CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[2aguy]

Still, in the US, cars kill over 30,000 people per year. How odd that you want to ban or limit Second Amendment rights yet have no concern over 30K+ people killed by cars.

Cars have gotten much safer over the years. Is the same true of guns?

Yep......guns are much safer......our gun accident rate is lower than it was in the 1990s as more people are carrying guns for self defense and keeping them in the home...so another point where you do not know what you are talking about.....

 

[Divine Wind]

Why? Because there are already limits on how powerful and big they can be. Keep working on those anger issues.

Cite the laws limiting how powerful and big a car can be.

Thanks for projecting your anger issues onto me. It's insightful and helps explain your motivation for dictating to others how they should live, what they should believe and what they should do.

 

[2aguy]

My life and what I do with has absolutely nothing to do with yours or anyone else's life

How does my owning a gun make you or anyone else less safe?

Let me help you out here

It doesn't

Do you live on your own planet? If a criminal breaks into your house and steals your gun then we're all a little less safe.

When I am not home no one can steal my guns as they are locked in a 500 lb safe with a 6 digit combination lock that is secured by concrete anchors in my basement. My house has an alarm system and I have 3 good sized dogs.

So tell me how do those guns endanger you or anyone else?

Excellent! My compliments on your set up.

One question: If you feel such security is necessary shouldn't every gun owner be required to do the same? Or at least have some sort of minimum security standards for their guns.

No....why? because gun safes cost money......that means if you mandate it, the government has to pay for it because owning a gun is a Right, not a privilege.......mandating a cost on the exercise of a Right makes it harder to access that Right.....the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep their former black slaves from voting..this was ruled unConstitutional and an infringement on the Right.....


If given half a chance, the anti gunners will pass laws mandating so much security for keeping guns that poor and minorities will not be able to afford to own a gun...and that is unConstitutional....

 

[2aguy]

if a criminal breaks into your home and steals your car

we are all a little less safe

Yes but my car was not designed to kill people.

And yet the worst mass killing of people happened in France using a truck.......not a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Alan, have you ever needed your 5th Amendment rights? Can we agree that SOME people have used their 5th Amendment right to get away with a crime which allowed them to harm more people?

No idea where you're taking me but... I've never invoked the 5th Amendment but I'm sure some guilty people have.

No doubt some guilty people have used the 5th which DIRECTLY led to them harming more people later on, so we should remove YOUR 5th Amendment rights , right?

Excellent point.......

 

[2aguy]

I'm suggesting removing one of your enumerated rights because SOME people have misused that right.

I admire your ideological purity but not your values.

I don't believe all rights are created equal. As important as the 5th or 2nd is, it is trumped by the right to life.

Sorry....no it isn't. That is how police states are created.

 

[2aguy]

No one is giving up their rights for the 2nd Amendment.......criminals killing people has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.......Americans use guns to save lives 1,500,000 times a year.....according to the Department of Justice.......so guns in the hands of normal, law abiding, good people save far more lives than they take when they are misused, and used illegally.......

You are obviously just trying to cause trouble.....you should stop.

You've used the 1.5 m DGU number before but I don't recall you citing the DoJ. I know the Kleck survey found a large number but I can't find any DoJ survey, only a Kleck citation. Is the 1.5 m number Kleck's or not?

Regardless, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you accept this survey but not previous ones we discussed. As I recall you said people lie to anonymous callers. True or do you want to have it both ways?

No....the 1,500,000 was a study done by the clinton Department of Justice to rebut the findings of the Kleck study......the Dept. of Justice hired two anti gun researchers to create a study to find out how many defensive gun uses there were each year....they believed they could show Dr. Kleck's numbers were wrong.....after doing their study...they found 1,500,000 defensive gun uses each year.......they were not happy ......and theirs is not the only other gun study to show high numbers..here are defensive gun use studies....

I just averaged the studies at the bottom......I took only studies that exluded military and police gun use.....notice, theses studies which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

 

[2aguy]

No one is giving up their rights for the 2nd Amendment.......criminals killing people has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.......Americans use guns to save lives 1,500,000 times a year.....according to the Department of Justice.......so guns in the hands of normal, law abiding, good people save far more lives than they take when they are misused, and used illegally.......

You are obviously just trying to cause trouble.....you should stop.

You've used the 1.5 m DGU number before but I don't recall you citing the DoJ. I know the Kleck survey found a large number but I can't find any DoJ survey, only a Kleck citation. Is the 1.5 m number Kleck's or not?

Regardless, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you accept this survey but not previous ones we discussed. As I recall you said people lie to anonymous callers. True or do you want to have it both ways?

These studies were done before the real push for gun control happened...it was Dr. Kleck's work and Dr. Lott's work that pushed the anti gun movement into over drive......and then the assault weapon ban happened, then they started banning magazines. and bullets., and they published the names and addresses of gun owners after Sandy Hook.......and now, in 2016, after that....normal gun owners are not telling people from the government or anonymous pollsters they have guns in their home....

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches

Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.

Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. A law saying no gun safe installed in your home (receipts required), no guns.

You're right about seat belts but before they were mandated you had to purchase them as an after-market item (if I recall correctly) so almost nobody did. At least now they are there if you want them and have sense enough to use them.

So then if you buy a house even if you will never own guns and you have to pay to install a gun safe it's OK with me. That way your seat belt analogy works

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no right to life in the Bill of Rights

It's an unenumerated right. It's also included in the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration of Independence is not the document which establishes our legal rights
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to life anywhere.

The right to life is mentioned in the preamble only and the preamble is not the legally binding text of the document

Oh for the Love of God.

First of all, the ENTIRE COTUS is the legally binding document

Second of all, the COTUS does not give any of us ANY rights, we already have those rights. It in fact only gives the federal government rights and specifies which rights the government may never interfere with.

The preamble is NOT the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution

Preamble

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. It is referred to in countless speeches, judicial opinions. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

 

[Divine Wind]

The preamble is NOT the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution

Preamble

The Preamble to the Constitution is an introductory, succinct statement of the principles at work in the full text. It is referred to in countless speeches, judicial opinions. Courts will not interpret the Preamble to confer any rights or powers not granted specifically in the Constitution.

Yet both show what the Founders intended for limiting our government.

 

[alang1216]

There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

There is no way to mandate that and enforce it unless of course you do away with the 4th amendment and allow random home searches

Just because there are seat belts in cars does not mean everyone wears them and those that don't rarely if ever get caught.

Don't underestimate how coercive government can be. A law saying no gun safe installed in your home (receipts required), no guns.

You're right about seat belts but before they were mandated you had to purchase them as an after-market item (if I recall correctly) so almost nobody did. At least now they are there if you want them and have sense enough to use them.

the heller court disagrees with you

requiring firearms to disassembled or trigger locked in the private home was found

to violate the 2nd amendment

a safe requirement is would also be found to violate those rights

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.

That's an old wive's tail, there are no roads in Montana that don't have speed limits

Also, Chrysler did build a rocket powered car.

Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was not a success.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The anti gunners keep pushing for limits on the number of bullets normal people can have in their pistols and rifles........the reason.....if they limit the number to 10, they can ban certain types of pistols and rifles without having to call it a ban and without having to pass gun control legislation banning all of those weapons......

What is the point......who is really effected by magazine bullet limits...

Mass Public shooters....? No. They can kill easily by exchanging magazines...and actual research shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed...

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

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


Criminals....? No. They can get whatever they want...even in countries with complete bans and confiscation of guns....France bans all semi auto rifles and all fully auto rifles...and their criminals and their terrorists get those rifles and standard magazines easily.....

the people who are hurt....those who are law abiding...who are on their own in the face of criminal attack, who will have no help and will have to rely on their pistol to save their life........

Because it makes people feel better, and that is what emotional lefties are all about....feeling good, results be damned.

 

[Divine Wind]

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars?...

Is there a law against it? Perhaps the reason is because a turboshaft/turbojet engine is both very expensive to buy and maintain.

Chrysler one had a turbine car. It had a few drawbacks: Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jay Leno built a turbine powered car using a helicopter turboshaft engine. It was very expensive and completely legal: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/automobiles/14JETCAR.html

 

[jon_berzerk]

There's no limit on how powerful a vehicle may be. Government imposed limit , I mean. Dodge builds a vehicle with 707 HP right out of the factory. Now , why would they do that? The damn thing does 0-60 in <4 seconds and has a top speed of 198 MPH. Why? Obviously there is no public road where that is necessary, or legal. Should Dodge be responsible for making sure no one can use their cars to speed?

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars? Also, I thought some Montana roads don't have any speed limits so I'd love to have that Dodge out there.

That's an old wive's tail, there are no roads in Montana that don't have speed limits

Also, Chrysler did build a rocket powered car.

Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was not a success.

evt motors has successfully built a turbine powered (jet engine) hybrid back in 2009

http://www.etvenergy.com/Media_Announcements/ETVM_Test_Vehicle_Milestone_Jul09.pdf

 

[jon_berzerk]

I don't recall seeing any jet-engine powered cars?...

Is there a law against it? Perhaps the reason is because a turboshaft/turbojet engine is both very expensive to buy and maintain.

Chrysler one had a turbine car. It had a few drawbacks: Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jay Leno built a turbine powered car using a helicopter turboshaft engine. It was very expensive and completely legal: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/automobiles/14JETCAR.html

a guy built a fascinating ultra light using a helicopter turbine

i actually sent away for the plans and put this on my bucket list

 

[BULLDOG]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

 

[2aguy]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

So someone driviing 40 miles down a side street isn't inherently dangerous.....? Really? You just explained how laws work, yet you keep using that idea that we shouldn't have laws if some people don't obey them...why do you anti gunners do that?