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

[RetiredOC]

I feel that this discussion moves away from the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which wasn't for self defense, but more so defense against tyranny via a militia. Self defense seems to be a biproduct of the 2nd Amendment, but not it's intent. You need 30 round magazines, not for gang bangers, but for...well, I don't want to state the obvious. If you happen to find use for them to defend yourself against gang bangers in groups then that is great, but that is just a biproduct of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I said Apparently. I don't have to cite. I can offer an anecdotal response.

OK I get it, fiction again. This is becoming very regular from you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Absolutely not to both questions.

If I can't carry a larger capacity magazine, then that means I don't need a larger capacity gun. That in turn means I can carry a smaller gun. Carrying a smaller gun takes up less space and is lighter, which means I can carry many smaller guns, instead of just the one big gun I was going to carry. Having many smaller guns means that, should one fail or run out of ammo, I have another ready to take its place. I can also shoot with two hands.

So, in essence, a lower capacity magazine has increased my ability to defend myself and has bolstered my 2nd Amendment rights.

Now excuse me while I extricate the firmly placed tongue in my cheek.

:lol:

Really?

Let's assume for a minute--since we don't know for sure--that the Connecticut shooters AR style rifle had a one-round limit. Every time he fired a shot, he had to reload. Would it have had an effect on his ability to murder 26 individuals so quickly? Please say no.

Then I will ask if you could sufficiently defend yourself with a single shot semi-auto (bear with me here, it wouldn't really be a semi-auto, it would be more like a bolt-action), against a person carrying an AR style rifle with a hundred round drum.

 

[WalkingWolf]

For you, my friend...your new single shot pistola: http://www.gunblast.com/FA-2008.htm

So when are you trading your Beretta for one?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

So when are you trading your Beretta for one?

When the Law requires me to.--the same time as you.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

OK I get it, fiction again. This is becoming very regular from you.

My reality isn't real? Wait, it may not be, to you.

 

[WalkingWolf]

My reality isn't real?

Yea I have sorta noticed that. Isn't Obama calling for that type of person to be reported?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Yea I have sorta noticed that. Isn't Obama calling for that type of person to be reported?

Don't worry about that. I reported myself to my therapist, yesterday. Apparently he's doing something about it.

 

[NoTolerance]

Really?

Let's assume for a minute--since we don't know for sure--that the Connecticut shooters AR style rifle had a one-round limit. Every time he fired a shot, he had to reload. Would it have had an effect on his ability to murder 26 individuals so quickly? Please say no.

Then I will ask if you could sufficiently defend yourself with a single shot semi-auto (bear with me here, it wouldn't really be a semi-auto, it would be more like a bolt-action), against a person carrying an AR style rifle with a hundred round drum.

Who said anything about a one-round limit?? The POTUS wants a 10-round limit. NY went with 7. No one has been ridiculous enough to suggest a single round limit (yet).

Smaller Guns = More Guns, right?


I guess I should have used my sarcasm font...

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Who said anything about a one-round limit?? The POTUS wants a 10-round limit. NY went with 7. No one has been ridiculous enough to suggest a single round limit (yet).

Smaller Guns = More Guns, right?
View attachment 9906

I guess I should have used my sarcasm font...

Pst, read previous posts. Pst, Pst, I was using an example.

 

[Aknazer]

Cite please?

"The use of semi-automatic handguns used in crimes is slightly less than the ratio of semi-automatic handguns owned by private citizens. Any increase in style and capacity simply reflects the overall supply of the various types of firearms." - Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

Not that it supports her claim. It's simply the only cite I know of in regards to types of weapons used by criminals. In fact the cite directly works against her claim. Gangbangers use what gangbangers can get, and supply isthe biggest driving factor.

 

[beebobby]

Before you posted your question did you consider the possible answers? Obviously not.

I notice that you have avoided answering the question. Did you not understand the question? I will restate it for you: Were folks incapable of defending themselves before magazine fed rifles were readily available?

