High capacity magazines

[chezuki]

Only 10 more posts before we can refuse to sell you anything in the classifieds.

 

[KW730]

Has no one yet stated that 30 rounds in an AR is STANDARD capacity?

It's not me splitting hairs here. This is an important component to this conversation.

While true, this is a horrible argument. They can very easily start making ten rounds standard. The fact is, anything more than ten rounds is considered "high capacity," regardless if it is standard.

 

[Sylvain]

Only 10 more posts before we can refuse to sell you anything in the classifieds.

I sure will not sell him "high cap mags" as he has no need for them.I do so I will keep them or sell them to someone who needs them.

 

[kawtech87]

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.

Not.... Enough.....Facepalm... for this...

The 2A is the only reason any of us need to own anything firearms related.

Ya damn fence post.

 

[LarryC]

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but am looking at this from a different point of view. I have always found that if you can understand all points of an argument, you can usually come out much farther ahead than someone that refuses to look at all angles.

Read the 2nd Amendment, it spells it out quite clearly. The right to bear arms was not put there to give people the right to bear arms for hunting. Nor was it intended to give the right for target shooting. NOR personal defense. It was written to give the right to bear arms against an oppressive government. We are not in that situation now, but history has shown again and again and again, that the first thing a ruling party that intends to make subjects instead of citizens of the population is DISARM them. Those that do not heed history are doomed to repeat it. ANY restriction on those rights are whittling away at ALL rights. If the hunters among us say "I don't care about semi-auto rifles, ban them" and the target shooter say "I don't care about shotguns, ban them" and then the self defense group says "I don't care about long rifles, ban them". The hunter then can say "We need our rifles to hunt, ban the handguns". What is left when PETA or ASPCA screams "BAN all Guns and Hunting". We are left as SUBJECTS not free CITIZENS. It is imperative that as a group we fight alongside the NRA and the other anti-gun control groups to keep ALL our RIGHTS.

 

[kawtech87]

Also, I said in my OP that I was looking for more than quoting the 2nd amendment.

Oh and uh... No you didnt. vvv

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but am looking at this from a different point of view. I have always found that if you can understand all points of an argument, you can usually come out much farther ahead than someone that refuses to look at all angles.

 

[jamil]

This thread has been a gold mine for you, hasn't it?

What is it you are trying to sell/buy?*

*I really don't care. I just want you to get to 50 posts and quit agitating everyone. That's a lot of internet energy that you've sucked up in the last 4-5 hours. Energy that could have been better spent by all these INGO members writing/calling their local officials. You have proven that you will not be convinced ... no one is more blind than one who will not open his eyes. I say to my fellow INGO members, move on ... let him "go from us in peace."

C'mon man. What's wrong having your views challenged? The arguments that Avec makes are the same arguments anti-gun folks make all the time. For you bible sorts, what about the Proverb, as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. I don't see Avec as an adversary. If you don't buy his argument. Prove him wrong.

 

[Sylvain]

Read the 2nd Amendment, it spells it out quite clearly. The right to bear arms was not put there to give people the right to bear arms for hunting. Nor was it intended to give the right for target shooting. NOR personal defense. It was written to give the right to bear arms against an oppressive government. We are not in that situation now, but history has shown again and again and again, that the first thing a ruling party that intends to make subjects instead of citizens of the population is DISARM them. Those that do not heed history are doomed to repeat it. ANY restriction on those rights are whittling away at ALL rights. If the hunters among us say "I don't care about semi-auto rifles, ban them" and the target shooter say "I don't care about shotguns, ban them" and then the self defense group says "I don't care about long rifles, ban them". The hunter then can say "We need our rifles to hunt, ban the handguns". What is left when PETA or ASPCA screams "BAN all Guns and Hunting". We are left as SUBJECTS not free CITIZENS. It is imperative that as a group we fight alongside the NRA and the other anti-gun control groups to keep ALL our RIGHTS.

