Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

[harmonica]

also - it's a bill of rights. not a bill of needs.

no one NEEDS a ferrari. no one NEEDS soft drinks. no one NEEDS to post on here...

o--yes--we NEED cars/vehicles--without them, you will have a lot of dead people/etc
..and it is VERY ridiculous to think we do not need vehicles/cars/etc

i didn't say cars/vehicles, i said ferraris.

keep the fuck up.

Proper noun[edit]
Ferrari

1. Ferrari S.p.A., an Italian sports car manufacturer
2. a car manufactured by Ferrari

 

[harmonica]

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post
please--stop the very ridiculous crap --you KNOW they didn't-COULDN'T mean it

please - stop the very ridiculous crap --you KNOW you have NO IDEA what they meant, you just can't see them meaning anything other than how YOU feel.

sorry, that isn't going to change our bill of rights.

hahahahha-undeniably they did not mean ARs
I KNOW they did not mean ARs

i know you're an idiot.

the rest if debatable.

how could they mean ARs when they weren't invented for over a hundred years??

 

[iceberg]

also - it's a bill of rights. not a bill of needs.

no one NEEDS a ferrari. no one NEEDS soft drinks. no one NEEDS to post on here...

o--yes--we NEED cars/vehicles--without them, you will have a lot of dead people/etc
..and it is VERY ridiculous to think we do not need vehicles/cars/etc

i didn't say cars/vehicles, i said ferraris.

keep the fuck up.

Proper noun[edit]
Ferrari

1. Ferrari S.p.A., an Italian sports car manufacturer
2. a car manufactured by Ferrari

and?

nevermind. continue on being a dumbass without me.

 

[miketx]

also - it's a bill of rights. not a bill of needs.

no one NEEDS a ferrari. no one NEEDS soft drinks. no one NEEDS to post on here...

there's the idiotic crap again = equating cars/ [ now soft drinks!!! '] to firearms
free speech is limited
....the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote--so you believe they are perfect?

Come get them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . 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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because a firearm is better at projecting deadly force.
Duh.

hahahahah--you ''gun'' nuts are contradicting yourselves big time

When did I contradict myself?
How is my answer wrong?

hahhahahah--read it again and reply
I said you gun nutS

So, you cannot demonstrate how I contradicted myself, or tell me how my answer is wrong.
Got it.
Thanks.

so---one last time--are knives less deadly than firearms?

Just so we're clear:
- You know you cannot demonstrate how I contradicted myself,
- You know you cannot tell me how my answer is wrong.

It depends entirely on the situation - in some cases, a knife can do more damage - and thus, is more deadly - than a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

are you kidding???!!!

So I take it, that was just your opinion.

I don't think many civilians could buy cannons/etc
there were no 30 round hand held weapons invented/etc
duh

Ok if you want to get picky, muskets were the state of the art weapons at the time. The colonist used their own muskets which were indeed military grade weapons. How was that not covered by the 2A

....muskets--sure---but they COULD NOT have meant 30 round weapons--IMPOSSIBLE for them to mean that

And yet, Gen Washington would not only immediately recognize an AR15 for what is is, but would be elated for his militiamen to bring their AR15s with them to muster.

Your "technology at the time" argument is old, worn, tired, and thoroughly debunked - please, bring something relevant to the table.

 

[M14 Shooter]

View attachment 279075
^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

Patented 1718. Does this look like a musket to you?
View attachment 279086

Not to me, and I can only guess that such a weapon would have been locked in the armory and only the Cap't of the Militia would have had the key.

As usual, you have no rational basis for your "guess"

 

[toobfreak]

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

Funny how they let cops have high cap mags. If I don't need them, then neither do they.

More patrol cops SHOULD have proper arms. And it's easy to specify the protocols for when they come out of the trunk... It's obvious you cannot wait the 15 minutes for SWAT to get their boots on..

These idiots proposing "assault weapon" bans are actually writing law that would REMOVE them from private security firms as well... So good luck to all the CEOs and retired Congress critters and celebrities who are gonna have Barney Fife guarding them...

LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT ONE THING HERE:

1. The term "assault weapon" ban is a total misnomer fabricated by the Democrats. THERE ARE NO assault weapons on the streets. You need a federal stamp in order to even get one.
2. Actual assault weapons were effectively taken from the private market back in the 1920s.
   
3. What they call "assault weapons" now are nothing more than rifles with a military styling to their looks and in some cases, a versatile set of accessories for customization for user preference.
4. AR-15s and the like are used in only about 1% of all gun killings.
5. The "assault weapon" of the Democrats is really nothing more than any other repeating single fire rifle on the market (squeeze trigger and it only fires once) that uses a magazine or a clip. By their standard, virtually every handgun and rifle available today must then be considered an "assault" weapon leaving only revolvers, bolt-action rifles and single shot shotguns. Maybe even revolvers might be considered "assault" weapons now as they fire much the same way.

Because of this, the effort to go after "assault weapons" is at best, misguided and will have no effect on street violence, and at worst is a back door attempt to open the door to far wider and deeper firearm confiscation, effectively disarming private citizens and nullifying the 2nd Amendment!

 

[flacaltenn]

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

It’s clearly ignorant and factually wrong – it was not the Framers’ intent that the Second Amendment allow every citizen to keep and carry any firearm whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Of course they're limited. Automatic weapons (for the clueless leftist that you are -- that would be machine guns and ACTUAL military "assault rifles" ) are HIGHLY restricted.. De facto banned...

But privateer state of the art "battleships" were ENCOURAGED by the founders.

And you could not come up with CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence that the Founders INTENT was only for citizens actively eligible or drilling with a militia.. I challenge you to contradict the MASSIVE collection of clarifications given by the folks who included that unassailable right as the 2nd Amendment...

And as I said, this is a "feel good" virtue signaling play that has no REAL effect on the guns that exist on the market today in terms of lethality or firepower...

"Assault" weapon bans are based on looks and styling.. You can fool Di Fi, but you can't fool America...

 

[flacaltenn]

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

It’s clearly ignorant and factually wrong – it was not the Framers’ intent that the Second Amendment allow every citizen to keep and carry any firearm whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Of course they're limited. Automatic weapons (for the clueless leftist that you are -- that would be machine guns and ACTUAL military "assault rifles" ) are HIGHLY restricted.. De facto banned...

But privateer state of the art "battleships" were ENCOURAGED by the founders.

And you could not come up with CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence that the Founders INTENT was only for citizens actively eligible or drilling with a militia.. I challenge you to contradict the MASSIVE collection of clarifications given by the folks who included that unassailable right as the 2nd Amendment...

And as I said, this is a "feel good" virtue signaling play that has no REAL effect on the guns that exist on the market today in terms of lethality or firepower...

"Assault" weapon bans are based on looks and styling.. You can fool Di Fi, but you can't fool America...

Of course they're limited. Automatic weapons (for the clueless leftist that you are -- that would be machine guns and ACTUAL military "assault rifles" ) are HIGHLY restricted.. De facto banned...

BTW C_Clayton_Jones, Mr Lawyer Counsel with no common sense ---

Logic says that if the intent was for "militia" only -- why would you BAN or de facto ban ACTUAL Military weapons of war??????? Should be an UZI or the Swiss equivalent being hung by the door at every household HERE -- as there is in Switzerland and Israel...

 

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . 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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

 

[hunarcy]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife--your buddies say it's just as deadly???
most of the time, your firearm won't matter

To be honest, I carry edged weapons more often than firearms.

 

[flacaltenn]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife--your buddies say it's just as deadly???
most of the time, your firearm won't matter

To be honest, I carry edged weapons more often than firearms.

I have an "emotional support" cobra.. Seems to work fine in most cases...

 

[bripat9643]

133, and I don't buy it, unless you were shot or clubbed in the head on duty... Or are Christopher Dorner's ghost.

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

I guess it's OK then to lock up gays since we can't be bound by words or an 18th Century author.

 

[Blues Man]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And the Constitution was amended to remedy those wrongs.

If there was any chance of repealing the second it would have been tried by now

 

[Blues Man]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Then they obviously didn't mean airplanes and jets when speaking of the armed forces

 

[Blues Man]

also - it's a bill of rights. not a bill of needs.

no one NEEDS a ferrari. no one NEEDS soft drinks. no one NEEDS to post on here...

o--yes--we NEED cars/vehicles--without them, you will have a lot of dead people/etc
..and it is VERY ridiculous to think we do not need vehicles/cars/etc

You do not "need" a car that can travel faster than the posted speed limit

 

[Blues Man]

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post
please--stop the very ridiculous crap --you KNOW they didn't-COULDN'T mean it

please - stop the very ridiculous crap --you KNOW you have NO IDEA what they meant, you just can't see them meaning anything other than how YOU feel.

sorry, that isn't going to change our bill of rights.

hahahahha-undeniably they did not mean ARs
I KNOW they did not mean ARs

i know you're an idiot.

the rest if debatable.

how could they mean ARs when they weren't invented for over a hundred years??

How could they mean jets and airplanes when speaking of the armed forces?

 

[satrebil]

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . 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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.