If I’m not mistaken, you don’t really care much about mag capacity do you? Mag capacity limitations would only be a small step in the right direction. You really just want all guns banned, correct?
I’ll bet your crystal ball says we want to come in your house and seize all your guns too.
In that particular case it wouldn’t have mattered; the shooter’s 100 round clip jammed after firing less than 30 shots, fewer than a standard clip. The Sandy Hook shooter carried 30 round clips and changed clips so frequently some were only half emptied, and the Virginia Tech shooter had the biggest body count using two .22 and 9 mm handguns. I’d be completely willing to consider the banning of high capacity clips if it would lower body counts, but I’m not yet convinced it would. To be fair, I haven’t heard much from the other side that would help, either; armed guards on campuses didn’t stop Columbine. If anything it seems it would only guarantee that the guard gets shot first.
I’ll guess that you want all firearms registered. In your opinion, how will registering firearms reduce crimes committed with firearms.
I’m not sure about you, but I’m pretty sure Boblibdem does. What do you think s the best end range goal for gun control?
To reduce the injury and death of the innocent, of course. Your goal appears to be to overthrow the government, whenever you determine that to be necessary.
Bizarre. Had no idea that 100 round magazines were made for the AR. That’s just silly, and pretty pointless. I’d say just limit magazine capacity to whatever the military uses.
Not sure what the guy had in Aurora, but the beta-C mag is the best 100 round mag for the AR platform and they are prone to jam, and they’re expensive. The 30 rounders are considerably more reliable. I think the military tried them but found them unreliable too. With better technology they would likely be used more in the military.
No, but I’d tell them, if they were looking to exploit their tragedy for politics, that “I’m sorry you lost your loved one, but stop using appeals to emotion to enact ineffective, do something laws that prevent zero lost lives but hinder and restrict the freedoms of innocent and honest Americans.”
Yes, interestingly, with the Aurora shooter, banning 100-round magazines would possibly have resulted in more deaths, since he would have carried multiple 30-round magazines instead and been ready to switch them out.
So, Boblibdem, I would tell the Aurora victims’ families that I was very sorry for their loss, but that banning high-capacity magazines would not have prevented the death of their loved one, and that I cannot support a proposal that will pointlessly limit the rights of law-abiding citizens while serving no purpose other than allowing some politicians to score political points with anti-gun voters.
No it isn’t. If you think you could overthrow the government with your weaponry, however impressive it may be, you’re sadly mistaken. The Waco whackos found that out.
I can see having a shotgun in rural areas for taking care of the wolves and rattlers. I don’t mind the deer hunters, either. When you think you need weaponry that can fell 50 deer in 15 seconds you really lose me.
I’m confused by this analysis. On one hand, you (the general you) argue that the second amendment does not support target shooting, hunting, and self-defense! It’s only for militia purposes! No OTHER REASON!
But in an AWB argument, you resort to the “nobody needs 30 round mags for deer hunting.” Maybe not, but a militia member would need as many rounds as he could fire. Assault weapons would be preferred by the militia.
So, which is it? Does the second protect the militia or hunters?
Your wrong about trying to ‘Overthrow’ the government. It’s not about citizens trying to overthrow the government, but the government trying to overthrow the citizens.
300 million shotguns, rifles, and hand guns would certainly give the military pause. You can’t just smart bomb every house that has a rifle. Those that think that the US military has the ability to take over the US by force are mistaken.
Japan knew that in 1941.
Hardy har har. The Japanese were all set to invade Los Angeles were it not for the prospect of facing American shotguns. Little things like supply lines and the size of the force required to occupy a far larger country didn’t enter into the equation, they were sure they’d be gunned down by the citizenry.
Congratulations to the NRA for keeping the US safe from being conquered by Luxembourg.
-
As a bisexual liberal atheist, I’m a member of multiple incredibly hated minorities.
-
I’ve already lived through one complete collapse and absence of rule of law in the form of Hurricane Katrina, during which my family was forced to use firearms several times to deter an attempted carjacker, generator thieves, and dangerous refugees.
-
Some of my firearms are the personal property of deceased loved ones, and often the only thing I have left of theirs to remember them by.
-
They’re fun.
-
I’m planning to go into law enforcement, and as such train for the firearms qualifications with my collection.
-
The nearest police station is 30-40 minutes away.
-
Vermin regularly plague the family farm, attacking chickens, calfs, and horses.
-
Groups of meth tweakers have been robbing homes in my area.
Just for the record, reducing maximum magazine size isn’t all that big a deal in terms of limiting firepower in any practical scenario you care to name that ISN’T a rifle range. In general, even in a massacre or in combat, there is plenty of downtime for the three to five seconds it takes even someone who’s dicked around with it for a few hours to change a magazine, let alone the 3/4 of a second it takes someone who’s practiced it (innumerable fast reload videos from showoffs on YouTube are my cite).
It’s been said before, it’ll be said again. 30 guys in a compound, already whacky? Yeah, no shot.
Even 1% of the country actually willing to take up arms in a reasonably coherent revolutionary movement? Probably will win, especially given historical military reluctance even in totalitarian countries to engage in serious mass combat in their own cities against their own citizens.
The second protects the militia (now the National Guard) only. That doesn’t mean that the government may not permit ordinary citizens to own certain weapons at the discretion of the government. So we could allow people to get shotguns for hunting and protecting their cattle, and precious little else. Or we could allow the private citizen nothing at all, at the government’s discretion.
In your dreams.
Someone HAS to make a tape of that.