"Why do you need 10 bullets"

those of us who understand the issue understand this

1) under the stress of a gun fight-even good shots can miss

2) some attackers can take several well placed shots and still kill you. If you are facing more than one or two such adversaries, ten rounds might not be enough

 

He generally destroys the nonsense you post.It is a smart move to disengage with an opponent that always bests you.

 

hunting is irrelevant
andI have reviewed enough shooting to understand that there is no guarantee in a gun fight and handicapping yourself is moronic

 

Sure he does; his ramblings, like many here, are just to get attention.

 

If you’ve read my posts carefully, you’d see that I view mag restrictions the same way I view firearm ownership in general.
Regulation and licensing.

 

are you able to predict how many people might decide to invade your home and whether or not they are on narcotics or wearing body armor?

of course you cannot so it is idiotic for you to say what number of rounds someone needs in order to deal with all potential threats

tell us what is the harm in allowing someone who can legally own firearms from having more than ten rounds

that is where this stupid argument always fails

 

the only trolling I see on this thread is not from him. He supports his arguments with logic and rational deductions. He isn't self contradictory

 

You want to arm them.

 

yes you don't believe in a constitutional right but you cannot explain why criminals are going to be impeded by the stupid restrictions you want to impose on citizens with clean records

 

Logic....that’s laughable when science is the only worthwhile alternative.

 

really? where have I said that? you're the one who wants to harass honest people and pretend it will stop those who already are committing felonies by possessing firearms

 

You don’t seem to be aware of the constitution. Neither are you informed what the constitution allows. It’s called the Supreme Court. We regulate all your rights....always have. Because none is absolute.

 

Felons are not honest people. Do you agree that none of your rights are absolute ?

 

I believe that our federal government should be limited to the powers that were properly given to it. You statists are always trying to limit the rights of others while I believe that the default position should be freedom.

 

I taught constitutional law: how about you.

 

so why do you think ex-felons should not be able to protect their homes and families with a gun?

I think owning a gun is a right, not a privilege

I think everyone should be able to own a gun, everyone should be able to own more than 10 bullets - why don't you?

 

thank you for confirming what I said, fact is, even many cop shoot outs I have seen miss a lot

even people that are good on the range many be bad under the adrenaline of the situation

if everyone was a great shot, 10 bullets, ten dead

 

I don't think people in prisons etc ought to have guns and I think some people forfeit some constitutional rights due to engaging in violent felonies and so forth. There are several fundamental rights people lose after being convicted of felonies.

 

we are not talking about people in prison, were talking about free people

people in prison are like children, their parents decide for them

I believe people are punished during sentencing, you want longer punishments, that is the place that should happen

you don't take free peoples rights away - or they cease to be rights, they become privileges

but why do you feel an ex-felon can defend their homes and families without 10 bullets, but you can't do the same

 

When I was teaching part of a LFI class many years ago-Mas Ayoob talked about a case he had reviewed. Now that was over thirty years ago so my memory is not perfect but it went like this

Compton area of California- Deputies were in pursuit of a felon who was packing one of the old Browning 32 semi autos that had been the standard police gun in Europe at one time. Deputies were armed with SW Model 19s, with 125 grain JHP 357 rounds and one had a shotgun. Felon starts engaging the deputies. He clips one deputy in the leg but the deputy hits him with most of his 6 shots. The felon reloads and shoots at some other deputies, I think he winged one but got shot several more times, and the guy with the shotgun hit him twice. He reloads again, and one of the slightly wounded deputies-who has reloaded-shoots at him 6 more times, hitting him with almost every round in the chest. Felon drops the browning and says I've had enough" he dies on the way to the hospital

 

so you completely oppose any of the restrictions in the federal Gun control law of 68 (18 USC 922)

Now there is a good argument that the federal government didn't properly have that power even with the dubious expansion of the commerce clause

so in your opinion

Felons
fugitives
those under felony indictment
those with domestic violence misdemeanor records
those dishonorably discharged
those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent
those in this country illegally and those who have renounced their citizenship
and those who are addicted to narcotics

should be able to own firearms? do you think a state has the proper power to deny such individuals firearms?

 

yep, head shots are more deadly than body shots, body shots depends where you hit - 6 shots to the head he would not of died on the way to the hospital

 

do you know how police and armed private citizens and the military are taught how to shoot defensively?

 

nope, what is it you do not get about ex-felon? done their time, is a free person like you or I (and I do not mean on probation or parole, I mean done their sentance)

Felons
fugitives - for what? a parking ticket, the crime is the crime they committed, not owning a gun
those under felony indictment - nope, they can lose their rights as a condition of parole
those with domestic violence misdemeanor records - yep, after they serve their time
those dishonorably discharged - yep, after they serve their time
those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent - if they are sane enough to be free, yes, if not no
those in this country illegally and those who have renounced their citizenship - nope, they are American rights, not illegals rights
and those who are addicted to narcotics - like drinking and driving, drinking and gunning should be a crime too - but they can own a gun after they do their time

why do you think others can protect their homes and families without a gun, but you can't?

I think every free American has the right to own a gun - I think it can be a crime to misuse a gun, but not a crime to own one

 

nope, and that is irrelevant, we are talking about normal day Americans needing more than 10 bullets

the fact is most could not shoot 10 head shots in a row, most would shoot for the bigger chest area

cops can carry ar-15's in their trunk, don't care - they are there for our protection, it's their job

now cops can make mistakes too, some cops should not own guns, but this cop legally still could