McCarthy's fascist gun ban bill now has 65 sponsors!

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

tsmithwick

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Location
Claremore
that a bunch of BS, they're Ideas of gun control are getting out of hand.

this is what happened back in hitlers nazi germany he started by taking the guns. along with most dictators this is how they take power. we just cant stand by and let them do this without a fight. as long as we keep voting and voicing our oppinions we will have our rights and guns.
 

JonathanT

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
Claremore
First of all, it is a magazine, sweet-pea. A clip is what girls wear in their hair.

That has to be the best thing I've read all day.

To be honest though, my dad has some clips around the house. They fit his Mosin Nagant and his K98, which of course have internal magazines. I'm actually impressed that most of the people on this forum seem to know the proper terminology, most gun forums I've seen have a "they're all called clips, we don't care" mindset.


The question of "legitimate" uses for high capacity magazines is irrelevant, since it's constitutionally illegal for the gov to infringe on firearm ownership rights (I know they do it all the time, but still). Regardless, good engineering dictates that a weapon should be able to hold as much ammo as it can while still maintaining reliability and balance/maneuverability. Smaller and even larger magazines can then be considered for special circumstances (bench shooting, tight quarters, etc).

-Jonathan
 

MaddSkillz

Sharpshooter
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
10,543
Reaction score
618
Location
Jenks
Stop with using the facts, especially the mention of the DoI. So mundane and outdated in this modern, enlightened era where "statesmen" populate the halls of Congress who only want us all to be safe and secure even if it means not free.

This is incorrect. Why do you assume they want us safe? If they wanted us safe they would let us defend ourselves. The statistics are obvious and these people are not that stupid.

They want what all governments want. Control.

They want the final say, in all matters and they want our final method of recourse as outlined by our founding fathers, out of reach.

You're giving them way to much credit believing they want us to be secure. That's laughable, really.
 

greenbeetle

Marksman
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
Here's a legitimate need for high cap mags... I should just be able to buy what I want... this is a free country, or it was anyways.

Wow, lot's of angry posts! The question was just that, a question. I didn't mean to upset people.

So far the arguement for super high capacity magazines has been:

"because I want one and [it's a free country] or [you can't tell me what to do]"
"I don't like to reload"
"shooting competitions allow them"
"that's how the gun comes"
"in case 4 guys break into my house"
"asking if they serve a purpose is illegal because the constitution allows them"
"the Declaration of Independence allows them"

If anyone can explain their usefulness in terms of a gun being a tool, that is more what I'm interested in.

I personally don't have a problem with 17 round magazines, btw...
 
Last edited:

ljb2of3

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
185
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
Wow, lot's of angry posts! The question was just that, a question. I didn't mean to upset people.

I didn't mean for my post to sound angry, just... annoyed ;)

(not directed at you, so don't take this the wrong way) The part that does make me angry is the idea that we should all be punished for the actions of a few. It's the same as what I remember from elementary school. One kid would act up and the entire class would be punished. I thought it was BS then, and I think it is BS now.
 

NikatKimber

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,766
Reaction score
1,486
Location
Claremore
Wow, lot's of angry posts! The question was just that, a question. I didn't mean to upset people.

So far the arguement for super high capacity magazines has been:

"because I want one and [it's a free country] or [you can't tell me what to do]"
"I don't like to reload"
"shooting competitions allow them"
"that's how the gun comes"
"in case 4 guys break into my house"
"asking if they serve a purpose is illegal because the constitution allows them"
"the Declaration of Independence allows them"

If anyone can explain their usefulness in terms of a gun being a tool, that is more what I'm interested in.

I personally don't have a problem with 17 round magazines, btw...

I'll turn that around on you. How does limiting mag capacity save lives?

And, on what authority is the .gov going to limit rounds in the magazine?

Fortunately our government is (supposed to be) a limited powers government, meaning the government only has the power we give it. So if the government doesn't have the authority or justification for doing something, (technically) they can't do it. We don't have to prove a negative, period. They have the burden of proof to justify that they both A) have just cause for limiting capacity, and B) have the authority to do so.
 

greenbeetle

Marksman
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I'll turn that around on you. How does limiting mag capacity save lives?

Good question. It sounds like the arguement is that bad guys have less firepower? They are saying the shooter in Arizona, for example, was taken down when he went to reload. No source on that so I can't verify.

Then again if they have bad intentions they will get whatever type of weapon without whatever magazine they want.

So, I don't know how it would save lives.

We don't have to prove a negative, period. [The government has] the burden of proof to justify that they both A) have just cause for limiting capacity, and B) have the authority to do so.

Did the framers envision civilians owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons? And owning more than a few each? Bearing a gun that took 60 seconds to reload and could barely hit the broadside of a barn at 50 yards is different than owning a modern firearm isn't it, at least a little? There is this religious-like fanaticism that the constitution is infallable. It was made with provisions to allow it's ammending because they knew it was not perfect and that things change.

I wonder what the framers would say about 30 round magazines. Or a better question, what would they do to limit gun violence?
 
Last edited:

1shot(bob)

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
Did the framers envision civilians owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons? And owning more than a few each? Bearing a gun that took 60 seconds to reload and could barely hit the broadside of a barn at 50 yards is different than owning a modern firearm isn't it, at least a little? There is this religious-like fanaticism that the constitution is infallable. It was made with provisions to allow it's ammending because they knew it was not perfect and that things change. I wonder what the framers would say about 30 round magazines.

The same thing they would say about 20 versions of the baptist faith, or the many various (thousands) of differing religious beliefs, or the internet, or television.
They never envisioned these things but the basis of the Constitution remains solid. The Constitution is the foundation, whatever is built upon it will be strong as long as it stays true to the foundation. It's when they stray from the foundation that things start to crumble.

Whether it's muskets or full automatic machine guns, the principle is the same.
Read the 2A.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why would it matter what type gun is being used?

Read the 1A.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Why would it matter what tools the press uses, or what the preachers preach? Does it make a difference that people assemble by the millions, as opposed to the hundreds?

The rights are still the same. The principles are still the same.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom