• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1 Year ago, Biden called for banning magazines that can hold "multiple bullets"

swing_voter said:
*rollseyes*

He means large magazines, like 30 and over.
Click to expand...

That must explain why they're trying to ban any with 11 and over.

Yeah, it's just like in WA, when they say "semiautomatic assault rifle" but actually mean "semiautomatic rifle."
 
chuckiechan said:
That is too complicated of a concept for Biden’s remaining brain cell magazine.
Click to expand...

Biden accidentally told the truth: the objective is an all out ban on everything.
 
You don't need a gun with a magazine at all. Just buy a double-barrelled shotgun.

Jill, buy a shotgun, baby!




The best part of this, other than all of it, is Joe mansplaining to his wife what to do "if there's ever a problem."
 
swing_voter said:
*rollseyes*

He means large magazines, like 30 and over.
Click to expand...

Most of the limitations on magazine capacity I have seen are half to a third of that number. It’s when the 10-15 round limits are thrown out as the cut off that people laugh at. For me 30 is a reasonable amount of rounds to be considered normal capacity. If we can get a guarantee that it can’t be lowered for a decade or so I think that would be an acceptable compromise on high capacity legislation and would be able to pass without too much trouble.
 
Tlrmln said:
That must explain why they're trying to ban any with 11 and over.

Yeah, it's just like in WA, when they say "semiautomatic assault rifle" but actually mean "semiautomatic rifle."
Click to expand...

Isn't that "semiautomatic assault rifle" business something they pulled out of their collective butts recently?
 
zsu2357 said:
Isn't that "semiautomatic assault rifle" business something they pulled out of their collective butts recently?
Click to expand...

Yes and even worse, it was in a ballot initiative, i.e. something the people voting for it don't even read. They deliberately used a misleading term knowing that the vast majority of people voting in favor of it would not read the definition.

Luckily it wasn't a ban, but I can't imagine that they're not already cooking that up.
 
Tlrmln said:
That must explain why they're trying to ban any with 11 and over.

Yeah, it's just like in WA, when they say "semiautomatic assault rifle" but actually mean "semiautomatic rifle."
Click to expand...

Just curious why would you need a clip that holds more than 11.
Can't you hit what you are shooting at?

I personally don't care is someone has a weapon with a large capacity clip (11+) nor found a need. Just curious what someone uses the large capacity for.
 
mike2810 said:
Just curious why would you need a clip that holds more than 11.
Can't you hit what you are shooting at?

I personally don't care is someone has a weapon with a large capacity clip (11+) nor found a need. Just curious what someone uses the large capacity for.
Click to expand...

I have a better question. Why wouldn't you want more rounds?
 
=Tlrmln;1072572518]Yes and even worse, it was in a ballot initiative, i.e. something the people voting for it don't even read. They deliberately used a misleading term knowing that the vast majority of people voting in favor of it would not read the definition.
Click to expand...

Awhile back in OR. there was some contention over the captions of some proposed gun laws here, because it just didn't inform people what the measure was. They had to re-word the caption and we won out. Of course the laws originated out of Portland (of all places) and Eugene.=Tlrmln;1072572518]Yes and even worse, it was in a ballot initiative, i.e. something the people voting for it don't even read. They deliberately used a misleading term knowing that the vast majority of people voting in favor of it would not read the definition.

Luckily it wasn't a ban, but I can't imagine that they're not already cooking that up.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Maybe what it will take is some state to try it. Full blown door to door grab. It would end it once and for all.
 
Tlrmln said:
I have a better question. Why wouldn't you want more rounds?
Click to expand...
Because if/when we are pressed to service to defend the country from pieces of **** leftists/marxists or other domestic enemies, you want all the ammunition you can realistically carry.
 
Tlrmln said:
I have a better question. Why wouldn't you want more rounds?
Click to expand...

Unlike you I will answer your question. Then I expect you to answer mine.

Why wouldn't I want more rounds.
- extra weight to carry when hunting.
- possible increased chance of a jamming
- one or two shots is the most I have ever needed when hunting.
- In target practice after a firing few rounds I like to take a break. Pretty simple to reload.

Your turn.
Tell us why you need a high capacity magazine?
 
=mike2810;1072572724]Just curious why would you need a clip that holds more than 11.
Can't you hit what you are shooting at?
Click to expand...

Multiple targets and knowing you can afford to miss (and no not stray bullets going off into crowds).

I personally don't care is someone has a weapon with a large capacity clip (11+) nor found a need. Just curious what someone uses the large capacity for.
Click to expand...

I would consider 15+ the low end of high capacity. Three targets (yes I will call them targets) at 10+1 equals three hit per target with no half assing it (leg,arm,out right miss) plus two misses. One magazine you could be screwed. Don't believe the movies.
 
noonereal said:
longggggggggggggggggggg overdo, much respect to Joe

no bull****, we have a problem with gutless gun nuts and he he is ready to confront it
Click to expand...

The most gun violence occurs with inner-city Democrats shooting at each other in turf wars.

I'm pretty sure it would be racist to "confront" that.
 
zsu2357 said:
Multiple targets and knowing you can afford to miss (and no not stray bullets going off into crowds).



I would consider 15+ the low end of high capacity. Three targets (yes I will call them targets) at 10+1 equals three hit per target with no half assing it (leg,arm,out right miss) plus two misses. One magazine you could be screwed. Don't believe the movies.
Click to expand...

godawful
 
aociswundumho said:
The most gun violence occurs with inner-city Democrats shooting at each other in turf wars.

I'm pretty sure it would be racist to "confront" that.
Click to expand...

this statement is not founded in fact nor of relevance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom