Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76

Thread: Mag limits infringe on 2nd amendment right to be able to defend yourself

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Mag limits infringe on 2nd amendment right to be able to defend yourself

    All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.

    But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?

    And this is an infringement, yes?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    As it is a "safety" issue and done "for the children" it no longer matters. After all, so long as "safety" and "for the children" are the reason, anything is oke!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.
    Well, for those who would abide by such laws and are for some reason incapable of loading a fresh mag, I suppose that would be the case.

    But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?
    Obviously, otherwise LEO wouldn't need to be excepted. Assuming, of course, that future laws could still be enforced without the need for them to maintain maximized potential carnage.

    And this is an infringement, yes?
    Clearly.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I don't think it would interfere with my ability to defend myself. It just means I would have to reload more often.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

    If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    The magazine in my EDC holds twelve rounds. If a magazine restriction is forced upon us how would anyone know how many rounds were in it? Would LEOs stop everyone carrying a weapon to "check the load"? Sounds like california. Sounds like a great deal of unnecesary handling of firearms and a sure recipie for a negligent discharge. (sarcasm on)..."If we can save just one LEO from the shame of a negligent discharge this law should not go 'forward' " (sarcasm off).

    I do not relish the idea of being stopped and frisked every time a bully with a badge sees me. I do not live in new york or california, I do not want to be treated as a second class citizen for exercising my Second Amendment Rights.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I don't think it would interfere with my ability to defend myself. It just means I would have to reload more often.
    Let's break down this apologist sentence for fun.

    First it is your opinion that it wouldn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself so it must not interfere with anyone else's, because you don't find it a hassle.

    But then you state a hassle of having to reload more often? Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post

    I do not relish the idea of being stopped and frisked every time a bully with a badge sees me. I do not live in new york or california, I do not want to be treated as a second class citizen for exercising my Second Amendment Rights.
    Well, what if they want to come to your house and ask to enter to see your guns? And you are not home but someone else answers the door? And the cops tell the person answering the door that they must allow them in?

    Hence my previous suggestion to file a notice of trespass to the state and local governments to state that no government employees or contracted employees are allowed on your land. Then one could argue that such a contact would be in violation of your notice as once properly served to the governments then this would close off your land, including curtilage areas, to the unwanted and it becomes a question if they have probable cause or a warrant to enter the property to begin with ...

    The round limits are clearly an infringement on your gun rights IMO and are unconstitutional. And the argument for the need for the limits is the same argument as to why they infringe.

    The supporters of such bills have a catch 22 ... the only resolution for them is to just ignore the 2nd amendment.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    "Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal."

    What? No. I'm treating a machine like a machine. People don't need reloading, firearms do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    All these mag bans are premised that a lowering of rounds allowed would limit the amount of carnage one could do.

    But would it not also correspond to a lowering of an ability to defend yourself as well?

    And this is an infringement, yes?
    The effective ban on machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, etc is an infringement.

    It's too late to complain about infringements piece meal. If you're going to complain about an infringement then complain about them ALL!

    The debate should not be about magazine size it should be about the storage and launch controls for privately owned nukes.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    The effective ban on machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, etc is an infringement.

    It's too late to complain about infringements piece meal. If you're going to complain about an infringement then complain about them ALL!

    The debate should not be about magazine size it should be about the storage and launch controls for privately owned nukes.
    +1

    The 2nd amendment says "ARMS" not "SMALL ARMS" (I think we can own nukes too, until the gov't gets rid of theirs)

    But when presenting to a legislative committee, your time is limited .... so I try to focus

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    It has zero effect on my ability to defend my life, and/or limb.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    519
    I would emphatically agree that magazine limits infringe on second amendment rights. But we'll have to find several courts to agree/disagree, then SCOTUS will have to agree. That will kill a couple of years, unfortunately. And of course, there's the chance that the courts won't agree and the mag limits will be permanent.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    "Like most progressive positivistic laws this treats people as machines that just have to put a little extra work in, and it's really no big deal."

