Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[9thIDdoc]

Bullets are just as deadly coming as going and neither can ID cops.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.

Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Define "high capacity." Because it's easy to say "50 rounds is high capacity" but it might not be to some people.

If a law was enacted outright banning the use of "high capacity magazines" then all you need to do it change the definition of "high capacity" from 50 (or whatever that number is) to 1 and you've essentially outlawed the use of a gun.

If a lunatic can get hold of any gun and do something bad with it, it ultimately isn't going to matter too much whether or not he has a high capacity magazine or not. He'll still kill people in cold blood, it'll still be a tragedy and he'll still be the exception and not the rule.

A weapon holding more than 6 (SIX) rounds is high capacity. If you can't hit your prey (and I'm assuming the weapon will be designed and used exclusively for hunting) after six shots, you shouldn't be hunting, should you?

Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.

Because there might be 7 guys in my front yard trying to hurt my family, you ignorant fucking shitstain!

Never mind that the partisan bigot proceeds from a false premise, that the 2nd has anything to do with hunting.

 

[candycorn]

Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.

Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.

I didn't get an answer earlier:

This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

=== EDIT===

Thus far, the only person to admit having a (typically liberal) double standard on this issue is Nosmo King:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tions-of-the-tiny-minority-7.html#post5684662

I added his response to the poll as he did not have the courage to do so.

Definitely morally acceptable....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.

Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.

I didn't get an answer earlier:
This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?

Not as far as I know, from what has made the news.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you believe it is constitutionally/legally/conceptually/morally acceptable to...

...Limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens because a negligible minority might shoot up a theater?
...Limit the religious rights of law-abiding muslims because a negligible minority might fly an airliner into a skyscraper?

If you believe one is acceptable but not the other, please explain, in detail the difference.

=== EDIT===

Thus far, the only person to admit having a (typically liberal) double standard on this issue is Nosmo King:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tions-of-the-tiny-minority-7.html#post5684662

I added his response to the poll as he did not have the courage to do so.

Definitely morally acceptable....

To limit one, or both?

 

[candycorn]

Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.

I didn't get an answer earlier:
This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?

Not as far as I know, from what has made the news.

Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it it remarkable that NO ONE said they believe it is OK to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, given the large number of pro-gun control people on this board.

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

There is no need for high capacity magazines other than the ability to wreck havoc. Hunting? If you can't hit your prey on the first or second shot, hunting isn't what you want to do. Target shooting? After you spray 25 or 30 rounds at a target, you should have hit it, right? you are not going for accuracy, but only to expend a large amount of lead.

So what is the virtue of high capacity magazines?

Those weapons do not belong on the streets. They belong in....WELL REGULATED MILITIAS.

the only reason such weapons were designed was to kill as many people as fast as possible. Hardly a device that should enjoy protection as a right.

Spoken like someone who knows nothing whatsoever about firearms, OR crazy mass murderers, and just wants to PASS A LAW - any fucking law - so you can feel like you've done something and pretend like you're safer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.
Please give it a shot.

Alright. Since you want to frame the argument to make it easier on you; YES I believe that 'rights' of law abiding citizens should be amended to protect society even if a lone lunatic abuses his privilege.

How does amending the rights of law-abiding citizens protect anyone?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

 

[thanatos144]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

Not sure how they think a "high capacity magazine" makes you shoot faster. Are they under the impression that the guns are automatic?

Chances are they have no clue what semi-automatic really means.....they are pissing themselves thinking it is the same as automatic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what on God's green Earth would you know about integrity and intellectual honesty? Or the virtue of a high capacity magazine?

Define "high capacity." Because it's easy to say "50 rounds is high capacity" but it might not be to some people.

If a law was enacted outright banning the use of "high capacity magazines" then all you need to do it change the definition of "high capacity" from 50 (or whatever that number is) to 1 and you've essentially outlawed the use of a gun.

If a lunatic can get hold of any gun and do something bad with it, it ultimately isn't going to matter too much whether or not he has a high capacity magazine or not. He'll still kill people in cold blood, it'll still be a tragedy and he'll still be the exception and not the rule.

A weapon holding more than 6 (SIX) rounds is high capacity. If you can't hit your prey (and I'm assuming the weapon will be designed and used exclusively for hunting) after six shots, you shouldn't be hunting, should you?

Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.

Spoken like someone who's never been hunting. "Miss? Good hunters never miss."

Obviously, dimwit, the reason is that they don't want to have to keep track of multiple smaller magazines, or worse, loose ammunition. Similar to the reason that one packs one large suitcase when traveling, rather than several smaller ones.

Not sure I want to hear pontification on hunting from someone who so obviously has never done so, and appears to hold it in a bit of contempt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A weapon holding more than 6 (SIX) rounds is high capacity. If you can't hit your prey (and I'm assuming the weapon will be designed and used exclusively for hunting) after six shots, you shouldn't be hunting, should you?

Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.

And you get to determine someone's need? You want only 6 shots when your are defending yourself in an unknown situation?? You want to be hunting a bear or come across one while hunting and only have 6 shots available??

200 in a barrel clip, I might agree with you on high capacity... but if you enjoy going to the range and firing off that many on full auto on your tommy gun, so be it... but 6 is not high capacity, sorry Charlie

I need 5 tons of fertilizer and 40 bottles of Sudafed. Why cant I get them?

Just buy them the way Mr. Holmes bought his guns: gradually over time. I know you'd like to pretend he just logged onto Guns R Us and ordered the whole shebang in one go, but that's not the case.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A weapon holding more than 6 (SIX) rounds is high capacity. If you can't hit your prey (and I'm assuming the weapon will be designed and used exclusively for hunting) after six shots, you shouldn't be hunting, should you?

Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.

I live in Chicago, and if i found myself in the middle of one of the many shootings going on here on a regular basis, 6 wouldn't be nearly enough for me to feel comfortable.

And to DiamondDave's point. If i'm hunting in the wildnerness and could possibly be attacked by a Bear, or a Boar, or something that could easily kill me if it got me on the ground, let's just say the more ammo i have to fire off without having to reload, the better.

I don't even own a gun. I don't hunt, don't go shooting, etc. But, i recognize the needs/desires of many law abiding citizens. Guns and high capacity magazines don't kill people: people kill people.

One shot kills one person. Having dozens of shots allows you to shoot up a theater or class room or restaurant. And you're right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But guns don't die. People die.

You know, guns aren't cameras. They aren't just point and shoot. Saying, "One shot kills one person" is like saying, "One sexual encounter equals one pregnancy." Optimistic and unrealistic.

FYI, I could have killed just as many people as Mr. Holmes in the same amount of time with a couple of regular handguns. You're watching too many movies (if that's not in bad taste to say these days), and letting your imagination run wild.

 

[Jackson]

Why would you put those two in the same category? Limiting weapons is very different than religious freedom. One is about destruction, the other is not.

You could say missiles and bombs instead of guns and try to make them not limited to be equal to freedom of religion as well.

At the time that guns were permitted by the constitution there were not AK 47's and repeating firearms that weren't meant for defending oneself and hunting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hunt for bear with a Glock do you? Or an AR-15?

And yes, I do hunt with an AR, and my Saiga is right with me as well

Hunting in this area (the upper Ohio River Valley) is like skiing is in Vail. I've yet to meet anyone who would hunt with an AR-15. Most of the hunters here use shotguns (in Ohio for deer and turkey) or a 30.06 rifle for deer (In Pennsylvania and West Virginia for deer).

It seems they enjoy the venison. A tough thing to do if eight or twelve rounds has been pumped into the deer. Most hunters revel in dropping their quarry with one shot, not emptying a clip into their prey.

Lemme ask you a question, oh hunting guru. Any of your huntin' buddies, whose anecdotal hearsay evidence we're apparently supposed to make public policy on, ever miss their shot and have to track the animal down? Or do they just go hunting with one bullet for each animal they plan to take home?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What are high capacity magazines designed for?

Holding more ammo in a single clip. That was easy.

More ammo for what purpose?

To have it available when you need it. This isn't rocket magic, Junior, but I assume you've got some sort of puerile "Gotcha!" moment at the end of your painfully obvious questions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did this Some Guy dude just compare high capacity magazines to rock salt. Desperation much?

No one seems to be able to describe the virtue of a high capacity magazine! I think there are plenty of Mall Ninjas and Keyboard Commandos who think that, if they were in the theater and armed, somehow they would be able to stop the shooter without harming anyone else. In the confusion, darkness and tear gas, I don't think any of the Rambo wannabes could do anything but quake in fear.

The reality is there would be more innocents shot if the patrons of the theater were all packing. Imagine fifteen or twenty handguns firing fifteen or twenty shots apiece hoping that their target was really the shooter and not someone else with a Barney Fife complex hopped up on Mountain Dew and adrenaline.

Oh, they answered you. You just didn't want to hear the answer. < Nosmo, the typical leftist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did this Some Guy dude just compare high capacity magazines to rock salt. Desperation much?

No one seems to be able to describe the virtue of a high capacity magazine! I think there are plenty of Mall Ninjas and Keyboard Commandos who think that, if they were in the theater and armed, somehow they would be able to stop the shooter without harming anyone else. In the confusion, darkness and tear gas, I don't think any of the Rambo wannabes could do anything but quake in fear.

The reality is there would be more innocents shot if the patrons of the theater were all packing. Imagine fifteen or twenty handguns firing fifteen or twenty shots apiece hoping that their target was really the shooter and not someone else with a Barney Fife complex hopped up on Mountain Dew and adrenaline.

Idiot. While your indulging your juvenile imagination, imagine why he would have gone into a theater with guns if he'd known everyone there was armed? Crazy isn't synonymous with retarded.

Fucking moron.