Any bullet that travels further or faster than I can do the math for any more I suppose, which I guess is all of them. I used to oppose the teflon ones but so many bad guys armor up these days, I really don't see the justification for banning them. The crest is out of the tube and all that.
Re: Of course not. Where in the world did you get that paranoid delusion? I simply posed a hypothetical question that had to do with the global availability of either 9x19mm ammunition or 10mm ammunition. In other words, IF I only had one handgun during a period of anarchy, I would want it to be in a caliber that is easiest to find. Ruger, at one time, made a single action revolver that would fire .357 Magnum, .38 Special and 9x19mm. I believe that the 9x19mm required a second cylinder. I've got a similar Ruger single action revolver that fires .45 Colt and .45 acp from a different cylinder. Overall, I prefer the .45 acp, am especially fond of the 1911 but keep my HK45 by the bedside table. Re: There was absolutely nothing in any of my comments to you that in any way referred to your financial status. How many rude people close a comment to you with "Thanks,"?
Dude.... it was a joke. The point being I won't be limited to one, that's one of the reasons I own several. The "Rude" didn't give it away? What am I, a valley girl? .45 is good for a nightstand gun with a suppressor on it for sure.
Usually I know when someone is kidding but, these days when people are so easily offended, you never know. No, I don't think that you're an impoverished Vally Girl either May you be blessed with many fine firearms.
Excuse me, but remember when I was telling you about my little clique group in So FL that would go shooting? Each of us had different weapons, from shotguns to 30-06, 9mm to 44 magnums. Mine mainstay was the AR-15. None of the other weapons could hold as many rounds as mine, combined with the firepower and the 7 in 1 twist, I got pretty good at 200 yards targets. So don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about. I was there for the birth of this crazed glorification of the assault rifle. I know what it can do, and all your poo-pooing and rationalization amounts to tired boring cliches. At the very least, a complete ban on the large capacity mags is the least you guys could compromise on, but you do not want to give even one inch. Sooner or later, although sooner is starting to be the direction, the general public and sane gun users will demand to ban these weapons. There is no legitimate reason why civilians need to be able to squeeze off 30 or 100 rounds. Time and time again with these mass shooters, they use the larger mags and because there is no break in the fire being unleashed to load more often, they kill more people. If you really want to play Rambo with these weapons, then join the freaking Army!
We have the National Guard. A bunch of yahoos who call themselves a "militia" is not recognized as anything more than a gun club.
well here is the issue-we compromise to an unconstitutional magazine limit and when it doesn't do squat in reducing crime you will want further limitations. If there is no legitimate reason for someone to have 30 round you will claim the same about 20 or ten. And it's a MORONIC argument because those premeditating violence against honest citizens will have all the ammo they want. Someone breaks into your home at 3 AM in the morning, you aren't going to have time to fill your perhaps non-existent clothes with magazines. If CIVILIAN POLICE use 30 round magazines the governmental unit that employs them are in no position to tell us taxpayers that we have no legitimate use for them since I am an attorney who dealt with constitutional issues-tell me where the constitution draws a line on what limits the government can place on ammunition capacity
they the PEOPLE in the second amendment. the crap that only the militia has second amendment rights has never been recognized by even the most dishonest Supreme court since Dred Scott-the FDR Miller Court
If you think things are so unsafe that you want to ban 100 million honest gun owners from having normal capacity magazines, then things are so bad that every good person ought to be packing a belt fed SAW
You avoided the question. I'll ask it again: If not military weapons, what shall the "well regulated militia" have access to?
This is a pretty pathetic response for someone claiming to be an attorney, but then again, some say we have too many attorneys. What the hell do you mean by "Civilian Police"?
Why would we agree to a useless, unnecessary, and unconstitutional restriction? Compromise? What do you offer us in return?
IMHO, shotguns are the weapon of last resort. Maybe its my years as an artilleryman, but shotguns just don't have the range. I'm prepared to face a threat from an AR-15 wielding bad guy. My M1A can outrange him by hundreds of meters. He won't get close enough to hurt me.
We must have different definitions here. My state and local police have to go through training and are legally responsible each and every time they fire their weapon.. Civilians...not so much, unless you're talking about carrying liability insurance. A million-dollar coverage would definitely be a start in the right direction.
if YES, then good people need to have the best possible arms if NO, then there is no need to infringe on the rights of others it's a no win scenario for the anti rights coalition advocates
except intentional misuse isn't covered. private citizens are less likely to shoot the wrong person than cops. there are lots of reasons for that but guess what-very few police get what I call sufficient firearms training. When I was a professional shooter, I shot more in a week than most cops shoot in a year. In fact I shot more in a year than 500 cops in my home town shot in a year. and that doesn't count the hours of dry firing I did