    What? No. I'm treating a machine like a machine. People don't need reloading, firearms do.
    You missed the point not sure if it's on purpose or not.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    I would emphatically agree that magazine limits infringe on second amendment rights. But we'll have to find several courts to agree/disagree, then SCOTUS will have to agree. .
    The constitution itself isn't enough? I don't think that I need the decision of 9 people to say that our constitution allows us to defend ourselves .... its nice when they do, but I don't need their approval.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The constitution itself isn't enough? I don't think that I need the decision of 9 people to say that our constitution allows us to defend ourselves .... its nice when they do, but I don't need their approval.
    Affirmation that magazine limits is Constitutional speaks nothing to whether or not you can defend yourself.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Affirmation that magazine limits is Constitutional speaks nothing to whether or not you can defend yourself.
    I think that the opinion may that might be issued (if and if they want to examine the subject-they don't have to).

    The question of if a larger magazine capacity does allow for one to defend him/herself has already been examined by the US Army/DoD/GAO ... surprise! An increase in capacity (even with same # of rounds available) increases the ability to survive.

    These idiots in my state want to limit me to 1 round ... these folks who support this gotta be on some type of prescription drugs IMO. Hey, find your own doctor! lol
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-22-2013 at 02:19 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that the opinion may that might be issued (if and if they want to examine the subject-they don't have to).

    The question of if a larger magazine capacity does allow for one to defend him/herself has already been examined by the US Army/DoD/GAO ... surprise! An increase in capacity (even with same # of rounds available) increases the ability to survive.

    These idiots in my state want to limit me to 1 round ... these folks who support this gotta be on some type of prescription drugs IMO. Hey, find your own doctor! lol
    I only have anecdotal evidence to support a 1 round limit--it only took me one round to stop a perp.

    Magazine limits will have no positive effect on murder perpetrated with a firearm. But I'm not going to act as if having a magazine limit of ten rounds is going to impact my ability to defend myself.--1 round limit will, though.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I only have anecdotal evidence to support a 1 round limit--it only took me one round to stop a perp.

    Magazine limits will have no positive effect on murder perpetrated with a firearm. But I'm not going to act as if having a magazine limit of ten rounds is going to impact my ability to defend myself.--1 round limit will, though.
    The second amendment has nothing to do with stopping a "perp".
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  20. #20
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The second amendment has nothing to do with stopping a "perp".
    I agree. I knew we would agree on something, eventually. It's all about the numbers.

    For years now, I have been reading posts where individuals assert that the Second Amendment has something to do with self-defense against an attacker. The Second Amendment only refers to self-defense against the State. Basically, the Second Amendment is not affirmation to personal nor property defense.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-22-2013 at 02:34 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Magazine limits will have no positive effect on murder perpetrated with a firearm.
    I would agree and I have asked one of my state legislators for evidence and data showing that it would .. I expect a negative response.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It has zero effect on my ability to defend my life, and/or limb.
    Ok, so your a better shot than me. I need 50 or sixty rounds to hit the broad side of a barn at 10 yards. I guess I don't deserve to live?
    I stopped stocking for the zombie apocalypse. I now stock for the liberal apocalypse.

  23. #23
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I agree. I knew we would agree on something, eventually. It's all about the numbers.

    For years now, I have been reading posts where individuals assert that the Second Amendment has something to do with self-defense against an attacker. The Second Amendment only refers to self-defense against the State. Basically, the Second Amendment is not affirmation to personal nor property defense.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    self-defense "against the state" is only part of it...it is also includes the ability to help defend the state.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Lasjayhawk View Post
    Ok, so your a better shot than me. I need 50 or sixty rounds to hit the broad side of a barn at 10 yards. I guess I don't deserve to live?
    Motto of story: never get trained to shoot by the ammo manufacturers lol

  25. #25
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Mag limits infringe on 2nd amendment right to be able to defend yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It has zero effect on my ability to defend my life, and/or limb.
    until you run out of both mags you carry defending against 2 gangstas with 30rd mags...

    yeah yer logic is very sound indeed
    Last edited by PFC HALE; 01-23-2013 at 02:05 AM.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •