Posted: 1/9/2013 4:47:51 AM EDT
| Anyone have an intelligent response to anti-gunner who wants to ban high capacity mags.Basically why they shouldnt be banned. |
| Already lost as the burden has been shifted. It should be on him to explain why someone who owns a box with a spring in it should go to federal prison for 10-15 years, and perhaps justify how or why 30 rounds vs 10 would make any difference in the mass murders, where there's an average of 1 shot every 6-7 seconds. |
|
I guess I'm ok with a ban of high capacity magazines. :)
I prefer to use my 30 round magazines which are known as a standard capacity magazine. I learned that in basic training--- 10 and 20 round mags are "reduced capacity" magazines. I see nothing in my Soldier's manual of Common Tasks that I got in basic training that says that the 30 round mags we were issued were high capacity mags. These were all standard magazines. It would be helpful if they actully knew the differene, maybe start there to educate them |
|
Same reason people own BMWs or Granite countertops or giant stereo systems: NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS
There are seemingly viable substitutes for all of the above that would not impede their core function, but you're not accountable to me for the purchases you make or the things you enjoy doing. And that goes both ways. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone have an intelligent response to anti-gunner who wants to ban high capacity mags.Basically why they shouldnt be banned. Sure. Give them this scenario: Three intruders force their way into your home late at night. Two of the intruders are armed with Glock handguns. Let's say that each one of those Glocks holds 17 9mm rounds, and one of the intruders has an extra magazine. Now, please explain to me what type of firearm you would need to protect your loved ones and defend them against three dangerous criminals that have 51 rounds between them to use against you? And then remind them to please keep in mind that this exact scenario occurs on a regular basis, somewhere in this country, every day. |
|
I've been working with some clients on this and here's what I'm using:
Rifles, both semi-auto and bolt action combined, accounted for 323 deaths out of 12,664 murders in 2011. More people died by knives (1,694), blunt objects (496) and even bare hands (726). If politicians wanted to ban weapons by the actual statistics they would have to do this . . . . . . ban handguns . . . knives . . . flying fists . . . blunt objects . . . shotguns . . . RIFLES . . . plastic bags (asphyxiation) . . . hands (strangulation) . . . and then to be safe, matches and lighters. The last thing we would have to ban would be windows as two people were thrown from them in 2011. Here are the stats: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11 The reality is that gun control is not about saving lives, it's about grabbing power. A disarmed nation is defenseless against its own government. If our founders were alive today, they would be labeled as terrorists by the media by now as there's no way those men would be sitting idly by and allowing this to happen. One of the earliest attempts at gun control to face one of our founding fathers happened to Patrick Henry in 1775. When the Royal Governor of Virginia seized the gun powder from Williamsburg's powder magazine, Henry marched with 150 men to Williamsburg. The Royal Governor, fearing for his life, fled to a British ship waiting in the York River. The next year, Patrick Henry became Virginia's first governor and the rest is history . . . Citizens should have access to the same weapons that could be used against them. Before Posse Comitatus was scrapped in 2006, we could get by with having the same weapons as law enforcement. IMO, we need to reinstate Posse Comitatus in full and regulate the weapons local and federal law enforcement can have -- and we can have the same. My $.02. |
| I would say they are here, you cannot uninvent, them the genie is out of the bottle, since they are legal now any change would be an INFRINGEMENT on my right to keep and bear arms now wouldn't it. Then I point out that during the dark years 94-04 I was still able to legally purchase an AK 47 style rifle with 20 round magazines with no problem. A ban is a joke, there are so many magazines out there already better to keep as many in the hands of safe minded firearms enthusiasts |
|
Quoted:
