This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Well, I guess we should make sure no victims in the future ever have an occasion where a shooter might need to reload and we should make sure the shooters are able to just go until they decide they're done.
No!Allowing more Fed control and intrusion into our personal lives is not worth a minimal improvement in one category and a minimal improvement in another. I am not willing to submit to a socialist mentality of Big Brother providing and controlling everything. How much further do we need to go with these elitists getting what they want and that's more of our money, freedoms and dependancy. They will not save us, protect us, provide for us or cure us. The best person to look our for you is YOU. They have gone as far as I'm willing to tolerate, and that is not limited to the 2nd Amendment. Republican or Democrat, I DON'T ####### CARE!!! Just live and let live. We can figure #### our for ourselves.
Three important points you are missing, the difference between 1a) a perp in a mass shooting situation in a gun-free zone picking off targets rather stress free (compared to 1b).I appreciate your view but disagree. Homeowners can reload as easily as a Perp. Saying the effect is negligible doesn't mean it's unimportant. I think saving a negligible amount of lives is worth it. I understand why you disagree.
Anti-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload.
Pro-gun-rights (1): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause a defensive shooter to have to reload and be killed while reloading.
Anti-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in mass-shootings that result in less than 1% of US murders saving less that 0.1% of murders.
Pro-gun-rights (2): Limiting the magazine capacity might cause them to reload and be stopped during reload, preventing (arbitrary educated guess here) 10% more deaths than with a high-cap-mag in home defense shootings that could result in less than (arbitrary guess of) 0.1% increase of successful home defense shootings.
Point being (as said before) that high cap mags save and cost lives. Which is more? Nobody can get accurate enough stats to make a good argument either way. What is the savings / cost of having to carry multiple low-cap mags vs the life savings / cost of allowing them? Negligible. What is the cost of allowing the federal government to get their fingers deeper into restricting individual freedoms (pick your favorite Amendment - any one... speech, search and seizure, imminent domain)? I'm against more government control since there is not a convincing argument for or against magazine capacity limits. End of my discussion on the topic unless a better argument can be made.
I will extend you the same challenge that I gave to Tommyboy:The discussion in this thread are about gun control measures: specifically, banning assault weapons, limiting high capacity magazines, and universal background checks. Over the last 4 pages, the discussion has been almost solely about limiting magazines. I challenge you to explain in detail how any of these proposals violate the 2nd Amendment. If you can't do that, then shut the #### up about the 2nd Amendment. Thanks.
I argue that it will save as many lives as it costs both ways. If spree killers can kill an extra 3 people, twice a year, costing 6 lives... I argue that home owners would be able to stop an extra perp 3 times a year, saving (assuming most homes have more than one occupant) 6 lives. It is assumed, by me, that the lives saved by a ban would be sacrificed on the other side, and that the lives saved by allowing high-caps would be sacrificed on the other side as well. 1:1 (approximately) doing nobody any good. It would be doing bad (from my viewpoint) by allowing Feds more control over our lives and basic rights as human beings.
How do you propose American protect themselves from the American Government with 10 round clips. It has everything to do with the 2nd amendment. God you are so dense. If you have a pitbull to protect your house and I remove his teeth he is not going to be much of a threat. you "Gun Grabbers" are trying to take out "teeth" so we cannot defend ourselves from the government.It goes right to the core of the 2nd Amendment and its stated purpose. I hope your family never needs you to defend them, cause your mangina just ain't gonna cut it.
We live in a civilized country where laws governing behavior are necessary in some cases. Killing machines are one of those cases. If you want to just do whatever you want with whatever you want, you're in the wrong place.
That's a reasonable view point. I suppose I'm not (so far) willing to acknowledge that a person defending their home is any more likely to be successful if they have a large magazine. What kind of home invasions continue after the perp realizes the victim is armed at all? How many continue after the victim has fired 10 rounds? I realize these numbers are hard to quantify but my guess (yes, a guess) is that if 10 bullets don't defend you than 500 bullets wasn't likely to help much either.
No. Because invasions tend to be either one to one or thereabouts. Mass killings do not.
Just trying to learn you what the 2nd Amendment was written for. That's just fact, so when you say it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment you are full of ####.Again slower this time Timmy, the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from a tyrannical government, you may think that is nuts but you keep asking what all this had to do with the 2nd Amendment, I answer it and you joke about it.
Jeebus, Two Cents- where the hell d you live that you have to live like that? My god. Have you suffered a home invasion or burglary??Jeebus man, most home invasions are perpetrated by between 2 and 4 assailants. In your world consider your wife and daughters raped and killed with NO CHANCE of you or them defending themselves. In my world I may fail but I would at least have the opportunity to try and defend myself and my family. I have a Buddybar on the front door when we are in for the night and a 9mm, 20ga and the Judge available for use, by either myself or my wife. The Judge goes with me in my vehicle whenever I go out.By the way just so you "gun grabbers" all know IF someone tries to enter my home our strategy is to retreat to the bedroom, call 911 and IF they get inside the home to let them know they have made a big mistake and it would be in their best interest to get to hell out.Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.Was he tackled before the two students retrieved their weapons, maybe after he put his weapon down and started yelling at students?
Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.
Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?
You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.
We are not sitting there waiting for them to get in so we can blast them as most of you probably assume we would be.
Literally laughed out loud at this one.
You obviously are not straight on the intent of the second amendment. The second amendment was intended to give the people a power against their government if need be. Limiting weapons for American citizens rather than making more weapons available undermines the intent of the second amendment.
This is the only argument I see that makes me want to hesitate on gun control. I think it's ridiculous to think a citizen can defend themselves from the government (as ruby ridge, Waco, etc have shown) but it IS written in to the laws of the land. That said, the pragmatic (actually saving lives) tend to trump the abstract (defense against a tyrannical government) in my opinion.
Do you always laugh out load when you've beenLiterally laughed out loud at this one.
?
OK. So we're in the same ballpark anyways. Consider what was said a few pages back about the preparedness of somebody sleeping in their underwear. Do they have the facilities to carry multiple low-cap mags or just grab the nearest weapon and go for it. If there are multiple armed assailants (you don't know when wakened from a dead sleep, or they coax you to open the door to a cute, young female "selling magazine subscriptions"), could they adequately defend their home / family if hit % is 40% for stress trained cops, and it takes an average of 4 hits to incapacitate a man. Yes, many assailants will run at the first sign of equally armed resistance. SOME WILL FIGHT. Would 10 rounds be enough if you are going to average 4 hits per 10 round mag when each assailant could absorb 4 hits? If there are three? Four? Very slim percentages would fit this scenario, but in this scenario would 30 rounds vs 10 make a difference?
His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.Do you always laugh out load when you've beenLiterally laughed out loud at this one.
To what part do you disagree?Have known people that have been home invaded (rape involved) and car jacked.Jeebus, Two Cents- where the hell d you live that you have to live like that? My god. Have you suffered a home invasion or burglary??Jeebus man, most home invasions are perpetrated by between 2 and 4 assailants. In your world consider your wife and daughters raped and killed with NO CHANCE of you or them defending themselves. In my world I may fail but I would at least have the opportunity to try and defend myself and my family. I have a Buddybar on the front door when we are in for the night and a 9mm, 20ga and the Judge available for use, by either myself or my wife. The Judge goes with me in my vehicle whenever I go out.By the way just so you "gun grabbers" all know IF someone tries to enter my home our strategy is to retreat to the bedroom, call 911 and IF they get inside the home to let them know they have made a big mistake and it would be in their best interest to get to hell out.Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.
Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.
Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?
You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.
We are not sitting there waiting for them to get in so we can blast them as most of you probably assume we would be.
Me too, so what?This from the guy who admits to being armed with a gun every time he answers the doorbell.
All day, every day. I rode my motorcycle with "all the gear, all the time." You don't dress for the ride, you dress for the crash, and MY GOD am I glad I did.Me too, so what?This from the guy who admits to being armed with a gun every time he answers the doorbell.
I think it's a little hysterical.Me too, so what?This from the guy who admits to being armed with a gun every time he answers the doorbell.
You are demonstrating here the same level of legal expertise you displayed in the Zimmerman thread.
A group of 20 people is not going to overthrow the government. The people throwing out Ruby Ridge as an example of why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete are using it as a distraction. The point is to have it available to all States and citizens in the case of mass resistance across all of the states. If Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam have taught us anything, it's that the technologically superior force goes in and wipes out all resistance during their lunch break and it's all rainbows and Mission Accomplished after that. Oh wait, the other thing that takes a decade, hundreds billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives.The point isn't even for the citizens to have the advantage over the government technology wise, which is why arguments over bazookas and tanks are more intentional distractions. The point is to be able to quickly and easily put up a mass resistance that gives you time to negotiate outside help like the Colonists did with Belgium and France or at least draw the national government into a long and costly war. Sure, the feds have tanks and nukes, but at that point you won't have any economy or citizens to govern afterwards if everyone is dead and all the infrastructure is destroyed. It's to make a war against the citizens a costly one for the government.
Now THAT is the sort of discussion I prefer.
You'll make it much more costly with your 30 round mag.
That's what the Free For All is all about anyways, isn't it!I'm not going to argue with Cookie Monster and posters like him anymore. They're too smart, they offer good hard points as to why the proposals I like may not be effective. #### that. I would much rather argue with Mr. Two Cents and Carolina Hustler about how high magazine caps are the only thing standing between them and the American government coming to their front doors and installing tyranny.
Keep it coming. You are if nothing, a decent devil's advocate.Now you haveYou are demonstrating here the same level of legal expertise you displayed in the Zimmerman thread.
Tim. You asked what any of this has to do with the 2nd Amendment. We told, you, provided links and essays but you refuse to accept it. Do I think the government is going to come knocking down my door tomorrow, ummmm no, BUT that is not to say it will never happen and it IS THE REASON for the 2nd Amendment.Your refusal to accept that is your issue, my reason for being armed is because of crime statistics. That is why I have no "assault weapons" I don't see the need for them at this time. BUT again the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against the Government, plain and simple.
Yay? Nay? Bueller... Bueller? Test me, mother ####ers. I'm drinking tonight. I should be an easy fight now.
It's not that I disagree with anything you said, it's just amazing that people can feel so differently about how they need to live their lives and what it means to be safe. I'm sure that if anyone really wanted into my house they could do so. My doors are top and bottom bolted and the frames have steel support for security, but I also have side lights. I have a security system that covers every entry point, but that's because my brother does them. But I feel no need to have not one, not two, but three guns at the ready- just in case. Nor do I feel the need to go everywhere carrying. And I wish I knew how it comes to pass that good, learned people manage to find themselves at such opposite ends of this discussion. Ah, the human dilemma...To what part do you disagree?Have known people that have been home invaded (rape involved) and car jacked.Jeebus, Two Cents- where the hell d you live that you have to live like that? My god. Have you suffered a home invasion or burglary??Jeebus man, most home invasions are perpetrated by between 2 and 4 assailants. In your world consider your wife and daughters raped and killed with NO CHANCE of you or them defending themselves. In my world I may fail but I would at least have the opportunity to try and defend myself and my family. I have a Buddybar on the front door when we are in for the night and a 9mm, 20ga and the Judge available for use, by either myself or my wife. The Judge goes with me in my vehicle whenever I go out.By the way just so you "gun grabbers" all know IF someone tries to enter my home our strategy is to retreat to the bedroom, call 911 and IF they get inside the home to let them know they have made a big mistake and it would be in their best interest to get to hell out.Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.
Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.
Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?
You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.
We are not sitting there waiting for them to get in so we can blast them as most of you probably assume we would be.
I have no problem with the way I live, play basketball in my driveway 4 or 5 times a week and I even play with black kids once in a while (heaven forbid) and don't even have my gun out.
I just see no reason to not be prepared during the evening or when I go out.
The most amusing part of all of this is that it's the LIBERALS arguing against the idea of a tyrannical government.Warrantless wiretapsGuantanamoWars under false pretensesPresident on record saying he can kill American citizensExtraordinary renditionValerie PlameWhite House getting ISP records without warrantsNo, nothing bad could ever happen.I'm not going to argue with Cookie Monster and posters like him anymore. They're too smart, they offer good hard points as to why the proposals I like may not be effective. #### that. I would much rather argue with Mr. Two Cents and Carolina Hustler about how high magazine caps are the only thing standing between them and the American government coming to their front doors and installing tyranny.
You realize this isn't constructive at all?
I'm just gonna let you have your fun.
And when those things become objectionable enough to the people, they'll let their senators and congressman know and those things will be reversed. Those were all Bush Administration precedents and as long as the people are okay with it, no President is going to rock that boat because it gives the intelligence community a leg up and it makes it less likely that another 9/11 happens. As soon as there is mass push back on it, it will stop. Corporate interests control Washington, not the intelligence community.The most amusing part of all of this is that it's the LIBERALS arguing against the idea of a tyrannical government.Warrantless wiretapsGuantanamoWars under false pretensesPresident on record saying he can kill American citizensExtraordinary renditionValerie PlameWhite House getting ISP records without warrantsNo, nothing bad could ever happen.I'm not going to argue with Cookie Monster and posters like him anymore. They're too smart, they offer good hard points as to why the proposals I like may not be effective. #### that. I would much rather argue with Mr. Two Cents and Carolina Hustler about how high magazine caps are the only thing standing between them and the American government coming to their front doors and installing tyranny.
You still do not know what home invasion means, what you just described is the same thing as a burglary/larceny.I never said it means EVERYBODY's being invaded by multiple people. It is trending in the media to mean multiple people.His defense was that somebody posted a new definition on wiki of a word I was using. I was talking about home invasion. That means you're home being invaded by somebody who shouldn't be there. Somebody on wiki says that should mean multiple people, so this guy thinks that means everybody's being invaded by multiple people. C'mon...that's funny.ETA: Regardless, we're not talking about the kind of numbers that justified a need for high capacity clips.Do you always laugh out load when you've beenLiterally laughed out loud at this one.
Seriously? I think it's possible to be constructive with CookieMonster. And with 5 Digit Know Nothing, and with several other posters here who disagree with me on a reasonable basis. There is no way that I can see to be constructive with Mr. Two Cents. I'm left with ridicule and derision.
You continue to fail miserably but "You are demonstrating here the same level of legal expertise you displayed in the Zimmerman thread.
" to make yourself feel better about it? Or are you completely oblivious to reality?
I would rather have them out and not need them than not have them out and need them. The Buddybar is new and a 350 LBer could not bust in my front door if he tried. It only costs $75 takes 5 seconds to put up and take down, so why not. If anything it makes me feel more secure and less likely that something bad happens.It's not that I disagree with anything you said, it's just amazing that people can feel so differently about how they need to live their lives and what it means to be safe. I'm sure that if anyone really wanted into my house they could do so. My doors are top and bottom bolted and the frames have steel support for security, but I also have side lights. I have a security system that covers every entry point, but that's because my brother does them. But I feel no need to have not one, not two, but three guns at the ready- just in case. Nor do I feel the need to go everywhere carrying. And I wish I knew how it comes to pass that good, learned people manage to find themselves at such opposite ends of this discussion. Ah, the human dilemma...To what part do you disagree?Have known people that have been home invaded (rape involved) and car jacked.Jeebus, Two Cents- where the hell d you live that you have to live like that? My god. Have you suffered a home invasion or burglary??Jeebus man, most home invasions are perpetrated by between 2 and 4 assailants. In your world consider your wife and daughters raped and killed with NO CHANCE of you or them defending themselves. In my world I may fail but I would at least have the opportunity to try and defend myself and my family. I have a Buddybar on the front door when we are in for the night and a 9mm, 20ga and the Judge available for use, by either myself or my wife. The Judge goes with me in my vehicle whenever I go out.By the way just so you "gun grabbers" all know IF someone tries to enter my home our strategy is to retreat to the bedroom, call 911 and IF they get inside the home to let them know they have made a big mistake and it would be in their best interest to get to hell out.Imagine you're in a room and somebody has an endless supply of bullets at his disposal just raining them down on you and all your friends/colleagues with no more effort than just the pull of a finger; would you welcome the opportunity for him to have to take a couple seconds, or even one second, to reload? I'm thinking yes. Like a drowning victim would welcome oxygen. A lot can be done in that time. You're all going to die anyway, so everybody breaks at him. People who would have otherwise died, live. Somebody who would have died anyway dies. The density that you guys have on this magazine thing is mind-blowing to see.What about 3, 10-round magazines. The carnage would be less?That's how Hannity made it sound. But it doesn't matter; my point is the same. If the guy had access to 30 round magazines, a whole lot more people are dead.
