Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone

[M14 Shooter]

Your irrational fears are not a sound argument for the restriction of my rights.

You being irrational is a sound argument for my fears.

Ah. A red herring. I accept your concession of the point.

I am perfectly rational, as post # 511 illustrates beyond any possible doubt.
Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
I don't see your response to said post, BTW, even though it was a response o one of your posts.
I do not wonder why.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey everyone. I’m a hypocrite like al gore when he preached about going green. Sure he has 3 homes all burning electricity and he flies on private jets but that doesn’t mean he can’t be for us as a society going green.

Same for me. I said my new gun comes with an 8 round clip and they shouldn’t make clips that hold more rounds, but then the guy shows up and he had two normal clips and one that holds ten instead of 8.

That doesn’t mean I approve of them making ten round clips.

But, guess which clip this hypocrite put in the gun? Lol

Here we go

I you had a gun you would know that the correct term is magazine not clip.

I assume you're speaking of a handgun and it doesn't matter what size the magazine is So what if my 9 mm carry gun has a 15 round magazine who the **** are you to tell me I should only have 8 rounds?

I’m the society you live in ****.

These are two of the 3 “clips” I just purchased.

???

Those aren't clips, clips look like this;

Clips have no springs or moving parts.

You young snot nosed kids don't understand that most of us old timers still use the term clip even when it's a magazine. And if you ever owned a SKS, you would still be using the clip.

Thanks Daryl. One thing is for sure. Me using the term clip doesn't prove I don't own a 1911 45 Ruger American made gun that has clips that hold 8 rounds. LOL.

That is a great weapon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here we go

I you had a gun you would know that the correct term is magazine not clip.

I assume you're speaking of a handgun and it doesn't matter what size the magazine is So what if my 9 mm carry gun has a 15 round magazine who the **** are you to tell me I should only have 8 rounds?

I’m the society you live in ****.

These are two of the 3 “clips” I just purchased.

???

Those aren't clips, clips look like this;

Clips have no springs or moving parts.

You young snot nosed kids don't understand that most of us old timers still use the term clip even when it's a magazine. And if you ever owned a SKS, you would still be using the clip.

Thanks Daryl. One thing is for sure. Me using the term clip doesn't prove I don't own a 1911 45 Ruger American made gun that has clips that hold 8 rounds. LOL.

You youngsters just don't have a clue.

 

[2aguy]

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Lol
You’re ******* clueless on the firearm issue...

No I am not. I get every argument you put forward. You have an argument for every possible solution we give to lower the number of people who are murdered by guns. For example, I love the "why don't we ban cars because one guy killed more people with a car than anyone ever has with a gun?" What a stupid argument.

We tell you people we are not trying to solve gun violence. Guns will always be around. I just think it'd be better if the only guns a nut can get their hands on is one that shoots 4 bullets. Then you have to take the magazing out, put 3 more bullets in, then put one in the chamber.

By that time the cops have already shown up and the campus is empty. You only killed 4 people. Maybe you killed 8. But you did not murder 20. That's all we are hoping for. We know nuts with guns will murder as long as the human race exists. Unless we become more civilized that is. No signs that this is happening in fact don't you right wing nuts say society is going to shit and the citizens today are worthless?

So the citizens today are not the same citizens we had when this country was founded, right? Maybe if our founding fathers had worthless pieces of shit citizens around them they would have given the 2nd amendment some more thought.

Instead of 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.

they should have said people owning guns is necessary to the security of a free state so the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It will however be regulated.

And actual research which you have been shown states you are wrong, magazine capacity does not limit the number of people killed since shooters are so relaxed and can change magazines so easily, it makes no difference in deaths and injuries...

Actual research....you theory is crap...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========



The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

 

[2aguy]

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Lol
You’re ******* clueless on the firearm issue...

No I am not. I get every argument you put forward. You have an argument for every possible solution we give to lower the number of people who are murdered by guns. For example, I love the "why don't we ban cars because one guy killed more people with a car than anyone ever has with a gun?" What a stupid argument.

We tell you people we are not trying to solve gun violence. Guns will always be around. I just think it'd be better if the only guns a nut can get their hands on is one that shoots 4 bullets. Then you have to take the magazing out, put 3 more bullets in, then put one in the chamber.

By that time the cops have already shown up and the campus is empty. You only killed 4 people. Maybe you killed 8. But you did not murder 20. That's all we are hoping for. We know nuts with guns will murder as long as the human race exists. Unless we become more civilized that is. No signs that this is happening in fact don't you right wing nuts say society is going to shit and the citizens today are worthless?

So the citizens today are not the same citizens we had when this country was founded, right? Maybe if our founding fathers had worthless pieces of shit citizens around them they would have given the 2nd amendment some more thought.

Instead of 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.

they should have said people owning guns is necessary to the security of a free state so the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It will however be regulated.

This judge understands how stupid your argument is....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

(12.) the critical “pause”

The State argues that smaller magazines create a “critical pause” in the shooting of a mass killer. “The prohibition of LCMs helps create a “critical pause” that has been proven to give victims an opportunity to hide, escape, or disable a shooter.” Def. Oppo., at 19.

