Your Stance on Pistols and Rifles that can accept detatchable magazines [W:805]

[Bodi]

If you had door to door confiscations, you would see people shooting government agents....


If you saw door to door confiscations, do you think they would start in idaho, or Chiraq?

Some extreme whacko's perhaps... but not a hundred million people.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Some extreme whacko's perhaps... but not a hundred million people.

I dunno, it would be a tipping point for many... jack boots entering law abiding citizens homes while ignoring chiraq, they would have to have prison camps, etc..... seeing all this, you bet more would try to defend themselves against such tyranny.

 

[jet57]

No, it won't. The 5 round will be ineffective after 5 shots are fired. The 50 rounder will still be effective. That's the point of the banners, isn't it, to render a firearm ineffective sooner.

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

An unloaded gun is a very ineffective firearm. The sooner it becomes unloaded, the sooner it becomes ineffective.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

The general public is also not suppose to be involved in riots, home invasions, or subject to a tyrannical government, yet these possibilities exist to varying degrees. Why should only those with a government badge be able to defend themselves against such things?

It's moot anyway; mag limits are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

Or to help provide for the defense of the country at times of need. Or to resist government should the need arise.

So it comes down to trading someone else's freedom for security you think they need. Do you really think that will fly in the current political climate?

 

[BretJ]

Uh, Bret said it was 30 round mag alright? He also erroneously said that the military does not use 30 round mags. So, your comments really mean nothing.

I said large capacity as in 100 rounders....I was issued 20 and 30 round mags...I also said I would consider anything larger than 30 rounds high cap.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

wait, so you are saying that if your family was attacked by some savage hell bent of raping your wife and shooting your children, you can be just as "Effective" stopping him with 5 rounds and see no need for 30?

 

[BretJ]

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[jet57]

Or to help provide for the defense of the country at times of need. Or to resist government should the need arise.

So it comes down to trading someone else's freedom for security you think they need. Do you really think that will fly in the current political climate?

The right-wing false flag add on.

Please dude.

 

[BretJ]

wait, so you are saying that if your family was attacked by some savage hell bent of raping your wife and shooting your children, you can be just as "Effective" stopping him with 5 rounds and see no need for 30?

Of course. Because there will be only one attacker and he will not move while you stand there as well and trade shots. Of course you will not miss at all....

 

[jet57]

I said large capacity as in 100 rounders....I was issued 20 and 30 round mags...I also said I would consider anything larger than 30 rounds high cap.

That's not what the gun experts have said though, and neither has state laws.

And you said the Aurora shooter used a 30 round magazine, so... just sayin'

 

[jet57]

wait, so you are saying that if your family was attacked by some savage hell bent of raping your wife and shooting your children, you can be just as "Effective" stopping him with 5 rounds and see no need for 30?

 

[jet57]

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

How did you come to that conclusion?

What conclusion exactly?

At the core of his desperate firefight was a murderous attacker who simply would not go down, even though he was shot 14 times with .45-cal. ammunition — six of those hits in supposedly fatal locations.

Seems the police agree with ME.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Of course. Because there will be only one attacker and he will not move while you stand there as well and trade shots. Of course you will not miss at all....

and of course people always fall down when shot just like on the tv.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

View attachment 67198380

why are you avoiding the question?


wait, so you are saying that if your family was attacked by some savage hell bent of raping your wife and shooting your children, you can be just as "Effective" stopping him with 5 rounds and see no need for 30?




How many rounds would you want in this scenario?

 

[jet57]

why are you avoiding the question?


wait, so you are saying that if your family was attacked by some savage hell bent of raping your wife and shooting your children, you can be just as "Effective" stopping him with 5 rounds and see no need for 30?




How many rounds would you want in this scenario?

THAT'S the reply that your "questions" deserve.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

View attachment 67198381

THAT'S the reply that your "questions" deserve.

hoplophobes tend to not have answers once reality comes crashing in. You don't answer because you know I am right and you are once again, simply wrong.

