Magazine ban being considered ACT NOW

[Fullsizexj]

better write quick, they sneeked this bill in yesterday trying to ban magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/dems..._in_the_house/

make calls, write letters....now you hunters, sportsmen, collectors, target shooters and everyone else is a target.
figure out where your line in the sand is.
easy qiuck way to contact our so called leaders
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML

 

[Fullsizexj]

we have to act now, it is already in the House

 

[superdave]

I have a serious question. I am all for gun owners and proper gun usage. I think most gun control laws are just silly. Here's my question: why do you need that many rounds? If you are hunting you can reload when you need to. If you have that much game in front of you that you need a 10+ round magazine, where do you hunt cause I wanna come too.

 

[mako my day]

I use 16-18 round mags for my pistols for competitions. Speed shooter stuff.

 

[blenny]

Here's my question: why do you need that many rounds?

Why do you need more than 150hp in a car?
Why do you need a more than 600 square foot house?
Why do you need a jeep?
Why do you need a smartphone?
Why does your wife need 10 pairs of black shoes?
We don't need any of these thing, we want them, and it is our right to work for them.

 

[DrMoab]

Why do you need more than 150hp in a car?
Why do you need a more than 600 square foot house?
Why do you need a jeep?
Why do you need a smartphone?
Why does your wife need 10 pairs of black shoes?
We don't need any of these thing, we want them, and it is our right to work for them.

This!!!! Why should millions of us lose the right to own something because one or two people out of 350 million or so use them for harm?

 

[Fullsizexj]

Most handguns come original with a larger capacity magazine, why ? because there was room in the handle to do it. The second amendment did not put any stipulation on what kind of fire arm we could own. The goverment does not have any right to change it's original intent . These laws they are trying to impose will not do single thing to stop someone who is going to break that law. They have redifined their description of what an assult weapon is so that they can remove as many legal sporting guns from us as posible. The goverment has 2 definitions of what an assualt weapon. One the military uses which is a selectable fire weapon. And then one for us. Kind of 2 faced in my pinion since the military is a goverment idenity. They should not be allowed to redifine it for whatever purose they have in mind on a whim. Either it is one or the other.

 

[Beezil]

I have a serious question. I am all for gun owners and proper gun usage. I think most gun control laws are just silly. Here's my question: why do you need that many rounds? If you are hunting you can reload when you need to. If you have that much game in front of you that you need a 10+ round magazine, where do you hunt cause I wanna come too.

first off:

the second ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting....NOTHING.


secondly:

the problem with anti-gun leftisits, is they think they can legislate against evil.

i think most gun owners would be in favor of new legislation that had any hope of being effective.

you are simply not going to reduce the potential for evil by limiting the number of bullets that can fit into a magazine.

you said it yourself: "you can reload when you need to"

what is this infatuation amoungst anti-gun leftists with 10 rounds?

why is a ten round magazine any less dangerous than one with 12 rounds?

who decided that 10 rounds is sufficient?

who decided that somehow a 30 round magazine is more dangerous than carrying a quantity of three, 10-round magazines?

an evil being can just effectively send as many rounds of ammo as they wish no matter what the configuation.

the legislation is useless, won't do a thing to stop what evil likes to do best.

connecticut is one of the most restrictive states int he union. especially as it pertains to military-patterned semi-automatic rifles. there were dozens, if not SEVERAL dozens of laws and ordinances ALREADY ON THE BOOKS that were broken.

That is why gun owners are overwhelmingly in opposition of any new laws or restrictions, because quite simply, they don't work.

 

[Beezil]

Most handguns come original with a larger capacity magazine, why ? because there was room in the handle to do it. The second amendment did not put any stipulation on what kind of fire arm we could own. The goverment does not have any right to change it's original intent . These laws they are trying to impose will not do single thing to stop someone who is going to break that law. They have redifined their description of what an assult weapon is so that they can remove as many legal sporting guns from us as posible. The goverment has 2 definitions of what an assualt weapon. One the military uses which is a selectable fire weapon. And then one for us. Kind of 2 faced in my pinion since the military is a goverment idenity. They should not be allowed to redifine it for whatever purose they have in mind on a whim. Either it is one or the other.

for whatever it's worth, i own an AR-15. But it is NOT an "assault weapon".

It is a "military-patterned, semi-automatic rifle"

To your point, the AR-15 available for law enforcement and the military is a "military issued, select-fire rifle". It is an "assault rifle" when used in military or law-enforcement action.

Do you know what Thomas Jefferson's favorite "assault weapon" was?

it's obvious......it was the musket.

"assault rifle" is a made-up word loved by the anti-gun leftists and media.

It's a Saul Alinski tactic, and they've really ratcheted up the word play ever since Clinton.

Take a word, any word, usually words with color and emphasis....extract it from it's traditional, dictionary definition and give it a brand new POLITICAL definition.

Don't do it.

don't use the new language.

You gun-owners out there....you don't own "weapons" you own "firearms"

you own "rifles" and "carbines" they are not "assault" or even this new stupid made-up term..."semi-assault" can anyone tell me what this is?

it's word play to change the popularly understood definition of the mechanical function of a "semi-automatic" firearm to suggest that there is evil intent in simply owning one.

don't do it.

don't use their definitions, or their words.

 

[Fullsizexj]

for whatever it's worth, i own an AR-15. But it is NOT an "assault weapon".

It is a "military-patterned, semi-automatic rifle"

To your point, the AR-15 available for law enforcement and the military is a "military issued, select-fire rifle". It is an "assault rifle" when used in military or law-enforcement action.

Do you know what Thomas Jefferson's favorite "assault weapon" was?

it's obvious......it was the musket.

"assault rifle" is a made-up word loved by the anti-gun leftists and media.

It's a Saul Alinski tactic, and they've really ratcheted up the word play ever since Clinton.

Take a word, any word, usually words with color and emphasis....extract it from it's traditional, dictionary definition and give it a brand new POLITICAL definition.

Don't do it.

don't use the new language.

You gun-owners out there....you don't own "weapons" you own "firearms"

you own "rifles" and "carbines" they are not "assault" or even this new stupid made-up term..."semi-assault" can anyone tell me what this is?

it's word play to change the popularly understood definition of the mechanical function of a "semi-automatic" firearm to suggest that there is evil intent in simply owning one.

don't do it.

don't use their definitions, or their words.

This was my point, they label it in such a way to gain as much support from the ignorant in these matters. Assault conjurs up fear and that is what they want. The media does the same, notice you do not find anything about this bill they are trying to sneak by in the news right now

 

[XJEEPER]

There is no proof that a single gun regulation has reduced violent crime or murder in the US, however there are plenty of statistics which prove that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a concealed firearm, violent crimes in that area/state decrease dramatically.

 

[DrMoab]

There is no proof that a single gun regulation has reduced violent crime or murder in the US, however there are plenty of statistics which prove that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a concealed firearm, violent crimes in that area/state decrease dramatically.

The whole gun debate doesn't have anything to do with facts or statistics. It's all about feeling and emotion.

 

[JohnX]

I feel lonely, gonna go cuddle my .40.

 

[Lurch]

They sell mags with more than 10 rounds?:roflmao:

 

[urban yan]

There is no proof that a single gun regulation has reduced violent crime or murder in the US, however there are plenty of statistics which prove that when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry a concealed firearm, violent crimes in that area/state decrease dramatically.

There's a reason there's no counter research to that fact:
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

[mako my day]

In ca it is illegal to buy, sell, distribute, make, or import mags that hold more than 10 rounds.

It is not illegal to own or use mags that hold more than 10.

It is on the burden of the state to figure out if your mags are illegal.

 

[Beezil]

gun laws don't work.

proof?

chicago.

 

[JohnX]

There's a reason there's no counter research to that fact:
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Wow, what a surprise that you would post a link to a very slanted article. Its very easy to find "proof" on the internet for whatever you side may be.

 

[jeepdreamer]

Relax everyone...
Obummer has figured out how to solve the nations economic issues. He will tell his cronies in the media to drum up as much horror related to gun use then get the ball rolling to have all firearms banned and outlawed. So many will rush to try and purchase before it happens that the economy will be right as the rain in no time....

or not.?.

All I know is I may have enough mags squirreled away that if I sold them at the current jacked up prices I could probably fund a complete Jeep build!

 

[IslanderOffRoad]

We don't need any of these thing, we want them, and it is our right to work for them.

I don't support the magazine ban, but this argument could be used to justify why everything the government has banned should be allowed.


Oh wait, I think we should probably allow all that stuff too.