High capacity magazines

[WldBill423]

Yes they are.They are "natural" or "god given" rights.
The bill of right is a recognition of rights, it doesn't give you rights and without the bill of right you still have those natural and unalienable rights.

Even if im in a country where guns are illegal to own I still have the right, as a human being, to own them to protect myself.

^^ This. Sooo much of this. Amazing how this country went from Leviathan, to Kant, and now right back to Hobbes. Perhaps if our schools taught the present/future generations WHY our country was founded, and HOW its laws were crafted, we wouldn't have ended in the precarious situation we are now in.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The following is a quote from worddoer that I commented while out of rep. Please rep him for an excellent post!

First, you say that historically, gun rights have improved. But you are incorrect. Up until the Nations Firearms Act of 1934, there were no national gun regulations. You could buy fully automatic machine guns through mail order magazines with no background check. No federal regulation existed prior to that.

Then the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted which banned a few more items from private ownership and started the background check system (I agree with the background check portion only). Not to mention that from the 1930's through the late 1990's most state laws prohibited most people from carrying a concealed weapon.

So as you can see, during most of the last 100 years, gun legislation was actually increased. It has not been until the last 10 years that we have been seeing a return of our rights. Rights that were taken away from us during to the 1930's. We are not getting more rights. We are simply getting back a portion of what we used to have.

You want a "reasonable argument". But that is impossible since "reasonable" is a relative term, not an absolute term. You definition of reasonable is different that others. For example, there are countries in the world where pedophilia and child trafficking are "reasonable".

That is an extreme example to show how unattainable your request is. In essence, unless you already agree with the argument presented, you will find it "unreasonable". So your question is impossible to answer. Therefore, you must provide us with an answer.

And if we are going to base our rights on what is reasonable, who will determine that? If it is someone who does not agree with you down the road, then you will loose your rights. What will you do then?

Isn't it interesting that you are so willing to give up someone else's rights. I wonder how you would react if someone else was so willing to give up one of the rights that you hold dear and daily enjoy...freedom of speach...freedom to assemble...amoung many others...

So if guns are killing people, then why stop at restricting magazines. Let's do this right and say we ban guns. Then there would be no guns for the criminals to buy or steal...right? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite and don't really care about others if you are not willing to do what it takes to stop the violence...correct? At least that is your argument to us.

Criminals...by definition...do not follow the law...so what makes you think that they will follow this gun law when they freely break all other laws?

Cocaine is illegal in every part of the United States. Yet, if you know where to go, you can buy it or steal it in every state in this land. Millions of people do every year. So we can see that banning or restricting an item does not keep criminals from accessing or using it.

Again, human and child trafficking is illegal in every part of the United States. Yet, up to 20,000 children and adults are taken advantage of each year in the United States alone. There are many parts of the United States that offer this despicable trade. And even though it is illegal, it still happens.

If we cannot stop drugs and if we cannot even stop human trafficking...what makes you think we will stop criminals from obtaining illegal guns and magazines.

Therefore, since it is a fact that criminals will always have guns, we must and should arm law abiding citizens as protection against evil doers. It's our only effective protection. Criminals are like water, they always look for the path of least resistance. The more resistance we can provide, the less criminal activity we will see.

Here is a quote that reveals how flawed your logic is: "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes. But there are more good men than evil. And while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." Col. Jeff Cooper

This is a truly terrible time to be out of rep!

 

[Sylvain]

So, your argument is that God gave us the right to bear arms. You do realize that is a ridiculous argument.

How is it ridiculous?
Call it how you want "god given" or "natural" depending if you believe in god or not.
But every human being has the right to self defense and no matter what laws say you have the right to protect yourself, so it includes bearing arms.

The 2A is a recognition of that natural right.The constituion is here to recognize and secure those rights, not to give them to you.

 

[Rookie]

This is a truly terrible time to be out of rep!

I got him.

 

[IndyDave1776]

All limitations are preemptive. Saying you cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater is a preemption of something that would cause an injurious stampede. Banning thalidomide was a preemption of birth defects. It obviously would have no impact on those that already were born without limbs. Limited speed on a highway is to lower the likelihood (preemptively) of car accidents.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence covers the inalienable rights: those would be "Life, liberty and the pursuit of of happiness" don't confuse this with the Constitution.

No. There are consequences for misusing rights. We don't cut your f**king vocal cords to prevent it.

 

[Slapstick]

Avec, I see by your follow up posts you seem to trolling.

 

[Avec]

Interesting.

The OP claims they want to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of placing a capacity limit on magazines. Fair enough. However, while he chides others for not offering a detailed enough explanation of their arguments, he blithely dismisses the arguments of others with a contemptuous cry of "ridiculas" and "retarded."

I am not saying the OP is a troll, but it it talks like a troll ...

So, comparing a rifle to a beer mug is a "reasonable" comparison to you? And, while I am not the most versed in biblical theology, I have never heard of anything in the bible guaranteeing my right to a gun, or any weapon for that matter. If I am incorrect, please point it out. Then again, I was raised a Methodist, so maybe it is in the Catholic bible.

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

 

[worddoer]

So, your argument is that God gave us the right to bear arms. You do realize that is a ridiculous argument.

A perfect example of what you consider to be "reasonable" and how we can never meet your qualifications.

Most of us here believe that our rights exist regardless of the country or government that we are in. These rights are fundamental to our existence and are needed for mankind to be prosperous on this earth. And that it is the duty of the government to recognize the rights that we already have and protect them.

Your argument is based on the belief that our rights are given to us by the government and can be taken away at will.

You have stacked the deck and based on your requirement of "reasonable" no one will ever convince you since you have already made up your mind.

 

[Avec]

How is it ridiculous?
Call it how you want "god given" or "natural" depending if you believe in god or not.
But every human being has the right to self defense and no matter what laws say you have the right to protect yourself, so it includes bearing arms.

The 2A is a recognition of that natural right.The constituion is here to recognize and secure those rights, not to give them to you.

No it is not. Please provide contemporaneous citation to prove me wrong.

 

[Rookie]

So, comparing a rifle to a beer mug is a "reasonable" comparison to you? And, while I am not the most versed in biblical theology, I have never heard of anything in the bible guaranteeing my right to a gun, or any weapon for that matter. If I am incorrect, please point it out. Then again, I was raised a Methodist, so maybe it is in the Catholic bible.

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

We will have to avoid religion because of forum rules, but it's in there.

Luke 22:36

 

[CitiusFortius]

I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once.

Hmmm.....just reread the 2nd Amendment again, yup, as suspected, it still doesn't say anything about hunting.

If you throw out my home defense argument for the mags, then I throw out your hunting defense against them.

 

[Slapstick]

Avec, why don't you provide an argument for both the pro and con side of your question and let the forum judge your answers. It shouldn't be a problem for someone who considers themselves to be a superior intellectual debater than most. I await to read your arguments.

 

[chezuki]

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

I'm pretty sure it does.

This is the first time I have ever wanted negative rep.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, comparing a rifle to a beer mug is a "reasonable" comparison to you? And, while I am not the most versed in biblical theology, I have never heard of anything in the bible guaranteeing my right to a gun, or any weapon for that matter. If I am incorrect, please point it out. Then again, I was raised a Methodist, so maybe it is in the Catholic bible.

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

For the historically inept, 'God-given rights' has been in use since the beginning our republic to address those rights intrinsic to all persons without the need for a state-granted privilege. It is not a matter of religious doctrine.

It has become patently obvious that you are here to troll and not for any useful discussion.

Since you seem to have had a great deal of fun at our expense, why not tell us all about your 'perfect' solution. My guess is that you either are holding something based on your own elastic ideas of 'reasonable' as opposed to the rights codified in the Constitution, which, again, for the historically inept, is a contract between the government and the governed, not merely a collection of nice old suggestions (failure to honor it in recent decades notwithstanding), or you are going to reveal yourself as someone who is no friend of guns.

Enough of jerking us around, lets here some of your 'brilliance'.

 

[Bunnykid68]

OP, what reason is there not to have 30 round magazines? Because a few people misused them? The anti's entire argument against 30 round magazines is purely emotional.

 

[KW730]

Avec, I see by your follow up posts you seem to trolling.

My thoughts and why I stopped responding. He has ignored all the arguments he can't counter with quotes he has gathered from anti-gun articles and speeches. Coupled with his refusal to concede any ground to logic, he is most definitely ****ing with you all.

 

[Sylvain]

My thoughts and why I stopped responding. He has ignored all the arguments he can't counter with quotes he has gathered from anti-gun articles and speeches. Coupled with his refusal to concede any ground to logic, he is most definitely ****ing with you all.

Not sure while he would be part of a gun forum in the first place if he thinks he doesn't have the right or the need to own guns.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My thoughts and why I stopped responding. He has ignored all the arguments he can't counter with quotes he has gathered from anti-gun articles and speeches. Coupled with his refusal to concede any ground to logic, he is most definitely ****ing with you all.

I would really have to care for it to be considered him ****ing with me

 

[Bunnykid68]

For some reason this thread made me think of this

 

[Hohn]

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.

You don't need 30 rounds. True.


Need has nothing to do with it. The point is that YOU, the possessor of liberty, decide how many you WANT and proceed according to your free will.

No one NEEDs a 50" plasma, or 400hp, or more than 1200sq ft.


Need's got NOTHING to do with it.