 

[WalkingWolf]

I notice that you have avoided answering the question. Did you not understand the question? I will restate it for you: Were folks incapable of defending themselves before magazine fed rifles were readily available?

That is one of the most ignorant questions that could be asked. I assume you mean before the Spencer, and Henry rifles, when a multi round firearm was a revolver. You do know they had magazines correct? Why not ask if folks were capable of defending themselves before the bronze age?

 

[OC for ME]

I guess some folks can't defend themselves without 30 rnd mags. How did they do it before ARs came on the scene?

Original question.

I notice that you have avoided answering the question. Did you not understand the question? I will restate it for you: Were folks incapable of defending themselves before magazine fed rifles were readily available?

You specified "ARs" not "magazines." So, you did not restate the question, you asked a different question. Typical liberal response when a liberal is exposed for who they are, disingenuous, emotional, and anti-liberty.

 

[PFC HALE]

When the Law requires me to.--the same time as you.

but you say this couldnt happen, why are you contradicting yourself?

did you take that deep breath and put the coffee down like i said little lady?

 

[Freedom1Man]

I know, feeding a troll....

I guess some folks can't defend themselves without 30 rnd mags. How did they do it before ARs came on the scene?

For one, the carry of pistols, daggers, and swords was more common at one point in history. The practice of dueling was more common earlier in our history. As for self-defense, the right of self defense is a natural, creator, inalienable, and/or 'god' given right. It does not depend on any laws of man to exist. When the state of the art weapon was a club everyone could use a club, when it was spear, everyone could use a spear, knife, axe, sword, musket, machine gun, etc.
Except for the points of history when tyrants ruled every citizen/free person, could own the state of the art weapons of the time frame for the defense of self, friends, family and kingdom/country/community. How people did so with out our currently modern weapons was because they had the modern weapons of the day, age, and location. Even the Asians learned how to turn farm implements into some of the most well known weapons today, such as nunchucks, sai, and kamas.

Many cultures turned a walking staff and axes into weapons.

The draw back to these was that most of the time you had to be strong and well practiced in using them.

The modern firearm leveled the playing field for defense. A 30+ round magazine allows even a cripple to hold off an angry group of armed maleficence people.

I notice that you have avoided answering the question. Did you not understand the question? I will restate it for you: Were folks incapable of defending themselves before magazine fed rifles were readily available?

Some folks were effectively unable to do just that.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The 1860 Henry rifle had a 16 round magazine, anybody who could afford one was legal to buy it. Probably the only massacres committed with it were in the hands of federal troops.

 

[Red Dawg]

Okay. Baretta lady, bee dude, I have a valid NEED for more than a few rounds in my SD gun. They are called flashmob beatings. Maybe you've heard of them. Where I live right now, pretty low percentage of probability. BUT anywhere that Gangs are, there is a chance of them.
B92Lady, you asked if a revolver is not a good SD weapon. Well, as a matter of fact, it is in my eyes, most of the time. That is my carry gun(s) most of the time. I have 3 of them that I rotate. I also have a Ruger SR9. Sometimes I drive a 4x4 truck, and sometimes I drive a big 4 door 3/4 ton truck. I also drive an old Camaro...Like anything else, it depends on what I'm doing and where I'm going. The key I'm trying to make people understand and see, I do NOT want the government, some dude or chick on the interwebz, or anyone else telling me what the heck I can do or how to protect myself, or anythig else. It's none of your, or anyone's damn business.

Google flashmob beatings....That's all the cite I need to more than a few rounds in my carry gun.

 

[beebobby]

This lady only needed 2 rounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoDNJQtNVoc

 

[beebobby]

Original question.

You specified "ARs" not "magazines." So, you did not restate the question, you asked a different question. Typical liberal response when a liberal is exposed for who they are, disingenuous, emotional, and anti-liberty.

ARs are in the news right now, so I was using them as an example of a magazine fed firearm. Anti-liberty? Meh