Anyone have an intelligent response to anti-gunner who wants to ban high capacity mags.Basically why they shouldnt be banned. I'll take a shot, OP, and I like to think I'm pretty good at this. Tell them it's difficult to explain to non-shooters, but magazine capacity doesn't hurt attackers because they can easily carry more magazines on the one murder spree they commit. It does, however, make things harder on defenders because defenders have to carry their magazines everywhere all the time. So just from the personal defense standpoint alone, a magazine capacity ban is counterproductive. Anybody advocating one is thus either extremely ignorant or is deliberately trying to help mass murderers. Notice how I phrased that very gently toward the person you're responding to; they're inexperienced with these things so naturally they would be a little confused. But then I ramp up the hostility toward actual advocates of the position. This, I think, attacks the cognitive dissonance at the root of the issue, as the anti-defense person thus has an easy way out, by simply responding with "oh I see" or something, and divorcing themselves from the hardline position of the serious freedom opponents. Note how elegantly this sidelines the normal fur ruffling that occurs when a bubba walks into a discussion and says "y'all don't like guns? y'all a worthless commie!" Give your opponent a very gracious way out, and they might just take it. |
|
Quoted:
why should tyrants get to "choose" what we "can" and "can't" have? the whole premise of the 2A is the ability to resist them... Exactly, simple and to the point.The founding Fathers intent was to give the citizens a means of protection from government. The current administration's actions will be disguised as preventing gun violence in order to attempt to disarm us. What will happen if Obama uses "Executive Orders" to make the new ban law? As Biden has stated, this will be how they plan on doing it. |
|
the second amendment provides that the american people will possess military small arms to enable them to resist a tyrannical federal government.
that means access to the personal weapon of a soldier in order to maintain parity. in 1791, that meant a muzzle loading rifle and a socket bayonet. in 2013, that means, at the very least, an ar15 and standard magazines. this is it. period. I tell people that, if they don't think that this is a good idea anymore, the constitution provides two methods for change: the amendment process, and the constitutional convention. |
|
the second amendment provides that the american people will possess military small arms to enable them to resist a tyrannical federal government.
Someone finally made the right post. I was getting sick of eveyone dancing around the truth! My hat is off to you sir, you are a student of history. |
|
Quoted: Already lost as the burden has been shifted. It should be on him to explain why someone who owns a box with a spring in it should go to federal prison for 10-15 years, and perhaps justify how or why 30 rounds vs 10 would make any difference in the mass murders, where there's an average of 1 shot every 6-7 seconds. THIS!!! They want to ban something legal and so far could nto come up with any kind of solid or credible argument abotu why. They have to show why magazines with capacity for more than ten rounds shuold be banned. And the same applies to the rifles and anythgn else they want to ben. The whole idea that law-abiding gun owner owes those anti-gun liberal any explanation is simply preposterous, ;et alone that we are backed by the Constitution.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone have an intelligent response to anti-gunner who wants to ban high capacity mags.Basically why they shouldnt be banned. I'll take a shot, OP, and I like to think I'm pretty good at this. Tell them it's difficult to explain to non-shooters, but magazine capacity doesn't hurt attackers because they can easily carry more magazines on the one murder spree they commit. It does, however, make things harder on defenders because defenders have to carry their magazines everywhere all the time. So just from the personal defense standpoint alone, a magazine capacity ban is counterproductive. Anybody advocating one is thus either extremely ignorant or is deliberately trying to help mass murderers. Notice how I phrased that very gently toward the person you're responding to; they're inexperienced with these things so naturally they would be a little confused. But then I ramp up the hostility toward actual advocates of the position. This, I think, attacks the cognitive dissonance at the root of the issue, as the anti-defense person thus has an easy way out, by simply responding with "oh I see" or something, and divorcing themselves from the hardline position of the serious freedom opponents. Note how elegantly this sidelines the normal fur ruffling that occurs when a bubba walks into a discussion and says "y'all don't like guns? y'all a worthless commie!" Give your opponent a very gracious way out, and they might just take it. Here, OP, I posted an example of it in action as a reply to Tom under this news story: http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/warren/schools-city-leaders-talk-ccw#comment-763169668 |
| The left's argument for gun control is based on emotions, not facts. They don't care about facts. Hell, they've been given all the facts by the FBI, the CDC, and the citizens of this country and still they persist. They have an emotional view of a utopian world that doesn't exist. |