Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 18, 2012, 11:35:19 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/high-capacity-magazines_n_2323928.html
HOPE AND CHANGE!
-
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats say they've seen a groundswell of support within their caucus for legislation that would prohibit the manufacturing of high-capacity magazines. At least two lawmakers are planning to push for a vote on such legislation before the year ends.
The bill backed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) mirrors legislation that has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). It would ban magazines for more than 10 rounds of ammunition and prohibit the transfer, possession or importation of those magazines that are manufactured after the date of the law being signed.
Similar bills have been introduced or pushed after every episode of major gun violence in the past few years -- in part because all involved high-capacity magazines -- but to no avail. Backers of the legislation, however, say there is movement in their direction following the murder of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
"Right away we could pass ... we could pass the ban on the assault magazine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday. "Just to ban the magazine, the assault magazine, we could do it right now."
In an interview with The Huffington Post, DeGette said that she now has approximately 125 co-sponsors on the bill. That includes 16 lawmakers who signed up during a caucus meeting on Tuesday morning. Among them was Minority House Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) according to DeGette's office.
"We are demanding that Speaker Boehner bring it up for a vote this week. And we are looking for ways to make that vote happen," said DeGette.
"I'm not so naïve as to think that we can pass some law that will stop a deranged person from taking a gun and shooting people," the Colorado Democrat added. "What I am interested in is making it as difficult as possible for that deranged person to shoot as many people as possible."
House Speaker John Boehner's office didn't immediately return a request for comment, although in the wake of the Newtown shootings, at least one congressional Republican –- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- has expressed openness to the idea of limiting the size of magazines.
Likewise, on Tuesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that President Barack Obama supported the concept, in addition to his support for renewal of the assault weapons ban and closure of the gun-show loophole. The president had also spoken about gun control legislation on Tuesday, via phone, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), a prominent gun rights advocate who has changed his tune post Sandy Hook. But as of now there are no specifics.
"At some point you'll hear from him more broadly on this issue, but I don't have a time frame on that," said Carney.
-
i feel sorry for u gun swingers
but in my place you cant even carry a pocket knife or pepper spray
that means if you are ever attacked by a couple of unarmed hoodlums or a single armed one you are dead meat
-
Glad to know this tragedy is an important step forward for their cause. ::)
How long does it take to switch a magazine? A good grunt can do it in a couple seconds. Hell, you don't even have to drop the weapon from your shoulder to change it.
I can't imagine it takes all that much longer for an untrained person to do it. It wouldn't have made a difference at all in this shooting, but man do we need to stick the blame on something. ::)
-
I say you should only be allowed to have a gun that was in use at the time the 2nd amendment was written
or...we can make some additional few compromises
I can't think of any reason why an individual (not in LE) would need or be able to claim any right to high capacity magazines
-
I say you should only be allowed to have a gun that was in use at the time the 2nd amendment was written
or...we can make some additional few compromises
I can't think of any reason why an individual (not in LE) would need or be able to claim any right to high capacity magazines
The 2nd amendment was intended to equalize the balance between the citizens and the government, ensuring that the government wouldn't attempt to take complete control from the citizens.
As 333 is so fond of saying, if the British were using AR's, so would the Colonists. Trying to discount the 2nd amendment because of the period of time it was written in is about the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard.
-
I say you should only be allowed to have a gun that was in use at the time the 2nd amendment was written
or...we can make some additional few compromises
I can't think of any reason why an individual (not in LE) would need or be able to claim any right to high capacity magazines
The musket was the best technology at the time correct?
Had the british red coats had AR's the colonists would have used and kept them as well.
-
The 2nd amendment was intended to equalize the balance between the citizens and the government, ensuring that the government wouldn't attempt to take complete control from the citizens.
As 333 is so fond of saying, if the British were using AR's, so would the Colonists. Trying to discount the 2nd amendment because of the period of time it was written in is about the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard.
so is that even an issue any more since the government has weapons that would make guns in the hands of citizens a moot point (btw - I'm not at all in favor of getting rid of all guns)
-
so is that even an issue any more since the government has weapons that would make guns in the hands of citizens a moot point (btw - I'm not at all in favor of getting rid of all guns)
Like what? Nukes? They're not going to nuke their own citizens. Explosives? People can make homemade IED's very easily. Ask anyone thats been to Iraq/Afghanistan. Tanks? If we ever got to the point of open rebellion and the Government turning on it's citizens, the military would probably split straight in half.
Guerrilla warfare works.
-
The musket was the best technology at the time correct?
Had the british red coats had AR's the colonists would have used and kept them as well.
and the technology at the time the 2nd amendment was written
If someone had shown up at the Continental Congress with an assault rifle and wiped out 30 + people in 5 minutes I think things might be different today
I see no way that anyone has the right to an assault rifle, or a high magazine clip, etc...
-
Like what? Nukes? They're not going to nuke their own citizens. Explosives? People can make homemade IED's very easily. Ask anyone thats been to Iraq/Afghanistan. Tanks? If we ever got to the point of open rebellion and the Government turning on it's citizens, the military would probably split straight in half.
Guerrilla warfare works.
get over your Red Dawn fantasies
the government doesn't need nukes to deal with citizens armed with handguns or even assault rifles
-
I say you should only be allowed to have a gun that was in use at the time the 2nd amendment was written
or...we can make some additional few compromises
I can't think of any reason why an individual (not in LE) would need or be able to claim any right to high capacity magazines
To make sure the intruder is dead.
-
get over your Red Dawn fantasies
the government doesn't need nukes to deal with citizens armed with handguns or even assault rifles
I like how you ignore the whole rest of the post and just fixate on the nuke. I asked you what, pray tell, do they have that is going to so effectively nullify a civilian uprising when they can't even nullify an uprising by the goddamn Aghani's?
-
and the technology at the time the 2nd amendment was written
If someone had shown up at the Continental Congress with an assault rifle and wiped out 30 + people in 5 minutes I think things might be different today
I see no way that anyone has the right to an assault rifle, or a high magazine clip, etc...
Im sure the same argument was made when the first musket was created while everyone else had bow and arrow
-
I think we should pay the same tax rate from 1909, when the Sixteenth Amendment was established. :D
-
To make sure the intruder is dead.
any why do you need a 30 round clip to do that
you can have as many guns as you want and the purpose is to do something to mitigate mass murder by nut job
-
any why do you need a 30 round clip to do that
you can have as many guns as you want and the purpose is to do something to mitigate mass murder by nut job
You realize there are millions and millions and milli9ons of mags in circumlation now already right?
-
so why the fuck are you complaining
-
I like how you ignore the whole rest of the post and just fixate on the nuke. I asked you what, pray tell, do they have that is going to so effectively nullify a civilian uprising when they can't even nullify an uprising by the goddamn Aghani's?
are IED's legal in this country?
I see no need and definitely no right for high capacity clips
can't you get by with 3 or 4 regular clips
-
are IED's legal in this country?
I see no need and definitely no right for high capacity clips
can't you get by with 3 or 4 regular clips
Who are you to judge that?
-
any why do you need a 30 round clip to do that
you can have as many guns as you want and the purpose is to do something to mitigate mass murder by nut job
Because I might miss 29 times. If I had a 10 round clip, don`t you think I could reload almost as fast to get to 30? Or even a six shooter, with rounds preloaded in those little dials?
-
You realize there are millions and millions and milli9ons of mags in circumlation now already right?
yep,
I love the attitude that we can't completely prevent the problem so we might as well just give up and do nothing at all
Why don't Repubs take that angle on the deficit ?
-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=second%20amendment%20scoreboard&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalhumor.about.com%2Fod%2Fpoliticalcartoons%2Fig%2FPolitical-Cartoons%2FSecond-Amendment-Scoreboard.htm&ei=DMzQULbLAsTC0AHTroCoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHmuK7F-at5NmOLjFQ4FoFutSictQ
-
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=second%20amendment%20scoreboard&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalhumor.about.com%2Fod%2Fpoliticalcartoons%2Fig%2FPolitical-Cartoons%2FSecond-Amendment-Scoreboard.htm&ei=DMzQULbLAsTC0AHTroCoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHmuK7F-at5NmOLjFQ4FoFutSictQ
Complete bullshit. I can provide thousands of instances where a gun was used to stop a perpetrator.
-
I have no particular take on the issue of high-capacity magazines, and so I tend to err on the side of freedom and adopt the position that they should be allowed. But frankly, whether they are or not is irrelevant to me: I don't own any and don't find them personally useful. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
With that said, I find the concept of banning high-capacity magazines in response to this incident silly. How will it help to ban 15-round magazines if the person can simply carry two pistols, each with 7 rounds?
This is just the typical knee-jerk reaction I've come to expect from politicians. Something happens, so they find a proposal from those who previously opposed X, adopt it and hold a press conference so that they can can grandstand and tell the people "Look at me! I'm acting! Rabble-rabble-rabble! I'm doing stuff! Rabble-rabble-rabble! Vote for me! Give me money!"
-
Next Up, Democrats ban Call of Duty.
-
Next Up, Democrats ban Call of Duty.
They should ban irresponsible parents like the morther here
-
and the technology at the time the 2nd amendment was written
If someone had shown up at the Continental Congress with an assault rifle and wiped out 30 + people in 5 minutes I think things might be different today
I see no way that anyone has the right to an assault rifle, or a high magazine clip, etc...
Do you even know what an "Assault" Rifle is?
-
Do you even know what an "Assault" Rifle is?
Anything that looks scary.
A 10/22 is an assault weapon according to the liberal babies.
-
.
-
Criteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law. Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
-
LOL!!!!
So because it looks scary - that makes it an assault weapon. LOL
Ever heard of a 10/22?
Criteria of an assault weapon
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law. Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
-
LOL!!!!
So because it looks scary - that makes it an assault weapon. LOL
Ever heard of a 10/22?
ROFLMAO exactly. They have no clue what they are talking about. The word is scary to them and thats it. A Pistol or shotgun can easily be more deadly than an "Assault" rifle.
-
you don't need a gun when you know your simple pointers of self defense
-
The 2nd amendment was intended to equalize the balance between the citizens and the government, ensuring that the government wouldn't attempt to take complete control from the citizens.
As 333 is so fond of saying, if the British were using AR's, so would the Colonists. Trying to discount the 2nd amendment because of the period of time it was written in is about the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard.
Seriously? Someone else said that here. Not that i have researched it that much, but was that reason for the 2nd amendment?
I though it was to help maintain the Minute man army. Or just a basic right.
-
Do people here deny that the threat of a armed homeowner helps deter home invasion and robbery?
-
Seriously? Someone else said that here. Not that i have researched it that much, but was that reason for the 2nd amendment?
I though it was to help maintain the Minute man army. Or just a basic right.
Both.
-
Do people here deny that the threat of a armed homeowner helps deter home invasion and robbery?
They would be stupid if they did.
-
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
-
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
sure, but was the amendment designed for us to protect ourselves from the government? I think not.
-
sure, but was the amendment designed for us to protect ourselves from the government? I think not.
Uh,
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
-
Uh,
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
I guess so then. It can be read that way.
Seems silly though (in the context of modern war), but yeah, I am for it.
-
sure, but was the amendment designed for us to protect ourselves from the government? I think not.
iT WAS ENACTED TO ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM A TYRANT, FOREGIN OR DOMESTIC
-
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined
-
iT WAS ENACTED TO ALLOW THE CITIZENS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM A TYRANT, FOREGIN OR DOMESTIC
bump
I guess so then. It can be read that way.
Seems silly though (in the context of modern war), but yeah, I am for it.
-
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?" Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined
good stuff thanks.
-
Do people here deny that the threat of a armed homeowner helps deter home invasion and robbery?
Nope.
-
are IED's legal in this country?
I see no need and definitely no right for high capacity clips
can't you get by with 3 or 4 regular clips
Lulz that you're ok with 3 10-round magazines but not ok with 1 30-round magazine, cause it somehow makes a difference. 30 rounds is 30 rounds.
It takes a whopping 3-5 seconds to do a magazine switch depending on how good you are. I'm sure those 3-5 seconds would have made a huge difference in the survival rate at Sandy Hook. ::)
-
unless the repubs in congress cave, there is 100% nothing to worry about.
-
Anything that looks scary.
A 10/22 is an assault weapon according to the liberal babies.
Meanwhile, some of these same liberal babies promote hip-hop music with such lyrics as.....
Who's that creeping in my window? POOOOOW!!! Nobody, now!" - Goodie Mob, "Cell Therapy" (featuring current judge of "The Voice", Cee-Lo Green)
-
Meanwhile, some of these same liberal babies promote hip-hop music with such lyrics as.....
Who's that creeping in my window? POOOOOW!!! Nobody, now!" - Goodie Mob, "Cell Therapy" (featuring current judge of "The Voice", Cee-Lo Green)
??? Are the hip hip community known as strong proponents of gun control?
-
Revolutionary War Cap and Ball Pistol packing Serious Fire Power@ 1:32 in.
-
Glad to know this tragedy is an important step forward for their cause. ::)
How long does it take to switch a magazine? A good grunt can do it in a couple seconds. Hell, you don't even have to drop the weapon from your shoulder to change it.
I can't imagine it takes all that much longer for an untrained person to do it. It wouldn't have made a difference at all in this shooting, but man do we need to stick the blame on something. ::)
With training you can swap out a 10 round mag in about a second.
-
Lulz that you're ok with 3 10-round magazines but not ok with 1 30-round magazine, cause it somehow makes a difference. 30 rounds is 30 rounds.
It takes a whopping 3-5 seconds to do a magazine switch depending on how good you are. I'm sure those 3-5 seconds would have made a huge difference in the survival rate at Sandy Hook. ::)
yep, perfectly fine with it
as I've said before, the idea (not yours) that if we can't be perfect then we should do nothing is total nonsense
If someone is shooting up a crowd and he needs 5 seconds or more to change clips that 5 second you can get away or try to stop the guy
-
ROFLMAO exactly. They have no clue what they are talking about. The word is scary to them and thats it. A Pistol or shotgun can easily be more deadly than an "Assault" rifle.
how many rounds in a pistol or shotgun .... a heck of a lot less than 30
-
yep, perfectly fine with it
as I've said before, the idea (not yours) that if we can't be perfect then we should do nothing is total nonsense
If someone is shooting up a crowd and he needs 5 seconds or more to change clips that 5 second you can get away or try to stop the guy
The liberal idea of acting simply for the sake of acting is how we ended up with gems like obamacare...
5 seconds? does the person have to load the magazine first?
let me guess you either have never shot a gun or have only shot other ppls guns?
-
how many rounds in a pistol or shotgun .... a heck of a lot less than 30
Nope.
-
-
-
The liberal idea of acting simply for the sake of acting is how we ended up with gems like obamacare...
5 seconds? does the person have to load the magazine first?
let me guess you either have never shot a gun or have only shot other ppls guns?
I grew up in Texas and have shot guns hundreds if not thousands of time
I used to have a Glock which I could take apart and put back together very quickly (for some dumb reason I used to enjoy practising this)
I sold it years ago and don't have anything now though have no problem with gun ownership with some reasonable limits
-
Nope.
gee it's too bad that asshole didn't have a hundred round magazine
It comes in handy when trying to murder as many people as possible in a short time
-
Lulz that you're ok with 3 10-round magazines but not ok with 1 30-round magazine, cause it somehow makes a difference. 30 rounds is 30 rounds.
It takes a whopping 3-5 seconds to do a magazine switch depending on how good you are. I'm sure those 3-5 seconds would have made a huge difference in the survival rate at Sandy Hook. ::)
It's the basic mindset.
Lawmaker - "Childhood obesity and obesity in general is on the rise! What do we do? Uh, oh, uh, ban soft drinks over 160z in size, that should do it! Man, we are so smart!"
Person With Common Sense - "Uh, won't people just buy 2 16oz drinks instead?"
Lawmaker "Uh, uh, uh, uh......think of the children!"
It will do nothing, everyone knows it will do nothing but they have to do something....so they will ban them.
The last "Assault Rifle" ban did little to stop people from owning assault rifles.
Believe me, I am not of the mind that we should let anyone off the street purchase a rifle/handgun etc. But we need to acknowledge the reality of the present situation before making any moves.
-
It's the basic mindset.
Lawmaker - "Childhood obesity and obesity in general is on the rise! What do we do? Uh, oh, uh, ban soft drinks over 160z in size, that should do it! Man, we are so smart!"
Person With Common Sense - "Uh, won't people just buy 2 16oz drinks instead?"
Lawmaker "Uh, uh, uh, uh......think of the children!"
It will do nothing, everyone knows it will do nothing but they have to do something....so they will ban them.
The last "Assault Rifle" ban did little to stop people from owning assault rifles.
Believe me, I am not of the mind that we should let anyone off the street purchase a rifle/handgun etc. But we need to acknowledge the reality of the present situation before making any moves.
I`m sick of this mentality and you know what, its coming more and more from the Democrats. Especially when it comes to food. They are complete morons. I am sometimes ashamed that I even vote for any of them.
-
I`m sick of this mentality and you know what, its coming more and more from the Democrats. Especially when it comes to food. They are complete morons. I am sometimes ashamed that I even vote for any of them.
I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate a problem then we should simply do nothing at all
why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people
why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents
same basic mindset
-
I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate an problem then we should simply do nothing at all
why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people - May act as a deterrent.
why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents - Lowers insurance costs and is proven to save countless lives.
same basic mindset
Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.
-
Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.
didn't the shooter in AZ have a high capacity magazine when he killed 6 people and wounded 19 others....and was then stopped by others only when trying to reload
wouldn't it be likely a LOT less people would be dead and wounded if he only had 10 or 12 round magazine instead of 31 or whatever he had
again, back to the mindset that if you can't totally prevent the event then why even bother trying to make it less likely to be as deadly
-
I'm sick of the mentality that if we can't totally eradicate a problem then we should simply do nothing at all
why bother having drunk driving laws if we can't totally eradicate the problem of drunk drivers killing people
why bother having seat belts or airbags when we can't totally prevent people from dying in car accidents
same basic mindset
1. We already are doing enough as far as guns are concerned.
2. You want a solution to every single problem coming from someone else (the government), usually in the form of restriction (soda ban), rather than take responsibility for yourself (because you are obese) so you can feel good about "solving" a problem whilst inadvertently (or not) taking away somebody elses freedom?
3. What does an airbag or seatbelt have to do with anything? I personally don`t think you should be required to wear one, it should be a personal choice whether or not to do so. I can still buy cars without seat belts or airbags if I want. I used to drive a 1959 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my primary car and it had neither. (it did have nice Power Windows and Air Conditioning though!)
-
Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.
Classic treating the symptom rather than the problem.
-
Banning hi capacity magazines will work just as well as banning 16oz soft drinks i.e. it won't do anything. Which is why banning those magazines is not the torch to carry. It's the easy thing to push and then pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
-Just because some lunatic goes to the store and finds that he can't purchase a hi-cap mag doesn't mean he isn't going to go on his rampage. Now, having a better tripwire for identifying mentally ill people and treating them before they get to the point of wanting to purchase the hi-cap mag would be a far better course to pursue. But it's hard and not sexy enough.
With those 3D printers out now, someone could easily make High Capacity Mags all day long.
-
1. We already are doing enough as far as guns are concerned.
2. You want a solution to every single problem coming from someone else (the government), usually in the form of restriction (soda ban), rather than take responsibility for yourself (because you are obese) so you can feel good about "solving" a problem whilst inadvertently (or not) taking away somebody elses freedom?
3. What does an airbag or seatbelt have to do with anything? I personally don`t think you should be required to wear one, it should be a personal choice whether or not to do so. I can still buy cars without seat belts or airbags if I want. I used to drive a 1959 Cadillac Coupe Deville as my primary car and it had neither. (it did have nice Power Windows and Air Conditioning though!)
1. says who
2. I never said that and nothing in anything I've written on this board would lead anyone who is paying attention to reach that conclusion
3. It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING
-
3. It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING
I don't think anyone thinks that, mostly its about focusing it in the right direction, which isn't the firearms themselves, it's about identifying the people that are going to do this kind of shit BEFORE It happens.
-
1. says who
2. I never said that and nothing in anything I've written on this board would lead anyone who is paying attention to reach that conclusion
3. It is an example to illustrate the mindset that surrounds this issue that if you can't have "perfection" then it's futile to do ANYTHING
1. Says the Supreme Court and all of the statistics involving Firearms. Violence with Firearms is on a decline and has been for a long time. Gun Bans do not work, Chicago, and are Unconstitutional in my opinion- and most likely in the Supreme Courts opinion as seen in the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2010, and any upcoming rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.
2. Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be.
3. Who has an "All or nothing" mindset? There is no perfect solution for anything.
-
1. Says the Supreme Court and all of the statistics involving Firearms. Violence with Firearms is on a decline and has been for a long time. Gun Bans do not work, Chicago, and are Unconstitutional in my opinion- and most likely in the Supreme Courts opinion as seen in the ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2010, and any upcoming rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment.
2. Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be.
3. Who has an "All or nothing" mindset? There is no perfect solution for anything.
1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)
2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons. How about speed limits to start. Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?
3. The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything. You can see examples in this very thread
-
I don't think anyone thinks that, mostly its about focusing it in the right direction, which isn't the firearms themselves, it's about identifying the people that are going to do this kind of shit BEFORE It happens.
This is the point I"m getting at in the other thread. Virtually any form of gun control is considered a violation of civil liberties by ... some. The three examples I gave in that thread were extreme examples of the most obvious types of gun control that should be instituted. But even mental health precautions were fought by the right at one point. We know that gun show sales account for a sizable percentage of guns that are used for illegal activity, but the right is so fervent about not closing up that issue, it's crazy.
-
1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)
2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons. How about speed limits to start. Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?
3. The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything. You can see examples in this very thread
1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001. An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban. It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.
2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t. Like the Chicago Handgun ban.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.- See Above Chart)
-
1. We had a assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 - was it ever challenged in the SC (I don't know which is why I'm asking you)
2. We limit peoples freedom all the time for many different reasons. How about speed limits to start. Shouldn't I be allowed to drive as fast as I want and anywhere that I want?
3. The all or nothing mindset is that if we can't totally prevent this type of event (or anything) then we shouldn't bother doing anything. You can see examples in this very thread
1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?
2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.
3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...
-
Also, driving on a road in a city at 120 mph you are putting people in danger. A loaded gun in my house doesn`t pose a threat to anybody unless you decide to come in uninvited. ;)
So I do not get the analogy.
-
Also, driving on a road in a city at 120 mph you are putting people in danger. A loaded gun in my house doesn`t pose a threat to anybody unless you decide to come in uninvited. ;)
So I do not get the analogy.
I had this same argument w my delusional pussy pansie liberal history teacher showing off his Z4 yet calling me a gun extremisit.
I asked him:
1. Why should you be allowed to have a car that does almost three times the legal speed limit?
2. Were you trained to drive 165mph?
3. Why do you need a car that goes that fast?
4. Doesnt having that much power at your grip while not being trained pose a danger to other drivers?
He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since
-
1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001. An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban. It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.
2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t. Like the Chicago Handgun ban.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.- See Above Chart)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
-
He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since
Sure fire sign of an owning.
-
1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?
2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.
3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...
What is the social benefits of guns?
-
I had this same argument w my delusional pussy pansie liberal history teacher showing off his Z4 yet calling me a gun extremisit.
I asked him:
1. Why should you be allowed to have a car that does almost three times the legal speed limit?
2. Were you trained to drive 165mph?
3. Why do you need a car that goes that fast?
4. Doesnt having that much power at your grip while not being trained pose a danger to other drivers?
He defriended me and refuses to talk to me since
The funny thing is, he will break the law more times in that Z4 (potentially putting other people`s lives at risk) than you ever will with your gun.
-
Sure fire sign of an owning.
I got so many pm's you have no idea on that one. They felt bad for him how bad i destroyed him on that and he resorted to calling my a sleezy lawyer w my argument
-
The funny thing is, he will break the law more times in that Z4 (potentially putting other people`s lives at risk) than you ever will with your gun.
True -
I take my AR out maybe 4-5 times a year at best to the range. And even then it usually w the .22 conversion kit i put on it (which is fucking awesome), and the rest of the time its in a big ass safe w gun trigger lock
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Australia is not the United States. What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here. Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban. Both failures that did nothing.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
-
1.The AWB didnt even ban any guns it banned features on guns, Do you know what the aspects of that ban were? if you did you wouldnt be advocating its reinstatement, if you feel you do please tell us all how it would have prevented this tragedy?
2. We limit speed b/c there is no social benefit from it but there is social risk to it. Guns whether you want to believe it or not do have social benefits.
3. Nobody is saying do nothing, but attacking guns wont solve the problem b/c guns are not the problem...
1. I don't know the specifics of the ban but I also know it didn't effect my life one bit either. If you have some specific detail that you are opposed to then feel free to share
2. who says there has to be a social benefit to my freedom. You are the one that said "Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be." so why are you now bringing up "social benefit" and maybe it actually is beneficial for me to get where I'm going a bit faster
3. I actually agree on this point but then I never said that "attacking guns" would solve the problem. What I've suggested, and I'm honestly surprised I have to keep repeating this, is that it would be a small step to mitigating the damage. The shooter is AZ was taken down only after he stopped to reload. If he had stopped to reload after 10 or 12 shots there would be LESS people dead and injured. It wouldn't have stopped what he did but it would have prevented more deaths. That's something that no one can deny in that situation
-
Australia is not the United States. What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here. Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban. Both failures that did nothing.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
Maybe a nation wide restriction will work better.
-
Also, Australia doesn`t have Black People.
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/orace.png)
-
1. I don't know the specifics of the ban but I also know it didn't effect my life one bit either. If you have some specific detail that you are opposed to then feel free to share
2. who says there has to be a social benefit to my freedom. You are the one that said "Anytime you want a restriction, whatever it may be, you will limit someone elses freedom, whomever that may be." so why are you now bringing up "social benefit" and maybe it actually is beneficial for me to get where I'm going a bit faster
3. I actually agree on this point but then I never said that "attacking guns" would solve the problem. What I've suggested, and I'm honestly surprised I have to keep repeating this, is that it would be a small step to mitigating the damage. The shooter is AZ was taken down only after he stopped to reload. If he had stopped to reload after 10 or 12 shots there would be LESS people dead and injured. It wouldn't have stopped what he did but it would have prevented more deaths. That's something that no one can deny in that situation
So just because it does not effect you personally since you are not a gun owner, you feel perfectly find trampling everyone elses rights? Typical
-
Australia is not the United States. What might work in Australia, doesn`t work here. Look at the Chicago Handgun Ban, "Assault" Weapons Ban. Both failures that did nothing.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
Which, IMHO, is a microcosm of what would happen if you banned them countrywide. In Chicago, the illegal weapons were brought in from the surrounding areas, in a complete ban, they would flood across the boarder from Mexico, just like their drugs do.
-
1. I was able to get an "Assault" Weapon in 2001. An SKS with a Bayonet and a Folding Stock, no problem despite a ban. It was never challenged, but I am pretty confident that District of Columbia v. Heller and especially McDonald v. Chicago, both cases decided in 2010, would void any new Assault Weapon Ban.
2. Sometimes we do limit freedoms and it works, and a lot of times it doesn`t. Like the Chicago Handgun ban.
(http://usguncontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chicago_handguns-full1.png)
3. We shouldn`t do anything if we already know there is evidence that it is not going to work. (Previous Assault Weapon Ban, Handgun Ban etc.- See Above Chart)
we've got a 100% ban on drunk driving yet thousands of people are killed each year from drunk drivers
-
we've got a 100% ban on drunk driving yet thousands of people are killed each year from drunk drivers
I think you just defended his point.....
-
Maybe a nation wide restriction will work better.
Impossible. Against the Constitution. All of the Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to have the ability to have firearms and to never have that right infringed upon, ever.
-
So just because it does not effect you personally since you are not a gun owner, you feel perfectly find trampling everyone elses rights? Typical
I have owned guns before and I never suggested you shouldn't be allowed to own guns (although with your apparent mental problems you really shouldn't be allowed to own any)
you have no constitutional right to a specific type of gun, magazine, ammo, etc.
-
Also, Australia doesn`t have Black People.
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/orace.png)
https://www.google.dk/search?q=aboriginals&hl=da&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vS_RUNfBNMvNsgbPvYHAAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644
-
I think you just defended his point.....
On the contrary, I'm pointing out that even though we have law against drunk driving it does not eliminate the problem but that doesn't mean we just give up on trying to MITIGATE THE DAMAGE caused by drunk drivers
-
What is the social benefits of guns?
Depends on who you ask and how they use/value their firearm.
-
Impossible. Against the Constitution. All of the Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to have the ability to have firearms and to never have that right infringed upon, ever.
True
-
What is the social benefits of guns?
A society that has the ability to defend itself from fellow citizens and govt.
I think you would agree that those millions of ppl who were killed by blood thirsty rulers who first took away guns sure saw the social benefits to an armed populace.
-
https://www.google.dk/search?q=aboriginals&hl=da&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vS_RUNfBNMvNsgbPvYHAAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644
I know there are Aborigines in Australia (not as many as there are Blacks in the United States) and I also know they are a huge Problem- In 2009 the imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 14 times higher than that of non-Indigenous people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime
-
A society that has the ability to defend itself from fellow citizens and govt.
I think you would agree that those millions of ppl who were killed by blood thirsty rulers who first took away guns sure saw the social benefits to an armed populace.
They won't reply to that, their grasp of history is dim at best.
-
gee it's too bad that asshole didn't have a hundred round magazine
It comes in handy when trying to murder as many people as possible in a short time
So do planes... And big-rigs towing gasoline tankers... And colorful chemicals in a lab...
I could go on.
-
LOL
resorting to name calling
typical
-
A society that has the ability to defend itself from fellow citizens and govt.
I think you would agree that those millions of ppl who were killed by blood thirsty rulers who first took away guns sure saw the social benefits to an armed populace.
Also a society that makes it easy to go out and kill a lot of people.
-
So do planes... And big-rigs towing gasoline tankers... And colorful chemicals in a lab...
I could go on.
good point but then let's be realistic for a second
how many of those have been used to commit mass murder this year in this country
how about in the last 6 months?
again, I'm talking about a small step that would simply lower the death count in a situation like AZ and not a comprehensive solution to mentally deranged people who decide they want to kill people
-
I know there are Aborigines in Australia (not as many as there are Blacks in the United States) and I also know they are a huge Problem- In 2009 the imprisonment rate for Indigenous people was 14 times higher than that of non-Indigenous people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians_and_crime
14 times?
Thats a lot.
-
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
-
good point but then let's be realistic for a second
how many of those have been used to commit mass murder this year in this country
how about in the last 6 months?
again, I'm talking about a small step that would simply lower the death count in a situation like AZ and not a comprehensive solution to mentally deranged people who decide they want to kill people
I don't know that you're talking about a "small step" and even if you are, the question isn't one of size, it's one of sensibility.
-
I don't know that you're talking about a "small step" and even if you are, the question isn't one of size, it's one of sensibility.
the subject of this thread
-
the subject of this thread
Right. I don't know whether it's a small step, but even if it is, the question should be: is it a sensible first step? I don't think so.
-
I don't know that magazine sizes make much of a difference.
Maybe if the shooter isn't well versed on changing mags.
Other than limiting mag sizes what else should be done?
-
Also a society that makes it easy to go out and kill a lot of people.
Absolutely, you have to take the good with the bad
The difference is that the bad will be there regardless of whether or not guns will be there. These ppl didnt kill others b/c they had guns they simply used guns to commit their crimes.
The crimes would still be committed without guns, the two largest mass murders in US history were committed with fertilizer and box cutters on a plane.
It isnt the guns that are inherintly dangerous its the mindset of these ppl.
Terrorists are still dangerous without guns I think you would agree. Thats why libtard morons arent ranting and raving for gun control in afghanistan as a way to cut down on violence there.
-
I"ve been extensively trained to fire, drop a magazine, reload and continue to hit the target while moving. Anybody can get Magpuls' video's on transition shooting and do the same, dry fire, switch mags etc. I've done on both military and private ranges. If I was going to shoot up a mall, even with 10 rd mags, I'd practice. I'd have 10...10 rnd mags and just do it until I could do it in my sleep.....anybody can do that. The mags make no difference. Incidently alot of us spent a ton of time buying or trying to buy mags today. Everybody is sold out. This sucks. I'm sending my wife out to pick up another AR and rounds. 5.56 has shot up 20 bucks or more if you can find it.
-
I"ve been extensively trained to fire, drop a magazine, reload and continue to hit the target while moving. Anybody can get Magpuls' video's on transition shooting and do the same, dry fire, switch mags etc. I've done on both military and private ranges. If I was going to shoot up a mall, even with 10 rd mags, I'd practice. I'd have 10...10 rnd mags and just do it until I could do it in my sleep.....anybody can do that. The mags make no difference. Incidently alot of us spent a ton of time buying or trying to buy mags today. Everybody is sold out. This sucks. I'm sending my wife out to pick up another AR and rounds. 5.56 has shot up 20 bucks or more if you can find it.
It would serve the mentality of acting simply for the sake of acting though. They dont really care if it makes a difference they just want to try something.
Nobody proposing new gun legislation has told us how any of it would have prevented the tragedies they are using to push them.
-
No...but every batshit crazy lib will try and get some kind of ban on everything. They have no concept of what type of fire arm is what.
-
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
Times change we are a different society now.
We dont own slaves anymore or kill american natives.
-
I"ve been extensively trained to fire, drop a magazine, reload and continue to hit the target while moving. Anybody can get Magpuls' video's on transition shooting and do the same, dry fire, switch mags etc. I've done on both military and private ranges. If I was going to shoot up a mall, even with 10 rd mags, I'd practice. I'd have 10...10 rnd mags and just do it until I could do it in my sleep.....anybody can do that. The mags make no difference. Incidently alot of us spent a ton of time buying or trying to buy mags today. Everybody is sold out. This sucks. I'm sending my wife out to pick up another AR and rounds. 5.56 has shot up 20 bucks or more if you can find it.
Reported to FBI for political re-education.
-
the fastest reload is a second gun