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.
clips are what hold the rounds together so it is easier to load them into a magazine. you can also have a clip hold 8 rounds into your M1 Garand.
if you want to ban clips, then good luck banning little strips of metal. if you want to ban standard capacity magazines, then ban them 1st for the LEOs, FLEAs and the military 1st.
after all, we cant have the government running around with magazines that are illegal for the people to have....can we?
You're arguing about definitions; I'm arguing about people's lives.
Just because 50-round magazines should be illegal for citizens to buy at gun shows does not mean that they wouldn't be available to our military/law enforcement. Similarly, army tanks and rocket launchers are illegal for me to own... it doesn't mean that they aren't available to the people whom need them.
I feel like this should be obvious. Limited access is not the same as complete ban throughout the entire government.
You're arguing about definitions; I'm arguing about people's lives.
Just because 50-round magazines should be illegal for citizens to buy at gun shows does not mean that they wouldn't be available to our military/law enforcement. Similarly, army tanks and rocket launchers are illegal for me to own... it doesn't mean that they aren't available to the people whom need them.
I feel like this should be obvious. Limited access is not the same as complete ban throughout the entire government.
why should they be illegal to the people. I dont remember anything at all in the 2nd Amendment limiting the right of the people to bear arms?
if the feds can have them, then so can the people.
people always think that the feds and cops are the biggest buyers of firearms in the USA, when both of those groups only buy 5% of all firearms, ammo and other firearm related items.
all the rest is bought by the people.
also look at the LEOs inside states that limit the peoples rights, they are now not being allowed to buy any of tose items from the companies themselves.
This administration does not care about the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Their intention is the disarming of the American people and they will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.
You're arguing about definitions; I'm arguing about people's lives.
Just because 50-round magazines should be illegal for citizens to buy at gun shows does not mean that they wouldn't be available to our military/law enforcement. Similarly, army tanks and rocket launchers are illegal for me to own... it doesn't mean that they aren't available to the people whom need them.
I feel like this should be obvious. Limited access is not the same as complete ban throughout the entire government.
So what makes 10 safe but 11 so deadly? What about 15? 17? 20? How can you articulate a verifiable reason that one size magazine is more dangerous than another? Would you also then want all previously owner magazines confiscated? Otherwise the DOJ says a magazine ban wouldn't work. http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf
why should they be illegal to the people. I dont remember anything at all in the 2nd Amendment limiting the right of the people to bear arms?
if the feds can have them, then so can the people.
people always think that the feds and cops are the biggest buyers of firearms in the USA, when both of those groups only buy 5% of all firearms, ammo and other firearm related items.
all the rest is bought by the people.
also look at the LEOs inside states that limit the peoples rights, they are now not being allowed to buy any of tose items from the companies themselves.
This wouldn't be the first time the Constitution was amended. Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was written hundreds of years ago in response to other countries wanting to take us over by people who didn't know what a car, uzi, or internet is. Well, war has changed drastically since then, and these magazines are being used by Americans to kill Americans. Further, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify the kind of arms; this is why you can't buy grenades or missile launchers.
This administration does not care about the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Their intention is the disarming of the American people and they will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.
This administration has been more lax on gun control than Bush Jr. or Clinton.
So what makes 10 safe but 11 so deadly? What about 15? 17? 20? How can you articulate a verifiable reason that one size magazine is more dangerous than another? Would you also then want all previously owner magazines confiscated? Otherwise the DOJ says a magazine ban wouldn't work. http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf
Watch this 20 second video, what difference does a magazines restriction actually make
I wouldn't argue that 10 is okay and 11 is deadly, that difference would be too insignificant, but I would argue that 8 round clips pose less of a threat, in say a movie theater, than 20 round clips. Since, if we were to address this issue the number of allowable bullets in a clip we would have to chose a number, I'd say 10 is better than 20. Similar to how we've chosen 65 MPH as a reasonable speed limit on the highway... is 65 really that much less dangerous than 66 MPH? Probably not, but we needed a speed limit, so we chose 65 MPH.
I don't think that confiscating current owners' magazines is fair, nor reasonable. But, for the sake of our future safety, I'd like to see high capacity magazines outlawed. That way, over time, they will become increasingly rare, thus resulting in fewer deaths.
This wouldn't be the first time the Constitution was amended. Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was written hundreds of years ago in response to other countries wanting to take us over by people who didn't know what a car, uzi, or internet is. Well, war has changed drastically since then, and these magazines are being used by Americans to kill Americans. Further, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify the kind of arms; this is why you can't buy grenades or missile launchers.
The 2nd amendment isn't about muskets just as the 1st amendment isn't about the printing press. And you can buy grenades with the right paperwork.
I wouldn't argue that 10 is okay and 11 is deadly, that difference would be too insignificant, but I would argue that 8 round clips pose less of a threat, in say a movie theater, than 20 round clips. Since, if we were to address this issue the number of allowable bullets in a clip we would have to chose a number, I'd say 10 is better than 20. Similar to how we've chosen 65 MPH as a reasonable speed limit on the highway... is 65 really that much less dangerous than 66 MPH? Probably not, but we needed a speed limit, so we chose 65 MPH.
I don't think that confiscating current owners' magazines is fair, nor reasonable. But, for the sake of our future safety, I'd like to see high capacity magazines outlawed. That way, over time, they will become increasingly rare, thus resulting in fewer deaths.
So the difference between 10 and 11 is insignificant but 10 and 8 somehow is justified. The video shows a person reloading in about half a second yet you think a magazine ban would make a difference, that half second. Plus the memo I posted from the doj I posted specifically stated that a ban on future magazines would have no affect for decades, so why do it? Why should you restrict a persons civil rights by doing something that doesn't work? Very abitrary and capricious of you. You can't just pick a number and say that sounds reasonable for violating a civil right.
The 2nd amendment isn't about muskets just as the 1st amendment isn't about the printing press. And you can buy grenades with the right paperwork.
Right, the 2nd Amendment isn't about muskets. But, we don't live in 1790 anymore, and now we have 2013 issues. I'm not a against guns, just as I'm not against alcohol, but I do believe in partaking responsibly. If, at some point, we have threats of foreign troops storming our homes as they did in the 1600's, then I'd be glad to back a future amendment allowing high capacity clips, but until then, we need to try and keep our innocent men, women, and children safe from Americans.
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.
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.
