Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bad news: We are.Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.
Never mind that the partisan bigot proceeds from a false premise, that the 2nd has anything to do with hunting.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?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.
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!
Bad news: We are.Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.
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.
Not as far as I know, from what has made the news.I didn't get an answer earlier:Bad news: We are.Law abiding citizens should not be allowed to have machine guns or armor piercing bullets, for example.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.
This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?
To limit one, or both?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....
Not as far as I know, from what has made the news.I didn't get an answer earlier:Bad news: We are.
And we are because we have a right to own these things, a right that is protected by the Constitution.
This guy in Colorado who allegedly shot up the movie theater....did he commit any crime that we know of prior to opening fire?
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.
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.I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.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.
Please give it a shot.
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?
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?
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?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.
Now, if you can explain why anyone would absolutely need more than six rounds in a weapon, I'm happy to listen.
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?
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.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.
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).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
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.
What are high capacity magazines designed for?
Holding more ammo in a single clip. That was easy.
More ammo for what purpose?
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.Did this Some Guy dude just compare high capacity magazines to rock salt. Desperation much?
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.
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.Did this Some Guy dude just compare high capacity magazines to rock salt. Desperation much?
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.