High capacity magazines

[IndyDave1776]

The US structure of law and government does an "allow" for anything. It only restricts what is unlawful. I don't recall what the term for the type of constitution your are referring to. It is common in modern democracies of Europe, where it delineates every little right. The US Constitution BOR does not restrict the citizenry, only the government.

Exactly, and it explicitly states that the government may not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The US structure of law and government does an "allow" for anything. It only restricts what is unlawful. I don't recall what the term for the type of constitution your are referring to. It is common in modern democracies of Europe, where it delineates every little right. The US Constitution BOR does not restrict the citizenry, only the government.

This is the most sensible statement you have made so far

 

[Avec]

Uh.... Yes you do. Who is stopping you from speaking your mind? The PC police have really got thier hooks deep into you dont they?

You can say anything you want as long as you dont care whos toes you step on. I personally dont care if people agree with me or not and Im often told I speak my mind when it would be in my best interest to shut it. Im not PC and never will be. If you want to limit your 1A rights by worring about what people think of what you say then please feel free to remain silent.

Also, It was intended by our founders for "the militia" (thats you and me bub) to be as well equipped as our own military.

You are incorrect. Even though the BOR, Amendment 1 specifically states that there is freedom of speech AND freedom of the press, it is illegal for a newspaper to print an article they know is false and malicious. The BOR is not absolute.

I have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but I am also subject to any harm that is caused by me using my rights. A right is anything that anyone wants to do that does not cause harm to another or infringe upon their rights.

That is actually the standard definition of what is illegal. You can say "subject to any harm" but the police can arrest you for a number of things, and "freedom of speech" will not be a legal justification.

Let me remind you once again. If it is condition, subject to change, revocable, or requires official permission, it is not, bu definition, a right, but rather a privilege. If you cannot understand this, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

See above reference to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" Same applies. They are not absolutes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

See above reference to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" Same applies. They are not absolutes.

I have fence posts that can understand logic and reason better than you. There are consequences for misusing those rights, not restrictions on the rights themselves. We don't cut people's tongues out to prevent them from committing slander. We don't cut their dicks off to prevent rape. Why should be take away arms that the Second Amendment acknowledges our RIGHT to keep and bear. Not conditional privilege. Right.

 

[kawtech87]

You are incorrect. Even though the BOR, Amendment 1 specifically states that there is freedom of speech AND freedom of the press, it is illegal for a newspaper to print an article they know is false and malicious. The BOR is not absolute.

HA! Seems to me they do it all the time. Infact I think you sited one earlier. They can and do print false and malicious stories all the time.

Did you watch the election coverage at all?

The Benghazi incident?

Even the Sandy Hook shooting.

All were misreported on and are still being misreported on.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just because the police can arrest you for something does not make it right.

 

[Avec]

Exactly, and it explicitly states that the government may not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

I think I mentioned before, and this is more rhetorical at this point, If you were unable to purchase new 30 round magazines. period, that is it, no gun ban, now ammo ban, nothing, Only no new 30 round magazines, has your right been infringed? Are you no longer able to "bear arms"

If you want to argue statistics, which I do not have at the ready, then show that gun deaths did not go down in 1934 after NFA, and did not go down in the 60s and did not go down in 1984, and therefore can be projected to not go down if another ban were to be enacted. That is information that can be used to argue against any change. That type of argument is effective regardless of the crowd

 

[SSGSAD]

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.

I have ONLY read the 1st page, but let me explain, once you give an INCH, the "LIBERALS, NEVER STOP. Diane F., said some years ago, "if I could get 51 votes, in the Senate, I would BAN THEM ALL !!!!! THAT is WHAT is WRONG, with an Mag. BAN ..... OR ANY other INFRINGEMENT, of OUR Constitutional RIGHTS !!!!! If you don't know, I spent 26 years of MY LIFE, defending said Constitution..... (wearing the funny looking green UNIFORM !!!!!

 

[Avec]

Just because the police can arrest you for something does not make it right.

Huh?

Are you saying that slander is just peachy with you? Contrary to what you think, SCOTUS has upheld a number of cases of this kind. Slander and malicious defamation is illegal - contrary to "Freedom of Speech"

 

[Wild Deuce]

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."

 

[SSGSAD]

I think I mentioned before, and this is more rhetorical at this point, If you were unable to purchase new 30 round magazines. period, that is it, no gun ban, now ammo ban, nothing, Only no new 30 round magazines, has your right been infringed? Are you no longer able to "bear arms"

If you want to argue statistics, which I do not have at the ready, then show that gun deaths did not go down in 1934 after NFA, and did not go down in the 60s and did not go down in 1984, and therefore can be projected to not go down if another ban were to be enacted. That is information that can be used to argue against any change. That type of argument is effective regardless of the crowd

The 1994 "gun ban", only reduced crime 1% ..... CHECK the crime stats, for yourself.....

 

[Avec]

I have ONLY read the 1st page, but let me explain, once you give an INCH, the "LIBERALS, NEVER STOP. Diane F., said some years ago, "if I could get 51 votes, in the Senate, I would BAN THEM ALL !!!!! THAT is WHAT is WRONG, with an Mag. BAN ..... OR ANY other INFRINGEMENT, of OUR Constitutional RIGHTS !!!!! If you don't know, I spent 26 years of MY LIFE, defending said Constitution..... (wearing the funny looking green UNIFORM !!!!!

Yes, very transparent. If the left wanted a chance at any significant gun control, they would not have had such a loon like her forward it.

 

[LEaSH]

So it is the end user's application of their right that will make it either legal or illegal.

I can walk down the street saying, "fire, fire, fire..." Kind of like a nutcase(muttering to myself) - but I can do this. I can't YELL IT in certain places. that is reckless and a danger to others.

I can walk down the street with a rifle loaded with STANDARD capacity magazines. But I can't wave it around and point it anything I want. Or discharge it for no good reason.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Huh?

Are you saying that slander is just peachy with you? Contrary to what you think, SCOTUS has upheld a number of cases of this kind. Slander and malicious defamation is illegal - contrary to "Freedom of Speech"

I wasn't just talking about speech, I was talking about numerous things that you could be arrested for that are absurd.

Is anyone ever arrested for slander anyway? I don't think so. I believe that is something that is remedied via the court system. You must prove harm for it to be slander.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The 1994 "gun ban", only reduced crime 1% ..... CHECK the crime stats, for yourself.....

Are you sure the ban had anything to do with the reduction in crime?

 

[Avec]

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."

Love you too. I am not selling anything, although I have stated a couple times I am in the market to buy, but that is not the reason I started this. I had a legitimate question, which most here could not legitimately answer. I did, however get an answer, and I thanked that person. If I can find his post, I will try to give him a rep (if I am able)

As for wasting peoples time, I am sorry I made people read the forum. I did not realize that discourse was bad. Carry on. Apparently it was interesting enough for you to check back on!

 

[LEaSH]

Yes, very transparent. If the left wanted a chance at any significant gun control, they would not have had such a loon like her forward it.

She's obviously reverred by her constituents. She has been there for how long? Someone in that party believes in her - she would've gotten the message by now if they didn't.

This is a well contrived plan for disarming the united states citizenry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Love you too. I am not selling anything, although I have stated a couple times I am in the market to buy, but that is not the reason I started this. I had a legitimate question, which most here could not legitimately answer. I did, however get an answer, and I thanked that person. If I can find his post, I will try to give him a rep (if I am able)

As for wasting peoples time, I am sorry I made people read the forum. I did not realize that discourse was bad. Carry on. Apparently it was interesting enough for you to check back on!

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

 

[Avec]

I wasn't just talking about speech, I was talking about numerous things that you could be arrested for that are absurd.

Is anyone ever arrested for slander anyway? I don't think so. I believe that is something that is remedied via the court system. You must prove harm for it to be slander.

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.

 

[LEaSH]

Avec, why would there be a design to defend oneself from a tyrannical government with non competitive arms? What good would it be is the constitution stated bows and arrows only?

What is your personal interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd amendment?