High capacity magazines

[Bunnykid68]

Usually a civil matter not criminal. Harm does not need to be proven unless libeled person is a public figure, then it must rise to the level of "malicious" or knowingly incorrect printed with the intent to harm. For a non-public figure, the libeled person must just prove it was printed knowingly incorrect, with no proof of maliciousness necessary. Not a lawyer, so my terminology may be off, but you get the gist. Where it becomes really murky is when the slander brings the person to public attention. Many have then argued that that person is a public figure, and therefore the speech must be malicious with intent to harm, and not just a lie. Kind of the cart before the horse. The courts have said that they must be a public figure before the liable.

Really?

 

[LEaSH]

Usually a civil matter not criminal. Harm does not need to be proven unless libeled person is a public figure, then it must rise to the level of "malicious" or knowingly incorrect printed with the intent to harm. For a non-public figure, the libeled person must just prove it was printed knowingly incorrect, with no proof of maliciousness necessary. Not a lawyer, so my terminology may be off, but you get the gist. Where it becomes really murky is when the slander brings the person to public attention. Many have then argued that that person is a public figure, and therefore the speech must be malicious with intent to harm, and not just a lie. Kind of the cart before the horse. The courts have said that they must be a public figure before the liable.

In this state, it must be proven both knowingly incorrect and purposely malicious.

 

[charley59]

There is no link, no correlation, no cause & effect between "high capacity' magazines and crime. Criminals do not fire that many rounds. Check the statistics. The hi-cap magazine and assault weapon ban 1994-2004 had no effect on crime, or criminal activity. This is why the ban was not renewed in 2004. And many of the magazines that the liberal media and 'gun grabbers' have labeled as "high capacity" are not. These magazines are simply standard capacity.
Banning "high capacity magazines" or "assault weapons" (as defined by the 'gun grabbers' and the liberal media, and NOT an accurate description) will have no positive effect on reducing gun crime. It is just one more step that the "gun grabbers" can take as they continue towards THEIR goal of disarming the law abiding citizens of this country.
The Second Amendment establishes the RIGHT of law abiding citizens to own firearms, ammunition and accessories; for personal defense, to defend this country against foreign attack, and for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical and oppressive government. The Second Amendment does not include limitations or exceptions.

 

[Avec]

In this state, it must be proven both knowingly incorrect and purposely malicious.

I just check, and this is correct. In Indiana, it must be knowingly incorrect and published with malice Thank you for the correction.

For God's sake, I wasn't even spelling it correctly. Thanks for at least not pointing that blunder out.

 

[Avec]

Only one person had a sufficient answer for you? Really?

Yes, the one I want to use, although there are a couple others that are very good, and I will try to work them in. Because you are asking, and I am really need to get some work done, this is what I have come up with.

Question: Why do you need a high capacity magazine? (blather about more than enough, not hunting, whatever

Answer: Well, there is at least one good reason why and at least why it does not matter. First for the why.
Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm Basically, if the police recognize the need for additional ammunition, caliber etc, why doesn't the average citizen. Aren't the law enforcement officers of this country adequate barometers of what is "enough" In most home defense cases, the intruder is first met by the home owner who should be armed similarly to the officers dispatched to the seen. The home owner is, after all, facing even higher odds, should they not be armed at least as well.

As for why it should not matter - If I legally own 1, 2, 5 whatever high capacity magazines, that I keep like cars in my garage, what difference does it make? My magazines are not the problem, why take them? If I buy more, it is not the problem, why limit me from buying? I own my guns legally, they are legally registered, and legally used. Why should the Varsity team be punished because a nut-ball in gym class got out of line.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes, the one I want to use, although there are a couple others that are very good, and I will try to work them in. Because you are asking, and I am really need to get some work done, this is what I have come up with.

Question: Why do you need a high capacity magazine? (blather about more than enough, not hunting, whatever

Answer: Well, there is at least one good reason why and at least why it does not matter. First for the why.
Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm Basically, if the police recognize the need for additional ammunition, caliber etc, why doesn't the average citizen. Aren't the law enforcement officers of this country adequate barometers of what is "enough" In most home defense cases, the intruder is first met by the home owner who should be armed similarly to the officers dispatched to the seen. The home owner is, after all, facing even higher odds, should they not be armed at least as well.

As for why it should not matter - If I legally own 1, 2, 5 whatever high capacity magazines, that I keep like cars in my garage, what difference does it make? My magazines are not the problem, why take them? If I buy more, it is not the problem, why limit me from buying? I own my guns legally, they are legally registered, and legally used. Why should the Varsity team be punished because a nut-ball in gym class got out of line.

Where did you register your guns? Tiffany's?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, the one I want to use, although there are a couple others that are very good, and I will try to work them in. Because you are asking, and I am really need to get some work done, this is what I have come up with.

Question: Why do you need a high capacity magazine? (blather about more than enough, not hunting, whatever

Answer: Well, there is at least one good reason why and at least why it does not matter. First for the why.
Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm Basically, if the police recognize the need for additional ammunition, caliber etc, why doesn't the average citizen. Aren't the law enforcement officers of this country adequate barometers of what is "enough" In most home defense cases, the intruder is first met by the home owner who should be armed similarly to the officers dispatched to the seen. The home owner is, after all, facing even higher odds, should they not be armed at least as well.

As for why it should not matter - If I legally own 1, 2, 5 whatever high capacity magazines, that I keep like cars in my garage, what difference does it make? My magazines are not the problem, why take them? If I buy more, it is not the problem, why limit me from buying? I own my guns legally, they are legally registered, and legally used. Why should the Varsity team be punished because a nut-ball in gym class got out of line.

I suppose that is as good an argument as any if you are accepting as a precondition meeting a leftist pinko within his own mindset, irrelevance of the argument so far as the Constitution or practical consequences are concerned notwithstanding. I just don't see the value of trying to persuade the ignorant with an incorrect argument that makes sense to the ignorant mind. It does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental problem which is the prevalent lack of any respect for the rule of law, which is founded on rigid principle, not malleable whim.

 

[kawtech87]

Where did you register your guns? Tiffany's?

Its funny because IN has no firearms registry!!!

OOhhhh..

 

[Bunnykid68]

Its funny because IN has no firearms registry!!!

I would Family Guy rep ya if I could

 

[worddoer]

As I previously said, many responses and only on me. I need a high capacity thread responder! Looked back at the two posts you listed. #38 was mostly statements, and I saw #48 as rhetorical. My bad if I misunderstood.

However, I am quite knowledgeable on the founders and history in general. I think that many have taken bits and pieces out of context to buttress their point. While I am not accusing anyone on this forum of anything, I ask the rhetorical question: Are those using "God given right" to keep their weapons universally pious or selectively religious?

Interesting approach. When I prove that your previous statements are incorrect, you refuse to admit to your errors. And apparently you are unable to refute my statements.

I also find it interesting that you started this thread with the claim of ignorance and the need of assistance to make an argument. However, you now claim to be a studied person regarding the founding principals of this country.

Then lastly, you accuse those who believe that every human has certain rights regardless of nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual preference or financial stature...you call them hypocritical religious bigots?!? Either that...or you do not understand the definition of "pious". I looked it up to make sure I was not misinterpreting your post.

It is clear to me that you do not want answers. Not truly. You are only posting to stir up the pot. Apparently you are a megalomaniac and you like to stir up those who you consider to be of inferior intellect. Please seek treatment. It is this very same condition that could turn you into the next mass killer.

 

[kawtech87]

I would Family Guy rep ya if I could

Its all Good, Implied rep accepted.

 

[Avec]

. Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND

I suggest you read the rest of Massad Ayoob's blogs for more persuasive arguments for present to people who ask the question "why do you need it?"

