Practical firearms discussion: size and weight considerations

The wall didn't keep them out?

 

Funny joke. Maybe the families of all the dead who died from terrorist attacks on our soil will laugh.

Idiot

 

He's totally an expert. So its cool.

 

ISIS has invaded and killed people here?

 

Do you pack while on your computer?

 

I don't sell drugs nor hang out in bikers bars.

 

But you worry about being "the first target taken out"? Why is that?

 

Because if you understood anything about criminals with firearms intending to cause carnage, which you clearly do not, you would understand their first target is those who they can see as being armed, security guards SRO's, LAO's etc..

Once those sheepdogs are taken out, the sheep are next.

 

I asked you why on earth would you think you'd be somewhere where someone was checking out who was armed so they could target them first? Isn't that a tad paranoid?

 

t's not being paranoid at all, why?

Because shootings happen and being prepared to respond, versus being a first target, may very well tip the table in the favor of the innocents.

Is it really that hard for you to understand something so simple?

 

Oh I understand, I understand all too well, but it's hard for me to understand how you could let your head get there while in Florida, USA? Wow. Do yourself a favor, don't ever go anywhere where it really is dangerous.

 

Is such is indeed done, is there a particular problem with such? Is there an overriding reason for which a private citizen must limit themselves to only so much ammunition on their person, with only so much per each magazine they may choose to carry? What is the reason for which they should be required to engage in such a course of action, rather than free to make the determination for themselves?

 

It is private citizens who initially encounter violent criminals before law enforcement officers ever arrive on the scene.

 

Which does not actually mean anything of substance. One cannot use averages for determining the scope of second amendment protections, or attempting to construct a one-size-fits-all policy to apply to entire population of the united states, regarding magazine capacity. Such is ultimately a decision that must come down to the individual, not government.

 

If it is not the amount of ammunition being carried that is being objected to, then there is no rational or logical reason to object to the capacity of the magazines, if all other factors are equal.

 

Usually. Meaning it is being admitted to on the part of yourself that there are indeed circumstances and situations where someone having to change an empty magazine puts them at a significant risk of harm at that particular moment in time.

 

Rarely, but possible? Sure. If you've emptied, say, a 10 round magazine, and you still have problems, then you got big problems.

 

What if it's just a five round magazine?

 

And since such situations are possibilities, they must realistically be considered as being probabilities. Meaning policies should not regard such incidents as being too rare to give consideration to.

Which is all the more reason that mandatory magazine capacity limitations are devoid of a sound basis in law.

 

A State Trooper here in Mass, on Rt. 495, put 18 rounds of .357 in a 400lb perp, and he was still a threat. Still shooting back. But how rare is that? 5 rounds, of a decent caliber, should be enough to get you out of trouble, and if you need to reload so fast you might not make it, that would be very very rare.

 

And yet when it comes to matters of law, the rarities are treated as if they are the norm.

 

I'm not willing to take that chance.

 

Well, I agree that you should have the choice. If you qualify to CC you should be considered responsible enough to make choices like that.

 

I notice you avoided answering the question directly.

 

Not always the case. You know this but it clearly didn’t stop you from being disingenuous.