TheLegendOfMart, on 10 January 2013 - 07:11, said:
Bet you are livid about the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery, I mean its not in your top 10 precious amendments.
So the only thing you have left in your bag is to put words and assumptions in other peoples mouths? That certainly doesnt make your side look very good does it?
HawkMan, on 10 January 2013 - 08:28, said:
I Don't see a problem outlawing magazines with more than 5 round capacity, and mag couplers at the same time. If someone is caught with them they get a fine, multiple ones, bigger fine, multiple fines, much bigger fine.
and at the same time give an amnesty where they can hand in their old magazines and get new 5 round magazines or vouchers for them, 2 5 round for a 10+ round magazine.
the problem would solve itself over time.
I see plenty of problems, 5 rounds is good for hunting, thats it.
Neutering a firearm used for self defense like that IS a problem. Did you perhaps read the story of the woman that defended herself and her child with 6 rounds? That threat did not stop until she fired the 6th round, if she only had access to 5, she and her child could quite easily be dead.
More than one home invader? Yup, 5 rounds is best, right?
Oh I know! you think that criminals will actually turn in their magazines over 5 rounds! Thats cute, tell me more about how they wont rob, rape, injure or kill because you made guns illegal too, I'll wait while you figure that out.
In other words, your solution will make criminals out of law abiding firearms owners, and strip them of their ability to defend themselves adequitely in the face of criminals who will now have a massive advantage in capacity?
If I am to be proficient with my firearm, and continue to keep my skill level up so that I am NOT a danger to the public, how am I expected to do that when most of my range time is suddenly spent reloading magazines? All because someone passed a law that does NOTHING but make people scared of firearms feel "safe"
I dont completely blame you for not really understanding how its "bad" to do, you make it obvious you have never been to the US or even understand US law or rights.
HawkMan, on 10 January 2013 - 09:41, said:
wonder how many attempts it took them to get the 0.5 seconds, and if you're going to do it that fast, you have high chance of fumbling.
in any case any delay is a chance for someone to rush him, for someone to run away. there's a LOT you can do in 1-3 seconds.
Its just training and repetition to get that fast, most people can get down to about 1 second after a few drills.
You can shoot back in 1 or 2 seconds, running really isnt much of an option, you might get about 10 feet, moving made you a highly visible target now, so its likely you will be the next to be hit.
TheLegendOfMart, on 10 January 2013 - 11:53, said:
You better pack your bags then because some form of gun ban is all but inevitable.
I agree, most likely will be Obama using executive orders to stop import of AK parts, and rifles, and cheap ammo.
Anything else is pretty up in the air, the republicans might give some ground on magazine capacity just to say they played ball, but not much more movement is expected.
Hardcore Til I Die, on 10 January 2013 - 12:23, said:
30 rounds is high capacity. That could end 30 lives. Them being standard doesn't mean they're not high capacity. Think for yourself.
I don't need to watch a video to know that a 0.5 second delay in swapping mags is fast.
Pot, Meet kettle. 30 rounds is standard capacity, despite what you parrot from your leftist media overlords.
Standard capacity is what the firearm is provided with when sold. Just because a car can come with the option of a smaller engine, doesnt mean its the standard engine, especially when you need to special order it.
muggerfugger, on 10 January 2013 - 13:45, said:
It's common sense that tighter gun control means fewer guns criminals can get a hold of. Where do criminals get these guns? oh yeah, from incompetent gun owners.
You have no common sense then. If your assumption were true, then the US would be #1 or 2 in firearm murder rates in the world because they have the highest rates of firearm ownership, yet that's not correct either, we sit about 28th.
A few firearms are acquired from legitimate owners, many are straw purchased illegally, and still more flow across the border from Mexico, and many also even come from your own government giving them to drug cartels.
muggerfugger, on 10 January 2013 - 13:45, said:
No criminal is going to build weapons in their basements. Basic sense
Still demonstrating no sense here too.
Its easy to manufacture firearms, 3d printing is about to turn that
even more on its ear, there are already 3d printed firearms that have been reported to withstand 100 rounds before failing.
muggerfugger, on 10 January 2013 - 13:45, said:
Before you use another nonsense argument like "Drugs are illegal, and yet they still get them", yeah they grow them in their bathrooms, I doubt they're going to be growing guns. isn't the same thing.
As I mentioned, its not hard to manufacture a firearm, buying a 3d printer, even a cheap small one is good enough. So yes, it IS a valid argument, and clamping your hands over your ears and screaming "lalala I cant hear you" when its brought up doesnt invalidate it.
muggerfugger, on 10 January 2013 - 13:45, said:
You don't need a high complicity rifle to protect yourself, you'll be just fine with a pistol, or normal rifle.
i do fine with just a Louisville slugger. No one is ever going to be able to steal that from me, and go murder 20 kids, but wait, all the people killed in this mass shooters were killed by legal guns. nvm.
How will you do, swinging that in a hallway? What about a woman? how capable is a 110lb woman with a baseball bat against a 250lb rapist or murderer? Yea, thats what I thought.
If you think the guns used in mass shootings were all legally aquired, you need to look again.
Not to mention that your focus is bad, long guns of ALL types were responsible for 323 deaths, that justifies an violation on millions of law abiding citizens rights and a ban on AR patterned rifles how exactly?
0
. If you go to Diane Feinsteins website it details what she's going to do and it doesn't make anyone give up their rifles, it just makes us register them with the current system, its going to be a huge mess. Secondly Registering rifles will do what exactly? Keep a lunatic from shooting up people? Really? Since when do they care??
