CDZ Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

[2aguy]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

 

[PredFan]

We all know the answer to that question.

 

[BULLDOG]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

Laws against murder do not stop murder. Murderers don't follow those laws, so lets just do away with those useless laws. That makes as much sense as the silly crap you keep repeating.

 

[2aguy]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

Laws against murder do not stop murder. Murderers don't follow those laws, so lets just do away with those useless laws. That makes as much sense as the silly crap you keep repeating.

And yet you keep repeating the same phony argument.....

No one here on the pro civil Rights side of the argument wants to get rid of laws.....we keep telling you we already have them and can already use them to stop criminals. We simply point out that you guys keep letting the criminals back onto the streets, even violent gun offenders with repeated gun offenses.

Then, you guys propose laws that would not even be a blip against actual criminals or mass shooters....

Criminals ignore the laws so the only recourse is to punish them when they are caught, you guys can't seem to grasp that operation.

Mass public shooters actually go through all of your laws and requirements, and get the guns legally, because they are not criminals till the mass shooting.....and those who couldn't pass the laws you made? They stole their guns, like the criminls.

Here are 3 things I think most 2nd Amendment supporters can support....and the beauty of them...you don't have to ban 30 round magazines to do any of them...and they actually work to stop criminals....mass shooters require the end of gun free zones.

1) Any actual crime committed with a gun is an automatic 30 year sentence, that is rape, robbery or murder.

2) Any violent felon caught buying, owning or carrying a gun is an automatic 30 year sentence.

3) Law abiding gun owners can carry their guns onto private property...gun free zones would end.....they would also end for all public and private schools...in order to keep mass public shooters from targeting these locations.

How is that saying we just want to get rid of all laws?....explain that please

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are anti gunners serious when they say they will stop at 10 round magazines?

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

 

[jon_berzerk]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

Laws against murder do not stop murder. Murderers don't follow those laws, so lets just do away with those useless laws. That makes as much sense as the silly crap you keep repeating.

so why write laws that only affect the law abiding

 

[Toronado3800]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

 

[2aguy]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

I have no dog in the bump stock fight........mags and Civilian rifles though, you don't get those...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually since the new proposed law bans ALL detachable magazines they have already ADMITTED they won't stop at 10 rounds.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

nope

i will consider giving up my 2nd when

you give up your 1st and 4th amendments

 

[Toronado3800]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

nope

i will consider giving up my 2nd when

you give up your 1st and 4th amendments

Um, you gave up your right to automatic weapons w/o jumping through hoops already. I don't get the anger here. Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The group think is amazing.

Give me your bumpstocks and I'll let you keep your mags.

nope

i will consider giving up my 2nd when

you give up your 1st and 4th amendments

Um, you gave up your right to automatic weapons w/o jumping through hoops already. I don't get the anger here. Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

Do you think full auto's

yup if miller ever gets revisited that will the opinion

the question was asked " Was Miller's Shotgun useful to the military"?


besides that you can purchase a "full auto" legally right now

although an Abrams is a crew served weapon

through the proper channels one can get a Tank

 

[oldsoul]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

 

[oldsoul]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

Tell that to the English circa 1776. The Russians circa 1970's. The Russians circa 1940's. And both the French and the US in Vietnam. You really are not helping your argument here. Guerilla warfare has ALWAYS favored the "home" team, the "little guy".

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

Tell that to the English circa 1776. The Russians circa 1970's. The Russians circa 1940's. And both the French and the US in Vietnam. You really are not helping your argument here. Guerilla warfare has ALWAYS favored the "home" team, the "little guy".

We haven't always had drones or radar that can tell when a person on screen farts.

 

[miketx]

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?

I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.

So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.

FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.

How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.

You really are a liar aren't you? Either that or you are clueless.

 

[bodecea]

At least 5 dead at an Elementary School shooting in N. California today.....just thought all should know.

 

[miketx]

At least 5 dead at an Elementary School shooting in N. California today.....just thought all should know.

Looks like a good guy with a gun took him out. Too bad your kind doesn't want people to be able to defend themselves in schools. Now be a good lib and ask "Defend yourself from what?" lol....

 

[martybegan]

The left always says they just want common sense gun control....and one of those measures they always want is a limit on 10 bullets for all magazines

Now, keep in mind, this will not limit the deaths in mass shootings, as actual research shows. The killers, like the guy in Texas had plenty of magazines and changed them 14 times while he was murdering those people.

And Criminals won't care about a 10 round limit because they will just get theirs illegally, and they can rape a woman just as easily with a 10 round magazine, murder a rival or rob someone.

The only people a 10 round magazine limit effects is the law abiding gun owner, who does not commit any crime or murder. People who have guns that take 15-19 rounds in their pistols...will now be criminals if they don't do something with their guns.....dittos rifles that will take 30 round magazines.....

I have listed the points made by David Kopel on why law abiding people need more than 10 rounds, in other places and would happily do so again. I have also posted the ruling by the California judge placing a hold on the new California magazine ban where he accurately takes apart all of the arguments made against 10 round magazines.

The question, however, is this.........if the anti gunners get all the 15-30 round magazines....will they leave the 10 round magazines alone?

Keep in mind, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines to murder 6 people.......

Laws against murder do not stop murder. Murderers don't follow those laws, so lets just do away with those useless laws. That makes as much sense as the silly crap you keep repeating.

There is a difference between laws that punish actual actions that harm others, and those that prevent people from having an item for the simple reason that they "might" do something wrong with it.

The reason we punish murderers is the State has taken over the right of justice from the victims relatives and friends, so the State punishes the offender for their ACTION instead of the aggrieved survivors hanging the perpetrator from the nearest tree.