Simple SOLUTION to gun control

Because they have yet to head a sound argument to that end, with a specific and detailed explanation as to how said ban does not violate the Constitution.

Givie it a try. I dare you.

it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.

further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.

the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.

The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.

A magazine is not a weapon. That aside your criteria only fixes a minimum standard. We clearly do not allow individuals to own all weaponry used by the military. Therefore simply arguing that large magazines are used by the military is insufficient to label them as absolutely protected.
 
it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.

further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.

the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.

The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.

A magazine is not a weapon. That aside your criteria only fixes a minimum standard. We clearly do not allow individuals to own all weaponry used by the military. Therefore simply arguing that large magazines are used by the military is insufficient to label them as absolutely protected.

The recent ruling also goes against your desire. The 2nd is an Individual right of self protection. Preventing the use of magazines that hold more then 10 rounds prevents effective self defense and as to militia use makes the weapon unacceptable to the military. Further the shooter in the latest incident only got off a couple rounds because the 100 round drum is poorly made. He had to resort to a shotgun and pistol when his rifle jammed.

A Magazine is an integral part of a weapon that uses them. Your argument is similar to past ones claiming they could ban ammunition because the second did not stipulate ammo.
 
Becauase doing so places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.


Presuming your previous statement is relevant to this one...
Specifcally, how does simple ownership/posession of a 100-round magazine place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

Unless you can answer that question, your agument fails and my statement stands.

Just because you set conditions for the argument doesn't make the conditions legitimate.
As I said:
Your agument fails, and my statement stands - because no one has heard a sound argument to that end, one that specifically explains how that ban does not violate the Constitution.

Get back to me when you figure out a way to address the question.

You claimed that in order for there to be constitutionally sound limitations put on the rights to free speech and gun ownership,

there has to be a clear, immediate, and present danger that the law is addressing.

There is no such criterion.
 
Because they have yet to head a sound argument to that end, with a specific and detailed explanation as to how said ban does not violate the Constitution.

Givie it a try. I dare you.

it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.

further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.

the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.

The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.

That would also include fully automatic weapons, so by your logic the Aurora killer should have been able to legally purchase and own those to carry out his act.
 
All you gun grabbers that are upset by the fact the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own weapons... simple solution.

Since no law that bans semi automatics will survive a court challenge and since no law banning magazine sizes will either, go for what you REALLY want.

Ask for an amendment to repel the 2nd. Or are you afraid that admitting your goal is the elimination of all firearms will not pass muster with the citizenry?
Cite any serious attempt to ban guns.
Guns are curremtly banned in many places -- California has several.

Name one.
 
Not only should fully automatic weapons be available to anyone and everyone, but what the hell is wrong with owning a sawed off shotgun?

The NRA needs to eliminate the ban on sawed off shotguns. Great room cleaners they are.
 
Not only should fully automatic weapons be available to anyone and everyone, but what the hell is wrong with owning a sawed off shotgun?

The NRA needs to eliminate the ban on sawed off shotguns. Great room cleaners they are.

Has the ban on sawed off shotguns eliminated them?

ETA: It's had 78 years to work so far....
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?
 
Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.

I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.

So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Question. How many rounds would you limit it to, and what do you think that will accomplish?
 
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Nah, why bother. Once you are dead it doens't make any difference how many more times you are shot. And if you can't hit your target in rounds 1 through 6, you probably won't hit it at all. Though you might be able to hit something you were not aiming at.

Quote: Originally Posted by zeke
Not only should fully automatic weapons be available to anyone and everyone, but what the hell is wrong with owning a sawed off shotgun?

The NRA needs to eliminate the ban on sawed off shotguns. Great room cleaners they are.
Has the ban on sawed off shotguns eliminated them?


No. but why should you get in trouble if you have one?
 
Yeah because we all know the criminals will follow these laws

Criminals break all kinds of laws. Should we then get rid of laws? Criminals break in and steal things so we shouldn't make breaking and entering illegal?

Do you really think that, because criminals break laws, we should let them BUY as many assault weapons as they want to? Love the logic...
 
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Nah, why bother. Once you are dead it doens't make any difference how many more times you are shot. And if you can't hit your target in rounds 1 through 6, you probably won't hit it at all. Though you might be able to hit something you were not aiming at.

