Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Brain357]

Shooter A has a 20 round magazine that jams on round 3, because his Glock was designed for a 15 round magazine.

While he is confused and distracted, attempting to clear the jam, he is tackled and disarmed.

Shooter B, who has spent 100 hours practicing changing 10 round magazines under duress, chooses a location where he has plenty of space to trade for reloading time and kills 30 people then shoots himself when the armed first responders arrive.

/thread.

Still waiting for an answer to whether police must adhere to the 10 round magazine requirement.

Was there some part of stopped at first reload you didn't understand? I do like the jamming though. Doesn't play well with the idea that anyone can quickly and easily make a hi cap magazine that works flawlessly though.

Off duty police do. On duty police would require more research. I would think they would not as apprehending probably uses more rounds than defending.

You pulled that directly out of your ass.

If there is a situation where a police officer would need 15 rounds, there is a situation where a civilian could need 15 rounds.

This is the third failure of your premise.

Three strikes, it's out.

I'm sure you will continue to defend it, but it's DOA.

Nice civil debate though, appreciate that.

Yes it was just an example and like I said I did like you throwing out another possibility.

I disagree with you that an officer wouldn't need more rounds than a civilian. A civilian is not supposed to chase down criminals as an officer does. Defending is completely different and we have real stats to work from. Why do you deny the statistics?

I am enjoying the debate. I am completely open to one of you changing my mind, but I haven't heard anything that does. While I hope one of you is also open to my ideas I have my doubts.

 

[Brain357]

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Last semiauto I used was my grandmother's 1911. I haven't practiced much, and I can do a mag swap in ONE SECOND!

My friend is in the special forces and is a weapons specialist. He was at our home at Christmas and demonstrated how fast he could change one. It was almost instantaneous.

It is a red herring.

I don't doubt that special forces can do it. But are you honestly comparing these turd mass shooters to special forces? That is extremely insulting to the best our country has.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you read his post?!

I am not special forces. I am not well-practiced in using a semiauto pistol. I can swap mags in ONE SECOND! THINK!

 

[Brain357]

Did you read his post?!

I am not special forces. I am not well-practiced in using a semiauto pistol. I can swap mags in ONE SECOND! THINK!

That's great for you. Can you do it under high stress? Can you do it flawlessly every time? And if it makes no difference at all why have shooters been stopped while reloading? Maybe 1 second is enough? Do you think 1 second would be enough for someone to run around a corner and out of harms way?

 

[skookerasbil]

Really hysterical stuff >>>>

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257[/ame]


The gun grabber contingent are so fucked........

 

[skookerasbil]

or



my circuit judge.......

 

[Geaux4it]

Did you read his post?!

I am not special forces. I am not well-practiced in using a semiauto pistol. I can swap mags in ONE SECOND! THINK!

That's great for you. Can you do it under high stress? Can you do it flawlessly every time? And if it makes no difference at all why have shooters been stopped while reloading? Maybe 1 second is enough? Do you think 1 second would be enough for someone to run around a corner and out of harms way?

No, 1 second is what an armed teacher needs. Case solved

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

So Brain, I hope you haven't exhausted yourself with 5 pages of completely pointless wheel-spinning because I am interested in your abilities to actually debate your gun control positions on a legal footing.

This thread was intended for your side to sell your proposals as worthwhile and explain how they are legally possible. To go on and on about what you want to do without any inspection of --if you are able to do it-- seems a bit foolish and useless to me.

So, you seem to believe that an "assault weapons ban" should be reinstated (and even expanded no doubt). Now is the time to explain how this can be done in conformance to the Constitution and recognizing / respecting the protection sphere that SCOTUS has established.


And this is not exclusive to Brain; any of the resident gun control advocates should feel free to rebut / explain the legal legitimacy of what you want to do . . .


What follows is my post #342 that you "missed":

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

Why is it you think those arms are so protected, . . .

Because they meet ALL the protection criteria by which SCOTUS decides whether government is held impotent to dictate to the law-abiding citizen regarding their possession and use.

Those criteria are whether the arm is of the type that constitute the ordinary military equipment and can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen and whether the arm is of a type in common use by the citizens.

Only after failing ALL those tests can the arm be deemed "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be allowed to argue that a power should be recognized /afforded to it to allow it to restrict the civilian possession and use of that type of arm.

This means that the government can only regulate the people's keeping and bearing of arms that are not in common use, not of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment and of a type that would be useless in the common defense of the citizen.

yet others are illegal?

No guns are 'illegal", there are some types that have been deemed to be "dangerous and unusual" by Congress who has claimed the power (through the tax code) to restrict the possession and use of those types of arms by civilians, without the application of the above criteria.

Note that none of those restrictions have been reviewed using a post Heller understanding or the right to arms nor with any recognition of McDonald's affirmation of the right to arms being a fundamental right (thus demanding the application of strict scrutiny to laws challenged as violative of the right).

Can you buy a brand new automatic rifle? Nope.

Heller applied the criteria "in common use" as a final filter, noting that while full auto's are obviously part of the ordinary military equipment (and thus protected under the 2nd), the law restricting them for over 70 years (NFA-34) has effectively made them currently, not in common use. Heller doesn't endorse or affirm the constitutionality of NFA-34's treatment of full auto's and makes a point of noting that the NFA-34 restrictions on full-auto's was not under examination in Miller . . .

So I see no reason why you can buy a hi cap semi-auto. Both can kill lots of people really fast.

You are advancing an emotional construct not a legal one.

Your unfamiliarity with the law is the only reason why you, "see no reason why".

"In common use" has been advanced as the final filter for the protection criteria and in Heller, for deciding the constitutionality of DC's handgun ban, held it to be stand alone.

The fact that semi-auto military look-alike rifles are "in common use" and of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and of a type that could be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen, the argument that any law restricting the possession and use by citizens would be constitutional, is relegated to the status of wishful thinking.

Well I actually am a bit tired so it might take a few posts to sort everything out. I did actually somehow skip over the original post and went back to look at it to make sure you weren't messing with me. Sorry about missing it. So here we go.

I'm not actually for an assault weapons ban, just a limit on magazine capacity. What the gun looks like I think is unimportant.

The Supreme Court can overturn their own rulings. So doesn't that mean anything is possible?

If an exception is being made for full auto guns, is it a stretch to think another exception could be made? I don't think so.

As I've mentioned in very recent history there was a limit on magazine capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court never ruled that it was unconstitutional. The ban simply expired without renewal. So it could be renewed. Also, don't several cities and states have bans on hi cap magazines now?

 

[Wildman]

Was there some part of stopped at first reload you didn't understand? I do like the jamming though. Doesn't play well with the idea that anyone can quickly and easily make a hi cap magazine that works flawlessly though.

Off duty police do. On duty police would require more research. I would think they would not as apprehending probably uses more rounds than defending.

You pulled that directly out of your ass.

If there is a situation where a police officer would need 15 rounds, there is a situation where a civilian could need 15 rounds.

This is the third failure of your premise.

Three strikes, it's out.

I'm sure you will continue to defend it, but it's DOA.

Nice civil debate though, appreciate that.

Yes it was just an example and like I said I did like you throwing out another possibility.

I disagree with you that an officer wouldn't need more rounds than a civilian. A civilian is not supposed to chase down criminals as an officer does. Defending is completely different and we have real stats to work from. Why do you deny the statistics?

I am enjoying the debate. I am completely open to one of you changing my mind, but I haven't heard anything that does. While I hope one of you is also open to my ideas I have my doubts.

remember.., there are "lies, damned lies and statistics", also, "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." - Mark Twain..., i agree

 

[M14 Shooter]

It appears that I have no choice but to accept the surrender of the anti gun loons. I thank you all for offering nothing but proof than you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Brain357]

It appears that I have no choice but to accept the surrender of the anti gun loons. I thank you all for offering nothing but proof than you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

haha. More like you started a threat then didn't even want to debate with anybody. All you did was post to yourself. You lose sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's been over a month.... and still nothing?

Can't you guys even TRY?