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

[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.

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.

Gun violence is a non-issue in this country, much bigger fish to fry. Dumbass

Sez you. And only you.

Says common sense...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[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'.

I wondered why the dozen or so hometown locals here who went to fight the Brits in 1775 had one musket and 2 fowling pieces between them. And hardly any bullets. Had to melt down the pewter. They went with their axes, oak staves and pitch forks. But they won.

 

[rdean]

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....

Because you don't need to be armed like this:

to kill this:

 

[Rustic]

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.

You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about firearms from what you just said... Lol
Only a fucking moron would think that more laws is a solution… Dumbass

What's so dumb about limiting the number of bullets per minute a gun can fire? Makes perfect sense.

They are already limited to how fast a person can pull a trigger on the sporting rifle, it's called a semi-auto.
Very, very few people are killed every year by such rifles in this country. Its a non-issue.

Tell that to the folks in Aurora. Newtown. San Bernardino. Oh, wait, you can't. They're dead.

More people die from falling out of bed than mass shootings...

 

[OldLady]

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

The gun issue is 16,000 or so deaths a year (not suicides) caused by guns in the U.S. If that many people were dying of a disease, the CDC would be all over it. Why not guns?

Most the gun deaths in this country, homicide wise are gang related... Dumbass
Those People don't obey laws... You're Stupidly naïve. Lol

They are still people. Dying. And sometimes hitting innocent bystanders with their bullets.
In Chicago this week, 140 people were related in a gang/drug bust. Only 23 illegal firearms were confiscated. Only 23 of those people had guns? Or were only 23 illegal?

How Will more frivolous laws help this?
Shit happens, criminal control not gun control...

Banning semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines is not frivolous.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about firearms from what you just said... Lol
Only a fucking moron would think that more laws is a solution… Dumbass

What's so dumb about limiting the number of bullets per minute a gun can fire? Makes perfect sense.

They are already limited to how fast a person can pull a trigger on the sporting rifle, it's called a semi-auto.
Very, very few people are killed every year by such rifles in this country. Its a non-issue.

Tell that to the folks in Aurora. Newtown. San Bernardino. Oh, wait, you can't. They're dead.

That's still a small percent and pistols could be used as well. But abusing a right doesn't mean we lose ours.

 

[Iceweasel]

Banning semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines is not frivolous.

I'd rather ban people like you. Move to Cuba.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Huh? When did they have a say?

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.

Correct.

The people alone are responsible for the bad government they get.

 

[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....

Because you don't need to be armed like this:

to kill this:

You do know that in many areas of the country a .223/5.56 is considered right on the edge/too small of an cartridge for deer hunting?
By the way that picture is of a stag dear introduced to this country, not native… LOL

 

[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.

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'.

I wondered why the dozen or so hometown locals here who went to fight the Brits in 1775 had one musket and 2 fowling pieces between them. And hardly any bullets. Had to melt down the pewter. They went with their axes, oak staves and pitch forks. But they won.

Deflection noted

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

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'.

I wondered why the dozen or so hometown locals here who went to fight the Brits in 1775 had one musket and 2 fowling pieces between them. And hardly any bullets. Had to melt down the pewter. They went with their axes, oak staves and pitch forks. But they won.

Hey moron, they didn't just use muskets and fowling guns.

There were already machine guns made by the Revitionary War...and yes, they were used by our soldiers.

Assault weapons – a machine gun from 1718

 

[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.

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

The gun issue is 16,000 or so deaths a year (not suicides) caused by guns in the U.S. If that many people were dying of a disease, the CDC would be all over it. Why not guns?

Where did you get that number....? Link......

Here are the actual numbers ...with actual links....

Murder by firearm….

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports - 2000

gun murder rate 1997 -2000


1997..... 10,729
1998..... 9,257
1999..... 8,480
2000..... 8,493
2001..... 8,719
2002... 9,369
2003.... 9,638
2004..... 9,385
2005.... 10,158
2006.... 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505

So, of course, you are wrong....as more Americans have bought guns and now actually carry them for self defense our gun murder rate went down.....making your point silly.

 

[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.

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

Actually, I looked up these "sporting rifles" and how many bullets they can fire in a minute without reloading. If you and your friends need that kind of firepower to get your deer, you're the dumbasses.

Don't need that for deer...need it for humans who may attack us.....that was the whole point to the 2nd Amendment....

So.....did you read up on the Autodefensas in Mexico yet? You know....to learn about real world gun needs?

 

[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....

Because you don't need to be armed like this:

to kill this:

But you may very well need an AR-15......




to kill these.........

Especially if you live on the border, in an isolated ranch or home and they are cutting through your property, and decide to commit rape or murder on the way through......

 

[OldLady]

Banning semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines is not frivolous.

I'd rather ban people like you. Move to Cuba.

Now, now. Where's all that freedom loving horseshit you folks like to expound on when gun rights are discussed? Is the 2nd Amendment the ONLY one you worship?

 

[OldLady]

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'.

I wondered why the dozen or so hometown locals here who went to fight the Brits in 1775 had one musket and 2 fowling pieces between them. And hardly any bullets. Had to melt down the pewter. They went with their axes, oak staves and pitch forks. But they won.

Hey moron, they didn't just use muskets and fowling guns.

There were already machine guns made by the Revitionary War...and yes, they were used by our soldiers.

Assault weapons – a machine gun from 1718

Hey, moron--I'm talking about our little frontier village. "They" used exactly what I said. Get a grip.

 

[Rustic]

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

The gun issue is 16,000 or so deaths a year (not suicides) caused by guns in the U.S. If that many people were dying of a disease, the CDC would be all over it. Why not guns?

Most the gun deaths in this country, homicide wise are gang related... Dumbass
Those People don't obey laws... You're Stupidly naïve. Lol

They are still people. Dying. And sometimes hitting innocent bystanders with their bullets.
In Chicago this week, 140 people were related in a gang/drug bust. Only 23 illegal firearms were confiscated. Only 23 of those people had guns? Or were only 23 illegal?

How Will more frivolous laws help this?
Shit happens, criminal control not gun control...

Banning semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines is not frivolous.

Not only is it frivolous it's bat shit crazy, I love having a detachable magazines on my rifles for hunting - it makes more sense.
Anyway, progressives don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about firearms…

 

[2aguy]

And when these people come calling to your place of business.....after the mayor tells the police to "stand down"

....nothing says.....

"You can't burn and loot my livelihood...." like an AR-15.......just ask the store owners in Ferguson, or L.A. who didn't have their businesses burned out because they had men with AR-15s standing guard.....no shots fired, no one shot, and no flames or theft......

 

[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.

Correct.

The people alone are responsible for the bad government they get.

Ya, a progressive shit government...

 

[2aguy]

And guess what....these Korean stores were not looted......during any of the riots in L.A..........but the lives ruined when a business is destroyed means nothing to you guys.....they can just get on welfare like everyone else...right?