LA Bans Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

Right, because the difference between a 30 round magazine and a 20 or 10 round magazine means the difference between "starting a small war" or not...

Seriously? This is you're stance?

Go on now, tell us more about "common sense"...

 

Because "gun free zones" are working oh so well...

The only "deranged nuts" are the hoplophobes.

The world, unfortunately, has succumbed to the "progressive" mental illness.

 

30 down to 20, or even 10, wasn't what I had in mind. This is all people need for self defense; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCJ_co--Gk8cCFcPUgAodqO4DVA Most reasonable folks would consider that common sense.

 

This would be true only if the government or an invading force also limited their gun use to the same type of guns. What's the odds of that happening? 0%.

 

the experts who arm the police arm them with 17 to 30 round magazines. so why shouldn't other civilians get the same magazines


I want you to tell me-rather then avoid and evade (for the fifth time) why someone can be trusted with a ten round magazine but cannot be trusted with a 30 round magazine. If you don't trust a citizen to own a 30 round magazine for his AR15 you really don't trust him to own any gun and thus you are clearly a gun banner

- - - Updated - - -

gun banners pretend that people who cannot possess any gun legally will actually only have guns that meet the magazine limit

 

Show us examples of the advocacy taking place then. Do not simply claim that it is occurring, show us that it is.

It is your claim. It is your obligation to prove it as fact.

 

they should leave rifles/shotguns alone, and require a permit for all handgun possession.

..with a 5-year minimum prison term for illegal possession of a handgun.

do this, enact Stop & Frisk, and watch LA become safe again.

 

So here's the thing; the gun nuts are just fine with having whoever carry AK47's into public places. We have already established that fact. Then, low and behold this character goes into a movie theater carrying a machete, pepper spray and a BB pistol and was shot dead; http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/us/tennessee-theater-shooting/ Now, lets switch that scenario around a little. You have half the audience going into the theater watching a movie with AK47's, and in walks this guy packing the same thing instead of an air pistol. He starts shooting in a dark theater, and the first thing you know, everyone is shooting at each other because no one knows who the real bad guy is. That is a very real possibility, in a very real world, where that is legal to do in some states.

I think this argument is getting the better of you with some of your questioning. Bottom line, I trust law enforcement way more than I trust Jim Bob with an AK47, when it comes to magazine size. I think Jim Bob and his six shooting revolver is plenty enough.

 

monthly massacres is the price we must pay, for freedom.

 

No, they are necessary because gangs and the government have them.

 

And specifically, by what authority, do you determine that not a single individual, regardless of what they encounter in their day to day lives, has any need whatsoever, for seven or more rounds of ammunition at any given time?

It is your position of argument. Therefore it is your obligation to explain your reasoning.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/

 

In your own defense, having to shoot ten times at an intruder, singles out the fact you aren't very good at shooting weapons. A person shooting a six round revolver and having the skill to hit what he or she is aiming at, proves they know how to hit what they are aiming at. And if a person needs a magazine holding ten bullets in his or her daily wanderings, it's a fair bet that the person has gotten in over his or her head with some illegal dealings of their own. Selling drugs or involving themselves in a gangs for example. Most people needing ten bullets everyday beside law enforcement, are probably involved in something nefarious.

 

The fact that the castle doctrine is presented as a license to kill goes to show that the article is biased in presentation, and devoid of important facts that would clarify the lack of logical thinking.

The above does not satisfy the requirements.

Again. Show us examples of the advocacy taking place then. Do not simply claim that it is occurring, show us that it is.

It is your claim. It is your obligation to prove it as fact.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/31/new-alabama-law-will-allow-children-to-have-handguns/ Lol! I've shown examples that there is an advocacy group who want children carrying guns in public. There can be no denying that. And I do not need to satisfy your requirements. Anyone with half a brain knows what I am linking and they know what those links are saying. And that is plenty good enough for me. You can willfully ignore all the facts as you see fit. That's on you, and I could care less. We have gone mad with our own gun culture, and that is a fact.