Thanks to Slapstick for not shooting "idiot", but actually providing a resource. Others obviously chose to converse, some more tersely than others, but I expected that. I did not walk into this thread naively. It basically became the S**t Storm I expected. I will continue to respond, but thank you all for the discussion. Now, I can look more seriously at a 9mm carbine without fear of being asked "why a large capacity magazine"

I really did ask the initial question honestly. Read into it what you will.

I will put off another question. These take up too much of my day.

 

[Sylvain]

I will put off another question. These take up too much of my day.

I cant wait to hear the next one!

 

[Avec]

I would Family Guy rep ya if I could

Now I get it. That was funny. Mine was more of a general statement, but that was good

 

[kawtech87]

Thanks to Slapstick for not shooting "idiot", but actually providing a resource. Others obviously chose to converse, some more tersely than others, but I expected that. I did not walk into this thread naively. It basically became the S**t Storm I expected. I will continue to respond, but thank you all for the discussion. Now, I can look more seriously at a 9mm carbine without fear of being asked "why a large capacity magazine"

I really did ask the initial question honestly. Read into it what you will.

I will put off another question. These take up too much of my day.

And I answered your question with the first responding post. If you need more of a reason than the worded body of the 2A then you are obviously arguing with a fence post.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And I answered your question with the first responding post. If you need more of a reason than the worded body of the 2A then you are obviously arguing with a fence post.

Those fence post are pretty feisty these day though

 

[Avec]

Interesting approach. When I prove that your previous statements are incorrect, you refuse to admit to your errors. And apparently you are unable to refute my statements.

No offense or dodging intended. This thread went ballistic quite fast, and I was responding as fast as I could.

I also find it interesting that you started this thread with the claim of ignorance and the need of assistance to make an argument. However, you now claim to be a studied person regarding the founding principals of this country.

We both know, or should know that there is strong argument, effective or not, on both sides of the purely 2nd amendment argument. I said early in the thread I was looking for something more.

Then lastly, you accuse those who believe that every human has certain rights regardless of nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual preference or financial stature...you call them hypocritical religious bigots?!? Either that...or you do not understand the definition of "pious". I looked it up to make sure I was not misinterpreting your post.

You are making a bit more sweeping generalities than I did. I was referencing specific declarations that gun ownership what a right given by God. My rhetorical question was basically, do these same people believe in God's grace in other areas of their lives?

It is clear to me that you do not want answers. Not truly. You are only posting to stir up the pot. Apparently you are a megalomaniac and you like to stir up those who you consider to be of inferior intellect. Please seek treatment. It is this very same condition that could turn you into the next mass killer.

You would be incorrect. Whether you wish to believe what I have posted is entirely on you. I have been quite clear about everything. Did I knowingly ask a difficult, incendiary question? Sure I did. I knew it would probably go bad for me. I'm a big boy, I can handle my own business, and I have for 22 some odd pages of this thread. You can like what I have to say, you can agree or disagree with what I have to say, but don't accuse me of something based on your own beliefs about my intentions. If you have a question about my intentions - Ask. I will be happy to answer. Assuming because I ask questions you don't like I am destined to be a mass killer is quite paranoid on your part, don't you think.

Sorry I made you read this thread, and even more sorry I made you think. I guess you are not all that used to that.

 

[Avec]

And I answered your question with the first responding post. If you need more of a reason than the worded body of the 2A then you are obviously arguing with a fence post.

But I think I rebutted strictly that - a couple of times. You might not have liked the answer, and there are many that will not. I was looking for - and found a more "applicable" answer that can be used in a context. Also, I said in my OP that I was looking for more than quoting the 2nd amendment.

I cant wait to hear the next one!

Going to take me a while to rest up!

 

[kawtech87]

Those fence post are pretty feisty these day though

Seeing as how it took far more than the 2A to give this fence post an "acceptable" answer I see your point.

 

[Sylvain]

Sorry I made you read this thread, and even more sorry I made you think. I guess you are not all that used to that.

Yeah my head hurts.Not sure if it's from the thinking or the face palming though.