High capacity magazines

[ZX-14R]

And those with a Horowitz can stand a little further a way.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo Whats a Horowitz???!?!? Can I has it?

 

[gunowner930]

What "well regulated Militia" are you a member of then?

I'm a man between the ages of 17-45, so I am part of the militia. The 2nd Amendment recognizes the militia, and the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are all individual rights, yet you seem to claim that there is one exception. And you're wrong.

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

No it's not ridiculous. If you believe in God then you believe that God gave us a right to self-defense, if you are an athiest, then you learn a little more about Natural Law. Nearly all animals will defend themselves if violently attacked, and they will do so to the best of their ability. If you were to punch my German Shepherd, he is going to come after you with everything he has, he is not going to follow some idiotic law that says he can only use 5 of his teeth because there is no need to bite with more than 5 teeth. My 5.56x45 chambered AR is an effective weapon for home defense. I use standard 30 rnd pmags, but who in the hell thinks "well if my door gets kicked in at 2 AM, I'm happy I only have 10 rnds in my magazine instead of 30?. You should also research the negative effects of adrenaline and stress on marksmanship, Why do cops "need" more than 10 rounds in their sidearms?

The comparison between magazine size and beer mug size is equally retarded. Please, I expected better from you guys.

You brought up the "need" argument, which I think is retarded. I don't personally know many INGO members, who the hell am I to tell them what they need?

You guys are really stumbling. If you have any hope of having your rights recognized and understood, you need to proffer a more logical argument. If a bill was brought to congress that says a 10 round magazine is enough, what is a reasonable, logical argument saying it is not? Three pages in, and nothing yet. Come on. It is time to bring your A game, guys.

And nothing you've said has resembled independent thought. You're regurgitating anti-gun talking points. As I've already stated, examine the effects of combat stress on marksmanship, examine the crimes with multiple attackers. A "high-capacity" mag ban is unconstitutional. There's your answer on "high capacity" magazines

Just an FYI, half the kids in one classroom in New Town escaped while that turd was reloading his weapon after killing the first half.

What's your point? He was in a gun-free zone in a state with an assault weapons ban. Do you know how many 30 round STANAG mags are in circulation? There's more than enough for there to still be a huge market for them if your magical 10 round mag ban is passed. Point being that there will still be enough to fall into the wrong hands. Before the 94 ban, firearms manufacturers produced enough 10+ capacity magazines that you could still buy new ones in 04 when the ban expired

The argument against high capacity mags is that if you had to stop and reload more, fewer people would die in these incidents. Yes, I know they don't happen that often.

And if your aunt had a penis, then she would be your uncle. That argument simply cannot be proven. Charles Whitman caused mayhem with a bolt action rifle in the Austin tower shootings, Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President with a bolt action rifle. Cho at Virginia Tech killed more people than sandy hook using standard pistol magazines.

the problem is that when they do, they are big deals. I read a statistic somewhere that gun related deaths will take over as the number one cause of death in America in the next couple years.

That's magical... Who's the clown that claimed that? And you call our arguments "retarded?"

Sometime between now and just past then, someone is going to put forth legislation. If you want to be a part of the debate, you need to have a good argument. Quoting and requoting the second amendment will no longer suffice. Actual points will be required.

Yeah, screw the constitution, it don't matter . You've been given good arguments, yet you've failed to produce one.

If bringing up a topic or making points that you don't like is considered being a troll in this forum, you guys are pretty sheltered.

Sheltered? You didn't make one logical point. You are regurgitating talking points.

/By the way, I am not trying to be a dick. I thoroughly enjoy, and always have, strong debate that challenges my ability to think and react. I will happily parry with anyone so long as ad hominem attacks are kept to a minimum. If you don't want to stretch yourself intellectually, don't participate. I have brought up this topic because if I were to be asked, I would not have an answer. I am looking for one that makes sense.

If you're a hunter and support crap like this, then you are also a fudd. Do you think the Dianne Feinsteins of the world are just going to stop if they get their way? Of course not, your .308 Remington 700 will become a sniper rifle effective to 1000 meters. Who needs a gun that can do that? Let's look at the devastating effects of a 12 gauge shotgun at close range, who needs that kind of destructive power?

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, what's a Horowitz?

 

[Rookie]

Horowitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My right to have a Horowitz shall not be infringed!

 

[printcraft]

Yeah, what's a Horowitz?

One hell of an accomplished pianist.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd7Q7vhNB-I



Heh heh heh.....pianist...... heh heh.

 

[jamil]

As for being a troll, believe what you want. The truth of the matter is that I have been a 2nd amendment rights advocate for all my life, whether you choose to believe that is on you. However, there are limits. There are limits to everything. As I mentioned in my OP, I want a high capacity magazine, but other than "Because" I don't have a good reason.

I'll take you at your word. But why is "because" not a good reason? Is this not your pursuit of happiness?

If someone disagrees with you, you might want to work a bit harder to prove your point instead of calling out "Troll" Just saying.

If you disagree with an argument, you might want to work a bit harder to present a counter argument.

 

[jamil]

One hell of an accomplished pianist.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd7Q7vhNB-I



Heh heh heh.....pianist...... heh heh.

Wow. One of my favs. Now I'm going to have to listen to that on the drive home.

 

[ZX-14R]

I would still like to know from the OP how a standard capacity magazine ban will help reduce or end gun violence and shootings USING logic, common sense and facts.

 

[Avec]

Aved if you are serious, (of which I have my doubts) then read this and you will have a very convincing argument to present to people. 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?" __________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. " Ronald Reagan

Very good. Thank you.

I'm saying he's a troll. A G-Damn troll. 13 posts of worthlessness so far.

How else am I supposed to get my post count up? Ask if you have seen any good movies a hundred times in a row?

I have a bike that bone stock (with $300 worth of ECU programming) is capable of hitting 200mph, run 9 second 1/4 mile ET's, and hitting 60mph in approx 3 seconds....

Do I NEED this? Your damn right I do and F you if you think I don't.

I completely understand. I have three BMWs and two Opels in my drive/garage with one being a caged road race car. Do I need more than one? Nope, even if they all ran at the same time. The problem is that congressman is suggesting limiting the number of cars a person can have.

Stuff about Natural Rights

This term "Natural Rights" is interesting. St Thomas Aquinas made Natural Law a common theme (as I recall from my Poli-Sci classes) discussing primarily the morality of Man. Natural rights are derived from Natural Law (I had to confirm this via internet search) Natural Law basically says that Man is inherently moral and using thought and reason and this morality understands intuitively the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Slapstick]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo Whats a Horowitz???!?!? Can I has it?

Ummm.....I guess I should have spell checked? Of course if you are holding a Horowitz in front of you then you would need to take a step back and I suggest holding him at arms length lest your shoes get wet.

 

[gunowner930]

Quick semi-related questions. What is a "rep"? In the classified section what is "SPF"? Not trying to side track, just saw a couple people mention "rep" and am not familiar.

did you deliberately start this **** storm to you get your 50 posts quickly?

 

[Rookie]

I completely understand. I have three BMWs and two Opels in my drive/garage with one being a caged road race car. Do I need more than one? Nope, even if they all ran at the same time. The problem is that congressman is suggesting limiting the number of cars a person can have.

Would you be ok with someone taking your extra cars simply because they decided you didn't need them?

 

[Avec]

I would still like to know from the OP how a standard capacity magazine ban will help reduce or end gun violence and shootings USING logic, common sense and facts.

I don't think it will, certainly will not end gun violence. Neither do I think bans on guns that look scary will have a huge impact. What will have an impact is keeping guns of any kind out the hands of lunatics like Adam Lanza. He should have been in a mental institution and further steps should have been taken to secure his mother's weapons.

For those following along, I am not arguing against high capacity magazines, I am trying formulate a concise argument that is understandable by someone that is at least willing to listen.

 

[Sylvain]

did you deliberately start this **** storm to you get your 50 posts quickly?

Most of his posts will probably be removed by a mod so that wouldn't do much anyway.

 

[Avec]

did you deliberately start this **** storm to you get your 50 posts quickly?

No, not really. I did actually have the question, and kind of asked it in another thread, where it was suggested I start a thread on it specifically.

Would you be ok with someone taking your extra cars simply because they decided you didn't need them?

No, and good point. One could counter this with "but they are not being used to kill" You could counter-counter (word?) with "but neither are mine" Now, we are getting somewhere. Help go down this path. This might be something

 

[infiremedic07]

Our rights are not derived from the Natural rights. They have their basis in the Word of God. Even the Atheists that helped write the constitution recognized the Bible as a document that held immense sway on their thinking. This country was founded on biblical principles and not on natural principles (which are subject to current trends and opinions) If you want to see what a government founded upon Natural law does look at France and the former Soviet Union. They fail miserably. Our is destined to fail the further we allow our rights to be subjected to current thinking and not on the biblical foundation upon which this country was founded.
By the way it is 50 quality posts! not just 50 posts.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Very good. Thank you.


How else am I supposed to get my post count up? Ask if you have seen any good movies a hundred times in a row?


I completely understand. I have three BMWs and two Opels in my drive/garage with one being a caged road race car. Do I need more than one? Nope, even if they all ran at the same time. The problem is that congressman is suggesting limiting the number of cars a person can have.


This term "Natural Rights" is interesting. St Thomas Aquinas made Natural Law a common theme (as I recall from my Poli-Sci classes) discussing primarily the morality of Man. Natural rights are derived from Natural Law (I had to confirm this via internet search) Natural Law basically says that Man is inherently moral and using thought and reason and this morality understands intuitively the difference between right and wrong.

Pony up 15 bucks and become a site supporter and make yourself a valued member of this forum. Not that you have to be a site supporter to be a valued member but it lets you bypass the 50 post rule

 

[Rookie]

How can you guarantee that none of your vehicles would take a life? The only way to be sure is to destroy them.

You do not have a right to own a car. You do have a right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed which means no one should be able to decide how I keep and bear arms.

 

[Bunnykid68]

No, not really. I did actually have the question, and kind of asked it in another thread, where it was suggested I start a thread on it specifically.


No, and good point. One could counter this with "but they are not being used to kill" You could counter-counter (word?) with "but neither are mine" Now, we are getting somewhere. Help go down this path. This might be something

Same line of thought, do you need a fire extinguisher, spare tire, fly swatter.......

 

[Bunnykid68]

How can you guarantee that none of your vehicles would take a life? The only way to be sure is to destroy them.

You do not have a right to own a car. You do have a right to keep and bear arms. That right shall not be infringed which means no one should be able to decide how I keep and bear arms.

Why do we not have a right to own a car? Do not tell me because it is not in the Constitution.

We have a right to everything we have worked for.