High capacity magazines [W:1390] (1 Viewer)

[blaxshep]

Re: High capacity magazines

NO it didn't. not in the least

Forgive my ignorance but what is 1367 vs 1364?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

Forgive my ignorance but what is 1367 vs 1364?

post numbers in this thread

 

[blaxshep]

Re: High capacity magazines

post numbers in this thread

Oh lol, ok I thought you two were referring to some court decisions.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

my 1367 obliterated and destroyed 1364.

Nope.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

Oh lol, ok I thought you two were referring to some court decisions.

That would be nice but heymarket has no court decisions on his side.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

Nope.

It wasn't even responsive to the post in question

 

[blaxshep]

Re: High capacity magazines

That would be nice but heymarket has no court decisions on his side.

What was I thinking :doh

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

what is idiotic is that anyone would think society's "wishes" have any relevance to this topic.

either you want to handicap lawful citizens or you don't

You operate from the False Premise that reasonable regulation which at the same time permits a wide choice in firearms ownership does indeed handicap anyone.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

NO it didn't. not in the least

Yes it did.... completely and totally. But I would love to hear your attempted point by point refutation of my pot 1367. By all means do present it.

 

[Federalist]

Re: High capacity magazines

You operate from the False Premise that reasonable regulation which at the same time permits a wide choice in firearms ownership does indeed handicap anyone.

According to the constitution, congress only has the power adjust, order, and direct commerce among the several states. It does not have the power to ban the possession of high capacity magazines inside a state.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

No the target in this case would be the criminal trying to rob, rape or kill you. Playing dumb doesn't help your argument.

from your own 1411

When I am at the range and I miss the target does that mean the whole range is sprayed with missed bullets hitting everyone else around me?

You clearly introduced into the discussion targets at the range. Playing dumb does not help your argument.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

Nope.

present your point by point attempt to refute it then.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

present your point by point attempt to refute it then.

There's nothing to refute, SCOTUS simply hasn't ruled on feeding devices.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

There's nothing to refute, SCOTUS simply hasn't ruled on feeding devices.

This is what you are being asked to refute

you said NOPE to my post

my 1367 obliterated and destroyed 1364.

NOPE is not a point by point refutation. It is a starting point for debate.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

This is what you are being asked to refute

you said NOPE to my post



NOPE is not a point by point refutation. It is a starting point for debate.

The starting point was 1440 posts ago.

You were asked to provide the court case you were referring to on the topic of high-capacity feeding devices. The cases you linked to did not regard feeding devices.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High capacity magazines

So you desire a person who is a "lousy shot" to have the ability to spray dozens or scores or even hundreds of bullets in an area? :doh:roll:

yes, and he should be held accountable if he does something not so right with it.

Can you tell me a situation in actual reality where we know that thirty shots were not enough but 31 would have been?

potentially every single gunfight you ever find yourself in.


30/31 is an arbitrary number, your question therefore is moot.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

The starting point was 1440 posts ago.

You were asked to provide the court case you were referring to on the topic of high-capacity feeding devices. The cases you linked to did not regard feeding devices.

You are in error and mistaken. I did not state that there were court cases on the subject of high capacity magazines for firearms. My statements was to affirm the right of the government to pass legislation on firearms and I cited articles which listed cases.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

yes, and he should be held accountable if he does something not so right with it.





potentially every single gunfight you ever find yourself in.


30/31 is an arbitrary number, your question therefore is moot.

Yews one could argue that the entire question of the magic number is moot so it is silly to cite one over another.

I asked for a real life situation - you gave me a hypothetical.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

You are in error and mistaken. I did not state that there were court cases on the subject of high capacity magazines for firearms. My statements was to affirm the right of the government to pass legislation on firearms and I cited articles which listed cases.

You and I were discussing high-capacity feeding devices. You had said the court disagrees with me. I asked you to cite the court cases that disagreed with me. You referred me to your links. You now admit that your links had nothing to do with feeding devices, which means when you said:

Too bad for you the Court disagrees with you.....

...you lied. There is no SCOTUS opinion on feeding devices one way or another, which means the court isn't disagreeing with me, which means your dismissal tactic failed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

You operate from the False Premise that reasonable regulation which at the same time permits a wide choice in firearms ownership does indeed handicap anyone.

you operate under the incorrect belief that the 2A is based on what people have rather than what the government cannot do. reasonable regulation is not reasonable when the government doesn't have the proper power to regulate. and banning possession is never reasonable when the same weapons are readily available to civilian state employees

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Re: High capacity magazines

Yews one could argue that the entire question of the magic number is moot so it is silly to cite one over another.

I asked for a real life situation - you gave me a hypothetical.

Asking me that in a single instance if in that particular I only needed 30, why would I need 31, is a simple answer, "I wouldn't" however none of us are soothsayers and therefore cannot keep the exact amount of rounds one would need throughout their lifetime. The prudent gentlemen would have an excess of ammunition at his disposal should the occasion occur.

Therefore your "real life" scenario does nothing to progress the discussion/.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

Asking me that in a single instance if in that particular I only needed 30, why would I need 31, is a simple answer, "I wouldn't" however none of us are soothsayers and therefore cannot keep the exact amount of rounds one would need throughout their lifetime. The prudent gentlemen would have an excess of ammunition at his disposal should the occasion occur.

Therefore your "real life" scenario does nothing to progress the discussion/.

there is no sensible reason to restrict someone who can legally own a firearm from having as much ammo in the gun as they see fit. The obvious downside is that those who disregard laws banning them from owning or misusing firearms clearly won't be so limited but the honest man might be

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

Asking me that in a single instance if in that particular I only needed 30, why would I need 31, is a simple answer, "I wouldn't" however none of us are soothsayers and therefore cannot keep the exact amount of rounds one would need throughout their lifetime. The prudent gentlemen would have an excess of ammunition at his disposal should the occasion occur.

Therefore your "real life" scenario does nothing to progress the discussion/.

Actually it does because it puts the onus squarely your side to show such a thing is necessary and needed. Which is probably why your side wants nothing to do with it.

Actually real life has already happened. That is what is being asked of you. Can you tell me a real life case where somebody needed a gun with a magazine capable of more than thirty shots?

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

you operate under the incorrect belief that the 2A is based on what people have rather than what the government cannot do.

Not at all. I have clearly stated that government is FORBIDDEN by the Second Amendment to create any environment where the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

You and I were discussing high-capacity feeding devices. You had said the court disagrees with me. I asked you to cite the court cases that disagreed with me. You referred me to your links. You now admit that your links had nothing to do with feeding devices, which means when you said:

...you lied. There is no SCOTUS opinion on feeding devices one way or another, which means the court isn't disagreeing with me, which means your dismissal tactic failed.

Nowhere in this attack on me calling me a liar is there any post numbers .... any quotes .... just you telling the world what you think was said as you see it.

So in which posts did all this happen - according to your retelling of what you think happened?