CDZ What is a "high capacity" gun magazine...how many bullets?

[Humorme]

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "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." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

No it isn't. There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You are ambiguous.

 

[Humorme]

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

Not very well regulated

With 30,000 gun deaths a year.....seems we need better regulation

Let's put that into perspective:

There are 310 million firearms in the United States. There are 30,000 deaths arising from those firearms.

How Many Guns In The United States?

Most of those deaths would be preventable without gun control. But, bottom line here:

You have a less than 1 percent chance of dying from a bullet in the United States.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[rightwinger]

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

Not very well regulated

With 30,000 gun deaths a year.....seems we need better regulation

Let's put that into perspective:

There are 310 million firearms in the United States. There are 30,000 deaths arising from those firearms.

How Many Guns In The United States?

Most of those deaths would be preventable without gun control. But, bottom line here:

You have a less than 1 percent chance of dying from a bullet in the United States.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Well than lets REALLY put things in perspective

Those guns only take a split second in killing someone. Only a small portion of the time are they used for killing

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

Just your projection.

 

[danielpalos]

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "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." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

No it isn't. There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You are ambiguous.

Just lousy reading comprehension.

 

[Humorme]

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

Not very well regulated

With 30,000 gun deaths a year.....seems we need better regulation

Let's put that into perspective:

There are 310 million firearms in the United States. There are 30,000 deaths arising from those firearms.

How Many Guns In The United States?

Most of those deaths would be preventable without gun control. But, bottom line here:

You have a less than 1 percent chance of dying from a bullet in the United States.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Well than lets REALLY put things in perspective

Those guns only take a split second in killing someone. Only a small portion of the time are they used for killing

So, you want to save lives?

How do you feel about outlawing cigarettes? 450,000 lives lost each year on cigarettes. You chances of dying from second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm.

DUI. More people are killed by drunk drivers than firearms. How do you feel about banning booze?

300,000 Americans die each year from diseases related to obesity. Main culprit? Fast food. What do you say we outlaw MickeyDs?

 

[Humorme]

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

Just your projection.

How is your irrelevancy my projection? You can't appeal to ignorance.

Well, when you are making those inane posts, at least we know what response you're expecting.

 

[Humorme]

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

Not very well regulated

With 30,000 gun deaths a year.....seems we need better regulation

Let's put that into perspective:

There are 310 million firearms in the United States. There are 30,000 deaths arising from those firearms.

How Many Guns In The United States?

Most of those deaths would be preventable without gun control. But, bottom line here:

You have a less than 1 percent chance of dying from a bullet in the United States.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Well than lets REALLY put things in perspective

Those guns only take a split second in killing someone. Only a small portion of the time are they used for killing

How many times do you think firearms are used in self protection? How many times do you think that knowledge about the presence of a firearm deters would be attackers?

 

[danielpalos]

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

Just your projection.

How is your irrelevancy my projection? You can't appeal to ignorance.

Well, when you are making those inane posts, at least we know what response you're expecting.

Nothing but red herrings, and other forms of diversion.

 

[Humorme]

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

Just your projection.

How is your irrelevancy my projection? You can't appeal to ignorance.

Well, when you are making those inane posts, at least we know what response you're expecting.

Nothing but red herrings, and other forms of diversion.

Do you realize that for every post I put on this thread you find FIVE opportunities to quote me? What is up with that?

All you provide are deflections, dodges, fallacies and bullshit that isn't capable of fooling a third grader. Really??? Do each of my posts deserve FIVE responses from you?

Got OCD?

 

[danielpalos]

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

Just your projection.

How is your irrelevancy my projection? You can't appeal to ignorance.

Well, when you are making those inane posts, at least we know what response you're expecting.

Nothing but red herrings, and other forms of diversion.

Do you realize that for every post I put on this thread you find FIVE opportunities to quote me? What is up with that?

All you provide are deflections, dodges, fallacies and bullshit that isn't capable of fooling a third grader. Really??? Do each of my posts deserve FIVE responses from you?

Got OCD?

We merely need more well regulated militia.

