Why does California want to ban rifles with detachable magazines and bullet buttons...anyone?

[Fenton Lum]

Then there's nothing to be soiling oneself over.

Not much to worry about, no...but because these politicians in CA think gun control is a winner for them. Nothing wrong with opposing this stupidity and remaining vigilant.

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Not much to worry about, no...but because these politicians in CA think gun control is a winner for them. Nothing wrong with opposing this stupidity and remaining vigilant.

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

 

[Fenton Lum]

They elected the president who appointed the justices on the 9th circuit as well as the Senators who confirmed them.

So it was done by elitists, not the people.

You get what you vote for. I rarely blame the politicians for their destruction of America as they are merely a reflection of the imbeciles who voted them in to do it.

I agree in part, people get lied to though and vote accordingly and once power is achieved it is often abused. Saying eff you to the establishment is a big part of this election cycle on both sides.

"Saying eff you to the establishment is a big part of this election cycle on both sides."

Bullshit, the power structure's got the political system all managed. You will get the president Wall Street allows. The kind of change we need will not come from the top down via the system.

Both Bernie and Trump are not establishment picks. Bernie is wasting his time but that's a different matter.

Yeah they are, watch what either one of them really does once "in". It just feels new to you because the original oligarch's plan was another Bush or another Clinton - dynasty bullshit - and it really wouldn't have mattered which one of them got in. Same for Obama, he continued the same path Bush was on - even kept the same economic advisors team and pursued endless war for profit. The public would do well to discard all this "conservatives" versus "liberals" bullshit, the whole thing's a ruse. This is all about societal wealth exrtaction and cannibalization and it's very bipartisan. The more they can keep the masses anxious, confused, blaming those with no power to exert over anything for the mess, the more easily they can keep whistling past the graveyard. The "good" guys and the "bad" guys are all riding in different cars of the same train, this is about nothing more than bickering factions of the ruling aristocracy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

That's the only CA gun legislation passed under Reagan's tenure as gov?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

That's the only CA gun legislation passed under Reagan's tenure as gov?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

We are obviously not talking about the same gun ban.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

That's the only CA gun legislation passed under Reagan's tenure as gov?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

We are obviously not talking about the same gun ban.

"As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."

Another overlooked legacy of Reagan: Gun control

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

That's the only CA gun legislation passed under Reagan's tenure as gov?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

We are obviously not talking about the same gun ban.

"As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."

Another overlooked legacy of Reagan: Gun control

Yeah I was thinking of the Brady Bill.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

So 2 incidents a year isn't an issue for you, got it. How many would be?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....

It would be helpful if you had some data to present or study to cite?

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please see the above, your pronouncements alone are rather thin.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

We'd love to see your research, thanks in advance.

If anyone has these types of guns for alleged self defense and your argument is these weapons are very rarely used for ill intent, then the whole thing's rather silly. Furthermore, the concept that you're going to fend off the overreach of an intrusive govt with your guns is fantasy. You got distracted and sat on your arse while corporate power and concentrated wealth took over your democracy, your economic and political systems, militarized police departments to snatch you up if you ever begin to resist, and privatized your prison system so that the pwoer structure can squeeze $40-50K out of your carcass in a post industrial society.

But praise Jesus, you still got your gun. Sheesh pard.

L.A. And New York......bigger populations than Chicago.


Right?


L.a. And New York...same, if not tougher gun control laws as Chicago.

right?

New York borders Vermont and Pennsylvania........Vermont has the best gun friendly laws in the country....Pennsylvania, gun friendly compared to New York City....

L.a......near Arizona, Texas, Utah......gun friendly states...much more so than l.a.

right?


So according to that stupid theory, that gun friendly states are why Chicago has a high gun mirder rate...that is the idea..right?

Then why do l.a. And New York....bigger populations....the same or tougher gun control laws..right? And l.a. And New York criminals can drive cars into gun friendly states right next door too...right?


But somehow gun friendly states cause more gun murder in Chicago...more than in l.a. And New York....right?


That is how you see that theory?

And Houston......as gun friendly as you can get....in a gun friendly state, with gun stores all over and people who can actually carry guns easily......a slightly smaller population than Chicago.....but they are not the gun murder Capitol that Chicago is....right?

And that supports your idea how?

 

[2aguy]

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

I missed this, there are 357,449,998 million guns of this typs in circulation in the US?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And again.......the primary reason we have the Right to Bear arms is to keep the government from becoming like Mexico.....did you read up on the Autodefensas? The people who own the country, the citizens arm the police and soldiers....the police and soldiers do not dictate to us what guns we can own.....we dictate to them......

Any rifle or pistol the military or police use.....we get to have too.......as many as we want.....that is the power dynamic that keeps a country free.......

And again......how is it that 2-4 people illegally using a gun means 357,449,998 million guns have to be banned?

How does that even make sense to you?

By that number.....cars should no longer exist in this country....

Are there 357,449,998 million guns of this type in circulation in the US?

There are 3,750,000 million Ar-15s in private hands........

357,000,000 million guns of all types in private hands......and our gun murder rate went down......

4.7 million people actually carrying guns in 2007....

13,000,000 million people now carry guns for self defense in 2016....and our gun murder rate, and our violent crime rate went down...not up.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

So 2 incidents a year isn't an issue for you, got it. How many would be?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....

It would be helpful if you had some data to present or study to cite?

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please see the above, your pronouncements alone are rather thin.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

We'd love to see your research, thanks in advance.

If anyone has these types of guns for alleged self defense and your argument is these weapons are very rarely used for ill intent, then the whole thing's rather silly. Furthermore, the concept that you're going to fend off the overreach of an intrusive govt with your guns is fantasy. You got distracted and sat on your arse while corporate power and concentrated wealth took over your democracy, your economic and political systems, militarized police departments to snatch you up if you ever begin to resist, and privatized your prison system so that the pwoer structure can squeeze $40-50K out of your carcass in a post industrial society.

But praise Jesus, you still got your gun. Sheesh pard.

Wow....you better hurry up....we are about to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and they need to know that just using rifles and improvised explosive devices is never going to drive off either the Soviet army or the United States Army....you better hurry because we are pulling out............

Do you guys ever study history....or reality?

 

[2aguy]

It wasn't just Black Panthers he worried about..it was other groups that were classified as 'domestic terrorists'as well.like the Order, a white nationalist organization for example.

I'd like to learn more about his bit with them, where can I find out more?

You think the fully auto weapons ban was passed solely because Ronald Reagan didn't like the Black Panthers?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

That's the only CA gun legislation passed under Reagan's tenure as gov?

Just want to make sure that is why you are saying.

We are obviously not talking about the same gun ban.

"As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."

Another overlooked legacy of Reagan: Gun control

Yeah...and he was wrong...and if he was alive today he would have followed the evidence and changed his mind...just like he did when he stooped being a democrat...

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

So 2 incidents a year isn't an issue for you, got it. How many would be?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....

It would be helpful if you had some data to present or study to cite?

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please see the above, your pronouncements alone are rather thin.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

We'd love to see your research, thanks in advance.

If anyone has these types of guns for alleged self defense and your argument is these weapons are very rarely used for ill intent, then the whole thing's rather silly. Furthermore, the concept that you're going to fend off the overreach of an intrusive govt with your guns is fantasy. You got distracted and sat on your arse while corporate power and concentrated wealth took over your democracy, your economic and political systems, militarized police departments to snatch you up if you ever begin to resist, and privatized your prison system so that the pwoer structure can squeeze $40-50K out of your carcass in a post industrial society.

But praise Jesus, you still got your gun. Sheesh pard.

2014.....stats....

Now...from the FBI state level crime for 2014....


New York, Chicago, L.A.......same extreme gun control laws....
Table 8

Population:

New York.... 8,473,938

Los Angeles...3,906,772

Chicago..........2,724,121

Houston..........2,219,933 (gun friendly state)

Murder Number:

New York.........333

Los Angeles....262

Chicago..........411

Houston..........242 (gun friendly state)

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

So 2 incidents a year isn't an issue for you, got it. How many would be?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....

It would be helpful if you had some data to present or study to cite?

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please see the above, your pronouncements alone are rather thin.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

We'd love to see your research, thanks in advance.

If anyone has these types of guns for alleged self defense and your argument is these weapons are very rarely used for ill intent, then the whole thing's rather silly. Furthermore, the concept that you're going to fend off the overreach of an intrusive govt with your guns is fantasy. You got distracted and sat on your arse while corporate power and concentrated wealth took over your democracy, your economic and political systems, militarized police departments to snatch you up if you ever begin to resist, and privatized your prison system so that the pwoer structure can squeeze $40-50K out of your carcass in a post industrial society.

But praise Jesus, you still got your gun. Sheesh pard.

Tell me......do New York and Los Angeles cities have criminals more prone to motion sickness.....is that why their gun murder rates are lower than chicago's? They get car sick if they drive to another state to buy illegal guns?

Chicago’s staggering rise in gun violence and killings

Violence is occurring at levels unseen for years. In the first quarter of 2016, 141 people were killed, up from 82 last year, according to police department data. The number of shootings surged to 677 from 359 a year earlier. The city is on track to have more than 500 killings this year, which would make this just the third year since 2004 that Chicago topped that figure.

---------------

Other large cities that saw increases in killings last year have not seen jumps as extreme as Chicago’s this year. The Los Angeles Police Department said that as of last week, there had been 67 homicides, up from 54 last year. Philadelphia said it had 63 homicide victims through Thursday, up from 62 a year ago. In New York, police reported a decrease — 60 murders as of March 20, down from 75 a year earlier.

The gang members in Chicago are a different culture from the ones in New York and L.A.....who says so......Gary McCarthy, former police Superintendant here in Chicago...he said when he worked in New York.....if you chased a gun holding thug...they would throw the gun away as they ran....in Chicago....they hold the gun, stop and shoot at police.......

Guns from Indiana are not the issue..........

 

[chikenwing]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Here's the rub old girl, you don't get to decide what I need or don't need.the 2nd was written with you in mind

 

[OldLady]

I missed this, there are 357,449,998 million guns of this typs in circulation in the US?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And again.......the primary reason we have the Right to Bear arms is to keep the government from becoming like Mexico.....did you read up on the Autodefensas? The people who own the country, the citizens arm the police and soldiers....the police and soldiers do not dictate to us what guns we can own.....we dictate to them......

Any rifle or pistol the military or police use.....we get to have too.......as many as we want.....that is the power dynamic that keeps a country free.......

And again......how is it that 2-4 people illegally using a gun means 357,449,998 million guns have to be banned?

How does that even make sense to you?

By that number.....cars should no longer exist in this country....

Are there 357,449,998 million guns of this type in circulation in the US?

There are 3,750,000 million Ar-15s in private hands........

357,000,000 million guns of all types in private hands......and our gun murder rate went down......

4.7 million people actually carrying guns in 2007....

13,000,000 million people now carry guns for self defense in 2016....and our gun murder rate, and our violent crime rate went down...not up.

It is going up. It is on the news every day. As I've pointed out before, the decrease in crime and the increase in guns are not a cause and effect relationship. The price of bananas has gone up, as well, but it has nothing to do with a decrease in crime.

 

[OldLady]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Because those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, for one. The people who own them are not criminals....second, and because for practical reasons they are great for self defense and a lot of people enjoy competing with them....

Do you acknowledge that all of the current mass shootings could have been comitted with an 1800's lever action rifle.....with no detachable magazine......or a pump action shotgun...with no detachable magazine.....or revolvers, with no detachable magazine....

There is no reason to ban these weapons...they are not used in crimes, they are used by the super, duper majority of owners for legitimate, and Constitutionally protected reasons.

Also...at the very core of the issue......any weapon that the police and military have....all citizens need to have access to them as well.....that is what keeps mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing from ever forming in the little minds of evil politicians....

Because those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, for one. The people who own them are not criminals....second, and because for practical reasons they are great for self defense and a lot of people enjoy competing with them....
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms (at least according to some people's reading of the amendment). It does not specify which types. We can't buy grenades. Why not? Aren't they "arms?" So what makes you say every type of gun should be legal?
Some of the people who own them ARE criminals or insane, and they use them to kill and injure many innocent people.
As you pointed out, the mass shootings that have taken place could have been done with a pump action shotgun or lever action rifle, or a revolver, all with no detachable magazine. Good. Let them try shooting up an entire movie theater with one. A lot more people could have gotten away alive or uninjured if he had used those slower, less lethal weapons.
Can you just speak English and address these points in particular without your usual pivot to why guns aren't the problem?
JUST A HINT: If you want someone to listen to you, it helps not to always start with "You are wrong." Just sayin'.

 

[OldLady]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Here's the rub old girl, you don't get to decide what I need or don't need.the 2nd was written with you in mind

I don't know who you are, but I do know who doesn't need guns. And since people like 2AGuy won't allow anything to slow down the carnage, someone has to decide something. It cannot continue the way it is.

 

[Geaux4it]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Here's the rub old girl, you don't get to decide what I need or don't need.the 2nd was written with you in mind

I don't know who you are, but I do know who doesn't need guns. And since people like 2AGuy won't allow anything to slow down the carnage, someone has to decide something. It cannot continue the way it is.

Sure it can, and it will

The only gun issue out there is the endless attack on our civil rights to acquire, shoot and transfer personal property

-Geaux

 

[Rustic]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

You don't know the first thing about any firearms, your so-called "military style was assault weapon" It's just the sporting rifle... dumbass

 

[Rustic]

Every election

Nope. Nobody elected the 9th circuit court either.

They elected the president who appointed the justices on the 9th circuit as well as the Senators who confirmed them.

So it was done by elitists, not the people.

You get what you vote for. I rarely blame the politicians for their destruction of America as they are merely a reflection of the imbeciles who voted them in to do it.

Exactly. And we can't reasonably claim to be this exceptional beacon of liberty and democracy and then bitch about our govt all the time.

Make a decision, pick one.

The government and the country or not one in the same, the government is a piece of shit…