This may be the case for attackers. On the other hand, from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a “lethal pause,” as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

In other words, the re-loading “pause” the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are disabled, or who have arthritis, or who are trying to hold a phone in their off-hand while attempting to call for police help.

The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show § 32310’s lack of reasonable fit.

=

 

[2aguy]

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

There's no sound argument for the necessity of these restrictions; they are both arbitrary and capricious.

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

 

[2aguy]

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Lol
You’re ******* clueless on the firearm issue...

I suppose you think this guy did nothing wrong?

'I've never seen so many weapons': Police seize over a thousand guns, ammo from home

Saenz apparently was licensed to own weapons -- and there is no prohibition on the number of guns a person can own -- but the person was selling the guns illegally, according to police.

Saenz, who was living in the home alone, was booked for unlawful transportationand giving, lending or selling assault weapons. Additional charges may be added later, including federal charges, authorities said. He is being held on $50,000 bond.

According to you guys you don't want the government knowing you have guns so I bet you think this guy did nothing wrong. He should be able to sell a gun the same way you sell a microwave.

If he was selling them, knowingly, to criminals he should be arrested, you dope....and notice....they caught him without background checks, gun registration or licensing.....they likely used a snitch, just like in all other police work....you dope.

 

[Clementine]

Every. Single. Dictator. Called for common sense gun control. First, they ban some of the weapons. Then they insist on a federal registry. Finally, they ban guns and, thanks to the registry, they know where to find all of them. They make laws that impose severe penalties for anyone failing to turn their guns in. Then the state, as it has in all socialist/communist countries, ends up killing many of their own people because population control is way higher on the list of priorities than actually helping people.

There is only one reason the government seeks to disarm the population. It has never been, and never will be, for the safety of the people. It is purely for the safety of the dictators. They do not want millions of people able to fight back against tyranny when the radicals take over.

The tyrants who are demanding open borders, one world government, and socialism are the very reason our forefathers created the constitution and Bill of Rights. They warned of the people who now seem to run the Dem party. They also knew that many sheep would be willing to cede all the rights. And here we are.

 

[Clementine]

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

There's no sound argument for the necessity of these restrictions; they are both arbitrary and capricious.

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Every. Single. Dictator. Called for common sense gun control. First, they ban some of the weapons. Then they insist on a federal registry. Finally, they ban guns and, thanks to the registry, they know where to find all of them. They make laws that impose severe penalties for anyone failing to turn their guns in. Then the state, as it has in all socialist/communist countries, ends up killing many of their own people because population control is way higher on the list of priorities than actually helping people.

There is only one reason the government seeks to disarm the population. It has never been, and never will be, for the safety of the people. It is purely for the safety of the dictators. They do not want millions of people able to fight back against tyranny when the radicals take over.

The tyrants who are demanding open borders, one world government, and socialism are the very reason our forefathers created the constitution and Bill of Rights. They warned of the people who now seem to run the Dem party. They also knew that many sheep would be willing to cede all the rights. And here we are.

Unlike them, we have a couple of things that prevents that from happening. The Constitution of the United States and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Part of that Constitution is to protect us from people that wish to do us harm. But you only misread one part and don't pay any attention to the rest of it.

 

[daveman]

What do you suggest we do to stop the shootings?

Lol
First of all shit happens, No amount of frivolous gun control laws will stop any shootings.
Most all of the violence in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws…

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Yes, when leftists take away rights slowly, incrementally, the resulting lack of freedom seems normal.

I'd refer you to the analogy of the boiled frog, but you wouldn't get it.

 

[sealybobo]

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

There's no sound argument for the necessity of these restrictions; they are both arbitrary and capricious.

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

 

[daveman]

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

There's no sound argument for the necessity of these restrictions; they are both arbitrary and capricious.

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

 

[sealybobo]

Lol
First of all shit happens, No amount of frivolous gun control laws will stop any shootings.
Most all of the violence in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws…

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Yes, when leftists take away rights slowly, incrementally, the resulting lack of freedom seems normal.

I'd refer you to the analogy of the boiled frog, but you wouldn't get it.

I’m just not paranoid about that. And you aren’t being denied a constitutional right just because the people in your society decide not to make some guns available. You can bare arms. What do you want? A revolver or shotgun? Or both. Have one or two of each. 22s too.

Maybe no more than that? Then you still bare arms.

 

[sealybobo]

There's no sound argument for the necessity of these restrictions; they are both arbitrary and capricious.

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

 

[daveman]

And that violence is committed by people who are legally ineligible to own firearms

But these morons want to target law abiding people with laws that do nothing to stop the illegal trafficking and illegal acquisition of firearms

Bullshit. We should be regulating the manufacturing and sales of firearms better.

Like I said if in 100 years they only made 5 shot revolvers and rifles your grandkids won’t have hard ons for guns they’ve never seen because they were outlawed a century ago.

It would be great if clips were limited to 5 shots.

Do you really believe this horseshit?

They don't make '57 Chevys anymore, either. Nobody's forgotten about them.

You're too unstable to own firearms.

Why don't we make steel 57 Chevy's anymore? Besides it's too expensive, those cars are too dangerous. Hitting someone with one of those causes too much damage. Today we have safer cars.

So good analogy. In the future we won't make glocks because they are too dangerous. And your grandkids won't even blink an eye just like the other day you guys bragged that we can still buy tommy guns. Sure you can, they're just very very very heavily regulated. And you can't buy cop killer ammo anymore. And yet you guys seem to be accepting of the regulations right?

So we could totally go one further.

Any gun for sale will only hold 8 bullets max.
High power rifles hold 4
Shotguns hold 5
Even a 22 should only hold 10 bullets.

And your grandkids won't mind. Would they like to have a 20 round gun like their grandpappy had? Sure but they don't make them anymore. You can buy one but they are expensive and heavily regulated.

Yes, when leftists take away rights slowly, incrementally, the resulting lack of freedom seems normal.

I'd refer you to the analogy of the boiled frog, but you wouldn't get it.

I’m just not paranoid about that. And you aren’t being denied a constitutional right just because the people in your society decide not to make some guns available. You can bare arms. What do you want? A revolver or shotgun? Or both. Have one or two of each. 22s too.

Maybe no more than that? Then you still bare arms.

Only every third word you type will be displayed on the internet. And you can't repeat every word three times.

You still have your First Amendment rights. What are you complaining about?

 

[daveman]

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

And I'm telling you your fragile emotions have no impact on reality.

 

[Rustic]

Sure there is. If I take my Ruger 450 Bushmaster gun to a clock tower and decide to do harm to people, the gun only holds 3 plus one in the chamber. Why do you think they made this gun this way? Because it's made for hunting. No need for more than 4 bullets.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10? Because you want to do more damage. And since we have nuts on a weekly basis trying to break the record for most murders, I don't think we should make these high power assault rifles available to the masses.

I saw some high power guns on the net. Some were $1000 and some were $3000. If I were the government I'd tax these guns at 50%. And I would want to know who's buying these guns.

I know, you don't want to be on a list. I know all the arguments. Fine. If you buy the Ruger 450 that only holds 4 bullets, you don't need to be on the list.

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

Lol
More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul.... fact

 

[sealybobo]

So why do you want a mag that can hold 10?

There may be more than one attacker, and they all might have guns.....more ammo means I can actually have a chance at shooting back at all of them.

I may be injured...changing a magazine because an asshat like you made it illegal to have more than 5 rounds, while I am injured is much more difficult.....so having 5 to 20 more rounds already in my weapon means I won't have to change my magazine when I am fighting for my life or the life of my family.

If I or my family are attacked, we may only have the bullets in my gun to protect us, since carrying around several magazines isn't always possible.....so a moron like you limiting us to 5 bullets means we have less ammo available to save our lives.

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

And I'm telling you your fragile emotions have no impact on reality.

Sure they do. I bought a 450 bushmaster. My hunting buddies said it’s the shit. When I got it I was surprised to learn the magazine only takes 3 bullets and one in the chamber.

They didn’t infringe on my right by not making the gun so that it holds 20 rounds.

You people want guns so that you can mass murder if you want. You want the right and freedom to be able to do so.

One day our society will evolve. Progressively. Liberally.

Sure gun nuts will cry but your numbers are probably a lot smaller than you think.

And if goober in Texas wants a flamethrower I guess that’s between him and Texas.

I know there’s no good answers that everyone likes. My way you keep your 8 or ten clip guns but we no longer make 20 round magazines. You’ll get over it

 

[Rustic]

Home invasions by gangs has become more common these days. Yes, a single gun would be useless. We should be allowed to have as much protection as we need. The leaders all have adequate protection and they are no better than we are.

I’ve never heard of anyone shooting their gun till it’s empty then reloading it and shooting more bullets in defense during a home invasion. Maybe they empty their gun and reload it just in case but I bet it’s very rare that the extra magazine is ever used. When’s the last time you were in a shootout? Don’t you love the weapons mass murderers use? You sure do.

I would think the 8 or ten I have locked and loaded will be enough. Or 5.

And wouldn’t it be nice if the bad guys couldn’t get their hands on higher powered weapons because they don’t make them anymore?

Do you know who’s responsible for the black market? Irresponsible gun owners.

Lots of supposition and wishful thinking.

Zero facts.

Dismissed.

I’m just telling you what needs to be done.

And I'm telling you your fragile emotions have no impact on reality.

Sure they do. I bought a 450 bushmaster. My hunting buddies said it’s the shit. When I got it I was surprised to learn the magazine only takes 3 bullets and one in the chamber.

They didn’t infringe on my right by not making the gun so that it holds 20 rounds.

You people want guns so that you can mass murder if you want. You want the right and freedom to be able to do so.

One day our society will evolve. Progressively. Liberally.

Sure gun nuts will cry but your numbers are probably a lot smaller than you think.

And if goober in Texas wants a flamethrower I guess that’s between him and Texas.

I know there’s no good answers that everyone likes. My way you keep your 8 or ten clip guns but we no longer make 20 round magazines. You’ll get over it