for things like streets, public schools, etc.
We likely do not need any federal government at all, and the local government we need should likely be volunteers.

Defense should not be government, but just us the people.

Well the scope and size are debatable.....but we do need some, otherwise people would kill/rape/and steal.....
I like our federalism, it's just been corrupted by the left...….it's not the system, it's the people in it.

I disagree. Government does not protect you, you are your neighbors do because they can respond much faster than some distant government.
In actuality one of the motivations for more government, as we have now, is not to protect us from those who would kill, rape, or steal, but to protect those suspected of killing, raping, and stealing, from getting lynched.

I am a strong socialist, but almost nothing should be federal.
The needs of the people have to be satisfied locally because they vary so much.
The only things that should done on the federal level are things that states can't do alone, like the Internet or FCC.
There should be no BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., and those things likely are illegal.
There is no legal basis for a single federal weapons law.

 

[Rigby5]

If you think that 30 round magazines should be outlawed, then are you willing to take them away from police and the military?

No.

And by the way, in Congressional hearings, 100 round magazines are all they are ever talking about.

And there's another lie. You just can't help yourself.

It seems as though you have chosen to abandon the moronic claim you made earlier. Good for you.

Wrong. High capacity magazines are those that hold 100 rounds.
A 30 round magazine is standard for an AR, and have been the standard since the 1970s.

The fact some proposed legislation may be trying to limit capacity to 10 rounds, is not just criminalizing high capacity magazines, but standard capacity magazines for about 50 years.
Clearly the intent would be to drive up prices, as then civilians could no longer access the cheap surplus market.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong. High capacity magazines are those that hold 100 rounds.

Of course, that is utter nonsense that you just made up, and in no proposed law the definition of high capacity magazine. For instance, the law currently at issue in California defines them as "more than 10 bullets". Colorado? Existing law says >15 rounds. Connecticut? >10 rounds.

And you keep whining about "what is standard"... well no shit, the proposal is to change the standards. Thank you, Mr. Square One. Do you plan to join the discussion, or just repeatedly squawk about what the current state of affairs is? because, frankly, we don't need you for that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

The Constitution was written by smarter people than we elect now, so it would be foolish to allow the hacks we elected to change it at all.
And why would the 2nd amendment not be applicable now?
Has government gotten less likely to become corrupt and powerful?
Look at the Iraqi WMD lies and the torture at Guantanamo.
Clearly central government in the US is more corrupt than ever.

In our country, we do not solve problems and disagreement with our government by shooting them. We vote them out. At least that is the concept.
The 2nd amendment is clearly no longer applicable since we do not need and do not have a citizen militia. YOU may live in the woods and stockpile weapons against the glorious day when you get to shoot at a SWAT team, but that does make us all subversives.
We vote instead.

I bet they said the same thing in Venezuela and countless other commie countries.
It only took six years after Venezuela banned firearms for the government to put their boot on the necks of their citizens.

WTF is wrong with you!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Yes. Now go fuck yourself and die.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We need machine guns with 300 round belts.

We WILL have them. We WILL never stop until we get them.

I don't give a RAT FUCK how many idiot kids have to die. Not relevant. Worth the price. Fuck them anyway.

We are getting machine guns.

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Wrong. First of all, the government does not do anything for your home, food, job, clothing, etc.
In fact, government does nothing at all to protect you from robbery, disease, or almost anything.
We are forced to pay the government about $4 trillion a year, and do almost nothing for us.
I don't think the government is going to attack us as long as we are their slaves, paying them over $4 trillion a year in extortion. But if we ever want to stop paying that extortion, and want to get government to stop invading innocent countries like Iraq, then YES, the government is and has attacked us. In case you forgot, the federal government murdered US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco. What do you think the War on Drugs is, if not an attack on us? The War on Drugs is not to protect anyone, but an attack on us to make money from bail, court costs, fines, asset forfeiture, etc.

No we do need government, Humans are despicable things that need government. Having said that, we need a small amount of military, police and maybe currency and a market, beyond that, we don't need government......

I do not think we NEED government, since they really don't do us much good, cost way too much, and are out of control, like lying to use about WMD.
Most government bureaus, like BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., are evil, illegal, and just plain wrong.

We do WANT some government, but only for things like streets, public schools, etc.
We likely do not need any federal government at all, and the local government we need should likely be volunteers.

Defense should not be government, but just us the people.

Well the scope and size are debatable.....but we do need some, otherwise people would kill/rape/and steal.....
I like our federalism, it's just been corrupted by the left...….it's not the system, it's the people in it.

I disagree. Government does not protect you, you are your neighbors do because they can respond much faster than some distant government.
In actuality one of the motivations for more government, as we have now, is not to protect us from those who would kill, rape, or steal, but to protect those suspected of killing, raping, and stealing, from getting lynched.

I am a strong socialist, but almost nothing should be federal.
The needs of the people have to be satisfied locally because they vary so much.
The only things that should done on the federal level are things that states can't do alone, like the Internet or FCC.
There should be no BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., and those things likely are illegal.
There is no legal basis for a single federal weapons law.

We'll have to disagree on this issue.....I hate government, but see it as a necessary evil, I just dont trust people to always do the right thing.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong. High capacity magazines are those that hold 100 rounds.

Of course, that is utter nonsense that you just made up, and in no proposed law the definition of high capacity magazine. For instance, the law currently at issue in California defines them as "more than 10 bullets". Colorado? Existing law says >15 rounds. Connecticut? >10 rounds.

And you keep whining about "what is standard"... well no shit, the proposal is to change the standards. Thank you, Mr. Square One. Do you plan to join the discussion, or just repeatedly squawk about what the current state of affairs is? because, frankly, we don't need you for that.

We are talking about the English language, are we not?
There is no law and we are not talking about a law because laws are legalese and often intentionally designed to be deceptive.

In English, when something comes standard with every single item of that thing that is sold, then that is not high or low, but just standard.
All ARs are come with 30 round magazines since the 1970s.
So a 30 round magazine is not high or low capacity, but is just the normal standard capacity.
When all ARs come standard with 30 round magazines, then high capacity refers to 50 or 100 rounds, and low capacity refers to 10 or 15 rounds.

There already are laws that limit magazine capacity when hunting.
They define low capacity magazines as being no larger than 10 rounds.
So there already is standard language in place in laws, that define 10 round magazines as being exceptional, low capacity.
That does not make 30 round then high capacity.
A 30 round magazine is the normal standard capacity they all come with normally.
So anyone referring to high capacity magazines can ONLY be talking about 50 or 100 round magazines.

And the problem is that I can buy 30 round magazines for about $5.
A 10 round AR magazine will cost me around $12 because I won't be surplus.

 

[Rigby5]

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?

Desperate red herring. Nobody is arguing against only 100 round magazines. You are trying to change the subject, because you made up something that was stupid and wrong. And you know it. Recant or shut up.

I'm jumping in......so if they aren't arguing against 100 round magazines, what are they want?

Well, a lot of people want capacities over 15 banned, for instance. But if you would like to take up the idiotic position where rigby the fantasizing goober left off, you can argue how they dont help mass shooters kill more people than low capacity magazines.

And...go!

Anyone who actually has fired any weapons with different size magazines will tell you that the larger the magazine the harder it is to load, the heavier it is, the more likely it is to jam, and the longer it takes to change them.
The fastest shooting can likely be done with the smallest magazines.
That way switching magazines is the fastest possible, so you can essentially keep shooting until the gun gets hot enough to start on fire.
Large magazines mean you have to pretty much stop to switch magazines.

 

[buckeye45_73]

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?

Desperate red herring. Nobody is arguing against only 100 round magazines. You are trying to change the subject, because you made up something that was stupid and wrong. And you know it. Recant or shut up.

I'm jumping in......so if they aren't arguing against 100 round magazines, what are they want?

Well, a lot of people want capacities over 15 banned, for instance. But if you would like to take up the idiotic position where rigby the fantasizing goober left off, you can argue how they dont help mass shooters kill more people than low capacity magazines.

And...go!

Well you're using the wrong logic first.....the issue is nuanced, so no wonder people like you dont understand....I cant make you intelligent unless you're willing to learn......lefties like being stupid.....I dont know why

I explained about clips in another post.....Post 361

 

[Daryl Hunt]

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?

Desperate red herring. Nobody is arguing against only 100 round magazines. You are trying to change the subject, because you made up something that was stupid and wrong. And you know it. Recant or shut up.

I'm jumping in......so if they aren't arguing against 100 round magazines, what are they want?

Well, a lot of people want capacities over 15 banned, for instance. But if you would like to take up the idiotic position where rigby the fantasizing goober left off, you can argue how they dont help mass shooters kill more people than low capacity magazines.

And...go!

Anyone who actually has fired any weapons with different size magazines will tell you that the larger the magazine the harder it is to load, the heavier it is, the more likely it is to jam, and the longer it takes to change them.
The fastest shooting can likely be done with the smallest magazines.
That way switching magazines is the fastest possible, so you can essentially keep shooting until the gun gets hot enough to start on fire.
Large magazines mean you have to pretty much stop to switch magazines.

There is a cutoff point. A twenty round mag loads actually easier than a 10 round. A 15 round mag loads as easy as a 20. A 30 round loads as easy as a 20. But the 50 and 100 do require a bit more. But the initial firing is much higher. The problem is, the 100 round has a jam problem. It's probably going to jam, you just don't know when. Maybe it will get all the way through the hundred rounds, maybe it will jam at 50 and maybe it will jam at 40 rounds. The 50 round mag also has a higher jam rate just not as bad as the 100 round mag. The 50 and the 100 round mags don't make a very good Combat system nor a very good mass murder system. The 30 round mag does. One person stated that the limit for mags is set at 10 for hunting. It's not. Most states have no limits. But there is a federal limit in the number of rounds for a shotgun which is 5. But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair. I would go for 20 myself but I won't bitch about putting the limit to 15. I don't need nor want the 30 round mags. I don't expect to be attacked by a bunch of sex crazed ground hogs armed with AK-47s and flame throwers with rape on their tiny little minds so 15 is plenty for varmint hunting.

 

[NoVote]

One well aimed bullet can ruin the day of any spray and pray fanatic. Grunts in Nam carried maybe 10 mags of 20 rounds each. These hosers today are know nothin snowflakes with a deathwish.

 

[OldLady]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

 

[Flash]

Wrong. First of all, the government does not do anything for your home, food, job, clothing, etc.
In fact, government does nothing at all to protect you from robbery, disease, or almost anything.
We are forced to pay the government about $4 trillion a year, and do almost nothing for us.
I don't think the government is going to attack us as long as we are their slaves, paying them over $4 trillion a year in extortion. But if we ever want to stop paying that extortion, and want to get government to stop invading innocent countries like Iraq, then YES, the government is and has attacked us. In case you forgot, the federal government murdered US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco. What do you think the War on Drugs is, if not an attack on us? The War on Drugs is not to protect anyone, but an attack on us to make money from bail, court costs, fines, asset forfeiture, etc.

No we do need government, Humans are despicable things that need government. Having said that, we need a small amount of military, police and maybe currency and a market, beyond that, we don't need government......

I do not think we NEED government, since they really don't do us much good, cost way too much, and are out of control, like lying to use about WMD.
Most government bureaus, like BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., are evil, illegal, and just plain wrong.

We do WANT some government, but only for things like streets, public schools, etc.
We likely do not need any federal government at all, and the local government we need should likely be volunteers.

Defense should not be government, but just us the people.

Well the scope and size are debatable.....but we do need some, otherwise people would kill/rape/and steal.....
I like our federalism, it's just been corrupted by the left...….it's not the system, it's the people in it.

I disagree. Government does not protect you, you are your neighbors do because they can respond much faster than some distant government.
In actuality one of the motivations for more government, as we have now, is not to protect us from those who would kill, rape, or steal, but to protect those suspected of killing, raping, and stealing, from getting lynched.

I am a strong socialist, but almost nothing should be federal.
The needs of the people have to be satisfied locally because they vary so much.
The only things that should done on the federal level are things that states can't do alone, like the Internet or FCC.
There should be no BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., and those things likely are illegal.
There is no legal basis for a single federal weapons law.

We'll have to disagree on this issue.....I hate government, but see it as a necessary evil, I just dont trust people to always do the right thing.

I don't trust the government and neither did our Founding Fathers.

As a range officer and firearms instructor I am around many citizen gun owners.

They are not a threat to my security. The people that are a threat to my security are thugs that would never adhere to any law that the stupid oppressive government would enact.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

They also had full auto rifles

 

[Blues Man]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

Tell that to all those guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan.

They seem to be doing just fine against bigger better equipped military forces

 

[TNHarley]

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

The police have hi-caps. Are they in the wrong profession?

Mark

We all know that this discussion is about civilians.

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.

Get an amendment passed.
Since you guys are our intellectual superiors, you know better than us. So getting an amendment shoukd be a breeze.

 

[Blues Man]

Wrong. First of all, the government does not do anything for your home, food, job, clothing, etc.
In fact, government does nothing at all to protect you from robbery, disease, or almost anything.
We are forced to pay the government about $4 trillion a year, and do almost nothing for us.
I don't think the government is going to attack us as long as we are their slaves, paying them over $4 trillion a year in extortion. But if we ever want to stop paying that extortion, and want to get government to stop invading innocent countries like Iraq, then YES, the government is and has attacked us. In case you forgot, the federal government murdered US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco. What do you think the War on Drugs is, if not an attack on us? The War on Drugs is not to protect anyone, but an attack on us to make money from bail, court costs, fines, asset forfeiture, etc.

No we do need government, Humans are despicable things that need government. Having said that, we need a small amount of military, police and maybe currency and a market, beyond that, we don't need government......

I do not think we NEED government, since they really don't do us much good, cost way too much, and are out of control, like lying to use about WMD.
Most government bureaus, like BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., are evil, illegal, and just plain wrong.

We do WANT some government, but only for things like streets, public schools, etc.
We likely do not need any federal government at all, and the local government we need should likely be volunteers.

Defense should not be government, but just us the people.

Well the scope and size are debatable.....but we do need some, otherwise people would kill/rape/and steal.....
I like our federalism, it's just been corrupted by the left...….it's not the system, it's the people in it.

I disagree. Government does not protect you, you are your neighbors do because they can respond much faster than some distant government.
In actuality one of the motivations for more government, as we have now, is not to protect us from those who would kill, rape, or steal, but to protect those suspected of killing, raping, and stealing, from getting lynched.

I am a strong socialist, but almost nothing should be federal.
The needs of the people have to be satisfied locally because they vary so much.
The only things that should done on the federal level are things that states can't do alone, like the Internet or FCC.
There should be no BATF, DEA, TSA, HLS, etc., and those things likely are illegal.
There is no legal basis for a single federal weapons law.

We'll have to disagree on this issue.....I hate government, but see it as a necessary evil, I just dont trust people to always do the right thing.

Government is a useful tool but a terrible master

These idiots want government to be the master.