By What Right Do You Threaten Our Gun Rights?

A trend that is not going to change any time soon.

Which cannot and will not be done, thus making the entire premise of the argument a non-starter

A great many firearms that were in regular production in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and not in production now, command very high prices among collectors and enthusiasts. Why would that trend not continue with modern firearms?

And pray tell what exactly is the right thing?

 

To move away from violence in all its forms.

 

How though? Violence takes many forms, some less obvious than others. According to advocates against domestic violence, name calling and not being emotionally supportive amounts to acts of domestic violence, no different from acts of physical violence.

- - - Updated - - -

So if someone who owns a firearm murders their entire family, they are not taking away the rights of other people? Their families simply do not count?

Rights do not exist between private citizens. Rights only apply and exist in the context of government overreach of authority.

 

And our AWB didn't do squat to curb our crime and you had ten mass shootings since your ban.

 

Did the Orlando shooter have a reasonable magazine size? He shot more than 100 people in a matter of minutes. That to me is an example of a magazine way too big. The logic is that he would run out of bullets and have to reload. Could he carry extra clips? Sure, but while reloading that could have bought the off duty cop or someone with a concealed weapon enough time to maybe take him down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not a clip, it is a Magazine, a clip is a completely different item, a stripper clip is a tool used to load Magazines,
an M-1 Garand does not use Magazines, it uses stamped sheet metal clips.

 

Thanks for clarification. I've shot maybe half a dozen different guns and am at least familiar enough to load and not shoot myself in the foot and hit the target, but am far from an expert haha.

My dad has an AR-15 which is fine with me. He however doesn't have anything that would allow him to fire off that many rounds at one time. Just a regular clip size. Why do non-mass shooters use and need access to large clips that hold dozens and dozens of rounds? Why is that a piece pro gun people say they refuse to give up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Colorado killer tried to use a drum that made the weapon malfunction. I"m a IMHO very good amateur rifle builder. Mags have specifications so they work. Things like capacity, spring tension, follower design, shape, all come into play. From an engineering standpoint as well as ergonomics, for semi and fully auto rifles, a 20 to 40 round magazine capacity has been typical for almost a century. Therefore a regular sized "clip" ( really a magazine is 30 round device)

 

Clarification time, an AR-15 uses a detachable Magazine, some rifles and pistols have fixed or non detachable Magazines that load from the top of the gun when the bolt is locked open, by means of stripper clips.

I used 75 round drums on AK style rifles, for me, it was more of a conservation piece, it worked well enough, but made the rifle cumbersome and bulky, I preferred regular 30 round Magazines.

 

A regular magazine size for the AR-15 is 30 rounds.

- - - Updated - - -

I reject your premise. The proposals you are making now will not save lives, and the lives saved by disarming all civilians-- like you really want-- are not worth the price of a fundamental human right.

- - - Updated - - -

State-sponsored violence kills many, many more people than criminal violence. You never hear any of these "pacifist" Democrats suggesting we disarm the police or the military.

 

The Orlando Terrorist re loaded many times. He had time to talk on the phone, check his face book account, call the local news, hell, he could have had a single shot bolt action gun and still had time to kill as many as he did. He was there for 3 hours.

 

AHHH Nirvana, now back to reality.

 

They don't even have to reload......What if they have multiple weapons and do an old fashion New York Reload.

 

Force is used to fund these things. In the cases of the last 2 force is used to enFORCE them.

You defeat your own argument. Impounding is enFORCEd if resisted. Just goes to show how liberty is an all or nothing deal. Once we let them start titling cars & issuing drivers licenses we opened the door to them doing the same with guns & gun owners. If you accept govt titling & licensing in one area you don't have a leg to stand on trying to oppose it in another. Let's help clear things up by ending titling of cars & licensing of drivers. This is best achieved by getting the govt out of the road business completely. You should support this unless you like the part of the Communist Manifesto that reads "Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State"

The same principle holds for gun confiscation. If you accept that the govt can confiscate your money (they like to call their theft taxation) you don't have a leg to stand on when they come to confiscate your guns. You've already agreed that they can confiscate things from you. The answer is to end taxation.

 

Standard AR-15 magazine capacity is thirty rounds.

Can you provide a reason why private citizens do not have any legitimate reason for owning a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition?

How was it determined that ten rounds was the maximum allowable amount of ammunition that a magazine should hold? What was the methodology used to arrive at this conclusion?

 

Your new god is going to be the EU shadow government.

I'd be more worried about that than the guns in the US.

 

Pretty much because they don't have rights anymore.

Their EU shadow government is ruling them from behind a curtain. Their "elected" parliament to the EU cannot propose law, modify law, or enact law. They literally have no function or control over their government. They don't even know who RUNS the EU.

Then they come here and fret over our guns. It's positively Kafkaesque.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't attack Brazil because they know what the Brazilians would do to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah another leftist proving, yet again, that the most bloodthirsty people on the planet are in their own mirrors based on this argument.

 

Muslim fundamentalists are as outraged as fundamentalist Christians at Brazilian antics during Carnval yet they don't attack them. I have no idea what think the Brazilian military would do to them that the US military has or can do to them. They don't attack Brazil because Brazil doesn't attack them.

 

I'll fix this for you VMan12

I would have no issue with anti gun nuts if when the guns of criminals were used to kill them while they waited on their almighty savior to protect them...As long as they let the rest of us who rely on ourselves alone.

I have an issue with anti gun nuts taking away the rights of law abiding gun owners who don't bother anyone.

When anti gun nuts get killed or their families get killed waiting on the government to come and help them, like the anti gun nutter woman who was attacked and raped and murdered waiting on the government officials after calling 911 ...I think that's fine. Its not a tragedy, its just Darwinism.

 

What they would do is torture the crap out of them, then hunt down any remaining family members and probably off them too.

You have to remember that Brazilian police forces combat drug lords, kidnapping, etc on a daily basis....they're not known for their usage of kids gloves.

I'd suggest you go look at the Brazilian police's reputation.

 

The US doesn't torture, no.

 

What we do is play patty-cake with them compared to what the Brazilians will do.

 

Lol, we played patty-cake with them, only I used a Baker's Rolling pin, POW POW POW !

Patty cake, patty cake, baker's man.
Bake me a cake as fast as you can;
Roll it up, roll it up;
And throw it in a pan!
Patty cake, patty cake, baker's man.

Patty-cake Patty-cake Baker's man, POW POW POW !