Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

[harmonica]

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

 

[Blues Man]

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

[emoji38]
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

Only the government can violate your first amendment rights

You have no first amendment protection from your employer

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[harmonica]

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

The U.S. Supreme Court Just handed down a 7-2 decision in favor of the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, saying that the baker had the First Amendment right to not bake and decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple as that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Supreme Court: Your Bakery Doesn't Have to Bake a Gay Wedding Cake

 

[harmonica]

already answered in a previous post

[emoji38]
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

Only the government can violate your first amendment rights

You have no first amendment protection from your employer

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

hahahhahahha--thank you---meaning it is LIMITED!!!!!!
hahahahhahahahaha

 

[Blues Man]

[emoji38]
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

Only the government can violate your first amendment rights

You have no first amendment protection from your employer

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

hahahhahahha--thank you---meaning it is LIMITED!!!!!!
hahahahhahahahaha

Wow if stupid were money you'd be richer than Bezos

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[harmonica]

already answered in a previous post

[emoji38]
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

Only the government can violate your first amendment rights

You have no first amendment protection from your employer

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

again---hahahhahahahah
do you realize that means it's limited????!!!!!!
hahahahha
jesus F christ people......think please

 

[Blues Man]

[emoji38]
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

Only the government can violate your first amendment rights

You have no first amendment protection from your employer

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

again---hahahhahahahah
do you realize that means it's limited????!!!!!!
hahahahha
jesus F christ people......think please

No idiot a private citizen is incapable of violating your first amendment rights as the first amendment only applies to the government

In fact the entire bill of rights is a control on the government not on the public as only the government is capable of making laws that violate your rights

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[satrebil]

How do you know?

already answered in a previous post

OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

wrong--modern communication limited
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity

Those "limitations" were implemented by private industries, not government. Brainlet.

....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
....people get fired for free speech and the government does nothing = [ EQUALS ] the government is allowing free speech to be limited
How does the FBI protect the civil rights of people in the United States? — FBI

No, the government doesn't get involved because the business ALSO has First Amendment rights you dumb shit. Jesus Christ how do you even put socks on in the morning?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Dems are dangerous crackpots

 

[Cecilie1200]

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife

Because a firearm is better at projecting deadly force.
Duh.

Because I don't want to let the guy attacking me get that close.

 

[Cecilie1200]

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife

Because a firearm is better at projecting deadly force.
Duh.

2AGuy is always yakking about how deadly knives are/etc
hahahahahhaah

They are. But everyday citizens who are defending themselves during an attack are probably less likely to want to be up-and-close than a violent attacker who has the element of surprise might be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is it anyone's concern as to their need for high capacity magazine?

Often my answer to "Why do you need this?" is "Why do you need to know why I need it?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

They obviously didn't mean internet, TV, or radio -- this is undeniable.

a tool designed only to kill vs Inet/TV/etc = that is some great ''logic'' there
I've been over this before--free speech is limited

Yes, they wrote an entire amendment specifically protecting the right to own "tools meant to kill", but there's no analogy and it's crazy to think they actually meant people to be able to own them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

Just as "obviously and undeniably" as they meant quill pens and hand-cranked printing presses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would they worry about the makers of the rifle?
Remember AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle

obviously and undeniably they meant muskets

What makes you say that it was obviously undeniable they meant muskets? Where is the proof? Or is just your opinion

are you kidding???!!!

So I take it, that was just your opinion.

I don't think many civilians could buy cannons/etc
there were no 30 round hand held weapons invented/etc
duh

If the Founding Fathers had meant the 2nd Amendment to be limited to just muskets, they would have said "muskets" instead of the more general "arms". Unlike you, they were educated and articulate and chose their words carefully.

 

[hunarcy]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

hahahhahahahahahhah
why don't you carry a knife--your buddies say it's just as deadly???
most of the time, your firearm won't matter

To be honest, I carry edged weapons more often than firearms.

I have an "emotional support" cobra.. Seems to work fine in most cases...

It's funny how a Karambit will help a person change their mood to something more peaceful.

 

[TRFjr]

133, and I don't buy it, unless you were shot or clubbed in the head on duty... Or are Christopher Dorner's ghost.

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now

 

[Wry Catcher]

133 huh. How do you know?

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now

Really? Your rebuttal is a personnel attack. If anyone is to pick someone brain dead, you would be the obvious choice.

 

[TRFjr]

I took a test, duh.

BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?

Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.

I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.

Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....

That gives you a hard on right????

No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now

Really? Your rebuttal is a personnel attack. If anyone is to pick someone brain dead, you would be the obvious choice.

I call them as I see them
you show your utter ignorance I will call you out for that ignorance
have a problem with that then don't be ignorant educate your self
start by reading the federalist papers it explains exactly what was the purpose of the 2nd amendment and it wasn't for hunting