View Poll Results: Would this compromise be acceptable?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. This isnít perfect, but no compromise is.

    12 12.90%
  • No. I donít mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    13 13.98%
  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    61 65.59%
  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    4 4.30%
  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    3 3.23%
Page 2 of 71 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #11
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,685

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

    Would this be acceptable or not?
    what exactly are the pro rights people getting? absolutely nothing

    I have a great idea-let us have the same individual weapons that are used in any civilian law enforcement agencies and we won't complain if you all say we cannot own RPGs or heavy machine guns/ that after all is at least a somewhat reasonable-perhaps overly restrictive-view of the second amendment

    if your proposal is -we let you keep weapons you already have my proposal is we don't use those weapons against those who would break down doors and seize them

  2. #12
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,924

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

    Would this be acceptable or not?
    My responce is, "Go piss up a rope."
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  3. #13
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

    My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

    This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

    Thank you for educating me.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,675

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

    My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

    This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

    Thank you for educating me.
    I'm not TD but what would probably happen is that manufacturers would simply start making and selling the same size magazines but with a physical obstruction to keep them from being loaded with more rounds......which the owners would then quickly disable.

  5. #15
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,685

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

    My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

    This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

    Thank you for educating me.
    In 1986 or so the Glock 17 was introduced to the US market. The issued magazine was 17 rounds

    when the clinton gun ban was passed by two votes Glock did two things

    1) they started making 10 round magazines as did other makes such as beretta (the army issue M9 is normally 15 rounds) etc. the magazines had to be the same length but there were several different ways to limit the magazine capacity to ten and in most cases it was difficult to remove the block

    2) glock and other makers scaled down new models designed to hold ten rounds without any extra size. Hence stuff like the ten round Glock 26. Of course the anti gun nut cases whined about these more concealable pistols that were far smaller than stuff designed for 15-17 round magazines

    another thing people did was to buy heavier caliber weapons-rather than buy 10 shot 9mms they started buying 10 shot 45 ACP or 40 caliber pistols

    btw almost any weapon than can accept a 7 shot magazine can accept a far higher capacity magazine

    the turd in NY might ban future sales of any magazine over 7 but he's gonna have a hard time preventing people from getting magazines from other states

    you don't need a license or even an ID to buy magazines and while internet sellers probably won't ship 10 or 17 round magazines to NY someone can drive to my state and buy them and unless there is a federal law, Cuomo can piss up a rope. and I don't think he wants to deal with the firestorm that would ensue if he tried to confiscate currently owned magazines

  6. #16
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

    So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    I'm not TD but what would probably happen is that manufacturers would simply start making and selling the same size magazines but with a physical obstruction to keep them from being loaded with more rounds......which the owners would then quickly disable.

  7. #17
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Thank you Mr. TD. You've pretty much answered my question.



    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    In 1986 or so the Glock 17 was introduced to the US market. The issued magazine was 17 rounds

    when the clinton gun ban was passed by two votes Glock did two things

    1) they started making 10 round magazines as did other makes such as beretta (the army issue M9 is normally 15 rounds) etc. the magazines had to be the same length but there were several different ways to limit the magazine capacity to ten and in most cases it was difficult to remove the block

    2) glock and other makers scaled down new models designed to hold ten rounds without any extra size. Hence stuff like the ten round Glock 26. Of course the anti gun nut cases whined about these more concealable pistols that were far smaller than stuff designed for 15-17 round magazines

    another thing people did was to buy heavier caliber weapons-rather than buy 10 shot 9mms they started buying 10 shot 45 ACP or 40 caliber pistols

    btw almost any weapon than can accept a 7 shot magazine can accept a far higher capacity magazine

    the turd in NY might ban future sales of any magazine over 7 but he's gonna have a hard time preventing people from getting magazines from other states

    you don't need a license or even an ID to buy magazines and while internet sellers probably won't ship 10 or 17 round magazines to NY someone can drive to my state and buy them and unless there is a federal law, Cuomo can piss up a rope. and I don't think he wants to deal with the firestorm that would ensue if he tried to confiscate currently owned magazines

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?
    Yes, typically they stamp an 'indent' in the sides of the magazine that prevents the follower from extending deeper to allow more cartridges. This doesn't change the original magazine dimensions in any way.

    So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.
    If trade in were free some law abiding citizens might participate. I expect the older ones to be grandfathered in. Those manufactured going forward will be 'new law' compliant.
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!

  9. #19
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,685

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

    So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.
    I would hope if they tried to arrest people for owning stuff that was once legal people would fight back both in the ballot box or with more extreme measures

    cuomo is an asshole and he should not be able to avail himself of protection by those using weapons of higher capacity than those he lets "the peasants" own

  10. #20
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

    Would this be acceptable or not?
    A compromise implies that both sides give up something in order to get something in return,usually something of equal value to what they gave up.If the 2nd amendment crowd gives up their right to purchase one of these so called assault weapons them they are not getting anything in return and the anti-2nd amendment side is not giving up anything at all.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 2 of 71 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •