• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Magazine Capasity Bans

calamity said:
Gun rights are not absolute. Nor should they be.
Click to expand...
Only in a way are you right. Because we have the Second Amendment they should be absolute as they once were.In other words the ban groups and feds stay out. But no we(feds) just had to have
the NFA of 1934 to get all those machine guns off the streets and curb crime.Saw how that worked out,all those gangsters lined up for city blocks handing them in..
We ban indicted and convicted felons from having them, for example. And, I am certainly in favor of that. It's a gray area with very little black and white. Zealots on either side of the issue are misguided.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten us:What isa convicted felon indicted or not? Of course your in favor of it, most banners are. And you are correct only it is very grey what your felon is. I KNOW,I KNOW busted for a bag of pot.
Zealots on either side of the issue are misguided.
Click to expand...
So then you admit you are a zealot about banning? That's the first step,I'm proud of you.
 
Rucker61 said:
Doesn'tshooting ten and reloading take less time than shooting once and reloading ten times?
Click to expand...

I'll just let you figure that out for yourself. :roll:
 
zsu2357 said:
Only in a way are you right. Because we have the Second Amendment they should be absolute as they once were.In other words the ban groups and feds stay out. But no we(feds) just had to have
the NFA of 1934 to get all those machine guns off the streets and curb crime.Saw how that worked out,all those gangsters lined up for city blocks handing them in..

Please enlighten us:What isa convicted felon indicted or not? Of course your in favor of it, most banners are. And you are correct only it is very grey what your felon is. I KNOW,I KNOW busted for a bag of pot.

So then you admit you are a zealot about banning? That's the first step,I'm proud of you.
Click to expand...

Since I have no intention of supporting gun bans of any kind....no. However, unlike the zealots, I can at least talk about bans without resorting to making silly comments and unfounded accusations.
 
calamity said:
I could not care less. In fact, in my first post I said such limits are probably ineffective, but I understood why people would want to limit capacity. But, of course, even saying that is going too far for gun zealots.
Click to expand...
Again if you could care less why do you worry about it?Curious.
 
Honestly I cant get past the title. Covfefe much?

Someone fix it.
 
akyron said:
Honestly I cant get past the title. Covfefe much?

Someone fix it.
Click to expand...

That's actually what drew me into the thread. But, to avoid getting dinged for poking fun at the goof, I added something on topic. And, of course, the zealots have been on me ever since, even though my comment was as innocuous as it could possibly be. Win-win, I guess.

calamity said:
Capacity


I'm not sure any capacity ban serves a purpose. But, I can understand why people would like to limit the capacity of clips and magazines available out on the street.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
That's actually what drew me into the thread. But, to avoid getting dinged for poking fun at the goof, I added something on topic. And, of course, the zealots have been on me ever since, even though my comment was as innocuous as it could possibly be. Win-win, I guess.
Click to expand...

I can see why someone might want to but besides not having legal standing according to the constitution as intended, This would leave only criminals with 30 round magazines. Why do people insist on creating laws that only affect law abiding citizens leaving the criminals with an advantage?

It seems like another effort to control masses and nothing else.

Someone might disagree on the basis of the constitutional argument where its a supposedly a "living breathing" document but I have seen it up close. It is as awe inspiring as it is still as a stone in its little vaccum sealed enclosure.
 
calamity said:
Except that by keeping them legal, we continue making them and putting them on shelves where more and more people can buy them. And, unfortunately, a good number of those high capacity magazines end up in the wrong hands, especially in gang infested neighborhoods where bangers have shootouts with each other on public streets.
Click to expand...
I'm not a "banger" and I would guess that most here aren't,maybe except soon saying they should be banned hmmm. And don't jump on the all offended wagon, because I can't say who.
 
notquiteright said:
Intent??? try more like 21st century tea leaf readers. You see intent in an amendment that makes no mention of what type of firearm or ability and according to Rucker they were well aware such weapon existed... :roll:

Now even in 1776 there were gay folks, crossdressing men and women who went out in public dressed as men. I'd opine the 74 existed even back then, just were highly suppressed and certainly not allowed to have equal rights- after all it was a period of slavery, with women as second class, property less, vote-less citizens.

No manipulation at all, I see the gay men and women who went and risked life and limb to 'defend' America deserve the same rights I enjoy. I see equal protection as just that, no second class citizens because a few bible thumpers or homophobes don't like two men kissing, even if one lost a limb while supporting and defending the Constitution he/she swore an oath to... :peace
Click to expand...
You have eyes. You can read. The intent is clear. Anyone refusing to see the obvious intent does so intentionally. Conversely...you probably know as well that you will never find the word 'marriage' anywhere in the Constitution. And while you are fine with states offering restrictions to freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution you are adament that others not even found in the Constitution are sacrosanct. Because you are a hypocrite.
 
calamity said:
Who said it would "stop" them?
Having 15 rounds available without need to reload is far more destructive than running out of ammo after 10. Common sense should be part of the equation in these debates.
Click to expand...
IF I were a 'banger" and obeyed the law(right) and had a 10 round magazine(not to be confused with clip)please tell us how 5 rounds more is more destructive.
As I have mentioned I can swap a mag. in 1.5 seconds(2 if I fumble it, that's not Common sense it fact and yes I have timed it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that is why they have backup and typically fire from a covered position. ;)

Have you noticed any significant change in gang shooting activity in states with such magazine capacity limit laws?
Click to expand...
Chicago_Oh wait,bad example since they don't have guns there.Banned you know.:doh
 
notquiteright said:
I love the gun rubber dodge, absolutely no facts presented in calling my points false, just your rather biased opinion.

But let's play-

1934 NFA has been challenged more times than Trump has lied in office- the law is still in effect. This is the law US v Miller was about, not limits on mags as Rucker was trying to claim.

1938 FFL enacted

1968 mail order firearm sales restricted

Little noticed in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling saying self defense is a right (and I agree) the court also said 'dangerous and unusual weapons' can be regulated.

2011 appeals court upheld DC assault weapons ban
2015 Supreme Court leaves Chicago AW ban in place.


State laws-
1989 California passes ban on AW and mags
1990 New Jersy passes ban on a wide range of weapons and mags.
1993 Conn passes ban 2013 increase restrictions, Federal judge upheld ban
Hawaii passes assault pistol and mag ban
Maryland assault weapon, pistol, mag ban
1994 Mass passes aw and mag ban
2004 NY passes mag limits and aw ban.

June 2016 Supreme Court rejects challenges to NY and Conn aw and mag bans'

2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act
2013 Supreme Court lets stand a lower court ruling to dismiss the case
2003 and 2006 US v Stewart ruled homemade machine guns are against the law
2014 Supreme Court rules against straw purchases.

Do note that for all the wailing and rending of garments the NRA hasn't been eager to fight the good fight you and a few other gun rubbers think can be won. No state ban or mag limit has been overturned...

that a good enough start for you... now please point by point tell me where anything in my original posts was incorrect... I've got plans for tonight by I'll be around for a bit longer... :peace
Click to expand...

Not one of these supports a thing you said:

notquiteright said:
Ok, let's play... according to the Constitution a single shot weapon is acceptable if you want to really push. But the Constitution has nada (0) nothing about the right to have more than one shot. The Constitution doesn't guarantee citizens the right to own what the Regiments of the line use. The Constitution doesn't guarantee citizens can own the most modern of military weapons. The Founders couldn't imagine what we own over 200 years later.


But they did put a process in place to meet the challenge- WE THE PEOPLE vote on laws and political leaders. The SUPREME COURT checks these laws to make sure they don't run counter to the Constitution.


IF the people want single shot weapons and the political leadership passes such laws AND the Supreme Court gives a thumb's up....


we have single shot weapons. Now the odds of such laws being passed are slim but do recall we live in a representative democracy and majority rules at what ever the vote takes place... :peace
Click to expand...

And in fact, something you did cite, US v. Miller, completely undermines the bolded part. Which has been explained before in threads you've been in.
 
calamity said:
Since I have no intention of supporting gun bans of any kind....no. However, unlike the zealots, I can at least talk about bans without resorting to making silly comments and unfounded accusations.
Click to expand...
No intention on supporting but you seem to be in the ban camp. Sometimes it's hard telling if you are or aren't.
 
calamity said:
"So what" is that I am factually correct.
Click to expand...

on something that has no relevance to the issue. so you really don't contribute anything of value
 
notquiteright said:
Does the shopkeeper need more than what he has in the pistol to defend his shop? I recall a shopkeeper CHASING the robbers OUTSIDE, then going back to reload and kill a robber as he lay wounded on the floor. It didn't end well for the shopkeeper...

Course in most cases I am reminded of an old Infantry 'proverb'- the 7P's- proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

Far more goes into successful self defense than buying a pistol and learning blunt end from pointy... :peace
Click to expand...

I don't know what is worse, the ignorance in this post or the fact that it has no relevance to the conversation
 
zsu2357 said:
No intention on supporting but you seem to be in the ban camp. Sometimes it's hard telling if you are or aren't.
Click to expand...

You cannot determine this by reading his posts. He started here spewing bannerrhoid nonsense, then his posts demonstrated he had figured out that the BM nonsense was nonsense, but after the election, it was back to the BM talking points
 
zsu2357 said:
What's up with that anyhow?
Click to expand...

hard to say. his posts were actually demonstrating more wisdom but then the election happened and its back to full blown bannerrhoid talking points
 
Harshaw said:
^^^

This is nonsensical babble.

Every word of what you said was wrong.

Why it was wrong has been spelled out in many threads, of which you have been a part.
Click to expand...

its usually unproductive dealing with his posts which are designed to take a shot at conservatives who bash the idiocy of the BM. he won't come out and endorse BM nonsense but he's mainly here to tilt at conservative positions that slam the leftwing bannerrhoid idiocy. what he actually believes on guns, no one can really tell since his posts go to great lengths to try to avoid taking a concrete position.
 
TurtleDude said:
hard to say. his posts were actually demonstrating more wisdom but then the election happened and its back to full blown bannerrhoid talking points
Click to expand...

The devils greatest trick was to convince man he doesn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom