- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- Location
- Melbourne Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Was and yes.Now you are saying you are a cop and you feel civilians needs high capacity magazines?
Was and yes.Now you are saying you are a cop and you feel civilians needs high capacity magazines?
Well we are plenty sane and I have used everything from a .45acp to a .454 Casull on boar. Sure you can use a rifle. Its a matter of personal preference and what land you are on.
And your little one upsmanship of how many guns and or ammo you have means little to me if you are going to question what legal means we have hunted and what legal means I use to protect and defend my home and family.
I know dealers that sell to current, former military and police only because even though they are "dealers". The feel the general public has no biz owning guns.
Was and yes.
I am not waiting around for the G to come save me.
Did you even bother to read my post on the issue at the beginning?.454 Casull is typically (if not always) in a revolver. My Raging Bull would be an example. I have at least a half dozen or more 1911's and they are 7 rounds in officer edition and 8 rounds in full. Neither equates to 52 rounds. I am a huge proponent of every American that can legally own weapons actually having them. I sell mostly to friends, and never sell to police departments. I am just wondering WHY you think it takes high cap magazines for home protection or hunting. What limits do you think should exist for private ownership? Should General Electric be allowed to sell GE Miniguns to civilians for private use? Do you think anyone should be allowed to own a Ma Deuce or a 1919A4? I just had to break down my 1919A4 because NY said I can no longer have belt fed machine guns. Are my constitutional rights being violated by that?
I am not "expecting" anything. Just like I am not expecting a blow out on the way home. But I have a spare tire in my truck. I dont expect a fire in my home. But I have multiple extingushers.If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
Care to quote me on any "story". So you dont think I was every a cop? Big deal what you think. I doubt you passed basic or even bothered to go.If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
So they can fire more bullets without reloading.Why do people need high capacity magazines?
Why not? Remember, you supposedly swore to defend and uphold the constitution. The 2A is part of the constitution. You are the kind of government drone I fear.Why do people need high capacity magazines?
Different? How so? Their lives are worth more? More civilians are killed every year than officers. So I would say that Iam in more danger than a police officer.
No. As I linked earlier, they have greater responsibility and are put in harms way more often. and as there are more civilians, you would expect more would be killed. Just saying. But I addressed that in my links.
Which isn't the question at hand. I can measure those things, all of them, but what has been asked of you is specifically those crimes that require more than seven rounds to address.
I'm not sure if there is or isn't a down side. But you've been asked to show that more than seven rounds are needed, thus constituting a hardship. No dancing, just provide your support for your claim.
So according to you, I must be hamstrung in defense of my home and family.
If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
So according to you, I must be hamstrung in defense of my home and family.
The true point, which some here are straying away from, is that....K
I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
K
I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
K
I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
What do I have to show? I didnt know I had to prove a need to exercise a right.K
I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
What makes you think you know so much about what a person needs? What if the person lives in a gang-infested neighborhood and has experienced a home invasion. Most home invasions are perpetrated by multiple gang members. They will hit you, rape you, torture you and even kill you. Why do you want to limit the fire power a citizen has to protect him or herself against such animals?
Please explain why you would be against a law-abiding person who has never committed a crime owning weaponry capable of holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition at a time.
Oh he won't take a concrete stand and say he is against you having that . Rather his SOP is to argue you don't need it and he will argue he doesn't need it and thus insinuates you are irrational or paranoid in believing you need something. Its been his standard attack on gun rights for all the time he has been on this board.
we get "I have never felt a need to carry a gun"
well what is the point of such a silly argument being projected onto others?
its like saying I have never felt the need to have a mammogram or a pap smear
or to get a rabies shot
your parameters are idiotic. EVEN IF THERE Is one chance in a million that someone will need more than seven rounds that alone justifies them carrying more because as I have noted, you cannot point to any deleterious impact of them carrying more.
so your argument-as many have pointed out-is nothing more than mental masturbation or contrarian silliness. Since there is absolutely no harm prove by having more and there are situations were people have needed more than 7 rounds, that alone means our argument is specious
again there are cases of people needing more than 7 rounds. that alone destroys your argument
I'm nit sure there's one in a million. But you said clearly that you could not defend yourself with only seven rounds. To support that kind of claim, you have show seven rounds are needed a significant number of times.