What should the limit on magazine capacity be?

[FeebMaster]

Well it looks like the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) will soon sunset and with it the magazine ban. After that I guess it will be time to start working on a new ban. What should the new limit on magazine capacity be?





Note: This poll is a blatant dupe of a poll in the dungeon (J/PS). There was some concern that the results up here in GD would be different. So we'll see or the admin can lock it or whatever.

Here's a link to the original: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=73555&mesg_id=73555

[lazarus]

1. a lot fewer ads

I think a magazine should be restriced to fewer than 25% ads, and none of those stupid cards that fall in my lap when I open them.

What?

Oh.

Never mind.

[FeebMaster]

4. If you restrict ad capacity the subscription price will probably

go up, just like the magazine ban for guns.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

27. As many as you can read and the rest to doctor's waiting rooms. n/t

[PVnRT]

32. If you outlaw advertisements

Only outlaws will advertise, and then we can string them up in public square.

[AngryAmish]

63. Ever see ladies' fashion magazines?

Some of those things are huge. Glad I don't have to carry those around.

[FatSlob]

69. Amused. Good post.

I do hate those damn insert cards.

[NoPasaran]

86. No limit on magazine size

But a total ban on those stupid cards!

[Swamp Rat]

2. Wrong forum for this post. It belongs in "Justice/Public Safety"

[FeebMaster]

3. Thanks for the input.

Way to read the first post, by the way.

[Swamp Rat]

OK, you want "input?"

Melt all the assault weapons into one, giant steel ball. On this steel monolith, etch every name of every child that has died at the hands irresponsible of gun nuts.

I read the post. It BELONGS in "Justice/Public Safety."

[FeebMaster]

9. We're not talking about assault weapons.

"Melt all the assault weapons into one, giant steel ball. On this steel monolith, etch every name of every child that has died at the hands irresponsible of gun nuts."

We're talking about magazine capacity. Just how many children have died at the hands of irresponsible gun nuts anyway? You make it sound like an epidemic.


"I read the post. It BELONGS in "Justice/Public Safety.""

If you had read the first post you'd know that this poll is in J/PS and there was some concern among some posters that the results there aren't representative of DU.

[Swamp Rat]

15. It IS a goddamn epidemic! And this BELONGS in "Justice/Public Safety."

"We're talking about magazine capacity." :crazy: SO WHAT! Stop playing games!

Go count bullets in "Justice/Public Safety."

[FeebMaster]

22. What games?

"We're talking about magazine capacity." :crazy: SO WHAT! Stop playing games!

Go count bullets in "Justice/Public Safety."

How is it an epidemic? There are less than 1000 total accidental firearms deaths per year in the US, adults and children combined.

[Swamp Rat]

26. "accidental" Pffft!

Please return this topic to where it belongs: "Justice/Public Safety," PLEASE.

Posts like this bump really good posts off the front page in GD. No, I'm not saying that your post is bad, but I am concerned about GD getting jammed up with posts that already have their respective forums.

[FeebMaster]

30. Well if you'd like to include murders as well

that's less than 1500 more per year if you count everyone up to 18 years old, 1261 in 2001 to be exact. You were saying something about an epidemic?

[Swamp Rat]

39. So you don't like the word "epidemic?"

Fine, we'll call it a serious, widespread '"problem" then. I'd consider it dilusional to think we don't have a gun problem in the USA. "1261 in 2001 to be exact"... dude that's a lot of dead people. How many does it take for you to consider it a "problem?"

See, I knew this would turn into a flame bait thread. This topic belongs in "Justice/Public Safety."

[FeebMaster]

44. Where are the flames?

It's unfortunate that 1261 people 18 and under were murdered in 2001 and another 656 shot themselves and another 154 died after being shot accidentally, but I don't see it as a serious problem. If I had to guess, I'd say the vast majority of those murders were directly related to the war on drugs. As for suicides, they're unfortunate, but we're talking about 656 people in a country of hundreds of millions of people. more people 18 and under die of heart disease. Is there a heart disease epidemic for people under 18? The accidental deaths, 154 in 2001, are also unfortunate but by no means epidemic. In 2001, 154 people 18 and under also fell to their deaths and 326 were accidentally poisoned. You don't even want to look at accidental drownings and car accidents and malignant neoplasms.


"See, I knew this would turn into a flame bait thread. This topic belongs in "Justice/Public Safety.""

I don't see the flames. As I mentioned, this thread is a dupe of one in J/PS. If the location bothers you, by all means, take it up with the management.

[skippythwndrdog]

76. Define "really good posts" for me.

Evidently (as of this writing) 64% of those voluntarily sampling on this topic are in favor of 2A rights. Given that majority, I think it's a "really good post".

[PVnRT]

33. You know

if you can't discuss it rationally, why do you bother, other than to give yourself a feeling of self-righteousness?

[Swamp Rat]

40. OK, so you are calling me self-righteous. Good for you.

Tell me IAmJacksSmirkingRevenge, what is irrational about suggesting that this topic belongs in "Justice/Public Safety?"

[PVnRT]

54. Hmmmm

Can't seem to find where I said "irrational," could you point it out to me?

God forbid we should open this topic up for discussion out of that forum every once in a while. Especially since you'll find out that not everyone agrees with your stance of "Let's destroy all guns!"

[library_max]

55. Post 33: "If you can't discuss it rationally, . . . " /nt

[Swamp Rat]

57. Thank you.

What does "n/t" mean? I've been wondering for quite a while... thanks in advance.

[iverglas]

59. "no text"

I was used to that one (and "nm", "no message"), but I had to ask about "eom" (empty of message?).

Code for "don't bother clicking". Just think, we could use it to post secret messages that nobody else would read ...

[Swamp Rat]

56. You are picking a fight with me, aren't you?

"You know if you can't discuss it rationally, why do you bother, other than to give yourself a feeling of self-righteousness?"

Wanna play word games and insult me?

"Especially since you'll find out that not everyone agrees with your stance of "Let's destroy all guns!""

Horse pucky! I did NOT say that at all. And don't bring "God" into this, because you stepped in it all by yourself. Show me where I said: "Let's destroy all guns!"

C'mon buddy, you picked this fight. Where did I say it?

[slackmaster]

64. You're welcome to not read the thread, Swamp_Rat

This was posted in GD in response to a specific challenge from another contributor.

[Swamp Rat]

90. To be polite I always respond to folks.

But your post makes no sense to me. Are you genuinely concerned about me? Are you concerned that I don't understand what this thread is about? Did you read ALL of my posts on this thread before you told me what to do?

There is a rational reason why I suggested this thread belongs elsewhere. OK, so a few of you disagree and apparently the moderators don't mind either. Fine. Perhaps this is a very important experiment to "test" DUers in GD about how many bullets we should be able to have in our guns. Keep it kicked for as long as you like then.

peace brother :)

[library_max]

13. Swamp_Rat,

Feeb was bragging in JPS about the seventy-something percent in favor of no magazine restrictions in response to his poll. He said that that reflected DU opinion, and I pointed out that there is a difference between JPS, where the gun "enthusiasts" hang out, and DU in general. I suggested that he bring his poll here, just to see how his contention held up that there is no difference.

While you were here, I sure hope you voted.

[Swamp Rat]

24. OK, you suggested it. Fine.

I was just pointing out that DU already provides an appropriate forum, that's all. Maybe there is a point to this, and perhaps I have helped in some way.

No, I didn't vote in the poll. I am criticizing the fact that it was put in GD, for WHATEVER reason. I do this when people post religious flame bait in GD too (not calling this flame bait... but I am already feeling the heat).

There's a good reason for my complaint concerning this and other posts like it. Too many good GD posts get bumped off the first page by posts that belong in other forums. This, in turn, leads to LOTS of dupes.

[library_max]

36. I'm going to take a wild guess that you are pro-gun-control, like me.

So why do you want the gun "enthusiasts" to be the only ones to have a say about gun laws?

[Swamp Rat]

38. See #28

At your suggestion, I took the poll. But I still think this topic doesn't belong here... and I am still taking heat for my suggestion.

You are absolutely right, though, gun "enthusiasts" should NOT be the only ones to have a say about gun laws. I certianly do not give up my say in this matter. Too many people have guns that have no business owning them. I am from a long line of ranchers (gun owners and gun makers) from the Southwest who share this opinion.

[MrBenchley]

49. It WAS in J/PS, where it sickened the decent folks....

This is a guy who has argued that loonies ought to have their own ICBMs...his main schtick is pretending that common sense doesn't exist.

[skippythwndrdog]

92. Odd. It didn't sicken me - and I'm a decent fellow

or so I've been told by a numbers of people out here in the real world and several online.

Because another's point of view differs from yours is not cause to refer to them, even in such a backhanded nammer as this, as something less than decent.

I have to admit, your game is predictable.

[library_max]

5. Didn't lock it fast enough, apparently.

"No limits" is already a minority view.

[skippythwndrdog]

8. Fast enough for what?

To avoid accurate results? As I write this, there are 10 total votes cast, with 5 for now restrictions. Since when is 50% of the "vote" a minority outside of Florida?

[library_max]

14. It was 40% when I wrote that.

It's 45% now. Those are both minorities, even in Florida.

[skippythwndrdog]

21. 56% in favor at this time.

Let's wait and see the end results or we'll be trading punch(line)s all night.

[skippythwndrdog]

12. Darn! Now it's 6 for no restrictions and 6 spread over other choices!

Guess it's still a 50% minority.

[jmowreader]

6. There needs to be two kinds of magazine

The "hunting" magazine and the "sports" magazine.

A hunting magazine holds five rounds.

(Right now you're thinking no one needs to hunt with an AK-47. True...but the HK-91 and the FN FAL, both .308 Winchester caliber, are real nice hunting rifles, and both have detachable magazines.)

A sports magazine holds as many rounds as you want it to hold. Some people like to participate in shooting games, where they'll set up targets along a lane and "assault" them like they used to do in the army. This is what the sports magazine is for.

If you have a sports magazine in your rifle while you are hunting, you will be in deep shit. You can have a hunting magazine in while you're playing soldier, no problem, but not the other way around.

I know it's impolitic to say it here, but military-style weapons are fun to shoot.

[FeebMaster]

7. I'm pretty sure that it already works that way

for hunting I mean, although it's done at the state level as opposed to the federal level. I'm not a hunter, so I couldn't tell you the requirements in my state, let alone others, but there are definitely regulations in place regulating magazine capacity for hunting.

[jmowreader]

19. The AWB bans production of mags that hold more than five rounds

You can still buy them, just not new.

So let's say you're a sports shooter. You go out every weekend and assault lanes, you shoot up bowling pins and generally have a pretty good time at it. And you're winning contests.

Unfortunately for you, you made the dumbest mistake a sports shooter can ever make: you chose the AR-15, which has a shitty follower spring in its magazine, and the magazine is made of thin metal which bends when you hit the dirt. Which you did, twice, and bent the fuck out of your last two magazines.

If it weren't for the AWB, you could buy NEW magazines, ones that hadn't been to Somalia in the ammo pouch of a grunt from the Triple Deuce. But no, you have to buy old fucked-up ones that are worse than the ones you destroyed.

The hunting mag/sports mag thing would allow production of these magazines.

[FeebMaster]

23. It's 10 rounds for the current ban

and you're quite right, the old magazines are still available if somewhat more expensive. It looks like it will be gone September 14th.

[skippythwndrdog]

10. Most states already restrict hunting mag capacity to 5 rounds.

Granted, it's not a popular view on DU, but I think sporting (read T-A-R-G-E-T) magazines need no limits. Hey! I just ordered 2, 75 round pre-bans today!

[library_max]

17. What about the shooting-up-a-post-office magazine?

How many rounds should it be able to hold? How about the drive-by shooting magazine?

[slackmaster]

66. For one who complains about other people posting biased questions

e.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife - Yes or no?" this one's a doozie.

[library_max]

72. Whereas it's perfectly ethical to pretend

that nobody ever uses a gun for anything except to hunt or shoot paper targets.

But at least I didn't demand in post after post that somebody answer it. It was a rhetorical question. You don't demand that people answer those.

[FeebMaster]

79. No one has made that claim. (nt)

[jmowreader]

104. Someone can shoot up a post office just fine...

with a five-round magazine. Or a ten-round mag.

The problem with this question is that no one who would shoot up a post office or take part in a drive-by shooting, both of which are banned by current laws, would worry about the law against large magazines.

One solution to this problem would be to legalize marijuana, then pardon all the non-violent marijuana offenders, so that we'd have enough prison space to hold the people who violate the laws against drive-by shootings and shooting up post offices.

[slackmaster]

65. That's how it is in California

To paraphrase the gun store dude in South Park, we have limited-capacity magazines for hunting and larger magazines for "other".

:D

[bemildred]

11. No more than 300 pages, and the better have plenty of pictures. nt

[FatSlob]

16. No restrictions.

I can't come up with any reason why a law abiding citizen should not be allowed to have however big a magazine he wants.

[bobbyboucher]

94. How about M-60s

Can I have one of them?

[FeebMaster]

99. The M-60 is a machine gun

this poll is about magazines only and couldn't have less to do with M-60s since they're belt fed.

[bobbyboucher]

113. The poster used the term "law abiding"

as a determining factor in what should and shouldn't be legal. His opinion being, no limits, of course. Therefore, in response, I asked about the M-60 in the context of whether or not there should be any limits at all. You follow?

The question at the heart of this conversation is: What kind of ridiculously powerful firearms do we need floating around the country?

Your question, basically, asks "How many shots before reloading", which falls under, How much firepower?

So I ask again, can I have an M-60 if I am law abiding?

[FeebMaster]

114. No, I don't follow.

This poll was about magazine capacity, not machine guns.


The question at the heart of this conversation is: What kind of ridiculously powerful firearms do we need floating around the country?

The question at the heart of this conversation is: "what should the limit on magazine capacity be?"


"Your question, basically, asks "How many shots before reloading", which falls under, How much firepower?"

My question is "how many shots?" firepower is irrelevant or are you saying that 100 rounds of .22 is equivalent in firepower to 100 rounds of .30-06?


"So I ask again, can I have an M-60 if I am law abiding?"

Well not that it has anything to do with magazine capacity or the assault weapons ban in general since the M-60 is a belt fed machine gun, but yes you can.

[bobbyboucher]

124. Don't be dumb, it's all related and don't pretend that it ain't.

Quit trying to hide behind the "this topic is about magazines" horseshit, it's about firepower. Quit with the intentional distraction.

Pffft.

[FeebMaster]

125. This poll is clearly about magazine capacity.

There have been other polls about other gun laws.

[bobbyboucher]

127. The replies carried it elsewhere.

Sorry.

[FeebMaster]

128. Only because some people are incapable

of discussing the issue without crying about machine guns.

[Massacure]

18. No restrictions

Keeping guns out of the hands of felons is more important than magazine restrictions. Hell, magazine restrictions are a waste of time.

[cosmicvortex20]

20. No guns -- according to Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini

Ifs its good enough for such great dictators, Im all for it!

[library_max]

108. So, you've talked to them lately?

Or perhaps you've got something else to support this statement.

[skippythwndrdog]

122. Will this do?

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolf Hitler, 1935

It's well documented. You can do an advanced search for the text and get several hundred hits or more. Most that I slicked to are university history department websites.

I'll let Uncle Joe's record stand for itself, it is also well documented. Ditto for Il Duce.

[ulysses]

25. I'll be charitable

and say less than or equal to ten.

Actually, I don't much have a dog in this hunt except to say that if you think you need to fire off more than ten rounds without reloading, you're either hunting some pretty ironclad deer or you read too much "Soldier of Fortune" and probably don't need to have a gun in the first place.

[PVnRT]

35. Well

You never know when the Visigoths may try to loot your house, and, dammit, I need my 30-round magazine to fend them off.

[ulysses]

37. not if your yard is properly mined.

And after all, nothing makes good neighbors like a properly constructed defense perimeter.

[Swamp Rat]

28. Even though this belongs in "Justice/Public Safety," I will take the poll.

I chose "No detachable magazines, at all," but I would have preferred another option: "2 rounds or less." Hunters do not need more than one or two rounds... two is just sloppy shooting. By the way, my great-uncle is a gun maker and I have shot every rifle "under the sun" while growing up. What's wrong with something simple and "safe" like an "over-n-under?" In my opinion, only gun nuts/criminals want more bullets at hand to kill indiscriminately if they so choose... or really crappy hunters.

[Dukkha]

29. they can have my TV Guide from my COLD DEAD HANDS!

I'd actually have to go with the no restrictions
because the current ban did nothing. Hi Caps were still cheap and abundantly available.

[Tweed]

31. Always copy Canada

[Columbia]

43. I suppose we should copy their Gun Registry too then

It's only cost them a billions dollars you know.

[iverglas]

58. yeah, but we share!

So we'll let you have the technology cheap; after that, the annual expenses to keep it going are really quite low, you know (I'm sure you know). And once we figure out who boondoggled the project start-up, you can have them free.

We'll even throw in a few corrupt advertising firms from Quebec to market the idea for you, and a few corrupt politicians and public servants to handle the whole thing if you don't have any spare ones of your own. They aren't trained on firearms registries, but I'm sure they're quick learners.

If you want, we can include a bunch of very probably criminal backroom Liberals from British Columbia; their speciality seems to be marijuana-grow operations. Buying a few thousand memberships in a political party for people who promise to support your nominees seems to be a fruitful way of laundering the proceeds, and they can show you how that works.

We have all sorts of goodies ... besides low-cost pharmaceuticals ... that we'd be happy to spread around.

And now remember --

You can't "copy Canada" when it comes to handgun magazine size unless you also prohibit the private possession of handguns except for bona fide members of sport-shooting clubs and people with bona fide employment-related need.

The homicide-by-handgun rate (i.e. per 100,000 population) in Canada is
1/15 the rate in the U.S..


I'm not voting of course, because the magazine capacity limit where I am *is* the Canadian rate, heh.

But if I were voting, I'd be thinking about the 14 women students ("feminists") that Marc Lépine murdered at the University of Montreal's engineering school in 1995 (before those magazine capacity limits), and the 3 empty 30-round magazines found by his body after he killed himself, and wondering whether, if he'd had to stop to reload, somebody might have been able to stop him.

Sure is nice to see all our dun gungeon buddies out in force up here for a change ...

[FatSlob]

70. Maybe if somebody had a gun, Marc Lepine could have been stopped.

Just maybe.

[iverglas]

73. yuppers

Maybe if somebody had a gun, Marc Lepine could have been stopped.

Maybe if every university student were issued a big honking gun ... or even a little teeny tiny one s/he could carry around in his/her sock ... nobody in the university would ever get shot.

Maybe, I guess.

[FatSlob]

88. Maybe if trained, background checked students did....n/t

[RoadRunner]

34. I think magazines should be about the size of Newsweek.

Anything longer than that is 2 hard 2 read.

[CaTeacher]

41. Fortunately, Kerry has consistently

voted anti-gun throughout his entire time in the Senate.

From his votes and the stances that he was taken throughout the years, I feel very confident that Kerry will take steps to severely curtail gun ownership in this country. AND IT IS ABOUT TIME.

I know that this issue is controversial, and to win over the swing states, he has to stay away from this issue while he campaigns--but I am eager for him to be inaugurated so that he can take the guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

I believe that NO one should own a gun EVER.

[library_max]

42. Did you vote in the poll? /nt

[FeebMaster]

45. Hahah.

Yeah it looks like your side needs all the help it can get.

[library_max]

46. You apparently called all your friends here.

And twenty or so other people seem to have voted on your side, also.

[FeebMaster]

47. Right.

I made a call to the NRA home office to call up all the other paid RKBA subversives and said "Get over to DU fellas there's a gun poll up in GD!" :eyes:

on edit: this post needed a :eyes:

[DaveSZ]

48. I'm a progressive (on most issues) for concealed carry

So shoot me.

:P

[slackmaster]

68. You just don't like the results because it's not going your way

n/t

[FatSlob]

71. Mao would agree with that.

[library_max]

74. Channeling now, are we?

Since Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," I'd think he'd be more on your side than CaTeacher's. But that's just my opinion. I certainly wouldn't be silly enough to speak for Mao.

[FatSlob]

87. Once he had power, he banned.

Therefore, his political power did grow from the barrel of a gun. Only he had them. It prevented "counter-revolutionary" behavior.

[library_max]

91. So, what does Jabba the Hut think about gun control? /nt

[Crachet2004]

50. Lol...And everyone should realize, DU is very much a left-type place...

In the general population, probably 10% would prefer any restriction at all, and only about 1% of these would care enough about it to bother voting for them at all.

About what I figured. Lol.

[library_max]

51. Look up and down the thread at the posts.

Most of the "left-type" people on DU haven't bothered with this thread - yet.

[ulysses]

101. ah, but what you don't understand, l_m,

is that everyone is a "left-type" person to someone else. :)

[iverglas]

60. hoo-ee, it's another true believer

In the general population, probably 10% would prefer any restriction at all

Just never mind those facts! (with which, you being a J/PS regular and all, you really must be presumed to be familiar ...)

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

53. Kick.

[iverglas]

61. oh look!

37 votes for "no restrictions" in J/PS ... and 39 votes for "no restrictions" in GD.

You seem to have picked up a couple of stragglers.

[library_max]

62. Yeah, it's funny how they get the same numbers in both fora.

Almost as if exactly the same people voted on their side in both places. Out of 48,000 DUers, that'd be some impressive "coincidence."

[slackmaster]

67. As you've said repeatedly, Web polls are crap

Any poll where respondents choose themselves is not scientifically valid.

IMO the responses here support the often-stated notion that people who respond to polls are ones who care about the issue. It makes perfect sense to me.

[library_max]

77. No argument, you are manifestly correct.

I thought it would make more of a difference. It did make some difference, obviously. As of this post, the JPS numbers are 12 for limits and 38 against, while the GD numbers are 28 for limits and 47 against. That means that while 24% more people in GD (a much more popular forum) voted against magazine limits, 133% more people voted for limits. But as you say, most people who favor controls apparently had better things to do. It doesn't mean as much to them.

On edit: added the percentages in favor of controls rather than the numbers the first time. The numbers above are now correct, at least as of this writing.

[FeebMaster]

78. Wow that would have been even more amazing

if you had posted a few minutes earlier when there were 37 votes for no restrictions. Of course, now there's 47 votes (64%) for no restrictions, so I guess that little theory wasn't worth much.

[library_max]

83. Well, let's see.

As of this writing, votes against limits, 38 in the Gungeon, 47 in GD. 38 is a pretty big percentage of 47. Votes for limits, 12 in the Gungeon, 28 in GD. 12 is a much smaller percentage of 28.

Hey, and here's an interesting thought. If every Gungeonite who voted in the Gungeon poll also came up here and voted in the GD poll (and gee, what are the chances of that? it's not like any of us are stubborn or anything), that would leave sixteen non-Gungeonites voting for controls and nine non-Gungeonites voting against.

Yeah, I guess you're right, we sure don't want to look at where that "little theory" takes us . . .

[skippythwndrdog]

75. Golly, Feeb!

Can it be that even progressives on the whole favor 2A rights? Surely not! Who would have thunk it? I think this poll has been Feeb'd.

Good job, Feeb. It's definitely encouraging. 2A seems to be correctly interpreted by progressives both in the dank and musty Gungeon as well as up here in the fresh air.

[library_max]

80. Wow, yeah! 47 DUers out of some 48,000 are on record

favoring "2A rights." Or, wait a minute, that wasn't the question. But 47 out of 48,000 DUers say they favor no limits on gun magazines.

Hey, that's almost one tenth of one percent! Sure proves - uh - something, doesn't it?

Slackmaster's got it right. See post 67.

[FeebMaster]

81. You're just upset that the poll didn't go the way you wanted.

You know very well that most of those 48,000 don't even post here. I think you should accept that DU isn't as pro gun control as you like to think.

[library_max]

82. See posts 67 and 77. /nt

[FeebMaster]

85. Yes I'm sure you're right

47,950 or so more people are actually for restrictions, they just had better things to do than take 5 seconds to vote in this poll. Everyone who wants no restrictions has voted by now.

[MrSandman]

102. Dang, you do what a gun control proponent asks...

and you are accused of flippin the deck.

:toast:

[FeebMaster]

105. Sometimes you just can't win. (nt)

[library_max]

106. Que? What are you talking about?

Who accused who of "flippin the deck" (whatever that means)?

[MrSandman]

110. He understood...n/t

[library_max]

112. Was that supposed to be an answer? Very brave, I must say. /nt

[clipse]

84. Soooo, uhhhhhh................

Why aren't more poeple voting agains't it. The vote is 47 to 48,000. 49 now that I voted and someone else did.

I don't understand why the mistakes of a very few have to ruin it for the whole. If more people would realize that criminals are dangerous and walking among us everyday then maybe people would realize there is a need for selfdefence. That is why I carry a handgun. I know that if the SHTF, no cop is going to be there instantaniously when I dial 911. If my life is in danger who is going to help me? ME, thats who.


clipse

[bobbyboucher]

95. We can all sleep better tonight. phew!

Now that clipse is packing. Hip hip hooray!

:bounce:

[skippythwndrdog]

96. Darn, Max. It isn't a blind sampling

It's logical to assume that the only people who voted and/or posted are concerned with the issue. If that's the case, neither position is a political winner.

Let's see, hmmm. 86 votes (as of this writing) out of 50,000 (to be generous) is a sample of .00172%. Most surveys poll no more than 1,500 registered voters out of, let's be VERY low and say 60,000,000. We'll be even more generous and take the polling sample to 50,000 respondents. Those numbers would give a sampling of .00000733%, as opposed to the most usual .0000000178% of registered voters, yet most put some kind of faith in those polls, if they're in or running for political office.

Now, what was that about numbers again?

[library_max]

98. I didn't say the poll proved anything. You did.

See your own post 75. You crowed about how this proved that DU is pro-gun. Now you're saying that the poll is utterly insignificant, like I said in 77 agreeing with slackmaster's post 67, and like I also said in post 80, which started this subthread.

Contradict yourself much?

[skippythwndrdog]

100. Got me, Max

Here is my post #75
Can it be that even progressives on the whole favor 2A rights? Surely not! Who would have thunk it? I think this poll has been Feeb'd.

Good job, Feeb. It's definitely encouraging. 2A seems to be correctly interpreted by progressives both in the dank and musty Gungeon as well as up here in the fresh air.

Show me the crowing. I simply stated what I stated. G'head, show me the pro-gun statement. I only referred to the interpretation of 2A. Encouraging results do not equal crowing in my book.

Go back to the library, Max and check out something on reading comprehension before you attempt to tell me what I mean. I really expected better of you that this stretch between encouraging results and crowing. My only thought was and is that of those who care enough about the issue to vote/post is that better than 60% seem to interpret 2A correctly.

[library_max]

103. My reading comprehension is fine. Your writing could use some work.

But never mind that. Your post 75 was clearly intended to celebrate, crow about, gloat over, exult in, etc. the results of the poll. If you don't like the way that makes you look, I'm sorry. I didn't write post 75.

As you yourself pointed out, the people who responded to the poll were self-selected, not a blind sample, which makes them non-representative of the much larger group. Once again, slackmaster made the case very clear in post 67.

[skippythwndrdog]

109. Tit for tat.

I see you have your thesaurus out. I do hope it's the OED and you just got tired of copying synonyms for your interpretation.

