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

[martybegan]

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

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

 

[miketx]

If gun control works so well How did James Brady get a gun shot wound to the head in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan from a loon with a handgun, in a city where they had been banned since 1976? - Miketx

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

guess you never heard of vietnam afghanistan iraq or syria?

 

[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.

guess you never heard of vietnam afghanistan iraq or syria?

Liberals don't work like that. He's heard about and even knows about it. He just chooses to ignore it like they do many many other facts.

 

[Darkwind]

in·cre·men·tal·ism
ˌiNGkrəˈmen(t)lˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in or advocacy of change by degrees; gradualism.

 

[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.

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.

A non qualified person buying fire arms does harm other's.

 

[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.

guess you never heard of vietnam afghanistan iraq or syria?

Of course I have. So?

 

[2aguy]

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.

It's not a few rifles....current count is over 100 million rifles and about 500 million hand guns....

And you just have to ask the Swiss....435,000 armed citizens..with actual military rifles, kept the German socialists from invading their country, the cost to the German army was going to be too high...so they just invaded all the European countries that took guns away from their people....

 

[2aguy]

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

And Nice, France....a rental truck was used to murder 89 and injure over 450 in 5 minutes....

 

[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.

It's not a few rifles....current count is over 100 million rifles and about 500 million hand guns....

And you just have to ask the Swiss....435,000 armed citizens..with actual military rifles, kept the German socialists from invading their country, the cost to the German army was going to be too high...so they just invaded all the European countries that took guns away from their people....

Are you really trying to compare the Swiss in 1940 with the power of our military today? Funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[cnm]

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

Got a link to them saying that?

 

[BULLDOG]

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

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

 

[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.

A non qualified person buying fire arms does harm other's.

Which is already illegal. Non-qualified means convicted felons, and people adjudicated mentally unfit.

I know there is an exception for misdemeanor domestic violence, but would prefer we just make all domestic violence felonies instead of giving an exception for a specific misdemeanor.

 

[martybegan]

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

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

 

[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

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

indeed

and the results the anti gunners promised

never happened

 

[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.

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.

A non qualified person buying fire arms does harm other's.

Which is already illegal. Non-qualified means convicted felons, and people adjudicated mentally unfit.

I know there is an exception for misdemeanor domestic violence, but would prefer we just make all domestic violence felonies instead of giving an exception for a specific misdemeanor.

You already said crooks won't follow the law. That's why we need universal checks, so honest sellers will know not to sell to them.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

 

[Spare_change]

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.......

Boston Globe: It's Time To Consider Gun Confiscation

Boston Globe: It's Time To Consider Gun Confiscation

 

[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.

A non qualified person buying fire arms does harm other's.

Which is already illegal. Non-qualified means convicted felons, and people adjudicated mentally unfit.

I know there is an exception for misdemeanor domestic violence, but would prefer we just make all domestic violence felonies instead of giving an exception for a specific misdemeanor.

You already said crooks won't follow the law. That's why we need universal checks, so honest sellers will know not to sell to them.

Every time your side proposes "universal checks" it's loaded with crap that makes basically handing your buddy on a hunting trip your rifle to hold for a few seconds illegal. Just like the proposed "assault weapons" ban that basically makes every single semi-automatic weapon illegal.

If your side can't be honest about things like that why the hell should we trust you at all?

 

[martybegan]

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

nope

let not one of their treasonous bills pass

The only part of that little story that is accurate is the gun nut saying he is not reasonable. This isn't about cake. It's about lots of dead people who shouldn't be dead,

It is an apt analogy to the fact that gun rights people have been "compromising" for decades now and all we get is more attempts at restriction.

Most people are gun rights people. I'm a gun rights person. What you mean is gun extremists, or commonly known as gun nuts.

Your gun rights credentials are thin at best.

Simple question, is the fact I have to spend $400 or so and wait 3-6 months in NYC simply to get a home use revolver license infringement or not?