Wait...are you suggesting I should use a basic .308 hunting rifle instead of an AR 15 for home defense???How does a gun that you claim only has cosmetic differences, protect you better than other guns available?
Ahhh arrogance, thy name be turtledud
Doesn't matter how good a shot you think you are or how bad you think I might be- mag cap for rifles set at 20 works for me... good enough when I carried the Mattel toy on a two way range, good enough now that I am a veteran. Nothing you can't do with 20 that you would need 30 for off a one way play day range unless the objective is mass murder but another guy pointed out you can kill lots of people with quick mag changes...
Hope that helps you understand...eace
2 reasons. 1-because the second doesn't JUST protect my right to self defense weapons and 2-because some people ****ing WANT them. The like to shoot 30 rounders at the range and enjoy sport shooting. Dood...the absolute reality is that an average of TWO people out of 330 MILLION per year commit some sort of a spree type killing and NOT always (less than 25% of the time) use semi automatic rifles. It's not even a great majority...it's virtually ALL firearm owners with those 30 fond magazines are responsible law abiding citizens. Considering the facts it is is PATHETIC it is even a consideration.
2 seconds isn't exactly speed loading btw. Mag release takes no time and hand to mag mag and round chambered isn't a great task. A 20 year old kid just did it 3 times with no one around to stop him.
so you don't have a rational argument.
color me surprised
Not
you cannot fashion a single argument that would convince anyone with some degree of objectivity
30 round magazines would be standard capacity if they were ever needed to function in the capacity of, say, the unorganized militia as specified in the US Code. Or to repel a foreign invader as a last line of national defense. Or...against a tyrannical government that might consider abandoning the Constitution. All VERY unlikely scenarios...agreed. So lets go back to the original statement...because they WANT them.What 'other than' right past self defense do you think you need? I used 20 round mags back in the day.
people want all kindsa things, fully automatic weapons without all the paperwork... everything a grunt of cop has, to marry their same sex partner...lotsa wants out there
They would like to spend the day shooting belt fed, firing from the open bolt position machineguns.
I do a bit of pistol shootingmy point was you can't miss fast enough, rapid reload of any mag isn't a big deal I agree.
30 round magazines would be standard capacity if they were ever needed to function in the capacity of, say, the unorganized militia as specified in the US Code. Or to repel a foreign invader as a last line of national defense. Or...against a tyrannical government that might consider abandoning the Constitution. All VERY unlikely scenarios...agreed. So lets go back to the original statement...because they WANT them.
Look...face facts...YOU are considering a ban on an issue that you KNOW would make absolutely NO difference...for the mere sake of passing a ban. That's...not only far less than brilliant...it is corrupt.
so you ARE actually suggesting a magazine capacity ban would prevent these incidents? My bad...I assumed you were corrupt... Not foolish.As a guy who carried the M16A1 as part of the Regular Army I can assure you a semi-automatic weapon does good service with 20 round mags and you do much better in the prone with a 20 round mag sticking out the bottom. Remember it will be a two way range- make yourself a small target.
Now the function of the unorganized militia is to feed men into more organized units, a mass of men to draw from, not to form up and march to the sound of cannon. It also has an age limit, are you saying that the militia style weapons are to be surrendered once we age out? We need to turn in our ARs n AKs once we get social security?
You are the one saying the mag cap makes no difference, please don't throw that on me. I asked if it makes no difference then why insist on having them? Your basic argument for them is WANT, yet people want everything from machineguns to gay marriage.
Personally I would lean for higher funding of mental healthcare, but I don't see accepting 20 round magazines for semi-automatic rifles as enabling a tyrannical gubmint or endangering the 2nd Amendment.
But like I said I carried 20 round mags for my select fire gubmint issue M16A1, never felt under mag'd
you just don't get it
you gun haters who want to harass us gun owners want to ban guns incrementally. start with scary looks you will continue to take more and more and more
and magazine limits are substantive
I have a great idea, if owning a gun causes you to lose sleep or the control of parts of your body, don't OWN one
but stop pretending your motivations for trying to restrict what other citizens own given your motivations are based on a desire to harass people who don't buy into your agenda
Wait...are you suggesting I should use a basic .308 hunting rifle instead of an AR 15 for home defense???
Use the guns that fanatics have claimed for years are no different than the assault weapons, except cosmetically.
So...a good old fashioned .308. One of if not the best all purpose hunting round. NOT a Bushmaster AR15 .223 (the ballistic equivalent of an M-16)?
Ever heard of the bully pulpit?
You don't see other people's opinions as rational, color me surprised...
Whatever gun you guys referred to before as being legal and being the equivalent to the assault weapons, except for cosmetic differences.
Right. Like a .308 hunting rifle vs a .308 'assault rifle' with a front grip. Or a scoped Bushmaster .223 hunting rifle commonly used by deer hunters across the country vs the evil Bushmaster .223 assault rifle with a grip.
Great. So you want to ban this guyIf that's the one you guys are referring to for the last several years. Here are the guns they are proposing to ban:
the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol.
The point is, you guys said their was no advantage to an assault weapon over other guns available, so you can't now legitimately claim hardship if they are banned.
You are afraid of a name...a combination of words put together to give you something to fight against. You are scared ****less of a Colt AR15 because someone TOLD you it was an evil killing machine (oooohhh noes!!! It has a handle!). They fire in pretty much the same manner, have only the slightest ballistic differences, and my hunting rifle can accept a 10, 20, 30 round magazine or a double ought 100 round drum. And you wonder why we aren't exactly thrilled with you and people like you advocating for laws.
dood...you can't even DEFINE an assault weapon. You just advocated for the ownership of weapons that are identical to your dreaded assault rifle. And BTW...I can put a rail system, light, collapsing stock and front grip on your "shotgun" and guess what it becomes.Obviously, I am not the most frightened, as I require no more than a shotgun for home protection.
Glad to hear though that you feel banning of the assault weapons is no hardship for gun owners. Spread the word!!!
Gun Control Polls Shift After Tragic Shootings But Party Affiliation Is Key
I think a good number of people want to look at tighter gun control laws. So you are wrong here. Also he wants to look at other areas where we can improve. So our President is doing his job. I am sick to death of hearing about the 2nd amendment and how it give right to unlimited gun ownership. Plus ask any rational person why they need a 30 or 100 clip and the best they can come up with is maybe target practice. Bottom line the President is doing his job. I guess he had the pusle of right wing America more than most of us thought. Cling to guns and religion, and that scares the crap out of a majority of Americans
dood...you can't even DEFINE an assault weapon. You just advocated for the ownership of weapons that are identical to your dreaded assault rifle. And BTW...I can put a rail system, light, collapsing stock and front grip on your "shotgun" and guess what it becomes.
so you ARE actually suggesting a magazine capacity ban would prevent these incidents? My bad...I assumed you were corrupt... Not foolish.
I spent 20 years in the military. My semiauto rifles have 10 and 15 round mags. I personally don't care if the mags are 20 or 100 round drums. I oppose idiotic laws passed by weak minded people under the pretense that they care or are actually accomplishing something.
Sounds like you are good to go then! Again, I am glad to hear the proposed ban creates no hardships for you guys!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?