Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All I'll say is if you need these large capacity magazines, you're not exactly a real good shot and should either give up your gun or take a class in shooting.
Is that why law enforcement carries high capacity magazines?
All I'll say is if you need these large capacity magazines, you're not exactly a real good shot and should either give up your gun or take a class in shooting.
A class in shooting as is target practice much more enjoyable when you don't have to switch magazines as frequently.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,776,945 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reg So
I can't see how this bill (if made law) would accomplish anything, but this statement is not quite accurate. The bill allows for large capacity magazines that are already owned before enactment. So any large capacity magazines you already own are safe and you get to keep them.
After a good night's sleep I went through this thread again and read the bill again.
Everything I said yesterday (with the notable exception that this is a ridiculously unnecessary monument to ineffective legislature) was overreaction.
Existing magazines would be grandfathered under "clause ii" and it would really be impossible to register or track those in circulation.
McCarthy's life experience makes her believe that she's doing the right thing and she is essentially obligated to respond to something like the Gibbons tragedy, even if she knows this doesn't have a snowflake's chance of passing. How could she look at herself in the mirror otherwise?
And I stand by my statement. If you can't get the job done in 5 or 6 shots, you shouldn't be a gun owner. At that point, you're just a lousy shot.
Average police shooting is 9 shots fired. Not a whole lot of leeway if your limited to 10 rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy
After a good night's sleep I went through this thread again and read the bill again.
Everything I said yesterday (with the notable exception that this is a ridiculously unnecessary monument to ineffective legislature) was overreaction.
Existing magazines would be grandfathered under "clause ii" and it would really be impossible to register or track those in circulation.
McCarthy's life experience makes her believe that she's doing the right thing and she is essentially obligated to respond to something like the Gibbons tragedy, even if she knows this doesn't have a snowflake's chance of passing. How could she look at herself in the mirror otherwise?
Maybe push for current laws to be enforced. If the sheriff had notified NICS of death threats then Loughner wouldn't have been able to purchase his gun legally.
The Capitol Police should be dis-mantled. If the rest of us don't need
guns and such, the dem congressman don't need people with guns and such around them.
It's a knee jerk reaction by a group of well established anti-gunners attempting to use the emotions resulting from the shootings in Arizona to further their agenda. Every step they make toward restricting our rights brings them one step closer to their goal of completely neutering the Second Amendment.
It's akin to death by 1000 cuts.
A ban on high capacity magazines, and assault weapons was in place at once. It didn't lead to your second amendment rights being taken away...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.