Ammo limitations ??? Scenarios???

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Capt.Jim

Inactive
I love to hear when the question of "Who needs more than 10 bullets" are proudly repeated by anti-gun zealots like if they found a legitimate point for their argument...

I am scared that next time they will ask;

Who needs a car with an engine over 450 HP to drive in a city?
Who needs a motorcycle which is capable of reaching 180mph?
Who needs a 30 ft fishing boat with twin 300HP outboards on it?

and then try to put limitations on every aspect of our life?

We witnessed the same mentality limiting the size of soda with the same question of "who needs a soda over 16 oz."

Why it's anyone's business why I want more than 10 rounds in my gun...

But most importantly why 10?
Why not, 12 or 14 or 17?
Who decided that 10 is the perfect number of rounds?
Based on what?

I live in CA...
Who can guarantee me there will never be a riot like it happened after Rodney King case where I may need to defend my life and property against an angry crowd.

Who can guarantee me there won't be a major disaster in CA which will cause a civil unrest like it happened after Katrina where I have to defend my family and my property?

Why my government officials have the audacity to tell me, my life is not as important or valuable as theirs to deserve self protection?

While I am in the service as a Navy sniper I trained and used multiple high tech weapons during Desert Storm but now as a civilian who is residing in NorCal I can't even carry a simple revolver, even though I live near by a city infested with violent gangs.

Go figure!
 
I agree with the sentiment and where you see this going, but would not equate the Constitutionally enumerated right and even necessity of a personal firearm with fast cars, boats and motorcycles that are truly luxury items that one can live well without.
 
It's been happening a long time.

Your freedom has been limited and the process of more limits occuring now for quite a while. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

<<Who needs a car with an engine over 450 HP to drive in a city?
Who needs a motorcycle which is capable of reaching 180mph?
Who needs a 30 ft fishing boat with twin 300HP outboards on it?

and then try to put limitations on every aspect of our life?

We witnessed the same mentality limiting the size of soda with the same question of "who needs a soda over 16 oz."

Why it's anyone's business why I want more than 10 rounds in my gun...
>>

Wear your seatbelt.
No smoking in public.
Speed limits
Can't build something on your land without approval/tax.
Must be 21 to buy alcohol.

The limits are everywhere, you just have accepted the previous/current ones as something to help prolong life and not as something that took away your freedoms or choices.
 
I have less of a problem with the limits on the car/motorcycle/boat. These are not specifically described in the constitution (unless you consider the pursuit of happiness :D).
 
I agree with the sentiment and where you see this going, but would not equate the Constitutionally enumerated right and even necessity of a personal firearm with fast cars, boats and motorcycles that are truly luxury items that one can live well without.
___________
Click to expand...

Isnt the federal govt prohibiited from outlawing boats, motorcycles, etc by the 9th and 10th amendment? Where were the powers to regulate those things enumerated in the constitution?

I see where on federal highways, but not anywhere else.
 
Well, you're primary misunderstanding comes from assuming that they are telling you the truth when they talk about 'reasonable restrictions' and say that they don't want to ban guns. They are lying, plain and simple.

The fact of the matter is that their true goal is to remove firearms from civilian hands entirely. Period. Occasionally, when they accidentally tell the truth or think that no one who disagrees with them is listening, they say as much.

They realize that they can't get there in one fell swoop. So incremental-ism is the order of the day. Take whatever restrictions they can get. Ban individual guns, limit magazine size, increase cost through taxes and fees, etc. Keep chipping away little by little until they can reach their ultimate goal.

The last few years, this hasn't been working out for them. In fact, it's been going the other way with US chipping away at the restrictions, most notably with the increase in shall-issue CCW states and the mainstreaming of what they term 'assault weapons'. So they view the Sandy Hook incident as a godsend and a great opportunity to get their agenda back on track.
 
Alabama>>>I sense a little sarcasm in your post but again, I may be wrong.

It is not a fascinating story. Maybe interesting but definitely not fascinating.

Just a note that I was NOT a US NAVY Sniper. I am originally from Turkey but I served in NATO forces before I became a U.S. Citizen and during Desert Storm I served side by side with U.S. Air Force missile squadron in Northern Iraq and before the war I was the squadron commander in charge of the NATO forces protecting U.S. Air Force Base in Yamanlar-Izmir, Turkey which was the job of the NAVY SAS Commando Squadron and 12 Snipers.

By telling who I was what I meant was that the anti-gun people believes every civilian out there who is not wearing a police uniform can't be trusted to own or carry a gun without knowing what could be the past of that civilian they see in the street.

That was my point.
 
Last edited:
Just a note that I was NOT a US NAVY Sniper. I am originally from Turkey but I served in NATO forces before I became a U.S. Citizen and during Desert Storm I served side by side with U.S. Air Force missile squadron in Northern Iraq and before the war I was the squadron commander in charge of the NATO forces protecting U.S. Air Force Base in Yamanlar-Izmir, Turkey which was the job of the NAVY SAS Commando Squadron and 12 Snipers.
Click to expand...

You lied, that is a fascinating story!

In the US the military are not trusted with guns most of the time domestically.
 
Oh my dear Alabama Blank Shooter>>>

I didn't know your comprehension was so low.
But then I came across a few of your posts. Well more correctly "your responds."
You do like to get quotes of others posts and analyze them since you may not have a fascinating story to tell about you.

Let's see what I lied about?

In the past being in the service?
While in the service being a sniper?
Serving During desert storm?
Currently being a law abiding US citizen?
Also currently being a civilian?

They are all true about me. So I wonder what you are talking about.

Oh well there is always someone like you in every group.
I guess that's the magic of the Internet forums.
 
If their reasoning says a person needs no more than 10 rounds to stop an assailant than I also think that law enforcement (with the exception of SWAT teams) should also be limited to no more than 10 rounds.

This is not being sarcastic at all.

We should ask law enforcement why they think their officers should have more than a 10 round magazine. Especially considering that only a few decades ago they were using revolvers.

This sounds like a conflicting justification. They will say the higher capacity is needed to keep up with the more advanced weaponry of criminals (so criminals arent going to be limited to ten round magazines?).
 
Let's see what I lied about?
Click to expand...

You said your story was not fascinating. A Turkish Naval sniper emigrating to the US after fighting beside US forces in the Persian Gulf War? You should write a novel. Seriously, it would make an interesting read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top