 

[IndyDave1776]

C'mon man. What's wrong having your views challenged? The arguments that Avec makes are the same arguments anti-gun folks make all the time. For you bible sorts, what about the Proverb, as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. I don't see Avec as an adversary. If you don't buy his argument. Prove him wrong.

That is just the problem. He has been repetitively proven wrong and declares that since he introduced the requirement that he is not going to accept arguments based on the Constitution, fact, or logic, he ignores us and keeps repeating himself. The first problem I see (other than concrete in his ears) is that he does not understand the difference between a right and a revocable privilege. The second problem is that he apparently does not understand the difference between a republic and a democracy since he seems to think that right and proper devolves to what you can convince people to believe implying that 51% vote is the standard as opposed to the Constitution being the immutable law of the nation and all others subordinate to it. He apparently believes that it is an old list of nice suggestions.

 

[MadBomber]

You guys need to lay off. So a noob sees a $600 Yugo Ak in the classifieds going for only $1200 and needs to get to 50 posts without using one-liners before it's sold, devises a brilliant strategy (much better than the post-whore threads BTW), and you meanies just have to pile on!

 

[worddoer]

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.

Thank you for proving my point. Please seek help.

 

[LEaSH]

Natural rights, Avec. NATURAL.

 

[jamil]

That is just the problem. He has been repetitively proven wrong and declares that since he introduced the requirement that he is not going to accept arguments based on the Constitution, fact, or logic, he ignores us and keeps repeating himself. The first problem I see (other than concrete in his ears) is that he does not understand the difference between a right and a revocable privilege. The second problem is that he apparently does not understand the difference between a republic and a democracy since he seems to think that right and proper devolves to what you can convince people to believe implying that 51% vote is the standard as opposed to the Constitution being the immutable law of the nation and all others subordinate to it. He apparently believes that it is an old list of nice suggestions.

Dave I often agree with you. Right versus revocable privilege, I agree.

But right and proper as a matter of practice do indeed devolve into what you can convince people to support. It doesn't matter that we're supposed to be a Republic. What matters is reality. The reality now is that the side that gets what they want is the side that convinces the the most people to support them. Given that fact, I don't think it's a bad thing to visit the same arguments the opposition makes.

 

[Slapstick]

Hey I'm going to rep him just providing entrainment on a cold January night.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dave I often agree with you. Right versus revocable privilege, I agree.

But right and proper as a matter of practice do indeed devolve into what you can convince people to support. It doesn't matter that we're supposed to be a Republic. What matters is reality. The reality now is that the side that gets what they want is the side that convinces the the most people to support them. Given that fact, I don't think it's a bad thing to visit the same arguments the opposition makes.

At a practical level you are right. I would go a step further and say that you cannot beat a leftist on his own turf. There is simply no way to make the Second Amendment warm and fuzzy to those people. They are living under a false sense of reality in which the police are always there for them on time, and crime would be disinvented if we could get rid of those scary guns. They refuse to accept that taking responsibility for yourself will keep you safe, and most important, they are unwilling to accept the Constitution as anything more than a collection of outdated suggestions.

The foundational problem with living in a democracy is that you have no rights--only privileges which amount to what 51% of the people say you have at any given time. As soon as we concede or decisively lost here, any pretense of living in a free society is absolutely gone. I can understand your point about meeting them where they live, but I see no point in doing so. As soon as we enter the fray using their preconditions, we have already lost--it is just a matter of going through the motions. Then again, I am pretty well convinced that we have already passed that point, and it is just a matter of going through the motions.

 

[kawtech87]

Hey I'm going to rep him just providing entrainment on a cold January night.

Please do not feed the trolls... Thanks.

 

[Sylvain]

Hey I'm going to rep him just providing entrainment on a cold January night.

 

[Hohn]

Because you disagree with logic, facts and common sense....yes, you are an absolute idiot.

No need to make it personal.

Not all 'truths' are self-evident to everyone alike. If you can't reasonably explain to someone like Avec why you are right and he is wrong, you will eventually end up the minority with no guns.

Avec is raising questions that deserve legitimate answers. You can give them to him without questioning his intelligence or motivations.

If he won't ask them, some liberal legislator will-- and you think the attitude being copped is going to endear yourself to someone in power? To fellow Americans that might be coming from a different point of reference?

I think we'd just as soon have persuasive answers available to those who are coming from a different frame of reference. Yes, all the discussion around natural rights and such is legit-- but one can have all the evidence and testimony on his side and still lose, because it's the JURY (read: people), not the evidence that decides the verdict.

JMO

 

[evsnova74]

I think this guy makes some excellent points. I especially like the use of the phrase "potential life savers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0

 

[Avec]

Natural rights, Avec. NATURAL.

Meaning what?

Natural rights derive from Natural Law, which is man is inherently moral, not naturally armed. You cannot change definitions to suit your argument

Not.... Enough.....Facepalm... for this...

The 2A is the only reason any of us need to own anything firearms related.

Ya damn fence post.

Doesn't matter if it is enough for you, what matters is it enough for those that are not sure. Your shouting and name calling does not help that cause. It just makes you look like coolaid drinking zealots.

Why is this troll thread still open?

But you still come back to check. Doesn't say much for you if you rail against it, but keep checking back

That is just the problem. He has been repetitively proven wrong and declares that since he introduced the requirement that he is not going to accept arguments based on the Constitution, fact, or logic, he ignores us and keeps repeating himself. The first problem I see (other than concrete in his ears) is that he does not understand the difference between a right and a revocable privilege. The second problem is that he apparently does not understand the difference between a republic and a democracy since he seems to think that right and proper devolves to what you can convince people to believe implying that 51% vote is the standard as opposed to the Constitution being the immutable law of the nation and all others subordinate to it. He apparently believes that it is an old list of nice suggestions.

Nope, I stated my point repeatedly and consistently. You willfully closed your ears because I sought to make people think outside their comfort zone. Without rereading your specific posts, I don't recall you making any logical points. Those you attempted I rebutted. Your argument was weak, and I took it apart quickly. Just as quickly as a gun control advocate would. If you want to keep your high capacity magazines (topic of this thread) or weapons in general, you need to sharpen your wits and sharpen your arguments. Right now both are dull for you.

You guys need to lay off. So a noob sees a $600 Yugo Ak in the classifieds going for only $1200 and needs to get to 50 posts without using one-liners before it's sold, devises a brilliant strategy (much better than the post-whore threads BTW), and you meanies just have to pile on!

Not my original intent. I really wanted a cogent, non-emotional answer to my question. Like it or not, shouting the 2nd amendment often falls on deaf ears, and shouting louder becomes the only alternative. I was looking for more substance. If you cannot understand that even after I have repeated myself ad nauseum, further discussion on that specific point is useless.

Thank you for proving my point. Please seek help.

I need to finish doing a manual transmission swap on my daughters BMW, are you offering to help with that? Other than that, I'm not sure what type of help you are offering.

No need to make it personal.

Not all 'truths' are self-evident to everyone alike. If you can't reasonably explain to someone like Avec why you are right and he is wrong, you will eventually end up the minority with no guns.

Avec is raising questions that deserve legitimate answers. You can give them to him without questioning his intelligence or motivations.

If he won't ask them, some liberal legislator will-- and you think the attitude being copped is going to endear yourself to someone in power? To fellow Americans that might be coming from a different point of reference?

I think we'd just as soon have persuasive answers available to those who are coming from a different frame of reference. Yes, all the discussion around natural rights and such is legit-- but one can have all the evidence and testimony on his side and still lose, because it's the JURY (read: people), not the evidence that decides the verdict.

JMO

Exactly my point - Exactly.

Thank you all