LA Bans Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

Exactly. Love the way he jumped to silly conclusions.

 

Your claim of course is absolutely ridiculous, by way of the very real reality, that many are not able to use such weapons, placing them at a huge disadvantage against the criminals who already have them, which is why there should be a ban on the manufacture of those magazines.

 

I've said this in the past for those who forgot. I am specifically talking about the sale and manufacture with the civilian population, not military and police.

 

Yet, you claim "redneck police officers" caused the LA riots. Are you sure you want to trust such people with evil high capacity magazines?

 

The only stupid proposals I see in this conversation are the proposals that gun nuts are promoting; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCKqvg5ackMcCFcjPgAodTkAFvA This is the culture these folks are advocating for, while you continue your ridiculous argument that somehow all innocent civilians need to be armed with high capacity magazine type weapons, who won't and can't use them. The strategy is nothing but crazy talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they did cause the riots, and everyone knows it. As to your question, do I have another choice?

 

First, stop the strawmen. We don't think all civilians need to be armed with weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't own one myself (I do own a weapon with a 10-round magazine (but it's a bolt-action)). The thing is, I'm against unnecessary laws. This is one of them. The world won't be safer if law-abiding citizens no longer are allowed to own guns with high capacity magazines. It's just a silly knee jerk law. The only way we can stop mass shootings is to again start incarcerating the mentally ill, at least temporarily. That way, if nothing else, there is a record of their insanity, which will preclude them from legally buying guns. Most of the recent mass shootings were by mentally ill people, who due to the cowardly mental health system, were never involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. They subsequently bought guns. The VA tech shooter was one of those. He was actually examined by a psychiatrist, but not committed.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, disarm the cops. I actually pretty much agree that most citizens are better able to own a gun than a large minority of cops. There is just no good reason to have cops differently armed from civilians.

 

You didn't say fireworks. You said explosives. You do know there's a difference right?

 

You are the one with the straw man. Do you know how many law-abiding citizens there were before they turned criminal? Probably more than you and I combined can count. So stop using the law abiding citizen nonsense, when that is nothing more than a sales pitch fantasy.

Locking them up for being mentally ill is not a criminal offense, unless they do something criminal. Again, that is a big reason for reducing magazine size, because we can't incarcerate them all forever. And we can never be sure if and when they will go off the handle.

We'll, human error will never go away completely. That is why smarter policies will always carry more weight.

Look, I'm not so naive that we will stop every mass shooting by reducing magazine sizes. But it sure will stop a lot of them. As to the size for one's own protection; if you can't get it done with a six round revolver, you probably shouldn't be shooting a gun to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

That's ridiculous! No one's going to do that.

 

Fireworks are defined as devices consisting of a combination of explosives and combustibles, set off to generate colored lights, smoke, and noise for amusement. Most fireworks contain explosives, and I use them recreationally.

 

The great majority of U.S. citizens are law-abiding. If you think that is a "sales pitch" you are extremely cynical, and I don't think you should be trusted with guns. My general observation is that most anti-gun folks think the rest of us are like them, and hence, shouldn't be trusted with guns. I think most people can be trusted with guns, as I think most people are like myself.

You missed my point about the mentally ill, but that's just because you don't have a background in terms of legalities of owning a gun, and those of mental health commitments. The NICS (National Instant Check System) which is used for firearms background checks is supposed to contain a variety of things. One of those is felony convictions. Another is involuntary incarceration for mental illness. Another is being dishonorably discharged from the military. If any of those three is present on your NICS record, you are not allowed to buy a gun. If the VA Tech shooter had been involuntarily incarcerated, even for a short time, he would not have been allowed to buy the guns that he used for his rampage. That was my point. It's simple, and involves existing laws.

Then do you propose we do the same with police officers? After all, the main reason they have guns is personal protection, and they are paid to practice with their pistols.

Any justification you would have for a cop having a high capacity gun works for a citizen as well. If I'm facing 4 muggers, I wouldn't want to just have a 6 round revolver that is slow to load.

The British do.

 

When the New Madrid or the San Andreas cut loose we'll see how soon people wish they had guns, large cap mag's and lots of ammo.

 

I don't have a problem with much of this except the missing part to the puzzle is the one I have always had the big concern with, which is one of the reasons I have a problem with the magazines, and that is with many of the gun shows looping around that requirement you are talking about. So the NICS doesn't do the country much good when that big hole exists. And with that big flaw, that is why I am for reducing the magazine size.

It's their job to protect us right? I want them to have an unfair advantage over criminals. After all, it is the reason we have police officers and military. Whatever size magazine they need, is fine with me. I've stated many times in the past; I'm for the limited sale and manufacture of high capacity magazines to the general public.

You have to sometimes look at this logically. Think about the dense populations we have in the big cities. Think about when you are walking through a big city mall and everyone is packing AK47's with hundred round magazines. Tell me the truth, would you really want that? I know I wouldn't. That's asking for trouble. One or two people get pissed and the whole mall erupts in an all out mass killing. It just wouldn't make sense. But some on the Right have advocated for that very scenario.

We aren't the British.