If persons 1-6 are killed, it matters to the 7th person.
 
So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.

I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Question. How many rounds would you limit it to, and what do you think that will accomplish?

Single digits; I'll let physics dictate how many is practical.

It slows down the rate that someone can fire lethal rounds thus allowing, possibly, more people to get away. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. It allows people who love guns to continue to acquire them. If you hunt, you can still hunt with your weapon. I guess the downside is if you're confronted with 7 guys and you can only kill 6 of them.

According to some here, in that case of 7 people coming after you, it's your fault for not being responsible enough to take out all 7.
 
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Question. How many rounds would you limit it to, and what do you think that will accomplish?

Single digits; I'll let physics dictate how many is practical.

It slows down the rate that someone can fire lethal rounds thus allowing, possibly, more people to get away. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. It allows people who love guns to continue to acquire them. If you hunt, you can still hunt with your weapon. I guess the downside is if you're confronted with 7 guys and you can only kill 6 of them.

According to some here, in that case of 7 people coming after you, it's your fault for not being responsible enough to take out all 7.

Well, you can't get the genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back into the tube. The fact is that there are millions of 30 round mags out there, and the criminals that want them already have them, or will get them on the black market. Banning them now won't accomplish what you want, so why do it? All it does is stop honest citizens from getting them.

My concern is the coming breakdown of society. A thorough reading of history will show you that this is possible, even if not likely. I would rather be prepared for that possibility than to count on government to protect me and my family.

I guess that's the old Boy Scout motto in me...
 
@ Pheonixops: lol, that's ok. I've never even held a gun and know nothing about them ... so I ask!

Heavens to Betsy Bug, Man! Get out to a firin' range and shoot off a couple of boxes of shells at some clay birds or somethin'! You'll feel exhilaration, joy, shock, awe all at the same time...and might get of whiff of gunpowder to boot.

I'm a cowboy. I like to ride my horse and shoot my gun!
 
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?

Question. How many rounds would you limit it to, and what do you think that will accomplish?

Single digits; I'll let physics dictate how many is practical.

It slows down the rate that someone can fire lethal rounds thus allowing, possibly, more people to get away. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. It allows people who love guns to continue to acquire them. If you hunt, you can still hunt with your weapon. I guess the downside is if you're confronted with 7 guys and you can only kill 6 of them.

According to some here, in that case of 7 people coming after you, it's your fault for not being responsible enough to take out all 7.
You silly! The rate at which a gunman can fire with a semi-automatic weapon is not dependent on the size of the clip. It depends on the gun and the shooter.

I have a 2 shot derringer that I consider a formidable weapon.

Having three 10 round clips is just about as effective as having one 30 round clip.

Limiting the size of the clip is like limiting the size of home made bombs. Similarly, the silly ass 3 ounce limit for carry-on liquids makes little sense.
 
Not only should fully automatic weapons be available to anyone and everyone, but what the hell is wrong with owning a sawed off shotgun?

The NRA needs to eliminate the ban on sawed off shotguns. Great room cleaners they are.

Has the ban on sawed off shotguns eliminated them?

ETA: It's had 78 years to work so far....

Have laws against having sex with children ended sex with children? Are those laws thus of no value?
 
Question. How many rounds would you limit it to, and what do you think that will accomplish?

Single digits; I'll let physics dictate how many is practical.

It slows down the rate that someone can fire lethal rounds thus allowing, possibly, more people to get away. It doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. It allows people who love guns to continue to acquire them. If you hunt, you can still hunt with your weapon. I guess the downside is if you're confronted with 7 guys and you can only kill 6 of them.

According to some here, in that case of 7 people coming after you, it's your fault for not being responsible enough to take out all 7.

Well, you can't get the genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back into the tube. The fact is that there are millions of 30 round mags out there, and the criminals that want them already have them, or will get them on the black market. Banning them now won't accomplish what you want, so why do it? All it does is stop honest citizens from getting them.
Yes it will. Much like cars without seat belts. You can still find them today. There were millions upon millions. Now there may be a million at most. It weeds itself out afterwhile. Is that all you got?

My concern is the coming breakdown of society. A thorough reading of history will show you that this is possible, even if not likely. I would rather be prepared for that possibility than to count on government to protect me and my family.

I guess that's the old Boy Scout motto in me...

Ahh...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top