SHHHH! We don't want to mention posts 5 and 18.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[library_max]

111. OK, let's mention posts 5 and 18.

In post 5, I was crowing about the early results. And furthermore, I have never dishonestly denied it. In 77, I admitted that I had been mistaken and that slackmaster was right.

As for post 18, what's your objection? It wasn't even mine.

As for a thesaurus, no, I wasn't using one. I am able to write intelligible sentences without such assistance.

[skippythwndrdog]

116. Mea culpa. Typo: 5 and 14. Damn bifocals anyway.

What dishonesty are you referring to? You mentioned crowing.

Trust me on this if nothing else: when I crow about something, the superlatives will flow like the Amazon in the rainy season. I haven't crowed about this topic - yet. I sincerely doubt that I ever will.
Once again, I was simply poiniting out that the majority those who chose to vote/post in this thread evidently understand 2A as written.

[Crachet2004]

107. 1/10 of 1% who care enough to bother...Yeah, sounds about right to me.

Wasn't that about what I posted before?

[Walt Starr]

89. I do not support the AWB

Sorry.

[bobbyboucher]

93. The rack in my shitter holds about four magazines and

one daily newspaper (not Sunday).

[Hammie]

97. Depends on a number of factors.

Caliber for instance. 30 rounds of .308 is pretty heavy. I would think 20 rounds would be plenty.

.223 on the other hand is smaller and lighter and 30 round magazines are pretty handy, though they tend to be a little bit on the long side for shooting prone.

For hunting, 5 rounds or less should be sufficient. Ideally, no more than one would be required but sometimes follow up shots necessary.

[kymar57]

115. I dunno

15-20 LBS:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

117. Gratuitous kick.

Come on people, we need another 48,165 votes before some people consider this poll legitimate.

[FeebMaster]

129. New registrations are out-pacing the voting.

48,184 more votes before this poll will be legitimate for some people.

[Nevernose]

118. If you need more than 10-15 bullets

Then you're doing something terribly wrong, and probably have no business ownig a firearm. Go to the range, and learn how to shoot.

Hell, take a course in gun safety from the NRA while you're at it. While I hate the NRAs political position, they sponsor some pretty good gun safety classes.

Most semi-automatic hanguns these days have a ten-twenty shot clip. There;s no reason in the world for a rifle to have this many. How many fucking deer could there possibly be in one clearing?

Mandatory minimum sentences for criminals using guns (VIOLENT criminals) would also be pretty effective.

[FeebMaster]

119. You'd better call the military

and tell them to stop issuing 30 round magazines.

[Nevernose]

120. Are you expecting an invasion?

Or have you been watching too many action movies?

[FeebMaster]

121. What do you mean?

You said: "Most semi-automatic hanguns these days have a ten-twenty shot clip. There;s no reason in the world for a rifle to have this many."

You should call up the military, they issue 30 round magazines. Tell them to switch to 10 rounders. While you're at it you should just tell them to switch back to the Garand.

[skippythwndrdog]

123. I think it should be about 2 gallons.

[Junkdrawer]

131. Best response on this whole thread...

:thumbsup:

[bobbyboucher]

126. Dumb question all around.

It's obvious that large capacity magazines are nothing but ridiculous. When hunting, there are already many state laws that require that you plug your shotgun while hunting. In range shooting, if you are actually trying to be a marksman, then you don't need to be able to unload unlimited shots. If you are a collector, then the gun doesn't really even need the capability of shooting.

So, what difference does it make if there is a limit on magazine size, to say ..... whatever. The problem lies with the marketing of these relatively unnecessary devices leads to them getting into the hands of the criminal element.

Shove your needless mui mui macho garbage. Deal with 9 shots max on handguns and 7 on shotguns and what, five on rifles? Shove the Uzi too.

[FeebMaster]

130. Gratuitous kick.

We've lost some more ground, 48,204 now.

[nolabels]

132. Other here

We should arm our self as well or better than the enemy :scared:

http://users.skynet.be/jeeper/page61.html

Who is the enemy anyway?

On edit: Guns and gun nuts, which one is more dangerous, only your own local crazy knows :crazy:

[FeebMaster]

133. Kick for TX-RAT. (nt)