Just goes to show the kind of liberal kneejerk thinking you have standing in the wings of the White House. Having a conversation about keeping hicap mags from all the rest of america because of one nutt job is not what they should be worrying about right now or any other time for that matter. Maybe this will be the cause of a few more liberals getting voted out of town.
proposed federal high cap. mag ban
- Thread starter M-Cameron
- Start date
- Status
Gouranga
Member
and now we have a supposed 2A supporter FOR the mag ban:
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster
If we reach the point where we are trying to convince people why a 33 round magazine should be legal, we already lost.
Understand that we cannot win that arguement. You cannot give someone who sees no use for a 33 rnd magazine a good enough reason to convince them.
- Argue protection --- you are labled a paranoid.
- Argue "because the military have them" --- you are labled an anit goverment wacko.
- Argue one of the many gun "games" --- you are labled a child who can't understand some games are too dangerous.
Instead, turn it around:
- Why should 33 rnd magazines be banned?
- Would that have stopped him from trying to assasinate the representative (the first one shot)?
- Would it have been acceptable if he used a 10 shot magazine and killed 10 people?
- Do you realy want to take parents from thier children, and put them in prison, for owning a peice of sheet steel?
- When you'er nailing something, and hit your thumb, do you blame the hammer?
- If the nieghbor poisons your dog, do you blame the poison?
- Why is it so hard to accept that this guy chose to commit murder, and any law you try to pass wouldn't have stopped him?
- Why are you blaming an inanimate object rather than they guy who killed those people?
Understand that we cannot win that arguement. You cannot give someone who sees no use for a 33 rnd magazine a good enough reason to convince them.
- Argue protection --- you are labled a paranoid.
- Argue "because the military have them" --- you are labled an anit goverment wacko.
- Argue one of the many gun "games" --- you are labled a child who can't understand some games are too dangerous.
Instead, turn it around:
- Why should 33 rnd magazines be banned?
- Would that have stopped him from trying to assasinate the representative (the first one shot)?
- Would it have been acceptable if he used a 10 shot magazine and killed 10 people?
- Do you realy want to take parents from thier children, and put them in prison, for owning a peice of sheet steel?
- When you'er nailing something, and hit your thumb, do you blame the hammer?
- If the nieghbor poisons your dog, do you blame the poison?
- Why is it so hard to accept that this guy chose to commit murder, and any law you try to pass wouldn't have stopped him?
- Why are you blaming an inanimate object rather than they guy who killed those people?
gc70
Member
Gouranga said:
Robert Levy was probably never who you thought he was: Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns
Davey Wavey
Member
It would be worth it if 33 round magazines killed people.
Why should honest men be punished for the acts of one dishonest man?
Fastcast
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 874
I don't use 33 round mags with handguns but I won't tell free men what they do and don't need.
What's the maximum capacity mag that your honest man uses/needs?
Carter
Member
Well the general price of mags seems to be steady, good sign.
The article posted by Gouranga seemed a bit off. First it said he helped establish the right to bear arms, pretty sure that was around before he was born, and secondly he said the right to bear arms wasn't absolute. Well if a right isn't absolute it isn't much of a right then is it? Seems everyday more and more of our RIGHTS are becoming privileges.
The article posted by Gouranga seemed a bit off. First it said he helped establish the right to bear arms, pretty sure that was around before he was born, and secondly he said the right to bear arms wasn't absolute. Well if a right isn't absolute it isn't much of a right then is it? Seems everyday more and more of our RIGHTS are becoming privileges.
Carter
Member
Pretty sure Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and probably California would say NO! Plus, I want to keep those extra few rounds!
MWisnieski
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4
Hello, everyone. I'm Mike Wisnieski from Lake St. Louis, MO, and this is my first post to your fine forum.
Let me start by saying that I am an avid shooter, and that I own and regularly use a number of rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I am a firm believer that it is right and proper for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, as the second amendment provides. However, is it the really the prevailing opinion of the community here that this right is absolute and unlimited? If someone out there in the world started making tactical nuclear weapons and offered them for sale on the internet, does the second amendment guarantee my right to buy a few of them and keep them around the house?
If you say "yes", then I would respectfully disagree with you. I would say that such a scenario far outstrips the imagination of the founding fathers, and that a federal ban on private ownership of tactical nuclear weapons would be a reasonable and overall beneficial restriction to the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. If you agree, then you must also agree that this question of magazine capacity is not a binary, all-or-nothing matter, as many posters here maintain. Rather, I offer that there is a line somewhere between the extremes of total disarmament of the populace, and unrestricted private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, that we as a people should respectfully and civilly debate, and strive to agree on. Personally, I think that good cases can be made for including 30-round handgun magazines on either side of that line, and I will continue to eagerly follow this debate in search of enlightenment.
Let me start by saying that I am an avid shooter, and that I own and regularly use a number of rifles, handguns, and shotguns. I am a firm believer that it is right and proper for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, as the second amendment provides. However, is it the really the prevailing opinion of the community here that this right is absolute and unlimited? If someone out there in the world started making tactical nuclear weapons and offered them for sale on the internet, does the second amendment guarantee my right to buy a few of them and keep them around the house?
If you say "yes", then I would respectfully disagree with you. I would say that such a scenario far outstrips the imagination of the founding fathers, and that a federal ban on private ownership of tactical nuclear weapons would be a reasonable and overall beneficial restriction to the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. If you agree, then you must also agree that this question of magazine capacity is not a binary, all-or-nothing matter, as many posters here maintain. Rather, I offer that there is a line somewhere between the extremes of total disarmament of the populace, and unrestricted private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, that we as a people should respectfully and civilly debate, and strive to agree on. Personally, I think that good cases can be made for including 30-round handgun magazines on either side of that line, and I will continue to eagerly follow this debate in search of enlightenment.
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
With all the ill's of society that created this monster, all we are talking about is a hi-cap magazine ban? That's pretty sad and pathetic, totally mis-guided. Once they get a hi-cap magazine ban and some nutjob hoses down a crowd with a standard capacity magazine, then they'll go after those too. Where does it stop?
We need to start adressing the moral decay of society and our totally inadequate mental health system, not stupid, feel good measures like magazine bans.
We need to start adressing the moral decay of society and our totally inadequate mental health system, not stupid, feel good measures like magazine bans.
England will soon enough be reclaiming lost territory, likely we will see their gun laws enacted here. Remember Patrick Purdy? Because of him, California ended up with Roberti-Roos.
Just about all of the democratic nations have enacted very harsh, draconian gun laws following the sensationalized actions of lone individuals. It is very easy for governments to enact harsh legislation following this sort of action, as they have a willing media that is driven by others misfortunes. Until we pro-gun folks have better control of the media, things are only going to get worse, bit by bit.
Just about all of the democratic nations have enacted very harsh, draconian gun laws following the sensationalized actions of lone individuals. It is very easy for governments to enact harsh legislation following this sort of action, as they have a willing media that is driven by others misfortunes. Until we pro-gun folks have better control of the media, things are only going to get worse, bit by bit.
Really didn't want to post in this thread but this:
Do you think the law abiding citizen is going to kill everyone with his nuke?
Why wouldn't that same law abiding citizen by your logic go on a killing spree with his 6 shot revolver?
All the folks who favor restrictions fail to understand whether it be a nail file or a nuke someone with ill intent will use it as a weapon while the law abiding citizen will not.
So the point is the tool does not matter that is just a convenience. Intent matters as it did in this case in Arizona where the fella appears to be mentally unstable.
Is contradictory of the whole point. I wholeheartedly beleive every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever weapons their goverment owns including nukes.
Do you think the law abiding citizen is going to kill everyone with his nuke?
Why wouldn't that same law abiding citizen by your logic go on a killing spree with his 6 shot revolver?
All the folks who favor restrictions fail to understand whether it be a nail file or a nuke someone with ill intent will use it as a weapon while the law abiding citizen will not.
So the point is the tool does not matter that is just a convenience. Intent matters as it did in this case in Arizona where the fella appears to be mentally unstable.
Spec ops Grunt
Member
Well, in that case your 1st Amendment Rights only cover 1700's printing presses and Town Criers.
ShaiVong
Member
Guns are levers that allow one person to exert a large force, for good or ill. It makes no difference if 'he could have caused more harm if he knew what he was doing'. He had little force, so he used a large lever.
I support the RKBA, but I don't think it should be enjoyed by everyone.
I support the RKBA, but I don't think it should be enjoyed by everyone.
jcwit
member
This may well be your belief and opinion, but I'm sorry this is not how it works in the real world.
That is they way it is!
How many rounds does a G19 hold?
So 19 people were shot. How many rounds does a G19 hold? I didn't think he had a 33 round mag in the gun to begin with and only pulled it from his pocket to reload after the initial shots. If he started with a 33 round mag, then does that imply he missed with 14 shots? Or if he didn't, how did he shoot 19 shots?
So 19 people were shot. How many rounds does a G19 hold? I didn't think he had a 33 round mag in the gun to begin with and only pulled it from his pocket to reload after the initial shots. If he started with a 33 round mag, then does that imply he missed with 14 shots? Or if he didn't, how did he shoot 19 shots?
Shadow 7D
Member
Um, she was dead anyways, 10 round, 5 round, a bloody hatchet
maybe we should ban spree murders, or how bout murder in general....
Vyacheslav
member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 196
no honest man needs anything more than a single shot shotgun, why are you on a gun forum? they have specific forums for people like you, they are called revleft
IBEWBULL
Member
The tool is not the criminal it is the person.
How many people could have red flagged this deviant for help.
The military , school and police saw questionable behavior in the assign before the act.
No one did diddly.
Magazines are not the problem here.
This simplistic balme game is inneffective in offering solutions to a social , not a gun problem.
When firearms are not available then other forms of attack are often used. Seems the prefered methos overseas is in explosives. Which can be made from household items.
When our nation turned its back on God he stopped giving his blessings on us.
I am sorry if I got off the hicap magazine subject but it is truely not the issue.
We have laws against the insane, felons and drug addicted people having weapons.
I suggest some of the anti folks look at the form we fill out at poing of purchase.
REGISTER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE PERMITTED, and enforce the present laws.
May God save our republic.
How many people could have red flagged this deviant for help.
The military , school and police saw questionable behavior in the assign before the act.
No one did diddly.
Magazines are not the problem here.
This simplistic balme game is inneffective in offering solutions to a social , not a gun problem.
When firearms are not available then other forms of attack are often used. Seems the prefered methos overseas is in explosives. Which can be made from household items.
When our nation turned its back on God he stopped giving his blessings on us.
I am sorry if I got off the hicap magazine subject but it is truely not the issue.
We have laws against the insane, felons and drug addicted people having weapons.
I suggest some of the anti folks look at the form we fill out at poing of purchase.
REGISTER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE PERMITTED, and enforce the present laws.
May God save our republic.
TempestP226
Member
Agreed...except that I'm not so sure I'd really want Bubba Joe next door drinking a six-pack and wiring up his 9 year old's Simon Says game to the detonator.. A great many folks, including some on this very forum, have had an "Ooops" moment with a firearm due to lack of proper training and/or a moment of complacency. What tends to be an embarrassing hole in the drywall, or leg wound, suddenly becomes goodbye neighbourhood. While I'm all for worldwide population reduction....I'd rather it not be me.
MWisnieski
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2011
- Messages
- 4
Mags,
Thanks for your reply.
Quote
"I wholeheartedly beleive every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever weapons their goverment owns including nukes.
Do you think the law abiding citizen is going to kill everyone with his nuke?
Why wouldn't that same law abiding citizen by your logic go on a killing spree with his 6 shot revolver?"
End Quote
Well, as long as the citizen remains law-abiding, then by definition, he will not unleash his nukes and kill everyone. But stuff happens. What if he has a mental illness, loses his job and can no longer afford his medications, and then little voices start telling him to go out and start killing? The consequences would vary greatly depending upon the destructive power he had at his disposal. Tragic as it still would be, collectively we'd be better off if the hypothetical subject carried out his killing spree with a six shot revolver, instead of a much more powerful, higher-capacity weapon.
Thanks for your reply.
Quote
"I wholeheartedly beleive every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever weapons their goverment owns including nukes.
Do you think the law abiding citizen is going to kill everyone with his nuke?
Why wouldn't that same law abiding citizen by your logic go on a killing spree with his 6 shot revolver?"
End Quote
Well, as long as the citizen remains law-abiding, then by definition, he will not unleash his nukes and kill everyone. But stuff happens. What if he has a mental illness, loses his job and can no longer afford his medications, and then little voices start telling him to go out and start killing? The consequences would vary greatly depending upon the destructive power he had at his disposal. Tragic as it still would be, collectively we'd be better off if the hypothetical subject carried out his killing spree with a six shot revolver, instead of a much more powerful, higher-capacity weapon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked