High capacity magazines

[leftsock]

What "well regulated Militia" are you a member of then?

I've heard some say that, according to the Indiana Constitution, Article 12, Section 1, we're all members of Indiana's militia.

A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Right now, I just like to think that I'm a responsible citizen. Perhaps one day the State will call upon all of us for our service.

 

[chezuki]

I read a statistic somewhere that...

No legitimate argument in the history of humanity has begun with this phrase.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nothing from the OP for a while. Maybe he took my advice and is moving to North Korea. It would definitely be a better fit for him.

 

[Hohn]

So, your argument is that God gave us the right to bear arms. You do realize that is a ridiculous argument.

The comparison between magazine size and beer mug size is equally retarded. Please, I expected better from you guys.

You guys are really stumbling. If you have any hope of having your rights recognized and understood, you need to proffer a more logical argument. If a bill was brought to congress that says a 10 round magazine is enough, what is a reasonable, logical argument saying it is not? Three pages in, and nothing yet. Come on. It is time to bring your A game, guys.

Just an FYI, half the kids in one classroom in New Town escaped while that turd was reloading his weapon after killing the first half. The argument against high capacity mags is that if you had to stop and reload more, fewer people would die in these incidents. Yes, I know they don't happen that often. the problem is that when they do, they are big deals. I read a statistic somewhere that gun related deaths will take over as the number one cause of death in America in the next couple years. Sometime between now and just past then, someone is going to put forth legislation. If you want to be a part of the debate, you need to have a good argument. Quoting and requoting the second amendment will no longer suffice. Actual points will be required.

If bringing up a topic or making points that you don't like is considered being a troll in this forum, you guys are pretty sheltered.

/By the way, I am not trying to be a dick. I thoroughly enjoy, and always have, strong debate that challenges my ability to think and react. I will happily parry with anyone so long as ad hominem attacks are kept to a minimum. If you don't want to stretch yourself intellectually, don't participate. I have brought up this topic because if I were to be asked, I would not have an answer. I am looking for one that makes sense.

Let's grant the dubious assertion the lower magazine capacity means fewer kids would have gotten killed.

So, your argument is that it's OK for 10 kids to die, but not 15? Nor 30?

Tell me, is it somehow less tragic when only 10 kids die because that's how much ammo the BG had?

Guess it depends on if its your kid or not that's #11. For me, it's absurd to limit the rights of law-abiding folks in an effort to draw an arbitrary line in the sand on mag capacity.

Every argument that applies to limiting mag capacity to 10 rounds also applies to limiting them to 4 rounds. It also applies to disallowing guns in general by law-abiding citizens.


Not surprisingly, the same 'reasoning' also applies to limiting meal portions, home square footage or TV size. All such limits are-- and must always be-- arbitrary.

The external governance of the law is a poor and unsuitable substitute for the internal governance of self-restraint and maturity.

Were the latter exists, the former is an unnecessary infringement of liberty. When the latter does not exist, the former is an insufficient guarantor of safety.

 

[Hohn]

No legitimate argument in the history of humanity has begun with this phrase.

44.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot-- complete fabrications.

Or so I read...

 

[Sylvain]

Let's grant the dubious assertion the lower magazine capacity means fewer kids would have gotten killed.

So, your argument is that it's OK for 10 kids to die, but not 15? Nor 30?

Tell me, is it somehow less tragic when only 10 kids die because that's how much ammo the BG had?

Guess it depends on if its your kid or not that's #11. For me, it's absurd to limit the rights of law-abiding folks in an effort to draw an arbitrary line in the sand on mag capacity.

Every argument that applies to limiting mag capacity to 10 rounds also applies to limiting them to 4 rounds. It also applies to disallowing guns in general by law-abiding citizens.


Not surprisingly, the same 'reasoning' also applies to limiting meal portions, home square footage or TV size. All such limits are-- and must always be-- arbitrary.

The external governance of the law is a poor and unsuitable substitute for the internal governance of self-restraint and maturity.

Were the latter exists, the former is an unnecessary infringement of liberty. When the latter does not exist, the former is an insufficient guarantor of safety.

I guess he's ok if 30 kids get killed using 3 ten rounds mags but NOT ok if 30 kids are killed using 1 thirty rounds mag.

 

[kawtech87]

Well. . .The rights set forth in the bill of rights are not absolute. They have not been, not even the 2nd. So, what you are saying is that no body here has a reasonable argument?

Dude either you failed Goverment or you just copied off your neighbor to pass.

The Bill Of Rights IS absolute. The 2A was NOT put there to protect hunters, it was put there to protect THE PEOPLE. Meaning you and me and all of us from the government that the founding fathers were in the process of creating. You see back in 1776 they were in the process of fighting off a tyranical government and signed a little document called the Declartion of Independance. Following that they realized that they themselves were imperfect beings and thus the government they were creating was also imperfect. They realized the people needed at all times to have a way to dismantle a tyranical government if the one they were creating ever got out of hand. Thus the Bill Of Rights and the 2A were born. The only way for us to beable to fully exercise our 2A rights is to beable to have access to the same weaponry as our own military.

So in a way you are right our Rights that are protected by the 2A are not absolute so therefore it has been infringed. Any and all limitation is infringement.

Be a trolling sheep if you want but you wont last long on these boards.

 

[ZX-14R]

What "well regulated Militia" are you a member of then?

I personally am not going to waste my time explaining things to you that should already be blatantly obvious. I think you're just a troll looking to start trouble.

 

[jamil]

All limitations are preemptive. Saying you cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater is a preemption of something that would cause an injurious stampede. Banning thalidomide was a preemption of birth defects. It obviously would have no impact on those that already were born without limbs. Limited speed on a highway is to lower the likelihood (preemptively) of car accidents.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence covers the inalienable rights: those would be "Life, liberty and the pursuit of of happiness" don't confuse this with the Constitution.

The thalidomide and speed limit arguments are at least as silly as the high capacity beer mug argument.

Not all limitations are preemptive. We don't prohibit swinging golf clubs. We prohibit assault and murder. Those prohibitions are reactive, not preemptive. We limit freedom of religion. ALL human sacrifices end in sacrificed humans. I'm okay with that limitation.

Cliche notwithstanding, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire is malicious. I don't mind that limitation because it doesn't preemptively punish the majority of lawful 'fire' yellers just to prevent the malicious ones.

There's nothing inherently malicious about using a 30rd mag for its legitimate purposes, just like there's nothing inherently malicious about swinging a golf club. Prohibiting 30rd mags prevents 99.9999% of legitimate 30rd mag use just to presumably prevent 0.0001% malicious use. (Since I read those statistics somewhere they must be accurate enough to suffice.)

 

[SmokinSigs357]

I personally am not going to waste my time explaining things to you that should already be blatantly obvious. I think you're just a troll looking to start trouble.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^T H I S ! ! ! !^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

When I read the OP earlier today, this is what I thought. Absolutely, totally, positively correct.

 

[ZX-14R]

Interesting.

The OP claims they want to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of placing a capacity limit on magazines. Fair enough. However, while he chides others for not offering a detailed enough explanation of their arguments, he blithely dismisses the arguments of others with a contemptuous cry of "ridiculas" and "retarded."

I am not saying the OP is a troll, but it it talks like a troll ...

I'm saying he's a troll. A G-Damn troll. 13 posts of worthlessness so far.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm saying he's a troll. A G-Damn troll. 13 posts of worthlessness so far.

Agreed without reservation. He definitely makes a fine argument for negative rep!

 

[Sylvain]

Agreed without reservation. He definitely makes a fine argument for negative rep!

Meh.I rahter use my rep to reward good posts instead of wasting it on bad ones.
Some trolls are not even worth the trouble to neg rep.

 

[jamil]

Agreed without reservation. He definitely makes a fine argument for negative rep!

May not matter anyway.

But I have to admit he (she?) did make me think harder about my position than just regurgitating the same ole stuff with people who already believe the same. I don't think that was truly the intent though. It seemed more like a drive by.

 

[glockednlocked]

The 2nd is not about hunting!

 

[kawtech87]

OP, How about if say we are invaded by China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, or any of the other countrys that currently hate our guts or all of them at once. Do you plan to sit and wait unti the Police or National Guard comes to get you to try to evacuate your family and get to a safe location? Do you think they will observe the 10rnd limit? Do you think they will obey the AWB if one passes? Will you leave it in the hands of the government to protect yourself and your loved ones?

If you answered yes to any of these questions you sir are indeed a fool.

 

[IndyDave1776]

May not matter anyway.

But I have to admit he (she?) did make me think harder about my position than just regurgitating the same ole stuff with people who already believe the same. I don't think that was truly the intent though. It seemed more like a drive by.

Perhaps. It seemed to me that he was trying to make a precondition of disallowing any rational argument leaving us with emotional and perception-based arguments. Once you concede logic, reason, and fact, you might as well give up the argument because emotion is going to lead to milk and cookies instead of the big scary gun every time.

 

[Sylvain]

My point is that at this point, legislation of some kind is almost inevitable. The reality is that either gun owners need to be a part of the solution, or have that solution thrust upon them. People can cover their ears and eyes and say "la la la" as loud as they want, but that will only serve to have poor legislation. Would you prefer to be at the table for the discussion, or just the recipient of the outcome?

When you say "where it always has been", do you mean now? AW Ban? Pre NFA? There is not a "where it always has been". Gun legislation like everything else have changed and evolved. I agree that much of the suggested legislation is based on emotion rather than logic. My suggestion is for the NRA, etc to offer a logical alternative to help rather than appear as an impediment. Saying that a government agency could not handle the work load for adding things like magazines to NFA is not a good argument.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Perhaps. It seemed to me that he was trying to make a precondition of disallowing any rational argument leaving us with emotional and perception-based arguments. Once you concede logic, reason, and fact, you might as well give up the argument because emotion is going to lead to milk and cookies instead of the big scary gun every time.

That is why it is damn near impossible to argue with a liberal about guns, they use nothing but emotion and made up stats

 

[infiremedic07]

If people like AVEC would take time to actually study history and not just the liberal dribble that is espoused in the schools. Today they spend so little time actually studying the founding fathers and their writings. How many in school have actually read any of Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, Washington..(to name a few) They actually did express the why's and what for's behind the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They are very clear that the Gov't is not to restrict the rights of the people to bear arms to allow them to be able to resist a corrupt tyrannical leaders. That means having the same access to weapons that the government has. They lived it. They shot heard round the world was fired by lay people that were resisting the British military's attempt to confiscate arms.