 

yeah why stop with crapping on the second amendment. might as well trash the fourth amendment as well.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

As you can see, the suspect was shot five out of six times, in the head and face, and it was not enough to kill him, but rather make him cry.

Tell us again how six rounds of ammunition are sufficient for self defense in all circumstances.

So then, in your expert opinion, there is not a single non-law enforcement person in the entire united states, who has any legal reason to need more than six rounds of ammunition at any given time, and the only people who feel they need seven or more rounds of ammunition are those knowingly engaged in illegal activity. Is that what you are saying? No exceptions to that standard of judgement whatsoever?

 

the only gun nuts are those who soil their panties over law abiding citizens having the same weapons as our public servants do. I guess its beyond your ability to comprehend that if someone is willing to commit murder, a law against guns is not going to deter them. I guess you cannot also fathom that criminals cannot own any guns so if they ignore that law, why would they obey a magazine limit and finally, you seem unable to understand that laws against booze and laws against drugs nationally and Chicago's gun bans have all been massive failures

when you talk about "Jim Bob" it shows you are a cultural fascist who looks down on honest citizens who own guns.

and yes, lots of people trust government over their fellow citizens. Nazi Germany was such a place. and your moronic argument misses the fact that you want ordinary citizens to be outgunned when attacked by criminals. sorry, we aren't going to limit ourselves to what you -think is adequate for us-. If our tax dollars equips cops with 17 round handguns, I am going to have one too. and you still are afraid to answer my question

why do you trust "Jim Bob" with six shots and not 30. Do you realize how stupid that is?

Oh BTW we won't give up our normal capacity magazines just to decrease the laundry bills on gun fearers

 

Show us the group responsible. Show us their message of advocating that minors of all ages should be able to own and carry firearms.

There can when nothing of substance has been shown.

If it is your claim, it is your obligation to prove it as being factual.

Such as the links to google images?

You have yet to present anything resembling facts. You present hyperbole and delusion, and believe it to be adequate. It is not. You have yet to prove anything.

 

Looks like it did the job to me. He got out of there didn't he?

 

Oh yes I have. I linked where Alabama wants it to be legal for children to carry handguns in public. That is more than enough proof and it is factual. Lol! "Show us the group responsible"? Dude, you are looking for straw men with your ridiculous requests. Try and keep it real. Because I'm not here to play silly games with you.

 

Lol! Here we go again with the same old dried up arguments. How many times have we circled back to this same old knee jerk excuse by the gun nuts? You folks go round and round with these same old lame excuses to carry guns you don't need, for your own selfish reasons. It's such a joke and a waste of time to discuss logic and reason with the likes of people like this anyway. Their own interests come first, and to hell with the kids at Newtown.

 

I disagree with this decision, people need to be armed, and armed well.

 

your arguments are moronic. You refuse to tell us how a magazine ban will stop people who are already banned from owning any firearm. You refuse to tell us why an honest citizen needs less rounds than cops even though citizens do not choose when and where and how they are attacked. You refuse to tell us at what point a citizen becomes incapable of safely owning a weapon based on number of rounds and most importantly, you have no credibility in this area since your comments are nothing more than inane nonsense. I guess you are unable to fathom that the gun who killed people in Newtown murdered his own mother to get a gun and you think a law against 20 round magazines would have stopped him. Rather than dealing with the idiocy of that argument, you insult people who actually rationally understand that someone WILLING TO DIE or face a death sentence is not going to be deterred by even a five year sentence for an illegal magazine


and what interests are you promoting other than harassing gun owners? no one believes your blather is designed to make us safer

and your evasions prove your real motivations are not public safety

 

what causes your level of hostility to gun owners who don't buy into the gun banner nonsense? is it the fact that we don't vote for socialist candidates? Or do gun owners who refuse to outsource their own personal safety to the nanny state government accentuate feelings of inadequacy? Jeffrey Snyder's A NATION OF COWARDS is very illustrative of what motivates those who want to disarm honest citizens. Public safety might be the charade but its not the motivation