 

[2aguy]

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

There is ample data on how much water firemen use to fight fires. Fire departments don't buy truck to carry a million gallons because they know they would never need that much

Same way we know private citizens do not need more than 15 rounds in a magazine

Nope......it took 40 rounds to put down the democrat, Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to murder the Republican baseball team....let me see....how many more bullets than 15 is 40?

And of course, you bait and switch...you guys aren't calling for allowing standard magazines...you want 10 round magazines...which would eliminate millions of privately owned, lawfully owned guns that take 15-19 bullets as standard capacity........

I'm cool with 15

Still no real justification why more would be needed

Well....the Right to self defense is all the justification an American needs....no one knows how many bullets it will take to stop one or more attackers....and limiting a law abiding citizen just because you don't like 16 bullets in a gun is not Constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

No.....Scalia specifically stated felons and the dangerously mentally ill....and specifically stated

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



-------

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

[2aguy]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

No......standard magazines that were created for use with the pistol were used.....the only magazines that were not standard was the 100 round drum magazine used by the Theater Shooter......

Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

And no....actual research shows that magazine bans have no bearing on how many are murdered in mass public shootings...you don't know what you are talking about....

SSRN Electronic Library

Abstract

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

 

[2aguy]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety.

Wrong....we do not show the government why we need a Right....the Government has to show why that Right needs to be reduced....and they need a really good reason.....not just because some people don't like it...

 

[2aguy]

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "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." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

If our Founding fathers knew that atheist governments around the world would murder 100 million innocent men, women and children, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have been a free choice...they would have mandated that all Americans have several Rifles of the most advanced military design easily accessible at all times.....

If they knew that a rental truck would kill more people each year, except one, than all the mass public shootings in a year combined...they would have eliminated rental trucks....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

We are a government of the people , by the people and for the people

Right now, out government is doing a poor job of protecting the people with 30,000 gun fatalities a year

And of course, you have to lie to push your point...using the gun fatalities to make it seem as if those are all criminal acts when they are in majority suicides.....

Gun suicide..

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2015
Gun suicide...

22,018

Non Gun suicide...

22,078
========================

Gun Accidental death.....
2015

489

==================

Gun murder ( 70-80% of the victims of gun murder are actual criminals, not law abiding people)

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


2015--

9,616

=======================

Suicide
...even though Japan, Korea, China, all have absolute gun control for law abiding citizens...only criminals and cops can have guns.......and they have higher suicide rates than we do....and our non-gun suicide rate has been higher than our gun suicide rate for 2 years in a row.....

Gun Accidental Death...

Gun accidents....in a country with over 320,000,000 people...... with 400,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 15,700,000 people carrying guns for self defense..... 489 accidental gun deaths....

Gun murder
Of the 9,616 gun murders in this country, 70-80% of the victims are criminals, engaged in criminal activity or part of the criminal life style....and of the remaining victims....many of them are friends and family of the criminal...caught up in the criminal's lifestyle.....

 

[Humorme]

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "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." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

No it isn't. There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You are ambiguous.

Just lousy reading comprehension.

I'm sorry you don't comprehend what you're reading. Maybe someone would tutor you if you sign up for night classes.

 

[Humorme]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

No......standard magazines that were created for use with the pistol were used.....the only magazines that were not standard was the 100 round drum magazine used by the Theater Shooter......

Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

And no....actual research shows that magazine bans have no bearing on how many are murdered in mass public shootings...you don't know what you are talking about....

SSRN Electronic Library

Abstract

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

Today even 100 round magazines are in common use, both for recreational shooters and militia.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Your ignorance is showing!

Arms means anything that can be carried. I guess you think you can carry an Apache?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

----------------------- yeah , no nukes allowed either Toranado [chuckle] !! But Americans do have the Right to all the Issued Small Arms of the American combat soldier Toronado .

OK. so we have spouted our rhetoric and come up with some common ground. We both believe in gun control. Probably to different degrees but we both believe in it.

The topic at hand, do you think there should be restrictions on what size magazine, clip or whatever I can have on my gun? (I assume we are talking simi-auto's here and if I am correct in respect of the OP we should restrict ourselves to that)

WTF is a simi-auto? I assume that would be a simulated automatic. No?