So, now an "Assault" weapon is any gun holding more than 10 bullets...we told you...

[progressive hunter]

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

words are not deadly,,,

and the rest of it is just nazi/communist thinking

people that dont understand the original intent of the 2nd shouldnt talk about it

 

[hadit]

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

words are not deadly,,,

and the rest of it is just nazi/communist thinking

people that dont understand the original intent of the 2nd shouldnt talk about it

Words aren't deadly? I beg to differ. How many teenagers have committed suicide because of cyber bullying? How many revolutions have been launched from speeches?

Words can be very deadly, so the question is valid. Do you lose your first amendment rights if the government restricts how much you can say and the tools you use to say it?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The 2nd amendment does not mention self-defense, but the Framers of the Constitution do in subsequent writings

 

[progressive hunter]

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

words are not deadly,,,

and the rest of it is just nazi/communist thinking

people that dont understand the original intent of the 2nd shouldnt talk about it

Words aren't deadly? I beg to differ. How many teenagers have committed suicide because of cyber bullying? How many revolutions have been launched from speeches?

Words can be very deadly, so the question is valid. Do you lose your first amendment rights if the government restricts how much you can say and the tools you use to say it?

the words didnt kill them they did,,,thats a mental health and lack of parenting problem,,,

just like guns dont kill people


I've been called some really bad things by democrats and re[publicans and I didnt kill myself

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, that is exactly what would happen.

Does it restrict your freedom to have speed limits?

Thats not a constitutional right. And it dang sure isnt a right that explicitly states "shall not be infringed"

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed. You can still bear arms.

The def of infringe means to limit. Try again.

Same old same old arguments. I don't need to try again. Even Constitutional rights can be and are limited to some extent when those rights impact others' rights. To LIFE, for example.
You don't need more than ten fuckin' bullets in your gun at a time. If a duck hunter can't have more than three, how do you explain human hunters getting 30?

My rights dont impact others rights until it happens. Period.
There goes my morally and intellectual superior what i NEED lol...

 

[OldLady]

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

 

[OldLady]

Does it restrict your freedom to have speed limits?

Thats not a constitutional right. And it dang sure isnt a right that explicitly states "shall not be infringed"

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed. You can still bear arms.

The def of infringe means to limit. Try again.

Same old same old arguments. I don't need to try again. Even Constitutional rights can be and are limited to some extent when those rights impact others' rights. To LIFE, for example.
You don't need more than ten fuckin' bullets in your gun at a time. If a duck hunter can't have more than three, how do you explain human hunters getting 30?

My rights dont impact others rights until it happens. Period.
There goes my morally and intellectual superior what i NEED lol...

You completely sidestepped my question. Too hard to answer?

 

[progressive hunter]

Does it restrict your freedom to have speed limits?

Thats not a constitutional right. And it dang sure isnt a right that explicitly states "shall not be infringed"

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed. You can still bear arms.

The def of infringe means to limit. Try again.

Same old same old arguments. I don't need to try again. Even Constitutional rights can be and are limited to some extent when those rights impact others' rights. To LIFE, for example.
You don't need more than ten fuckin' bullets in your gun at a time. If a duck hunter can't have more than three, how do you explain human hunters getting 30?

My rights dont impact others rights until it happens. Period.
There goes my morally and intellectual superior what i NEED lol...

HEY OLD LADY!!!!

its called reloading

 

[progressive hunter]

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

hate speech doesnt exist and a inciting a riot is a call to action

 

[TNHarley]

Thats not a constitutional right. And it dang sure isnt a right that explicitly states "shall not be infringed"

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed. You can still bear arms.

The def of infringe means to limit. Try again.

Same old same old arguments. I don't need to try again. Even Constitutional rights can be and are limited to some extent when those rights impact others' rights. To LIFE, for example.
You don't need more than ten fuckin' bullets in your gun at a time. If a duck hunter can't have more than three, how do you explain human hunters getting 30?

My rights dont impact others rights until it happens. Period.
There goes my morally and intellectual superior what i NEED lol...

You completely sidestepped my question. Too hard to answer?

Its irrelevant.

 

[progressive hunter]

Thats not a constitutional right. And it dang sure isnt a right that explicitly states "shall not be infringed"

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed. You can still bear arms.

The def of infringe means to limit. Try again.

Same old same old arguments. I don't need to try again. Even Constitutional rights can be and are limited to some extent when those rights impact others' rights. To LIFE, for example.
You don't need more than ten fuckin' bullets in your gun at a time. If a duck hunter can't have more than three, how do you explain human hunters getting 30?

My rights dont impact others rights until it happens. Period.
There goes my morally and intellectual superior what i NEED lol...

You completely sidestepped my question. Too hard to answer?

its called reloading

 

[OldLady]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.

The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?

 

[Pilot1]

Guns don't kill by themselves either. It takes a PERSON pulling the trigger, and pointing the gun at another person with the intent to harm. A gun is only a machine that sends a projectile at a high rate of speed. Nothing more.

 

[TNHarley]

Hate speech
Lol such a pansy ass concept.

 

[hadit]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

 

[OldLady]

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

hate speech doesnt exist and a inciting a riot is a call to action

Nah. TN says it doesn't count 'til you riot.

 

[RealDave]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

"sniff sniff sniff I can only keep 10 bullets in my gun"

 

[progressive hunter]

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

hate speech doesnt exist and a inciting a riot is a call to action

Nah. TN says it doesn't count 'til you riot.

that would be a case by case basis

 

[OldLady]

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

 

[RealDave]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?