High capacity magazines [W:1390] (1 Viewer)

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

Actually it does because it puts the onus squarely your side to show such a thing is necessary and needed. Which is probably why your side wants nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. 1.the question cannot be answered as we do not have time travel ability. 2. "need" has nothing to do with rights 3. neither does "neccessity"


This country wasn't founded on the idea to restrict people but on individual liberty. your questions come from the authoritarian mindset, not the liberty minded.

Actually real life has already happened. That is what is being asked of you. Can you tell me a real life case where somebody needed a gun with a magazine capable of more than thirty shots?

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, no. That said, it's an irrelevant question, as the answer could clearly be "none" and that wouldn't change the fact that one should have a right to as much capacity as the tool he chooses can hold.


It's a simplistic difference, one, my side believes in liberty, freedom, and self responsibility, and a right to self defense among other things, and your side, simply does not. It believes only an artificial title of "government authority" should have as much capacity as they wish, because well, they are the authority. MIRITE?

Re: High capacity magazines

ReverendHellh0und said:

Utter nonsense. 1.the question cannot be answered as we do not have time travel ability. 2. "need" has nothing to do with rights 3. neither does "neccessity"

Click to expand...

So neither you nor anyone else has the capacity to do any research of the news? I would suspect that the gun lobby sycophants and sympathizers keep an extensive catalogue of news items which are favorable to their position. You do NOT need a time machine for that. The fact that neither you nor anyone else can come up with a real life example you were asked for speaks volumes.

As to need and rights - the question again comes back to my point that any society of people has the right to determine what kind of society they want to live in and what items we allow or do not allow and to what extent we allow them in that same society. If we as a people decide that technology alone should not be the sole determinant of what size magazines citizen owned firearms are allowed - then NEED becomes a crucial question as it then becomes a matter of public policy. In a nation which has a government of the people, by the people and for the people those questions become crucial in determining public policy.

Off the top of my head, no.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the admission.

That said, it's an irrelevant question, as the answer could clearly be "none" and that wouldn't change the fact that one should have a right to as much capacity as the tool he chooses can hold.

Click to expand...

There is no such right so the question and the answer of NO is entirely relevant in deciding issues of public policy. We as a nation could well adopt a national or state law restricting magazine capacity to 30 (simply to pick a number we have been discussing) and nobody's right to keep and bear arms would be denied in any way shape or form.

But then I suspect that at its core is a fundamental disagreement between you and I as to what the right is and what limits there are on it. And that is something we are never going to resolve here.

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

Not at all. I have clearly stated that government is FORBIDDEN by the Second Amendment to create any environment where the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

Click to expand...

and that is a joke because it allows the government to do just about anything short of a complete ban

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

Actually it does because it puts the onus squarely your side to show such a thing is necessary and needed.

Click to expand...

It's not necessary to show that a 30 or 300 round magazine is needed.

Whether a magazine is needed or not, congress has not authority to ban the possession of magazines of any capacity. Congress has the power to adjust, order, or direct commerce among the several states. Possession of a magazine by a person is not the same as commerce among the states, and banning the possession of a magazine inside a state doesn't adjust, order, or direct commerce among any of the several states.

Re: High capacity magazines

Federalist said:

It's not necessary to show that a 30 or 300 round magazine is needed.

Whether a magazine is needed or not, congress has not authority to ban the possession of magazines of any capacity. Congress has the power to adjust, order, or direct commerce among the several states. Possession of a magazine by a person is not the same as commerce among the states, and banning the possession of a magazine inside a state doesn't adjust, order, or direct commerce among any of the several states.

Click to expand...

any political entity that issues 30 round magazines to any civilian employee should be permanently estopped from passing any law banning such magazines being possessed by residents of said politician entity

Re: High capacity magazines

TurtleDude said:

any political entity that issues 30 round magazines to any civilian employee should be permanently estopped from passing any law banning such magazines being possessed by residents of said politician entity

Click to expand...

What's good for one non-military citizen ought to be good for any other non-military citizen.

Re: High capacity magazines

Federalist said:

What's good for one non-military citizen ought to be good for any other non-military citizen.

Click to expand...

any politician who is protected by men armed with such weapons cannot be heard to say that there is no legitimate use for another person to own

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

You see Turtle, I am not attached to this idea of INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS. You are. Not me. To me its no big deal either way as I both am convinced of two things

1 - the Founders clearly gave Congress powers that can be applied to guns including the commerce clause and the militia language and even the general welfare clause all in Article I Section 8 of the actual Constitution. Once that is laid out - nothing else is important.

Click to expand...

The commerce clause does not say one word about guns and I defy you to find it. The militia language concerns the militia and until you show how it makes the slightest difference to the 2nd amendment or over-rides it is is IRRELEVANT.

Please quote the exact wording that empowers government that is supposedly obvious to anyone. Place it beneath a quote of the second amendment and rewrite this amendment the way it should have been written according to you so we can compare. Note failure to do this will be taken as an admission of failure to prove your claim of intent and meaning of the constitution.

but even if that somehow falls by the wayside - and it HAS NOT DONE SO, we have

Click to expand...

Horse pucky deleted.

It is generally considered bad practice to write confusing laws. What reason can you come up with in support for the founding fathers writing such confusing laws and language that are the most important document written. It seems obvious to me that the intent of the founding fathers determined the choice of words and it is therefore vital. However if the intent now is to remove those irritating impediments, checks, prohibitions and instructions then I guess as the DOI predicts a thousand reasons will be found by succeedingly bad governments of which you seem to be part of.

Can you see the flames?

Re: High capacity magazines

TurtleDude said:

any politician who is protected by men armed with such weapons cannot be heard to say that there is no legitimate use for another person to own

Click to expand...

Good point. They should be told that such weapons of war are obscene and have no place on our streets. Their bodyguards should make do with whatever weapons are allowed to any non-military citizen.

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

Not at all. I have clearly stated that government is FORBIDDEN by the Second Amendment to create any environment where the right to keep and bear arms

no longer exists

Click to expand...

.

Click to expand...

It does not say that you are making things up to suit your agenda. These words do not exist in the 2nd in any way shape or form.

Since I must have missed them do quote or correct your deliberately false and propagandistic statement

Re: High capacity magazines

Federalist said:

Good point. They should be told that such weapons of war are obscene and have no place on our streets. Their bodyguards should make do with whatever weapons are allowed to any non-military citizen.

Click to expand...

Where does the definition of arms have this kind of language and where does it come from?

Re: High capacity magazines

Crimefree said:

Where does the definition of arms have this kind of language and where does it come from?

Click to expand...

Haymarket's tyrannical brain?

Re: High capacity magazines

Crimefree said:

Where does the definition of arms have this kind of language and where does it come from?

Click to expand...

In fairnes to heymarket he did say that the Secrit Service shouldn't have these weapons for protecting the President, and he also questions even military use of weapons like the minigun.

Re: High capacity magazines

Jerry said:

In fairnes to heymarket he did say that the Secrit Service shouldn't have these weapons for protecting the President, and he also questions even military use of weapons like the minigun.

Click to expand...

In that case I know exactly where it comes from and shall treat it accordingly by flushing it immediately in case it contaminates something.

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

There is no such right so the question and the answer of NO is entirely relevant in deciding issues of public policy. We as a nation could well adopt a national or state law restricting magazine capacity to 30 (simply to pick a number we have been discussing) and nobody's right to keep and bear arms would be denied in any way shape or form.

But then I suspect that at its core is a fundamental disagreement between you and I as to what the right is and what limits there are on it. And that is something we are never going to resolve here.

Click to expand...

How is it possible to resolve anything with a person who has a mission, a zealot and continuously proves he has no other motive than to forward his own aberrant agenda.?

You know and have been successfully challenged a large number of times to produce the words in the 2nd that states the right may not be denied. Why do you have to lie to forward your anti-social agenda?

The wording is shall not be INFRINGED. Look it up you have no idea what it means and denied is not a synonym.

Any chance you will remember that longer than 10 seconds

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

So neither you nor anyone else has the capacity to do any research of the news? I would suspect that the gun lobby sycophants and sympathizers keep an extensive catalogue of news items which are favorable to their position. You do NOT need a time machine for that. The fact that neither you nor anyone else can come up with a real life example you were asked for speaks volumes.

As to need and rights - the question again comes back to my point that any society of people has the right to determine what kind of society they want to live in and what items we allow or do not allow and to what extent we allow them in that same society. If we as a people decide that technology alone should not be the sole determinant of what size magazines citizen owned firearms are allowed - then NEED becomes a crucial question as it then becomes a matter of public policy. In a nation which has a government of the people, by the people and for the people those questions become crucial in determining public policy.



Thank you for the admission.



There is no such right so the question and the answer of NO is entirely relevant in deciding issues of public policy. We as a nation could well adopt a national or state law restricting magazine capacity to 30 (simply to pick a number we have been discussing) and nobody's right to keep and bear arms would be denied in any way shape or form.

Click to expand...

Jibber Jabber...

But then I suspect that at its core is a fundamental disagreement between you and I as to what the right is and what limits there are on it. And that is something we are never going to resolve here.

Click to expand...

"suspect" I know the core fundamental difference between you and I, you sir, are a prohibitionist, I am a libertarian.

Re: High capacity magazines

ReverendHellh0und said:

"suspect" I know the core fundamental difference between you and I, you sir, are a prohibitionist, I am a libertarian.

Click to expand...

Haymarket's position, and that of his ilk, is that it is just to initiate force against someone who has done nothing to anyone, simply because she possesses a high capacity magazine. It is the position of a tyrant: Follow my edicts, or suffer violent attack.

Re: High capacity magazines

haymarket said:

Actually it does because it puts the onus squarely your side to show such a thing is necessary and needed. Which is probably why your side wants nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

I think I am getting the hang of your rabid thinking. A bunch of ideologically driven cowards thinks people who have magazine capacities for their guns are a danger to them "society" and come up with some totally arbitrary number and wants to apply it means firearm owners must think of reason why not. That firearm owners must provide research, news items (WTF they have to do with it I don't know), sob stories, anecdotes, incidents and Hollywood back up of why they need more.

The onus is on the tyrannical idiots who want this ideological madness to prove what they want will serve the public and not ENDANGER the public. Have you done that or are you lying to the public?

Actually real life has already happened. That is what is being asked of you. Can you tell me a real life case where somebody needed a gun with a magazine capable of more than thirty shots?

Click to expand...

i wish it would, in real life an aware public would hang such people from the nearest tree for trying to endanger peoples lives. What a pity they don't any more. See how civilised we have become we now tolerate such fools and anti-social misfits.