I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.
The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.
Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.
To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.
Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.
If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!
Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.
Let's not discriminate here....
You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.
The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on.
You've shown no logic towards the argument at all. Can you provide any kind of evidence in which a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb would NOT help with tyrannical reigimes?
You can't just cherry pick. "Oh this limit is suitable enough", while at the same time criticise others for wanting to impose THEIR limits. THAT is low capacity for logic right there...
A 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb is not a weapon with any use of self-defence. It annihilates all in its path and devastes more than just people but also the environment. This is a violation of the non-aggression axiom. As for the limitations, it has to do with the most recent supreme court interpretation of the second amendment in Heller vs. D.C. It was stated that any common weapon (as these semi-automatic weapons are) should not be restricted from civilians. This was also the intentions of the founding fathers.
If a nuclear device does not provide any form of self-defense, then I'd like to know why the US government spent billions, or even trillions of dollars developing nuclear arms in a race against the Soviet Union in the tactic of Mutually Assured Destruction in the late 20th century for. In a state of Total War, against any kind of "tyrannical reigime", everything is on the table in order to maintain power. This INCLUDES the use of nuclear weapons that happen to be at their disposal. Like many gun fanatics have argued, that more guns would reduce crime as nobody would want to shoot at anyone, a tyrannical reigime would be too afraid of unloading their nuclear payload without getting a similar retaliation aimed back towards them.
You cannot quote what the founding fathers' intentions are, because the sad fact is that nuclear devices did not exist in such a time. the Second amendment calls for "the right to keep and bear arms" in a well-regulated malitia. Nuclear arms are still arms, sorry to inform you.
So once again, why should we be working by the limits that YOU deem acceptable?
It did act as a deterrent in the Cold War, but it's use would've been retalitory, not a matter of self-defence (one would die regardless.) Hence, it is not a weapon to defend one's life, liberty, or property: it's just a payback device. Meanwhile, a semi-automatic weapon is a defensive weapon first and foremost and while it can be used as a retalitary device, it also has that valid of use of self-defence whilst a nuclear weapon does not. Furthermore, a tyrranical regime would not use Nuclear Weapons on the population who they deem fit to govern, in their own homeland, hence it would make very little sense to fear a domestic enemy who has nuclear weapons. However; if we really needed them, in the event of tyranny, we'd take them with the use of semi-automatic weapons.
Actually, a nuclear device is still used as a tactical defense weapon. One is less inclined to fire upon a malitia posessing nuclear devices, in the threat that such may be used against them. It's called Preventative Defense. For instance, can you name any world governments who have attacked governments in posession of nuclear arms? Yes, it has retaliatory properties too, but you're completely missing the whole preventative defense measure for the sake of your argument.
Do you really believe that your semi-automatic weapons are going to stand a chance against military grade weapons (which, by the way, you're not allowed to have anyway. where's the uproar on that, because if you're going to be fighting a tyrannical US government, you're going to be dealing with the US Army). Besides, what's not to stop the government detonating the devices from miles away and destroying the group of "patriots" who took posession of the device. Keep in mind that not all sites containing nuclear material are up for such an assault, some being in completely remote terrain, so the government would still posess at lease SOME nuclear devices, while having control to detonate others that are in danger of falling into malitia hands.
I've already explained how such a war would work. For a summarized version: look at "war in afghanistan" but worse.
Soooo a tyrannical government would be fine putting bullets into the people that they deem fit to govern, but they wouldn't for once think about setting off a nuclear device, especially at a critical checkmate point?
If I remember correctly, it wasn't the government of Afghanistan trying to invade America. If that were the case, and Afghanistan had a chance of invading Washingtion, then I'd be pretty certain that Kabul would receive at least one nuclear detonation, unless external forces decide to join.
Where have you explained it? You've only mentioned that you'd use said "inferior" weapons against military grade weapons in an attempt to hijack a nuclear device, with no thought of the government perhaps having control of setting it off beforehand/during the attempted hijack.
Anyone too dumb to hang up on an interupting polster doesn't represent the common sense of general public. I say no thanks to every poll phone call and ask to never be called again. Excuse me if I don't trust the stats collected from who too stupid or loney to hang up.
Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago.
You say that, but if you're going to make a statement like that you'd better have a way of backing it up. Otherwise, you're just a parrot repeating what others say and have no real opinion for yourself.
About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!
What is your problem with Obama's proposals? As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about. Stronger background checks? Why is that bad? The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big? So what? Why do people want these loopholes to exist? Ten bullet clips? Why does anyone need more than that? What is the big deal?
As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.
No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.
But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.
do you realize you can change a magazine in less than a second? if somebody wanted to kill a bunch of people... say 26. all they would have to bring was 3 ten round mags. wow such an unconvience for the shooter. not.
the Assault weapon ban, and numerous (communist) states with laws restricting magazine size, have proven such restrictions have ZERO effect on crime.
but no, you would rather have unconstitutional and inneffective laws pass just to make you feel good.
i suggest you watch this video. skip to 3:45 if you just want to see the part about the stupidity of restricting mag sizes.
Then if it's such a small inconvenience, you wouldn't have a problem with this legislation.
its a very small inconvience for the killer not an avid shooter, or somebody needing a gun for self defense.
me as an avid shooter who goes to the range often, does not want to carry dozens upon dozens of magazines each time a go shooting, or bring a few, and be forced to constantly reload them.
me also as somebody who value my own life, as well as others, carries a gun around for self protection. my gun holds 15+1 rounds, i also carry a spare mag in my pocket. some people carry more. but i feel that, should the occassion arrive, i will have sufficient firepower, and ammo to protect myself from attacker(s). now i could jut carry 3-4 ten round magazines, or 5 Seven round magazines, to have the same amount of bullets. but that would bog me down, and probably force me to wear some utility belt, and have much more pockets all my stuff. Also since i wont have the luxury of knowing the time, place, or manner of a portential attack, i will be at a disavantage, I will be forced to have less ammo in my immediate use, i will be at the mercy of my attackers for if i have time to use my other magazines.
A criminal is not hindered by these things. 1st they by definition break the law, so they will have no quarles with carrying magazines larger than 7-10 rounds. 2nd even if they do use small 7-10 round mags, they wont care about having to carry additional magazines of the person, or taping magazines to each. and they will have the luxury and advantage of knowing exactly when, where, and manner of the attack. They are prepared to kill, they dont care if they even have to have 10 or 20 magazines worth of ammo to carry around. they wont have to worry about if they can reload or not.
its quite clear you havent thought this one out. yet you insist on furthering your statist agenda, by pushing for legislation that will take rights away from people, put people in danger, and make things easier on criminals. because you are completely ignorant of the facts, but you dont care because it will make you feel good.
MDMAlliance said: I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.
The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.
Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.
To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.
Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.
Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place.
Obama has broke so many laws domestic and internationally that he should of been impeached a long time ago.
You say that, but if you're going to make a statement like that you'd better have a way of backing it up. Otherwise, you're just a parrot repeating what others say and have no real opinion for yourself.
Lol you did the same thing in your comment I qouted a minute ago you didn't provide any evidence. Also you can go look it up yourself your perfectly capable of doing so.
do you realize you can change a magazine in less than a second? if somebody wanted to kill a bunch of people... say 26. all they would have to bring was 3 ten round mags. wow such an unconvience for the shooter. not.
the Assault weapon ban, and numerous (communist) states with laws restricting magazine size, have proven such restrictions have ZERO effect on crime.
but no, you would rather have unconstitutional and inneffective laws pass just to make you feel good.
i suggest you watch this video. skip to 3:45 if you just want to see the part about the stupidity of restricting mag sizes.
Then if it's such a small inconvenience, you wouldn't have a problem with this legislation.
its a very small inconvience for the killer not an avid shooter, or somebody needing a gun for self defense.
me as an avid shooter who goes to the range often, does not want to carry dozens upon dozens of magazines each time a go shooting, or bring a few, and be forced to constantly reload them.
me also as somebody who value my own life, as well as others, carries a gun around for self protection. my gun holds 15+1 rounds, i also carry a spare mag in my pocket. some people carry more. but i feel that, should the occassion arrive, i will have sufficient firepower, and ammo to protect myself from attacker(s). now i could jut carry 3-4 ten round magazines, or 5 Seven round magazines, to have the same amount of bullets. but that would bog me down, and probably force me to wear some utility belt, and have much more pockets all my stuff. Also since i wont have the luxury of knowing the time, place, or manner of a portential attack, i will be at a disavantage, I will be forced to have less ammo in my immediate use, i will be at the mercy of my attackers for if i have time to use my other magazines.
A criminal is not hindered by these things. 1st they by definition break the law, so they will have no quarles with carrying magazines larger than 7-10 rounds. 2nd even if they do use small 7-10 round mags, they wont care about having to carry additional magazines of the person, or taping magazines to each. and they will have the luxury and advantage of knowing exactly when, where, and manner of the attack. They are prepared to kill, they dont care if they even have to have 10 or 20 magazines worth of ammo to carry around. they wont have to worry about if they can reload or not.
its quite clear you havent thought this one out. yet you insist on furthering your statist agenda, by pushing for legislation that will take rights away from people, put people in danger, and make things easier on criminals. because you are completely ignorant of the facts, but you dont care because it will make you feel good.
And where are you wandering around that you need a hell of a lot of bullets? Isn't the gun alone supposed to be the deterrent?
You're preparing for things that nobody should need to prepare for.
Anyone too dumb to hang up on an interupting polster doesn't represent the common sense of general public. I say no thanks to every poll phone call and ask to never be called again. Excuse me if I don't trust the stats collected from who too stupid or loney to hang up.
If you don't want your voice to be heard, whose fault is that?
It's like saying "I didn't vote, but the results are not a clear representation of what we all wanted".
MDMAlliance said: I think many people here (and in the video that was shown) are missing the point of the high-capacity ammunition ban.
The whole argument how there's only a .5 second difference in two 10 rounds vs 1 20 round isn't exactly accurate for all cases. The trial he ran was pretty much a bare minimum of the difference, and it assumes many things.
Generally, though, if you have to bring more magazines to have more shots, it is an inconvenience for you unless you want to get caught. So what will happen with the ban is that it makes it more difficult to hold more ammunition with you, therefore the gunman will have less shots creating a situation that makes it more difficult for mass shootings to be even more deadlier if they had the higher capacity magazines.
To say it makes no difference or the difference doesn't matter is kind of dumb, as Obama is really more trying to save as many lives as he can, whether it's one or one hundred. The ban isn't going to do THAT much for those who do it for sport, considering they don't have to worry as much about carrying all those things with them.
Also, I think it's kind of dumb to say crime will happen anyway because that's really not the point. I actually looked up that stabbing incident in China and I realized that bringing that one up is kind of dumb too when the Sandy shooting had 26 dead, the stabbing had 23 wounded (not dead). The deadliness of the two are on totally different levels. You can't possibly say that 26 dead is about the same as 23 wounded.
Lol protect who? He isn't trying to save lives criminals will still have guns and thus resulting in more preventable crime. Guess what else if criminals know their aren't any guns to stop them they can do whatever they want. Do you think the police will stop them? the victims will be long dead by time they get their. How is it dumb to say crime will happen anyway? That is a major point for everyone to be allowed to own guns. Glad I live in a state that will block any federal laws that are put in place.
States CANNOT overrule federal law. You live in no such state.
