California ban on high-capacity gun magazines (win for the people)

originally posted by: TheValeyard
Not saying to disarm law abiding citizens. Just saying, not THOSE guns, and not those high capacity mags.
You don't NEED those for anything, and they're killing kids.
You can still have bolt actions and hammer actions, and shotguns, and smaller mag semi auto pistols for open carry or concealed, and bows, and your antique Blunderbuss, and your bolt action .50 cal. There are plenty of other guns you could go plinking with that AREN'T preferred for use in mass shootings because of how easy it is to mow lots of people down with them.

You can still have the other ones. It's not all or nothing. Get it?

a reply to: PorkChop96

We can dissect that a bit and come to the conclusion that the media has people in a frenzy and pointing fingers in the wrong direction, yourself included.

The majority of shootings happen with small arms, not rifles. You can find the statistics and it's rather enlightening. We go after scary guns, that's all.

The first "high capacity" magazines were introduced at the turn of the century. No, not the year 2000. I'm talking the early 1900's. That definition and classification has changed over time. 5 shot revolvers were considered high capacity compared to black powder guns. 10 round magazines were considered high capacity when semi-autos were introduced. The first High Capacity (in which we commonly refer to today) mags were introduced with the Mauser C96 (which held a standard 10 round magazine, but also 20-40 round box magazines) and the Browning Hi-Power with the first double stack 13 round magazine which I have one and it's my favorite piece of history, I love it), between 1909 and 1935, respectively. As the years went on, the double stack mag became significantly more popular with rifles coming *******STANDARD******* with 20-30 round magazines, and handguns having *****STANDARD***** magazines that carried 13-17 rounds (15 on average, let's say). The magazines they want to ban aren't "High Capacity" by any means, and haven't been for decades since the ***standards*** changed. We go after what's scary, and we have people that don't know any better that work to sway the public to think in same.

Not to mention the whole 2nd A and why it's there in the first place arguement.

If a certain group of penises was raping 40 women in one go, then reloading and doing it again, then yes, I'd most certainly chop off that group of penises. But some penises are less rapey than others, and some less threatening too, which happens to be my whole point, that you insist on ignoring.
That's a pretty pathetic attempt at reducto ad absurdum, and a pretty obvious mischaracterization of my argument.
Also, why do you suddenly want to talk about penises during a gun rights debate?
Was Freud right, I wonder?

Stop smoking crack, buddy.


a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: TheValeyard
No.

You just want government to be the authority on what we can have, how much we can have.

Wow. That was the most inane and worthless post about the second amendment I've ever read. Everyone here has lost IQ points from reading it.
a reply to: TheValeyard

Buddy I used to be a straight up anarchist, and still carry most of that philosophy. I'm bits and pieces of many things in my worldview, so you are barking up the entirely wrong tree, and I can make random assertions about you too. That's not an argument though, and you're throwing it all on the "slippery slope" idea, which is listed on most lists of common logical fallacies.

There are some slippery slopes, don't get me wrong, but this isn't one.
Those guns were used in the deadliest mass shootings in american history.
If you have lots of unhinged crazies running round mowing down innocent people, and many of them using a gun that shoots lots of bullets quickly and tends to be accurate at short and long range, then to identify that it might be good to restrict access to that gun, is just obvious.

And as for "what the 2nd amendment is intended for", I get that, but at this point, getting our government in check can only be done through other means. The armed revolution ship sailed a long time ago.
Now can you please stop replying with red herrings and insults so I can stop feeling so obliged to reply and defend myself? Please?

a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: TheValeyard

Shall not be infringed is pretty cut and dry, don't you think?

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

The gun used in the most "mass shooting's" are semi auto pistols and those are still legal, but that was in your list of ones we can keep?


a reply to: TheValeyard

Don't need a CNC machine to make a firearm, trust me. You should look up all of the "firearms" made in prisons or by those that don't have access to the machines normally used for such an endeavor.

There is no compromise when it comes to this, see my statement from above "give them an inch and they will take a mile"

If you think my opinion is one of extremism, you should really come out of your house a little more often. My opinion is pretty tame compared to most

What a well reasoned refutation. Thank you. Your hot take is surely valued!

a reply to: jwal5150

a reply to: TheValeyard

Apologies, was too busy smoking crack.

"Common" doesn't make it any less extreme.
Take school shootings for example...

a reply to: PorkChop96

Okay okay. I went ad hominem, you went ad hominem. We all went ad hominem.
Fine.
a reply to: DBCowboy

a reply to: TheValeyard

"common" in regards to what?

Care to elaborate your nonsensical reply?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Remember when that Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect from 1994-2004?

Remember how cops went door to door confiscating revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions, and break actions?

a reply to: TheValeyard

Buddy I used to be a straight up anarchist, and still carry most of that philosophy.

Except the anti government part apparently...

If you have lots of unhinged crazies running round mowing down innocent people, and many of them using a gun that shoots lots of bullets quickly and tends to be accurate at short and long range, then to identify that it might be good to restrict access to that gun, is just obvious.

Why aren't there more mass casualty events than with say, vehicles?

It's not about the weapon, it's about the people doing it.

Listing excuses for permission as to why the government may violate Americans rights is gross and short sighted.

Okay, sorry, but this is getting comically ridiculous. YOU SAID it was common for people to take hard-line conservative stance on the 2A, and that I clearly don't know that and I need to get out and talk to people more.

I spent half my life in rural Texas, and the other half in a very pro gun rural state, so... LMFAO.
I used to hang with a guy who did underground 3D printing of ARs. I grew up hunting with my family and most of them think just like you do about this. I don't need extra exposure to these views.

You said a hardline stance on zero gun restriction was common.
That's what I was referring to.
Are you just trolling?
I'm just gonna pretend you are either way, so good job!
I have to be done with this at some point. God I wish I didn't have OCD.


a reply to: PorkChop96

a reply to: TheValeyard

Then you should know it doesn't take much to build a "firearm", but yet you deny that people could do it


Not once did I say either of those are "common"

You should really work on not putting your words into other people's mouths.

I said my stance was tame compared to most, and I never said a hardline stance on zero gun restrictions is common.

Feel free to show me exactly where I said those things and we can go form there, otherwise have a good day in your willful ignorance on the subject.

Cars weren't manufactured with the intent of being an instrument of death, so people weren't getting into cars thinking "This is a murder weapon."
Social conditioning. Priming. If a few happen, then we start to see more, because people form a psychological association between those things. That's why there was a boom in school shootings after the publicity of Columbine, and that's why there have been a few vehicular mass killings since that first one.
It's just part of social psychology.

a reply to: JinMI

Okay, since this isn't working, CHANGE of TAC:

Do you think we should all have nukes?
Why or why not?

It's relevant I promise.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Oh Crap!

What if Congress passes a new law:

Whereas the Second Amendment is not about hunting,

Every able bodied person residing within the U.S. between the ages of 17 and 45 is required by law to own a full auto firearm equipped to utilize a removable box or drum magazine holding no fewer than 15 rounds, at least 3 magazines capable of holding no fewer than 15 rounds, and enough ammo to fill those 3 magazines.

All other firearms, magazines, and ammo will be surrendered to the proper authorities in exchange for firearms approved by this bill.

The Second Amendment does not have a clause about choosing not to be armed as a right.

Think of the abuse of prisoners!!!

Guard: "Prisoner *** inspection! Firearm? Magazines? Rounds?
OOOH you seem to be missing one. You'd better find it."

Prisoner ***: "It's in your hand."

Guard, slipping it into his pocket: "No it isn't."

Prisoner ***: "It's in your pocket."

Guard, pulling it out: "No it isn't. Your parole hearing is tomorrow. This infraction of Federal law will be reported."

Prisoner ***, reaching for his unloaded firearm: "Why you ...!"

Guard, aiming his loaded firearm at Prisoner ***: "Go ahead make my day."

a reply to: TheValeyard

Calm down there Joe Biden, I don't have my f15 and nukes ready to take you out.

A nuke is not a firearm, therefore it is not relevant.

Why do these always turn into a whine fest about why the 2nd ammendment is no longer valid because scary black guns are weapons of war. Why are there no repercussions for politicians that knowingly pass unconstitutional laws? It's crap they do it and it takes years and millions in legal fees to overturn. And then they do it again without any repercussions besides screwing over the taxpayer.