14 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIsn't heroin banned??? How does that get into your country???
BS. How is any criminal going to get a 30 shot mag if their manufacture or import into the US is banned?
Figure that out and you have answered your own question. You are beginning to convince me it's not an act, your really are that naive.
Why do you ask me these juvenile questions professor. 🙄
14 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainPlease answer whether the following weapons should be allowed to be owned by private individuals:
Isn't heroin banned??? How does that get into your country???
Figure that out and you have answered your own question. You are beginning to convince me it's not an act, your really are that naive.
Why do you ask me these juvenile questions professor. 🙄
Machine guns
Flamethrowers
Mortars
Artillery
Tanks
Tactical Nuclear weapons
After all according to you: There has never been nor will there ever be ANY law that has EVER prevented criminals or “looney tunes” from having as many guns of any type they want. It is an unarguable fact: Gun laws are only obeyed by individuals who are LAWFUL and SANE.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderProfessor:
Please answer whether the following weapons should be allowed to be owned by private individuals:
Machine guns
Flamethrowers
Mortars
Artillery
Tanks
Tactical Nuclear weapons
After all according to you: There has never been nor will ...[text shortened]... want. It is an unarguable fact: Gun laws are only obeyed by individuals who are LAWFUL and SANE.
Have you forgotten your post from the previous page?
Originally posted by no1marauder
“Red herring; in not a single one of those cases was a 30 round magazine necessary.”
A topic is out-of-bounds on your command but is perfectly legitimate on your command. Not bloody likely. Seems you've answered your own question once more. 🙄
14 Jan 11
Let me see if I'm tracking this thread correctly.
We start with a legal semi-automatic handgun. The handgun normally uses a 15 round capacity magazine. but could also use a magazine that is capable or holding more than 15 rounds. (In this case we are discussing a 30 round magazine.)
So we are not debating the legality of the handgun itself. We are debating the legality of the capacity of the magazine used in that handgun. (A 15 round capacity magazine is OK but a 30 round magazine should not be legal) ?
If you have two 15 round magazines or just one 30 round magazine, I don't see where there is a whole lot of difference, other than the need to stop shooting for a second or two while ejecting the expended 15 round magazine and inserting a loaded one.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by mwmillerThe shooter was neutralized by a granny when he tried to reload if I remember.
Let me see if I'm tracking this thread correctly.
We start with a legal semi-automatic handgun. The handgun normally uses a 15 round capacity magazine. but could also use a magazine that is capable or holding more than 15 rounds. (In this case we are discussing a 30 round magazine.)
So we are not debating the legality of the handgun itself. We are de ...[text shortened]... for a second or two while ejecting the expended 15 round magazine and inserting a loaded one.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainIt's not hard to get AK47s in Los Angeles if you have the money and know the right people. I think. I know people with AK's, and the gangsters and tough guys love them. So do the gun nuts, though they tend to prefer more sophisticated weapons.
Isn't heroin banned??? How does that get into your country???
Figure that out and you have answered your own question. You are beginning to convince me it's not an act, your really are that naive.
Why do you ask me these juvenile questions professor. 🙄
Then again the coppers might get you if you try. That happened a while ago to Florencia 13 I think.
14 Jan 11
5 edits
I'm glad I live in England such that getting a gun is near enough impossible via legal means; but given that this isn't the case in america and the majority seems to be happy with this can't some system be imposed such that, say, if you're issued with a maximum of 6 bullets then you cannot purchase any more (legally at least) unless you can provide a valid account for the number of bullets you've already expended?
What I mean here is that if you started out with 6 bullets and then say you "lost them" you're out of luck, but on the other hand if you can show that 2 (for example) were used to defend yourself, and you provide police documentation to show this, then you're entitled to purchase 2 more. Any argument that you might need more if you're going target shooting could perhaps be met by forcing that the bullets for these sessions are purchased at the shooting range, and any excess returned when you leave.
For arguments along the lines of, "what if you have seven different guns, each requiring different types of ammunition?" then who actually needs seven guns!?
If this sort of system was rigorously enforced then perhaps everyone who has a gun can reasonably expect to have some bullets for it, but not enough to go on a wild killing spree.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by mwmillerduring that second or two when you've stopped shooting and have to reload, other people can subdue you and stop you from doing any more shooting.
Let me see if I'm tracking this thread correctly.
We start with a legal semi-automatic handgun. The handgun normally uses a 15 round capacity magazine. but could also use a magazine that is capable or holding more than 15 rounds. (In this case we are discussing a 30 round magazine.)
So we are not debating the legality of the handgun itself. We are de for a second or two while ejecting the expended 15 round magazine and inserting a loaded one.
which is a real bummer if you're a citizen trying to overthrow the government.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by MacSwainMy question is perfectly legitimate; your reasoning for saying that ANY gun control would be ineffective should apply to the weapons I stated if you really believe it.
Professor:
Have you forgotten your post from the previous page?
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]“Red herring; in not a single one of those cases was a 30 round magazine necessary.”
A topic is out-of-bounds on your command but is perfectly legitimate on your command. Not bloody likely. Seems you've answered your own question once more. 🙄[/b]
Your non-answer, on the other hand, is a pathetic dodge.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by mwmillerIf we returned to the law as it was from 1994-2004, Jared Loughner would have fired 20 less bullets. While the exact sequence of who was shot by what bullet isn't presently public information (except Giffords was hit by Shot #1), given that 19 people were hit it stands to reason that many, if not most of the victims, would have avoided injury. A few might have avoided death.
Let me see if I'm tracking this thread correctly.
We start with a legal semi-automatic handgun. The handgun normally uses a 15 round capacity magazine. but could also use a magazine that is capable or holding more than 15 rounds. (In this case we are discussing a 30 round magazine.)
So we are not debating the legality of the handgun itself. We are de ...[text shortened]... for a second or two while ejecting the expended 15 round magazine and inserting a loaded one.
A 30 shot mag is not necessary for self-defense; the chances of needing to fire more than 10 shots in rapid succession in self-defense is remote. But it is an excellent tool for mass murder.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you happen to know if the proposed legislation is only for pistol mags? Or are they going to try to limit mags for rifles/carbines as well?
If we returned to the law as it was from 1994-2004, Jared Loughner would have fired 20 less bullets. While the exact sequence of who was shot by what bullet isn't presently public information (except Giffords was hit by Shot #1), given that 19 people were hit it stands to reason that many, if not most of the victims, would have avoided injury. A few migh ...[text shortened]... ots in rapid succession in self-defense is remote. But it is an excellent tool for mass murder.
14 Jan 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyApparently its for any mags. http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf
Do you happen to know if the proposed legislation is only for pistol mags? Or are they going to try to limit mags for rifles/carbines as well?
Is there some reason a rifle/carbine should have a mag with more than 10 rounds?
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718Perhaps one day Congress will allow reason to enter its confines and legislators will finally vote to either radically alter the 2nd amendment or repeal it altogether.
You will NEVER be able to place any meaningful restraints on gun ownership in America.
* No matter how overwelming the evidence is to suggest guns are too easy to obtain by crimminals.
*No matter how overwelming the evidence is to suggest guns are too easy to obtain by minors.
* No matter how many needless deaths happen each year.
Too many Americ n. Regarding the needless slaughter of innocent people...Americans just don't give a damn! ðŸ˜
The only thing standing in the way of a reasonable and realistic gun policy is the idolatry of the Constitution. Hopefully one day americans will be able to have an objective debate on the merits of the "right to bear arms" without appealing to simplistic analysis or vacuous rhetoric, but I doubt such thing will ever take place any time soon, which is truly unfortunate given how the deaths of so many innocent people could have been avoided if only there was a different attitute to the ownership of guns.
14 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm just thinking of some of the shooting sports out there. I have occasionally shot competitively (for fun and training) in IPSC matches with pistols. I can imagine shooting through the stages of those matches with 10 rd mags and a few extra reloads to get through a stage, but pistol mags are relatively small. You can only realistically carry so many mags with you, so I'm not sure how it would effect similar sports where rifles are used.
Apparently its for any mags. http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf
Is there some reason a rifle/carbine should have a mag with more than 10 rounds?
EDIT: Plus the fact that there are already scads and scads of existing rifle mags that are 25 and up, so unless you were going to ban all of them (and not merely new sales), you really wouldn't be doing much.