Magazine Capasity Bans

[TurtleDude]

What takes more time: shooting 15 rounds continuously or shooting 10, reloading and shooting five more?

see here is what we see from you. You claim not to support magazine bans yet you are arguing for them. and you are unable to comprehend that criminals-who premeditate and plan an attack will be far more prepared than a homeowner or a shopkeeper who might only have time to grab a gun and not spare magazines

 

[calamity]

see here is what we see from you. You claim not to support magazine bans yet you are arguing for them. and you are unable to comprehend that criminals-who premeditate and plan an attack will be far more prepared than a homeowner or a shopkeeper who might only have time to grab a gun and not spare magazines

I'm debating in a debating forum? Heavens to Betsy.

 

[TurtleDude]

Every word in this post is wrong. I mean, every single word.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Its what happens when a poster really doesn't want to say how he really feels about gun laws but doesn't like conservatives thrashing progressive bannerrhoids over gun laws. if you think that magazine limits are within the discretion of the government, then you have to admit a one round limit is proper as long as the government passes such a law and that the constitution has no say in the matter

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm debating in a debating forum? Heavens to Betsy.

you're engaging in contradictory nonsense. You apparently don't have any standards or consistency but rather want to argue for the sake of arguing and then get upset when I point out that you constantly contradict your own earlier points

 

[ttwtt78640]

So I miss the connect between mag cap, tactics and gangs with what you are now posting... eace

The connection was established by other posts - the justification for magazine capacity limits was to (somehow) help reduce gang shooting victims "on the streets". My point was that the problem "on the streets" is fairly limited to only some streets found in "the hood". The shootings occur (mostly) there not because many bullets can be fired without swapping magazines but because the chances of getting arrested are lower there. The chance of arrest for violation of magazine limit laws is equally unlikely in the same neighborhoods that they are intended to help protect.

 

[calamity]

you're engaging in contradictory nonsense. You apparently don't have any standards or consistency but rather want to argue for the sake of arguing and then get upset when I point out that you constantly contradict your own earlier points

True or False: continuously shooting 15 rounds takes less time than shooting 10 and reloading to shoot 5 more?

 

[TurtleDude]

True or False: continuously shooting 15 rounds takes less time than shooting 10 and reloading to shoot 5 more?

so what. that is not the issue. the issue is who is going to be hurt by a magazine ban

1) someone who is already violating several felony laws-often by just holding the weapon or

2) a homeowner who follows the laws and only has the firearm he grabbed when someone kicked his door in?

you anti gun types never ever consider the fact that the stupid laws you support (and I realize in one post you claim you don't support magazine bans and in the next you start spewing the typical crap from Bannerrhoid Inc on this issue) are far more likely to impact honest people than people who commit serious felonies in addition to ignoring stupid gun laws

 

[calamity]

so what. that is not the issue. the issue is who is going to be hurt by a magazine ban

1) someone who is already violating several felony laws-often by just holding the weapon or

2) a homeowner who follows the laws and only has the firearm he grabbed when someone kicked his door in?

you anti gun types never ever consider the fact that the stupid laws you support (and I realize in one post you claim you don't support magazine bans and in the next you start spewing the typical crap from Bannerrhoid Inc on this issue) are far more likely to impact honest people than people who commit serious felonies in addition to ignoring stupid gun laws

"So what" is that I am factually correct.

 

[notquiteright]

The connection was established by other posts - the justification for magazine capacity limits was to (somehow) help reduce gang shooting victims "on the streets". My point was that the problem "on the streets" is fairly limited to only some streets found in "the hood". The shootings occur (mostly) there not because many bullets can be fired without swapping magazines but because the chances of getting arrested are lower there. The chance of arrest for violation of magazine limit laws is equally unlikely in the same neighborhoods that they are intended to help protect.

aahhhh :doh

LOL, I don't think 'the hood' killings spark calls for mag cap limits. More like when that level of violence occurs where 'we' could be shot- grade schools, McDonalds, colleges, and workplace does the call go out...

 

[VanceMack]

Hope all 'they' want- 'they' don't get to dodge the same conditions the rest of the nation works under. Many on the rabid right wanted gay marriage banned, abortion clinics closed, landlords being turned into ICE agents but all for naught.

Until a majority of voters in the area considering such bans/reductions/special registrations vote for it AND the courts sign off on it... this is just gun rubber sheeple baaaahing... eace

Unfortunately, there are states that have managed to pass those things. But...that's on the people of that state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[notquiteright]

see here is what we see from you. You claim not to support magazine bans yet you are arguing for them. and you are unable to comprehend that criminals-who premeditate and plan an attack will be far more prepared than a homeowner or a shopkeeper who might only have time to grab a gun and not spare magazines

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... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Unfortunately, there are states that have managed to pass those things. But...that's on the people of that state.

EXACTLY!!!

The 'problem' with any form of democracy is the majority may not see it your way- from 'defending marriage' to requiring proof of citizenship to rent an apartment, or how many rounds in the mag... eace

 

[VanceMack]

EXACTLY!!!

The 'problem' with any form of democracy is the majority may not see it your way- from 'defending marriage' to requiring proof of citizenship to rent an apartment, or how many rounds in the mag... eace

It's a little bit ironic though that some people fully endorse a state imposing greater restrictions on actual constitutional rights specifically addressed, but those same people insist that the Constitution would prohibit people from another state enacting polices regarding practices that are found nowhere in the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[notquiteright]

It's a little bit ironic though that some people fully endorse a state imposing greater restrictions on actual constitutional rights specifically addressed, but those same people insist that the Constitution would prohibit people from another state enacting polices regarding practices that are found nowhere in the Constitution.

Course more than a bit of double standard has to play into this for your line of 'logic'. If one wants the 'found in the Constitution' standard- point to where mag cap is listed???

Other gun rubbers claim the founders knew about such things, but in a convoluted sentence the Founders fail to mention anything about mag cap.

What to list as a right and what to consider self evident was quite a debate for our Founders (neo-federalists fail to mention this in their debate points)

Some felt if a list was accepted someone 200 years after the signing would declare if it ain't listed it don't exist...

But the courts seem adept at wading through the claims and deciding if a 'right' does exist under some part of the Constitution...

Still don't know why the NRA doesn't challenge mag caps- seems the most intense gun rubbers feel the case is a slam dunk... eace

 

[VanceMack]

Course more than a bit of double standard has to play into this for your line of 'logic'. If one wants the 'found in the Constitution' standard- point to where mag cap is listed???

Other gun rubbers claim the founders knew about such things, but in a convoluted sentence the Founders fail to mention anything about mag cap.

What to list as a right and what to consider self evident was quite a debate for our Founders (neo-federalists fail to mention this in their debate points)

Some felt if a list was accepted someone 200 years after the signing would declare if it ain't listed it don't exist...

But the courts seem adept at wading through the claims and deciding if a 'right' does exist under some part of the Constitution...

Still don't know why the NRA doesn't challenge mag caps- seems the most intense gun rubbers feel the case is a slam dunk... eace

Oh...it's not that big a challenge to know what was meant with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Their intent had everything to do with the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of country, not the defense of self. That was an understood...a given. Magazine capacity would certainly be relevant with regard to military grade firearms any militiaman might be expected to own and be trained in use thereof. Conversely, marital rights is an issue found nowhere in the Constitution. Yet I suspect you find a way to manipulate your own logic and reason to make fit what you want, regardless of whether or not it is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[notquiteright]

Oh...it's not that big a challenge to know what was meant with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Their intent had everything to do with the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of country, not the defense of self. That was an understood...a given. Magazine capacity would certainly be relevant with regard to military grade firearms any militiaman might be expected to own and be trained in use thereof. Conversely, marital rights is an issue found nowhere in the Constitution. Yet I suspect you find a way to manipulate your own logic and reason to make fit what you want, regardless of whether or not it is right.

You seem quite good at 'logic' manipulation yourself, kudos...

You claim 'given' for concepts you want- like mag cap when there is no mention of the right to bear arms meaning military arms (the court has ruled it means arms not any particular type.. Certainly not modern military ones as the ownership of 'class III' has stood the court test.)

Now your dismissal of martial rights is shallow. Many rights are not listed in the Constitution but covered under general clauses. The Constitution sets a rather high bar for blocking EQUAL protections under the law. Gay folks have an equal right to the benefits given by a state to it's citizens. Marriage, survivorship, insurance, and the like are as much a right for a gay couple as a straight one. Granting the same protections may not be a right to you, but it is not a right of the state to deny it to however they see fit.

See the logic there??? (the courts do)... eace

 

[Harshaw]

Your typical level of 'insight' is noted. You seem locked in the TV Commercial world instead of the real one... do you get royalties??? eace

^^^

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.

 

[Harshaw]

Even Scalia agreed that the Second has limitations...and, certainly does not guarantee people the right to own military-grade hardware.

:shrug: Never said otherwise.

 

[Harshaw]

Its what happens when a poster really doesn't want to say how he really feels about gun laws but doesn't like conservatives thrashing progressive bannerrhoids over gun laws. if you think that magazine limits are within the discretion of the government, then you have to admit a one round limit is proper as long as the government passes such a law and that the constitution has no say in the matter

Whatever his motivations, it was entirely wrong. But you're likely correct that it stems entirely from trying to justify a restrictionist agenda.

Starting from a conclusion and working backwards is dishonest and intellectually inept, but it's not uncommon.

 

[notquiteright]

^^^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.

More rabid right rubbish.

Fact is the courts have upheld what I say and not as the gun rubbers wish it to be. Gun rubbers constantly misrepresent the facts in an attempt to buffalo folks... like the US v Miller case...

Face it if your gun rubber ideas were worth a snotty rag the NRA would have been infront of the Supreme court decades ago and we'd have 30 lb magazines and Class III would be banished...

Weak try and easily dismissed...

 

[Harshaw]

More rabid right rubbish.

Fact is the courts have upheld what I say and not as the gun rubbers wish it to be. Gun rubbers constantly misrepresent the facts in an attempt to buffalo folks... like the US v Miller case...

Face it if your gun rubber ideas were worth a snotty rag the NRA would have been infront of the Supreme court decades ago and we'd have 30 lb magazines and Class III would be banished...

Weak try and easily dismissed...

Oh, the courts have "upheld" what you say, have they?

You said a lot of specific things. Cite the cases where the courts "upheld" them. Go point by point.

G'head. I'm in no hurry.

 

[VanceMack]

You seem quite good at 'logic' manipulation yourself, kudos...

You claim 'given' for concepts you want- like mag cap when there is no mention of the right to bear arms meaning military arms (the court has ruled it means arms not any particular type.. Certainly not modern military ones as the ownership of 'class III' has stood the court test.)

Now your dismissal of martial rights is shallow. Many rights are not listed in the Constitution but covered under general clauses. The Constitution sets a rather high bar for blocking EQUAL protections under the law. Gay folks have an equal right to the benefits given by a state to it's citizens. Marriage, survivorship, insurance, and the like are as much a right for a gay couple as a straight one. Granting the same protections may not be a right to you, but it is not a right of the state to deny it to however they see fit.

See the logic there??? (the courts do)... eace

Of course the intent was clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment. There is no need for logic manipulation. As for the manipulation of 'rights'...all it took was 240 years and a society that has devolved to the point where there are 74 different identified genders, people running around thinking they are trans-gendered, trans-specist, trans-racial, trans-abled etc in order to 'correctly' identify marriage and equality. Well done.

 

[notquiteright]

Oh, the courts have "upheld" what you say, have they? You said a lot of specific things. Cite the cases where the courts "upheld" them. Go point by point. G'head. I'm in no hurry.

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... eace

 

[notquiteright]

Of course the intent was clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment. There is no need for logic manipulation. As for the manipulation of 'rights'...all it took was 240 years and a society that has devolved to the point where there are 74 different identified genders, people running around thinking they are trans-gendered, trans-specist, trans-racial, trans-abled etc in order to 'correctly' identify marriage and equality. Well done.

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... eace

 

[Rucker61]

True or False: continuously shooting 15 rounds takes less time than shooting 10 and reloading to shoot 5 more?

Doesn'tshooting ten and reloading take less time than shooting once and reloading ten times?