Magazine Restrictions

[Rick]

Then you support the position that private citizens can obtain nuclear weapons?

No - sufficiency, not "proportionality", is what is mandated.

 

[GenSeneca]

Guns Don’t Kill People, Bullets Kill People

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), for one, is calling for “smart, rational gun-control laws that protect the right to bear arms but have reasonable limits.”

...

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who was elected in 1996 after her husband was gunned down in a rampage on the Long Island Railroad, has introduced a new bill with a single focus: to ban large-capacity ammunition clips. The language is carefully crafted to target the magazines, not the weapons. It is not a gun-control bill, per se.

McCarthy was elected on a gun control-heavy platform, but she has learned a few things since then. She has come to terms with the need to compromise, to work within the context and culture of our country. With her proposed legislation, McCarthy recognizes the recent US Supreme Court decision that finds a constitutional right to bear arms, and in her rhetoric, she is careful to preach “gun safety,” not “gun control.” It just might work.

...

Law-abiding gun owners can make this small sacrifice to increase everyone’s safety, and gun control advocates should focus on this realistic goal.

To honor and respect the memories of those massacred in Tucson, Congress and the country should come together on this one issue. Ban large-capacity ammunition clips. It is the least we can do.

Sadly enough, this attempt to further erode our individual right to bear arms might actually work. Of course that will not stop the next deranged individual from committing a crime with a firearm. Let's say the next shooter has been limited to 10 rounds in his magazine rather than loughner's 31 round magazine.... Loughner killed six people, who's to say the next sociopath doesn't kill just as many with only 10 rounds? But that's really the point for the anti-gun people, incrimentalism is the path to eroding our individual right to bear arms.

If the next shooter has only 10 rounds in his magazine, the same people will again demand new "smart, rational... reasonable limits", perhaps lowering the legal capacity of a magazine to just 5 rounds. They will again claim that this "little sacrifice" is the least the law abiding gun owners can do to help ensure the safety of our fellow Americans. And their calls for further sacrifice will re-emerge every time an individual abuses his own rights to violate the rights of others.

But it is not the law abiding gun owners that are actually being asked to sacrifice, it's all the people of our nation. They are asking that you sacrifice your rationality to emotion by invoking the memory of the victims, they are asking that you sacrifice your reason to fear of another such shooting, they are asking that you sacrifice your freedom for security... Such "compromises" never achieve the promised safety but always result in further erosion of our rights and liberty.

While I would like to see Republicans stand up on this issue and block any attempts at eroding the rights of all citizens due to the actions of a single deranged individual, I doubt very much they have the political spine to fight for the preservation of our liberty.

 

[Apathy]

I never got why people blamed the tool and not the person. If he didnt have a gun he would have found something else to kill people with.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I never got why people blamed the tool and not the person. If he didnt have a gun he would have found something else to kill people with.

because the tool makes it easier to do a lot more damage.

And saying blame the person not the tool...is a straw man..

Everyone knows that yes he is to blame...Its so clear as day, its not a issue to debate...and is assumed. But you can't pass laws against him...But you can pass laws that make it harder for people like him to do what he did.

Some Republican was on the Lawrence O'Donald show last night..Laurence kept asking him...do you wish that the shooter had only been able to have 10 rounds and not 31....the republican just kept talking about how he wished that we did not have a society where people would do such a thing and all kinds of babble...all I could think is , you little hippie peace love crap is **** the rest of us live in the real world...and Yes having the gunmen have 10 rounds not 31 would have saved lives.

 

[Apathy]

1)because the tool makes it easier to do a lot more damage.

2)And saying blame the person not the tool...is a straw man..

Everyone knows that yes he is to blame...Its so clear as day, its not a issue to debate...and is assumed. But you can't pass laws against him...But you can pass laws that make it harder for people like him to do what he did.

3)Some Republican was on the Lawrence O'Donald show last night..Laurence kept asking him...do you wish that the shooter had only been able to have 10 rounds and not 31....the republican just kept talking about how he wished that we did not have a society where people would do such a thing and all kinds of babble...all I could think is , you little hippie peace love crap is **** the rest of us live in the real world...and Yes having the gunmen have 10 rounds not 31 would have saved lives.

1) Molatov cocktails could have done more damage so to prevent that we should ban any flamable liquid rags and glass containers or take the logical route and ban that thing called murder. You cant illegalize something because of what they might do with it. I could smother someone with a pillow ergo all pillows should be banned.

2) No its not... And you can attempt to legislate us into a plastic bubble but it wont work.

3) What makes you think someone who is ready to half a dozen people and severely wound a dozen others would follow a clip restriction law?

 

[Rick]

The idea of banning magazine clips is silly - criminals will still get them (after all, they're CRIMINAls, remember?) and in any case can be easily fabricated - a container with a spring.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

1) Molatov cocktails could have done more damage so to prevent that we should ban any flamable liquid rags and glass containers or take the logical route and ban that thing called murder. You cant illegalize something because of what they might do with it. I could smother someone with a pillow ergo all pillows should be banned.

2) No its not... And you can attempt to legislate us into a plastic bubble but it wont work.

3) What makes you think someone who is ready to half a dozen people and severely wound a dozen others would follow a clip restriction law?

you make the gun store follow the law?

and no a molitiv cocktail would not have killed or wounder nearly as many.

Also pretty sure having a molitiv cocktail...illigal.

The MLK Parade Bomber...you have any issue with him having a bomb to? after all A bomb is arms..so he should be able to have a bomb...and until the sec he detonates that bomb on the parade rout...should be all legal..

 

[BigRob]

Some Republican was on the Lawrence O'Donald show last night..Laurence kept asking him...do you wish that the shooter had only been able to have 10 rounds and not 31....the republican just kept talking about how he wished that we did not have a society where people would do such a thing and all kinds of babble...all I could think is , you little hippie peace love crap is **** the rest of us live in the real world...and Yes having the gunmen have 10 rounds not 31 would have saved lives.

What a bogus leading question...

You know what else would "save lives"...having more police on duty at the event.. so clearly we need to run pass a law that says no more social gatherings can occur without adequate police oversight.

Maybe what else might have saved lives is if more people in the crowd had a weapon, and then they shot the shooter...maybe we should run to pass a law that says everyone is now required to carry a gun.

You cannot legislate away tragedy, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Apathy]

1)you make the gun store follow the law?

2)and no a molitiv cocktail would not have killed or wounder nearly as many.

3)Also pretty sure having a molitiv cocktail...illigal.

4)The MLK Parade Bomber...you have any issue with him having a bomb to? after all A bomb is arms..so he should be able to have a bomb...and until the sec he detonates that bomb on the parade rout...should be all legal..

1) They would just get it elsewhere.

2) You obviously have never seen one at work. Very simple to make and very dangerous.

3) It may very well be illigal[sic] but it doesnt change the fact I have enough materials to make about a dozen of them and if I were violent/crazy enough I could do a lot more damage than he did. I also wouldnt care if I were caught with them because the crime I would have committed would have been 1,000,000x worse.

4) Thanks for defeating your own argument the fact that the possession of those explosives are illegal doesnt make them go away.

 

[steveox]

I got this from Amazon.com 4 years ago

 

[pocketfullofshells]

1) They would just get it elsewhere.

2) You obviously have never seen one at work. Very simple to make and very dangerous.

3) It may very well be illigal[sic] but it doesnt change the fact I have enough materials to make about a dozen of them and if I were violent/crazy enough I could do a lot more damage than he did. I also wouldnt care if I were caught with them because the crime I would have committed would have been 1,000,000x worse.

4) Thanks for defeating your own argument the fact that the possession of those explosives are illegal doesnt make them go away.

so you are for the right to build and carry bombs then..ok

if we cant' stop them just make it legal thats your logic right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What a bogus leading question...

You know what else would "save lives"...having more police on duty at the event.. so clearly we need to run pass a law that says no more social gatherings can occur without adequate police oversight.

Maybe what else might have saved lives is if more people in the crowd had a weapon, and then they shot the shooter...maybe we should run to pass a law that says everyone is now required to carry a gun.

You cannot legislate away tragedy, no matter how hard you try.

you can't but you can try to reduce them. you can't stop murders, but does not mean you don't try to reduce them and make it illigal,

And we can't have cops everyplace...but we can have some sane gun control laws to reduce the deaths.

And the whole if we all had guns idea...is such a piece of crap I have no idea why people still even let the words out.
household gun ownership total gun deaths per 100,000
1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 19.58
2 Alabama 57.2 percent 16.99
3 (tie) Alaska 60.6 percent 16.38
3 (tie) Mississippi 54.3 percent 16.38
5 Nevada 31.5 percent 16.25

lowest gun ownersship states
50 Hawaii 9.7 percent 2.58
49 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.28
Rhode Island 13.3 percent 4.43
Connecticut 16.2 percent 4.95
New York 18.1 percent 5.20

Feel free to do it by nation as well...More guns, more gun deaths and not just by total..but by percent...

http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

by this logic also, the UK and some other places should be like mad Max on crack since so few guns..there must be huge amounts of murders of the poor defenseless people...

 

[Apathy]

1)so you are for the right to build and carry bombs then..ok

2)if we cant' stop them just make it legal thats your logic right?

1)Sure. But what will they use them for is the question.

2)But what can we stop? We can discourage acts of violence with very harsh punishments and actually persecute the offenders not the people who legally carry and never committed any acts of violence.

 

[BigRob]

you can't but you can try to reduce them. you can't stop murders, but does not mean you don't try to reduce them and make it illigal,

And we can't have cops everyplace...but we can have some sane gun control laws to reduce the deaths.

And the whole if we all had guns idea...is such a piece of crap I have no idea why people still even let the words out.
household gun ownership total gun deaths per 100,000
1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 19.58
2 Alabama 57.2 percent 16.99
3 (tie) Alaska 60.6 percent 16.38
3 (tie) Mississippi 54.3 percent 16.38
5 Nevada 31.5 percent 16.25

lowest gun ownersship states
50 Hawaii 9.7 percent 2.58
49 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.28
Rhode Island 13.3 percent 4.43
Connecticut 16.2 percent 4.95
New York 18.1 percent 5.20

Feel free to do it by nation as well...More guns, more gun deaths and not just by total..but by percent...

http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm

by this logic also, the UK and some other places should be like mad Max on crack since so few guns..there must be huge amounts of murders of the poor defenseless people...

I am not quite sure what I am supposed to take away from these numbers..."Gun Death Rate" does not mean all those deaths came from a crime being committed, it just means someone died.

Those numbers are meaningless without going further and looking at crime statistics and taking out hunting accidents, suicides, etc.

 

[GenSeneca]

But you can pass laws that make it harder for people like him to do what he did.

Magazines are limited to 20 rounds, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 15 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 10 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 5 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of a 1 round limit, happens again, you say the same thing in support of making all guns single shot, happens again, you say the same thing in support of limiting the caliber of all firearms to .22 caliber... Finally your velvet gloved authoritarianism has reached the end of the incrementalism road and you say the same thing in support of banning all firearms... Or is there some point in that scenario when even you realize that your "reasoning" is fallacious and begin to understand that eroding the rights of everyone for the actions of a single individual is not moral, ethical, or just?

Dear Moderators... The next time some jackass does something on the forum that requires punishment, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE punish Pocket since he believes it is moral, ethical, and just to punish innocent people for the actions of the guilty!