 

[Crimefree]

Effectiveness and number of rounds has nothing to do with one another. There is for example true range and effective range. Neither has anything to do with the effect a weapon magazine has. In a fire fight, the reason high capacity magazines exist, such a magazine allows for longer firing rates than a standard magazine. That is the only advantage to the weapon.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings, therefore high capacity magazines do not belong in the public sphere wherein they can be, and are routinely misused. High capacity magazines are only for military or law enforcement uses. This business about hunting or going to the range, or competition shooting are all just excuses to have neat toys that go bang.

Your claim is completely without merit that magazine capacity needs to be limited because YOU see no need. First off who the hell do you think you are to limit others without valid reason? You are welcome to apply these crazy beliefs to yourself, refrain from the oppressive application of such stupidity to others. You don't see anyone here suggesting such people as yourself should have a permanent censor fitted.

Then as in many instances of gang or mob rule in riots and looting (neither of which are uncommon) what would you suggest in defending your life? A muzzle loader?

The general public does not live by such idiotic beliefs that they should not be involved in any crime. They are by far the majority and involved with almost every crime. More so than the police or government. If both police and government need high capacity magazines and you are obviously in favour of that. What then is the possible problem of citizens who are at the coal face of crime having the same capability deemed necessary for the police?

 

[OpportunityCost]

The right-wing false flag add on.

Please dude.

 

[Bodi]

I dunno, it would be a tipping point for many... jack boots entering law abiding citizens homes while ignoring chiraq, they would have to have prison camps, etc..... seeing all this, you bet more would try to defend themselves against such tyranny.

A future SCOTUS might over turn previous decisions and find that the right to bear arms means something else and then it is the law of the land making all those that resist criminals.

Racists had to deal with it with regards to Brown v Board and gun rights people might have to as well... you never know.

 

[Bodi]

The general public is also not suppose to be involved in riots, home invasions, or subject to a tyrannical government, yet these possibilities exist to varying degrees. Why should only those with a government badge be able to defend themselves against such things?

:lol: Those things are ILLEGAL.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

:lol: Those things are ILLEGAL.

All the more reason for individuals to defend themselves against them. After all, when seconds count, the police are (at best) minutes away.

 

[Bodi]

All the more reason for individuals to defend themselves against them. After all, when seconds count, the police are (at best) minutes away.

No. I think that you missed the point.

The point is that he is saying that the magazines lead to illegal mass killings and you are defending that by pointing out that the public sometimes does things that are illegal.

The general public is not supposed to be involved in fire fights or mass killings,

The general public is also not suppose to be involved in riots, home invasions, or subject to a tyrannical government, yet these possibilities exist to varying degrees.

The general public is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE involved in fire fights or mass killings, nor are they supposed to be involved in riots (and) home invasions. If they are not supposed to be involved in fire fights then they don't need the high capacity magazine.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

No. I think that you missed the point.

The point is that he is saying that the magazines lead to illegal mass killings and you are defending that by pointing out that the public sometimes does things that are illegal.





The general public is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE involved in fire fights or mass killings, nor are they supposed to be involved in riots (and) home invasions. If they are not supposed to be involved in fire fights then they don't need the high capacity magazine.

And yet they happen anyway. Thus, there is a need for law-abiding citizens to have firearms as well as whatever capacity mags they deem necessary to protect themselves.

Not that demonstrating a need is necessary, since bearing arms is a right that shall not be infringed. Purposefully making firearms less effective by arbitrary limits or model-bias does exactly that.

 

[Bodi]

And yet they happen anyway. Thus, there is a need for law-abiding citizens to have firearms as well as whatever capacity mags they deem necessary to protect themselves.

Not that demonstrating a need is necessary, since bearing arms is a right that shall not be infringed. Purposefully making firearms less effective by arbitrary limits or model-bias does exactly that.

All rights can be infringed as none are universal...