Preppers and Nutters, the party is over.

Dungheap said:
Assuming a 10 round capacity limit, that's nine separate reloads to get off 100 shots. How many seconds does it take to reload to get off the same number of shots with a 100-round magazine? Also, too, what legitimate purpose is there for a 100-round magazine? Frankly, even assuming a spectacularly marginal benefit to limiting magazine capacity, I don't see any legitimate justification for not doing it.
Click to expand...

Let me give you MY legitimate justification for 100 round magazines.... Because, whenever you and your anti-gun crowd come on my property to take my weapons, I can continue to shoot you in the head without having to reload or stop to change clips. I'm a marksman, which means I can shoot 100 of you in the head before I have to reload. That's a significant difference in time for me, because in the time it takes me to reload, I could have shot maybe 5-10 more of you in the head, and you would no longer pose a threat to my liberty.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't recall saying that, but it is possible. The main reason people want to see limited magazine capacity is (supposedly) so in these mass shooting someone can do something while the lunatic reloads. That is simply not possible. At least not possible due to the reloading, anyway.

Plus it makes me wonder about what they want to accomplish. With a revolver you can kill 6 people. Is it only bad when the numbers get higher?
Click to expand...

i would say numbers matter. wouldn't you?
 
Dungheap said:
So the defense of high-capacity magazines is an extraordinarily improbable event? Not much of a defense in my view.
Click to expand...
i know you anti gunners like judging 'deadly rights' by the odds, but however improbable you find that scenario, it does happen, and i'm sure that AT THAT TIME, that father would LOVE to have high capacity magazines.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm sure it'd be a fucking awesome time to fire off 100 rounds at 100 bottles without reloading, but I was looking for a need for high-capacity magazines, not a list of fun things to do without reloading.
Click to expand...
i'm sure you'd have no problem removing them from the police forces also, right? they don't need high cap mags due to their 'training'. right?
 
WinterBorn said:
Plus it makes me wonder about what they want to accomplish. With a revolver you can kill 6 people. Is it only bad when the numbers get higher?
Click to expand...
it should be obvious. it's to keep us at a disadvantage when dealing with their paid agenda enforcers, because you know they will exempt law enforcement from any prohibitions.
 
Dixie said:
Let me give you MY legitimate justification for 100 round magazines.... Because, whenever you and your anti-gun crowd come on my property to take my weapons, I can continue to shoot you in the head without having to reload or stop to change clips. I'm a marksman, which means I can shoot 100 of you in the head before I have to reload. That's a significant difference in time for me, because in the time it takes me to reload, I could have shot maybe 5-10 more of you in the head, and you would no longer pose a threat to my liberty.
Click to expand...


(1) LOL.

(2) Yikes.

(3) Odds of you being a pants-shitter are exceedingly high.
 
What is a gun nut, some ask. Well, one example is, or rather was, Ms. Lanza. Not only did she enjoy collecting guns and having them in her house when a mentally ill person lived there but took that mentally ill person shooting so she could train him. That is one example of a gun nut or nutter. (I love that word.)

Question: If a person gave a mentally ill individual a gun, which obviously Ms. Lanza did if she took him shooting and trained him, would the person be responsible if the individual killed someone?
 
apple0154 said:
What is a gun nut, some ask. Well, one example is, or rather was, Ms. Lanza. Not only did she enjoy collecting guns and having them in her house when a mentally ill person lived there but took that mentally ill person shooting so she could train him. That is one example of a gun nut or nutter. (I love that word.)

Question: If a person gave a mentally ill individual a gun, which obviously Ms. Lanza did if she took him shooting and trained him, would the person be responsible if the individual killed someone?
Click to expand...

Yes apple. The mom enabled the crime, by providing the guns, ammo and training.

Say, maybe we should ban mothers:palm:
 
Just an FYI, all the people who already own AR-15's will still own them if a new law goes into effect saying that they can't buy hi-cap magazines. It may be that they'll ban certain types of "assault weapon" but the reality is there are less cosmetically dangerous-looking firearms with the same capabilities that will not be banned.

I'll bet with this conversation going on firearms sales have tripled their normal amount... Because what you have before the law passes will still be yours after the law passes.
 
Dungheap said:
(1) I am aware of no Constitutional right to high capacity magazines.

(2) I'm just asking a question. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for a person to require a 100-round magazine other than to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, but I'm having a hard time coming up with one.
Click to expand...

There is also no Constitutional restriction on them either.

There is also no Constitutional requirement that anyone state why they want a firearm or any sixe of a magazine.

Why do you need a car that has the capability of going faster then the speed limit?
Why does anyone need more then 1 TV?
Why do people need homes that have more then 3 bedrooms?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There is also no Constitutional restriction on them either.

There is also no Constitutional requirement that anyone state why they want a firearm or any sixe of a magazine.

Why do you need a car that has the capability of going faster then the speed limit?
Why does anyone need more then 1 TV?
Why do people need homes that have more then 3 bedrooms?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you on the car. However nobody has ever used a TV or a 4 bedroom house as a tool to murder somebody else. I've never seen a multiple murder where the murderer clubbed all the victims with a house or TV.

A car is a more efficient means than even a gun to kill people. Shoot.. a 97 year old man hitting the wrong pedal on accident killed almost as many people as this Newtown killer did, imagine if he'd been trying to kill people.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm sure it'd be a fucking awesome time to fire off 100 rounds at 100 bottles without reloading, but I was looking for a need for high-capacity magazines, not a list of fun things to do without reloading.
Click to expand...

Since when is anyone required to express a "need" for anything that's legal?
 
Dixie said:
Let me give you MY legitimate justification for 100 round magazines.... Because, whenever you and your anti-gun crowd come on my property to take my weapons, I can continue to shoot you in the head without having to reload or stop to change clips. I'm a marksman, which means I can shoot 100 of you in the head before I have to reload. That's a significant difference in time for me, because in the time it takes me to reload, I could have shot maybe 5-10 more of you in the head, and you would no longer pose a threat to my liberty.
Click to expand...

If I call Dixie a gun nut I am not being ironic, do you all see now?
 
Damocles said:
I'd agree with you on the car. However nobody has ever used a TV or a 4 bedroom house as a tool to murder somebody else. I've never seen a multiple murder where the murderer clubbed all the victims with a house or TV.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about the TV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top