Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No need for them in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Need's got nothing to do with it.

By that "need" argument, no privately automobile should be capable of going faster than 55 m.p.h. , or have more seating capacity than the owner's household.

If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut.

Such a notion should be killed, and with fire.
 
Hunting is irrelevant to the argument. There is no right to hunt. In fact, whitetails are very pretty and the young ones are cute. It is hard for most recreational hunters to argue that they need to hunt for food. I would ban hunting for whitetails except in special circumstances. Pest control can be handled by agents of the state.

Those who need to hunt for food should be specially licensed after strict mental exams and only allowed to bow hunt as those weapons would be unlikely to be used in most crimes or rampages.

-- OK, see my point. Hunting is not a reason for the Second Amendment. Nor is bowling or being an artisan producer of cheese.

What rights must we sacrifice or don't people believe in?

1. All the young males diagnosed with mental illnesses MUST be incarcerated or committed. It might save a life.

2. No violence should be allowed in media, games, etc. as some might be affected by it. It might save a life. Rainbow Bright cartoons should suffice for entertainment. You might be interested in the study that showed that violent
Biblical passages make some violent. Certainly some religions preach violence and thus most religions should be banned. To save a life.

3. Only single shot rifles should be allowed. If you can't take a whitetail with a Ruger Model One and scope, you are incompetent anyway.

So to save a life and do something, we violate freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of religion and the right not to be imprisoned. These violations would be on massive levels.
Click to expand...

You forgot

4. Because being illegal obviously isn't enough to stop the people who inevitably fall through the cracks, every home in America will be required to house at least one member of the military who will periodically go through all of your belongings and tear apart your home and hearth looking for proof you are violating these new laws, or any of the old ones. If he finds anything, you will be incarcerated without a trial. Because this could very well be unpopular with pot-smokers and others, there will be no discussion of this practice by private individuals or news media.

Now we've gotten rid of those other pesky bill of rights amendments.
 
So, just what is it that the antis calling for compromise are giving up?

I keep hearing that they want to pass laws and ask for concessions "in the spirit of compromise." So what exactly is it that is being compromised by the other side?

I'm willing to compromise, but the idea of a good compromise is for neither side to be happy in equal amounts.

Gun owner groups are consistently accused of being all-or-nothing. Why doesn't it go both ways? In the media spotlight, anti groups are always wanting to compromise, but they are just as "all-or-nothing" as we are supposed to be.
 
I keep hearing that they want to pass laws and ask for concessions "in the spirit of compromise." So what exactly is it that is being compromised by the other side?
Click to expand...
Wait and see. I've spoken to two of my Reps, and they plan on tacking unacceptable amendments on to any bill that might stand a chance.

Want to ban magazines over 10 rounds? OK. Let's cut OSHA's budget in half? What? If you want your ban, each side has to give something!

You want to ban all the rifles on this list? OK. Let's lower the Federal speed limit back to 55. Hey, if it only saves one life. Where are you going?
 
Perhaps it's too soon to be saying this, but I'm really looking for a gun rights org or politician to stand up and lead in public against the anti-gun crowd. Perhaps the NRA's apparent strategy of trying to wait the worst anti-gun sentiment out isn't entirely ill-advised, but what about when the next mass shooting comes, or the one after that? For days, the anti-gun side has gotten all of the play, the treacherous, supposedly pro-gun turncoats all of the headlines. The anti-gun crowd is in motion, and I want to see our guys on TV, in the papers, wherever, making our case to the public, convincing those on the fence that the trampling of our liberties won't be tolerated.
 
I have issues with some of his answers, but overall a decent post.

Accidental discharges can and do happen. Some AR-15's have been known to slam fire. Parts break. Little nubbins that do important things wear down. That's why you use a safety but don't rely on it. The important thing is to use the rules for safe gun handling to make sure it's just a scary second, not a tragedy.

Background checks don't infringe on my rights, and I'm not averse to them.
 
I think there should be a hard definition on what is in "common use" and allow that, which would include standard capacity mags (the designed capicity, not the misnomer the antis put out) and also firearms such as AR's Glocks etc.

Trying to restrict that, would basically put us back to basically traditionally hunting type firearms, and well, I have never seen hunting linked to the second amendment, except by the anti's, since the second amendment deals with defense of oneself, community, and country from my reading of it. If they take away the firearms in common use for defense, its going to be easy to ban the non-protected hunting type firearms.
 
I'd like to see a revolver enthusiast gather up several speed loaders and make a video showing just how may rounds they can send downrange. Aside from most (if not all, I'm not into them yet maybe) black powder pistols being single action, I imagine they're almost as fast.
 
So they will ban speedloaders. I've seen this argument before. See I can shoot my revolver fast - well, then you don't need that.

The average gun fight as only two shots fired. Everything banned but derringers?

Bolt guns will become sniper rifles. Shotguns will fill a room with death. Why do you need to shoot 8 or 9 pellets each equivalent to a 9mm rouind at one time?

Can't you defend your house with rock salt rounds?
 
I would rather ban high capacity magazines than the weapons themselves.

However, what we will see is a ban on both. California - USA here we come.
 
To quote Lawdog, and I completely agree while chuckling at that.

This pretty much sums it all up IMO.

Originally Posted by LawDog
**Anti-gunner: Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

**LawDog: Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
Click to expand...
 
Should blood alchohol tests be required on all ignition systems of motor vehichles?


Should you be required to go to the doctors office or ER to consume any medication from aspirin on up?

Should everyone with a backyard pool be required to hire a full time lifeguard?

Should every family of four be required to undergo cholesterol and blood sugar testing before going to a Red Lobster? And then take along a licensed nutritionist for the trip to advise and consent to their entree choices?

Should we ban the pill because it causes increased Stroke risk?

All of these are much more likely to cause your or my death than a shooting. All of those activities are more relevant to their cause than a hi-cap magazine is on a shooting spree.

Edit: OK maybe not the one about the pill...
 
Well, I did go to the LGS to check on mags. There was a pretty good crowd but there was not a run on mags.

I picked up 2 each for an XDM, G21,G30, G17, G19 and SP-01.

I also checked with the guy I bought my safe from on the .223. The guy had one case left. I walked away with 1000 rds for $430. Not a bad deal in this area.

When I bought my safe two weeks ago, he had a couple of pallets of .223 and 9mm. He sold all the 9mm and most of the .223 at the big gun show.

He has more coming but his cost has risen a lot but has not yet doubled.

The storm clouds are brewing and it is going to be a blow.
 
If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut.
Click to expand...

Jimbo86 that is as good a line as I have read in a long while. Would you mind if I add it to my signature line, citing you as the author of course?
 
GEM said:
So they will ban speedloaders. I've seen this argument before. See I can shoot my revolver fast - well, then you don't need that.

The average gun fight as only two shots fired. Everything banned but derringers?

Bolt guns will become sniper rifles. Shotguns will fill a room with death. Why do you need to shoot 8 or 9 pellets each equivalent to a 9mm rouind at one time?

Can't you defend your house with rock salt rounds?
Click to expand...

Read that very carefully, everyone of you. If we compromise on giving up anything, that we still legally own, your favorite part of the firearms world could be next.

Think not? Well, when only hunting rifles are readily available, or only skeet guns, etc, etc and they are used to kill children, shoot up the mall, whatever they will be the next evil instrument of death that needs banning.

Also, take a real close look at the main voices of the anti-gun politicians and major donors. Are we really going to let a tiny minority of millionaires and billionaires, who have 24/7 armed guards, tell us plebs that we don't need weapons?

We the people of the United States, as free citizens, deserve no less, than the current Service Rifles of our Nation as our individual weapons, if we so choose to own one. Sadly we have already largely given up that right, thanks mainly to the Hughes Amendment. Let us not give away what we have now and the gains we have made since the dark days of 1994.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top