Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

pipoman

(16,038 posts)

38. No, I didn't say I believe in a limit,

Reply to arely staircase (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 21, 2012, 11:06 AM

Jul 2012

just that I think 182/183 is reasonable..I think you should be able to limit yourself to 5/6 if that is your reasonable..

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

the second amendment and "arms" [View all] arely staircase Jul 2012 OP

Any body who does not understand that the world we live in today randr Jul 2012 #1

How hard do you think it would be to amend the constitution to prevent individuals owning PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #2

iy isnt necessary arely staircase Jul 2012 #7

What arms were available when the second amendment was ratified? Richard D Jul 2012 #3

That means the First Amendment only applies to the forms of communication that then existed. former9thward Jul 2012 #8

Dang if they didn't screw up the 1st Amendment safeinOhio Jul 2012 #16

There are limits on commercial speech and obscenity as you know. former9thward Jul 2012 #26

not really arely staircase Jul 2012 #13

Exactly right. Zoeisright Jul 2012 #41

Not this tired old arguement again. rl6214 Jul 2012 #4

Why? ethereal1 Jul 2012 #5

"which does not exist" Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #6

That is not the point of ethereal1's post, as I am sure you are aware of. madinmaryland Jul 2012 #10

I get the whole root cause argument Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #12

+1 nt arely staircase Jul 2012 #14

That's all I was commenting about... madinmaryland Jul 2012 #30

Oh man. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #31

... madinmaryland Jul 2012 #34

That's a 'drum magazine' not a 'clip'. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #11

I know. That is a link to my thread where I posted it. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #15

I think in this case even if he had to change magazines several times it wouldn't have PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #27

It's not a 'clip' ethereal1 Jul 2012 #17

it is a clip arely staircase Jul 2012 #20

Incorrect. JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #22

it is in the vernacular arely staircase Jul 2012 #25

If someone uses the phrase "fifty round clip", give them a cookie and send them on their way. Tejas Jul 2012 #33

No... PoliticAverse Jul 2012 #24

do you believe the second arely staircase Jul 2012 #9

Exactly. n/t safeinOhio Jul 2012 #18

^^ This ^^ Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #32

They already do.. pipoman Jul 2012 #35

It's my understanding, that in the language of the period... Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #19

that is arely staircase Jul 2012 #23

Banning 100 round drums is pointless JeepJK556 Jul 2012 #21

Because.... ethereal1 Jul 2012 #28

personally i think 5 is reasonable arely staircase Jul 2012 #29

And I think 182 is reasonable pipoman Jul 2012 #36

so then we both believe in a limit arely staircase Jul 2012 #37

No, I didn't say I believe in a limit, pipoman Jul 2012 #38

so you think there is arely staircase Jul 2012 #39

No, I think there is no limit to magazine capacity pipoman Jul 2012 #40

what is the purpose of a high magazine capacity arely staircase Jul 2012 #42

We don't regulate constitutional rights pipoman Jul 2012 #43

we do indeed arely staircase Jul 2012 #44

When the 'arely staircase' acquaintance pipoman Jul 2012 #45