why do police have thirty round magazines
Is limiting a magazine infringement on your right to bear arms? Maybe the cops have thirty round magazines because they've learned a good law abiding citizen could at any time turn into the next mass shooter?
yes it is because if you claim the government does not infringe by banning 30 round magazines, you cannot claim they are infringing when they ban 5 round magazines. I will inform you why police have them-for self defense against criminals-same reason why honest citizens need them/There is no sensible argument for magazine restrictions. Those who support them and pretend it is about crime control are lying. There are millions upon millions of legal 30 round magazines floating around and the military uses millions each year. Only a moron would believe that someone who decides to commit mass murder would obey a magazine limit and only the truly stupid would believe a ban would prevent one of the billion or so normal capacity magazines from being acquired by a mass shooter.
Every time you guys throw that nuke this and nuke that around shows your level of intelligence and why your minds are dangerous. And before you get that cuddly warm feeling that's not a compliment.
Well if You say so then the Repubs got nothing to worry about, I bet they find that a relief.
Why would we care, if the rich and massive corps pay a smidgeon more? Polling says, raise taxes on the wealthy and corps. WE WANT IT.
So what happens when a target shoots back? You say you like target shooting so I assume you have a firearm of some sort? If someone is in your house or hell anywhere, but we'll say your house since you would never carry. Are you going to shoot them if need be?
In other words assuming shooting an animal was your only means of eating period you would starve. Those thirty round magazines are standard on most rifles that have them. And as far as assault rifles well they are a little (lot) pricey. And I am pretty sure you see AR-15s spraying bullets everywhere. Sorry no cigar not an assault rifle.
Assault rifles are the go to in time of war. Actual automatic.
A lot of hunters do. Since you know of none that means you are hardcore FUDD or not any kind of hunter at all.
A very common anti gun phrase. Hmm no nukes?
It would be nice if you guys could go after another Amendment for awhile and give the 2nd a break. And as far as compromise goes that all we do or have it done for us. As far as your way or no way that is what you guys are good at.
With the demand on guns now and with some gun shops having their shelves emptied I would have to say you're right about needing more guns in America. We certainly need more ammo, that's in really big demand and really short supply.
Zero
Guns aren't the problem. It's the "very fine people on both sides"
Kamala Harris isn't against guns, if they're hers.
In other words, only the government.
Why? Im not against thirty round clips although I much prefer thirty round magazines, after all the Army uses them.
Why? The Army uses assault rifles, they are the weapons of today. A ban on fully automatic rifles i.e. assault rifles, is a violation on the 2A.
A sword is strictly for killing people too, your point?
I've never heard of a hunter using a ten round clip but I wouldn't be surprised if a hunter does. As a hunter myself I might use a ten round magazine although it would probably be for my sidearm that I would carry for backup.
I've never heard of anybody killing a rabbit with a bazooka but you can get a bazooka, its just a pipe and a twelve volt battery.
The 2A is quite cut and dry, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," there is no room for compromise.
The Knights of the Round Table.
Compromise implies give and take. What have the gun control advocates ever offered to give back? There shouldn't be any compromise on rights.
You sound scared to death of the rich and powerful. WE have the market. If you are a fascist corp, and threaten us with ruin unless we comply without question. GTFO. WE will make NEW corps.
I wonder if you could possibly be wrong? Why do people use thirty round magazines if it isn't about crime control? You are basically saying they are for killing people. I see no other reason for them, do you? I think that is a sensible argument against them. I truly wonder if limiting a magazine would infringe on your right to bear arms? You can still bear your arms. I feel as if you are stuck in your thinking in your fervor to protect your second amendment rights and not based on anything else.
If we were to ban 30 round magazines then people would be screaming to ban 20 round magazines and after that they would be screaming to ban 10 round magazines and after that they would want a ban on 8 round magazines, 5 round magazines, 2 round magazines.
I'm not the one of many people who support the second amendment who think they should be able to own what our military owns, but I'm dangerous. Well then it's no wonder you need firearms if you think words are dangerous to your cause.
No room for compromise? We shall see if the dems take control of government. Since folks like you and turtle refuse to compromise it will be forced upon you.
Forced upon us? We've got the numbers and we've got the guns, we won't have it forced upon us regardless if the dems take control of the government or not. If it comes to that, we will be the ones forcing the government to back off.
As I was saying, in other words only the government should be allowed to carry guns on the street, according to you.
I explain in post #41 the problem with banning magazines that hold over an x number of rounds.
The 2A is quite cut and dry, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Anything that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation, plain and simple. That doesn't mean all gun laws are infringements. A law that says you can't shoot innocent people is not an infringement which Im all for.
The point is, you seem to be fixated on guns because they were designed to kill with, even though there's stuff that's used to kill with more so than guns (cars, alcohol, tobacco). If you're going to be obsessed with whether or not something is designed for killing then I am pointing out that a sword is designed for killing as much as a gun is.
Exactly.
Forced upon us? We've got the numbers and we've got the guns, we won't have it forced upon us regardless if the dems take control of the government or not. If it comes to that, we will be the ones forcing the government to back off.
nope, there are several reasons for 30 round magazines, but the most important is self defense. Tell us why you want to ban them and if we give you that power where do you stop. The duty is on you to explain why that infringement is valid and what good it will do
There are over 70 million gun owners in the USA. Active police and military personnel in the USA totals less than 4 million combined. A simple lesson in math.
As you brought up in post 38 you can't hunt Bambi, it's a good thing everyone isn't of that attitude or in a few short years "Bambi" would starve due to over crowding. Think firearms are for target practice.
Are you afraid that if you had an automatic weapon it would whisper sweet nothings in your ear causing you to go on a shooting rampage?
Thought I told you it wasn't a compliment. Yes when you constantly here the garbage that comes from the [D] side of the aisle words do hurt.
.
So then what you are saying is... only the bad guys can carry on the streets.
I'd rather have one 30 round magazine than I would one 10 round magazine (your type flout) and no spare on hand. That's why you are aware of your backstop.
And everything is an assault "weapon" or rifle to anti gunners.
No at that point he would just go down among them and wade in chopping. Hmm how many times (Vegas style) has that happened again?
I think you get it! But of course your arguments are never the same old thing are they?