Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

 

[satrebil]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

The only thing which made sense was your signature, of course you forgot to post it below your text.

Since it was directed at me, I'll offer a proper use of syntax and spelling:

Until then: Shut up.

Sincerely,

Idiot

Sorry, did the logic of your argument suddenly not compute when applied to another Constitutional Amendment?

Funny how that works....

 

[satrebil]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

They obviously didn't mean internet, TV, or radio -- this is undeniable.

 

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

They obviously didn't mean internet, TV, or radio -- this is undeniable.

a tool designed only to kill vs Inet/TV/etc = that is some great ''logic'' there
I've been over this before--free speech is limited

 

[miketx]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

I don't need any. Just the standard 30 rounders the Ak comes with are fine.

 

[Desperado]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

 

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

 

[satrebil]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

They obviously didn't mean internet, TV, or radio -- this is undeniable.

a tool designed only to kill vs Inet/TV/etc = that is some great ''logic'' there
I've been over this before--free speech is limited

Free speech is only limited when you directly threaten someone. Everything else is fair game. My ownership of an AR does not directly threaten you in the slightest.

Regardless, I'm not going to play this game with you. You don't get to choose when your logic applies and when it doesn't. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern day incarnations, than neither does freedom of speech.

Own it, hypocrite.

 

[satrebil]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

Patented 1718. Does this look like a musket to you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

133, and I don't buy it, unless you were shot or clubbed in the head on duty... Or are Christopher Dorner's ghost.

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

It’s clearly ignorant and factually wrong – it was not the Framers’ intent that the Second Amendment allow every citizen to keep and carry any firearm whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment case law.

 

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

Patented 1718. Does this look like a musket to you?

View attachment 279086

hahahhahahahha
hahahahha--you fked up--MGs/ etc are greatly regulated
C4/grenades/etc are banned

 

[Desperado]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

 

[harmonica]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

are you kidding???!!!

 

[Desperado]

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

are you kidding???!!!

So I take it, that was just your opinion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

The only thing which made sense was your signature, of course you forgot to post it below your text.

Since it was directed at me, I'll offer a proper use of syntax and spelling:

Until then: Shut up.

Sincerely,

Idiot

Sorry, did the logic of your argument suddenly not compute when applied to another Constitutional Amendment?

Funny how that works....

Could you be any more vague?

 

[M14 Shooter]

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife

Because a firearm is better at projecting deadly force.
Duh.

hahahahah--you ''gun'' nuts are contradicting yourselves big time

When did I contradict myself?
How is my answer wrong?

 

[harmonica]

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

are you kidding???!!!

So I take it, that was just your opinion.

I don't think many civilians could buy cannons/etc
there were no 30 round hand held weapons invented/etc
duh

 

[satrebil]

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

Patented 1718. Does this look like a musket to you?

View attachment 279086

hahahhahahahha
hahahahha--you fked up--MGs/ etc are greatly regulated
C4/grenades/etc are banned

Moving the goalposts again are we?

You said the founding fathers were undeniably referring to muskets. I just showed you an "assault weapon" that predates the 2A by over 70 fucking years that any civilian could have owned, and now you're trying to change the argument. Typical.

FYI, princess, "machine guns" weren't regulated until the 1930s, 140 years after the 2A was written. So yes, people owned them.

Get it through your head: You're not getting the guns. E-V-E-R.

 

[harmonica]

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife

Because a firearm is better at projecting deadly force.
Duh.

hahahahah--you ''gun'' nuts are contradicting yourselves big time

When did I contradict myself?
How is my answer wrong?

hahhahahah--read it again and reply
I said you gun nutS

 

[M14 Shooter]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075
^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

The only thing which made sense was your signature, of course you forgot to post it below your text.
Since it was directed at me, I'll offer a proper use of syntax and spelling:
Until then: Shut up.
Sincerely,
Idiot

Haven;t you heard? Mocking gun owners is obsolete. Get with it.