CDZ What is a "high capacity" gun magazine...how many bullets?

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Humorme]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

 

[rightwinger]

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

There is ample data on how much water firemen use to fight fires. Fire departments don't buy truck to carry a million gallons because they know they would never need that much

Same way we know private citizens do not need more than 15 rounds in a magazine

Nope......it took 40 rounds to put down the democrat, Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to murder the Republican baseball team....let me see....how many more bullets than 15 is 40?

And of course, you bait and switch...you guys aren't calling for allowing standard magazines...you want 10 round magazines...which would eliminate millions of privately owned, lawfully owned guns that take 15-19 bullets as standard capacity........

I'm cool with 15

Still no real justification why more would be needed

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

If our founding fathers had seen the annual massacres our nation endures due to the ready availability of firearms, they never would have passed the Second Amendment

If our Founding fathers knew that atheist governments around the world would murder 100 million innocent men, women and children, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't have been a free choice...they would have mandated that all Americans have several Rifles of the most advanced military design easily accessible at all times.....

If they knew that a rental truck would kill more people each year, except one, than all the mass public shootings in a year combined...they would have eliminated rental trucks....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

We are a government of the people , by the people and for the people

Right now, out government is doing a poor job of protecting the people with 30,000 gun fatalities a year

 

[miketx]

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

Every single one, since the victim has no idea how many rounds it will take to stop their attackers.....

You tell me which house fires require more than 100 gallons of water....

There is ample data on how much water firemen use to fight fires. Fire departments don't buy truck to carry a million gallons because they know they would never need that much

Same way we know private citizens do not need more than 15 rounds in a magazine

Nope......it took 40 rounds to put down the democrat, Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to murder the Republican baseball team....let me see....how many more bullets than 15 is 40?

And of course, you bait and switch...you guys aren't calling for allowing standard magazines...you want 10 round magazines...which would eliminate millions of privately owned, lawfully owned guns that take 15-19 bullets as standard capacity........

I'm cool with 15

Still no real justification why more would be needed

You'll simply ignore any facts provided.

 

[rightwinger]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[rightwinger]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

seems to me that 20 rounds in an AR is optimal but all capacity mags should be available for sale and use .

I just recently purchased a semi-automatic Chicago Typewriter with a 50 round drum and 30 round clip. It was on sale and I just had to get it for my collection.

Auto-Ordnance Semiautomatic Rifle : Cabela's

 

[Toronado3800]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

The 2nd was written with the future of the US in their minds. They knew what the government was and still is capable of because of the Tyranny of the Government those patriots had just fought against. They knew that with future technology that the individual US citizens should be able to defend themselves from the government who eventually will try to FORCE each person to be in a collective and give up their rights. Shame you are educated enough or just too far gone to the left to understand those rights and how they are to protect you..

 

[Humorme]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

 

[Humorme]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

 

[rightwinger]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

No...the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment states the Right of the People to keep and bear arms...it does not say the Right of the militia......please, try reading it more closely next time.

But, (and we are only talking about the poor wording because you brought up a literal interpretation of something else if I recall) I believe the jumble of words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." could mean "since we military security is necessary everyone can own whatever weapon they want".

1. I get my Apache so I can defend us from Canada or whoever.

2. Or, the only people who get weapons are those who contribute to national security. Does this mean everyone who is eligible for the draft? There is some logic to that.

The combination of the first phrase "A well regulated Militia", the second "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it one thought. It is as if the militia, national security and the right to privately owned weapons are tied together.

Obviously the founding fathers did not mean either of the above as it is not what they practiced and thus judges liberally ruled accordingly for centuries. Its sure what that Amendment says though.

The Bill of Rights isn't that large a document I'll cut the writers slack for poor wording lol.

Yeah....the problem with your analysis is the "Bear" part.......you can't carry a helicopter...

And you have no clue what you are talking about.....Scalia goes through the issue in Heller...you should actually read that before you comment on it....

I think my point has missed you.

The 2nd is poorly written.

Judges acted liberally based on how it was applied by the founding fathers not how it was written.

(I think largely they got it right if we are going by rules as intended vs rules as written. As written the 2nd is up for debate as much as the book of revelations is.)

No it isn't. There is nothing ambiguous about our federal Constitution.

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

What ever Congress prescribes for the militia of the United States.

 

[Humorme]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

 

[Humorme]

We have a Second Amendment, we don't need the expense of our wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not. You are.

No, you are....

You are irrelevant, immaterial and not a part of the militia. Quit being redundant.

 

[rightwinger]

Sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

Care to advance your premise?

Simply claiming that with out one is a fallacy.

Our Second Amendment is what is necessary to the security of a free State.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

But, the militia constitutes ALL able bodied men and women.

And what does a "well regulated militia" constitute?

All those bearing arms

Not very well regulated

With 30,000 gun deaths a year.....seems we need better regulation