 

FFL dealers at gun shows are required to do the same NICS checks that any other FFL dealer has. The mass shooters in the last few years bought their guns at brick and mortar stores, not gun shows. As I said, you are ignorant of the issues. Please research before you spout off nonsense.

Wouldn't bother me. It's also ridiculous. Also, armed people are polite people. To quote Robert Heinlein, "An armed society is a polite society."

Also, I think we are thinking about different weapons. I'm mainly thinking in terms of handguns. The modern 9mm handgun usually has a 13-16 round magazine, which is what most misguided laws call "high capacity." The silly high capacity magazine laws limit those guns to an under-sized 10-round magazine.

Nobody wants to carry an AK around. They weigh about 10 pounds with a loaded magazine, and are bulky. That and 100-round magazines don't usually work well. The Aurora shooter had a 100 round magazine, and it jammed, causing him to switch to his pistol.

We aren't the British, but your statement was "No ones' going to do that." Well, the British did.

 

But not all do because I have personal friends who totally bi-passed the checks when they purchased their guns.

Yea, and you should talk to a few guys who buy guns at gun shows.

Except for those who conduct mass shootings.

Yea, we'll, I guess this would constitute "nobody" right; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCMXZ_NLRkMcCFUOXgAodCIoJwA

I seriously doubt one needs to do any serious thinking to understand who "no one" is, in this conversation.

 

Show us precisely how many cannot use such firearms or magazines.

 

Then perhaps you can explain to everyone present how fireworks do not constitute explosives.

 

Then if you did not report them to the police for bypassing the background check, you are an accessory to a felony offense. That makes you guilty of a felony as well.

Straw purchases will continue regardless of whether or not background checks are mandated on private sales.

Simply because they do, does not mean they wish to.

You will also note that not one of the AK-47s being carried contains a magazine capable of holding one hundred rounds of ammunition.

 

tell us why the Graboids oppose honest citizens having the same defensive weapons police are issued and which criminals will have despite the laws? what is crazy is saying that there is a point where an honest man no longer can be trusted to own a firearm based on number of rounds. If you DO NOT TRUST a citizen to have a 30 round weapon, you don't trust him to own a 4 round weapon and that is why magazine limits are nothing more than a PIMPLE on the underlying BOIL of GUN BAN IDIOCY

- - - Updated - - -

Under the constitution, there is no difference between the police and other civilians. and at what point does an armed citizen become untrustworthy due to number of rounds. Do you gun banners even think things through? Joe Citizen can own 10 round magazines but at 15 he becomes too much a threat? GOD WHAT OOZING STUPIDITY

- - - Updated - - -

so criminals who can import tons of narcotics won't be able to get some of the billions of normal capacity magazines on the world market

and at what point will you say a ban violates the constitution.

you are a gun banner pure and simple and I don't believe for a second you own guns

 

Interesting; although that sounds like a really awesome talking point to raise, you aren't going to see a dealer risk their license and prison time just to make a $400 sale. In many areas in FL, if you have your CCW, you still pay for the background check but can leave with the handgun and not wait 3 days. If you're buying a rifle or shotgun then there's still a background check but no 3-day wait period like with a handgun.

The above is an example of silliness. If someone wanted to kill another by gun (as opposed to any other means), and wanted to do it that day, then go get a cheap shotgun. But, some genius decided that adding a 3-day wait on handguns was necessary.

 

When those same armed stupid people advocate for this scenario; https://www.google.com/search?q=ima...X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCKqvg5ackMcCFcjPgAodTkAFvA

 

that's really a stupid diversion. I have a picture of my son shooting a tommy gun at age 10. He is now being recruited by the USAMU and several top collegiate shooting teams

 

Do you know what is really stupid? suggesting that someone should be able to own a ten shot gun but cannot be trusted to own a 20 shot firearm


if the reason for this stupid distinction is to prevent criminals from obtaining 20 shot magazines, that logic demands banning ALL MAGAZINES

 

They didn't buy them from FFL dealers, then. They bought them from private sellers. Private sellers don't have to do a background check anywhere, not just at gun shows. I use my terms exactly. All gun laws are enforced the same whether at gun shows or not. FFL dealers do background checks in or out of gun shows. Private sellers can't do background checks, in or out of gun shows.

Your friends must have bought from private sellers. If you know that any of them are not legally allowed to own guns, your legal duty is to report it to the police, BTW.

I have bought guns at gun shows, both with and without checks. When I bought from a collector selling one or two guns, I didn't need a background check. When I bought from a gun dealer (generally one who has a number of guns), I needed one.

If you'll note, mass shooters tend to avoid areas with people who have guns. They are staying away from an armed society.

Just a few harmless people trying to make a point. I'll amend that to "almost nobody." Also, most of those guns were ARs, which are lighter.

 

Well, when I was in high school, I had access to my dad's two guns with high capacity magazines. Heck, we used to go home, grab our guns and go hunting without parents around at age 16.

 

When I was in high school, I kept a .22 rifle and a shotgun in my truck....in a rack in the back window. Sometimes, during hunting season, I would even have a .30-.30 with me in case I saw a buck on the way home.