Did he have more than 2 magazines to begin with? I only see reference to two in your link.
Were 3 rounds left in 1 of the magazines?
You make it sound like he was shot subdued mid-reload while reaching for another 8-round magazine.
We are not sitting there waiting for them to get in so we can blast them as most of you probably assume we would be.
I have no problem with the way I live, play basketball in my driveway 4 or 5 times a week and I even play with black kids once in a while (heaven forbid) and don't even have my gun out.
I just see no reason to not be prepared during the evening or when I go out.
You forgot the drones.The most amusing part of all of this is that it's the LIBERALS arguing against the idea of a tyrannical government.Warrantless wiretapsGuantanamoWars under false pretensesPresident on record saying he can kill American citizensExtraordinary renditionValerie PlameWhite House getting ISP records without warrantsNo, nothing bad could ever happen.I'm not going to argue with Cookie Monster and posters like him anymore. They're too smart, they offer good hard points as to why the proposals I like may not be effective. #### that. I would much rather argue with Mr. Two Cents and Carolina Hustler about how high magazine caps are the only thing standing between them and the American government coming to their front doors and installing tyranny.
If your "reality" is that a ban on high cap magazines is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and furthermore, that it's necessary to have high cap magazines in order to protect you against the dire threat of a tyrannical government, then you're quite correct, I'm completely oblivious to it. Oh andYou continue to fail miserably but "You are demonstrating here the same level of legal expertise you displayed in the Zimmerman thread.
I only have dowels in the locked windows, a security screen door and a 95 pound bulldog. That is my deterrent / early-warning system. Followed by 10+1 .45 GAP and 10+1 9mm on a laser sight from the wife with 4+1 +2 in the buttstock, 12 gauge 3" #4 buckshot a cable lock away. Ghetto FABULOUS, baby!
You really don't think portions of the Heller decision can even slightly be applied to limiting magazine size? Really? I will post this again for you.
Your assertion would be that magazines of capacity greater then *rolls d20* 10! are not used by the militia or in common use for lawful purposes? Really!? You are saying a handgun with a 15-17 round magazine is unusual? Or an AR-15 rifle with a 30 round magazine? How many of those have been sold at Wal-Mart alone? A million or more?SCOTUS outright ruled trigger lock requirements were unconstitutional. Is it such a stretch to think they might think forcing someone to use a smaller magazine was as well? Here is what they wrote on trigger locks-
I think it is still very much up for debate on how constitutional it might be.
I plainly stated reality.. so the "If your reality" straw man statement gets you no where..#1 The second amendment was intended to empower the people against their government if need be.. You disagree?#2 If you agree that the second amendment was intended to empower the people, if need be, against the government, then would we need to increase the availability to weapons, rather than limit them? We're already out gun-ed, this idea is pushing us future in the wrong direction (as according to the second amendment) right?If your "reality" is that a ban on high cap magazines is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and furthermore, that it's necessary to have high cap magazines in order to protect you against the dire threat of a tyrannical government, then you're quite correct, I'm completely oblivious to it. Oh andYou continue to fail miserably but "You are demonstrating here the same level of legal expertise you displayed in the Zimmerman thread.
from wiki:
