We've seen the argument over large magazines before- with beer kegs.

[friendly_iconoclast]

I guess they've worked, especially here in Massachusetts. Most every account I've seen of underage drinking, drunk driving and

busted parties make no mention of beer kegs. Oh, beer and wine bottles galore, and 1.75s of Captain Morgan and cheap vodka- but no

beer kegs.



So those that want to ban large capacity magazines have one success to point at...

[bbinacan]

1. Love it. n/t

[shadowrider]

2. Heh..

I guess the ban on high capacity kegs really worked and drinkers are limited to the small capacity containers. Didn't help, but they're at least limited.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. It's the thought that counts, isn't it? n/t

[shadowrider]

4. You're alright, I don't care what others say about you..:) n/t

[sharesunited]

5. Legally drunk and behind the wheel puts the People in danger even if arrived at by shot glass.

Legally drunk is locked and loaded.

[shadowrider]

6. So is drunk driving next on your list to ban? Or is it knives? I get so confused n/t

[sharesunited]

7. Guns and ammo will be a life's work. But worthwhile.

[HankyDubs]

11. I thought you knew

There is a ban on drunk driving.

How many people can you shoot in the skull with a keg of beer?

Nt.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. "There is a ban on drunk driving." And yet people still get killed by drunks.

And it's entirely possible to take out a minivan full of people under the influence of beer, no matter the size of the container

it came in.

[HankyDubs]

19. gun control isn't about stoping every gun death

it's about preventing as many as possible and create a more responsible gun culture. Drunk driving laws arent about preventing every drunk driving fatality, they are about preventing as many as possible and creating a more responsible culture where it concerns drinking.

Nt.

[shadowrider]

20. gun control isn't about stoping every gun death

ROFL, you crack me up

[safeinOhio]

8. 30 round mags should not be banned.

That would cause a run on them. It would be much better to make possession of them illegal. The previous ban did nothing to control their use.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Sure, let's just cede the Senate and the White House to the republicans too.

Worked out great last time.

[Hoyt]

12. There will be no "run" if ownership prohibited, which it should be. Especially in public.

[X_Digger]

14. How would that work, Hoyt? Hrmm?

You gonna repay the retailers with them on the shelves? The manufacturer's stock in a warehouse?

That would be a 'taking' under the constitution, which means you gotta pay for it, silly.

Which other government program gets the shitty end of the stick money-wise because of your little pet project, eh?

[Hoyt]

15. Simple, when you are caught with one, it is confiscated or smashed right there in front of them.

Gun accessory manufactures operate under certain risks. If they have thousands of these in inventory as speculation to feed the sick habits of their customers, tough. Retailers -- tough too. They got the benefit of consumers purchasing this crap to satisfy their baser instincts. I'd hardly worry about whether they have to eat a few magazines, just like I don't worry about someone who has their kiddie porn inventory destroyed. Besides, they will probably sell the mags or assault weapons under the counter and/or ship them to Mexican drug cartels.

And I'm certainly not concerned about consumers who whine, cry, and mourn because they are banned. It's time they come to their senses over the gun proliferation issues we have.

[beevul]

17. You going to volunteer to help confiscate them yourself?

You going to volunteer to help confiscate them yourself?


Or simply depend on other people with GUNS to do it for you.


:rofl:

[Hoyt]

21. See, your post is another reason I'm against public carrying. U don't even have respect for police.

Are you going to "pull" your gun when the police ask to see your weapon to make sure you are in compliance?

All the talk of handling guns and the responsibility properly, is just that -- talk.

[lepus]

23. Why would they want to see my weapon in the first place?

Did a judge issue a general warrant? Are the cops going house to house?

I have plenty of respect for police, provided they are acting in the line of duty. Quite often though, the needs of freedom means acting against law enforcement.

We can go through a whole lineup of people that failed to respect the police.

Rosa Parks, that bastion of police disrespect, failed to comply with a lawful order to get to her proper place in the back of the bus. MLK arranged huge sit ins in defiance of the police. Vietnam protesters did so as well. Were they wrong to do so?

Law enforcement is the hand of government rule. It often acts against the needs of a free society. One of the primary reasons our jury system exists in the first place is to stop government overreach.

[Hoyt]

29. Oh great, another gun toter trying to compare themselves to Rosa Parks. Not even close to the same.

Rosa Parks was standing up for something thousands of times more important than your right to walk around in public with a 30 shot magazine. You folks need to get over that, it's demeaning -- beside Rosa Parks stood up WITHOUT a gun, something you guys seem unable to do.

A free society does not need a bunch of armed "citizens" with what are essentially bombs walking around.

[beevul]

55. A free society...

"A free society does not need a bunch of armed "citizens" with what are essentially bombs walking around."


A free society does not restrict or allow based on "need".

[lepus]

62. Demeaning? not a chance.

Standing up to authority for civil rights is the issue.

Rosa Parks was standing up for her civil rights when she arrested. I believe a lot of people would stand up for theirs if the LEO's started doing a house to house trying to inspect or confiscate firearms. Would they be demeaning themselves?

BTW at the time Rosa Parks would not have had the right to own a firearm in Alabama.

If you do not understand the importance of standing up for all your rights, I am not the one demeaned.

A free society does not need a bunch of armed "citizens" with what are essentially bombs walking around.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Apparently the founding fathers felt different.

[shadowrider]

25. Now you're just trying to rile people up

What a ridiculous statement, "Are you going to pull your gun on a police officer". That's plain ignorant.

[Hoyt]

30. Well your buddy above insinuated he'd pull if someone tried to take it.

Maybe he just was talking about pulling it on unarmed folks. That figures.


--One GT alumnus who doesn't need a gun to walk the streets of Atlanta . . . . . . or Athens.

[shadowrider]

31. Show me the post because I don't see it n/t

[Hoyt]

33. Read post #15 and try not to read it word, by word, by word, by word -- take it in context.

[shadowrider]

36. WHICH buddy above insinuated that?

30. Well your buddy above insinuated he'd pull if someone tried to take it.


Maybe he just was talking about pulling it on unarmed folks. That figures.


--One GT alumnus who doesn't need a gun to walk the streets of Atlanta . . . . . . or Athens.

[Hoyt]

38. Post #17 is what I meant. Sorry.

[shadowrider]

40. What?

17. You going to volunteer to help confiscate them yourself?

You going to volunteer to help confiscate them yourself?


Or simply depend on other people with GUNS to do it for you.


=======

30. Well your buddy above insinuated he'd pull if someone tried to take it.


Maybe he just was talking about pulling it on unarmed folks. That figures.


--One GT alumnus who doesn't need a gun to walk the streets of Atlanta . . . . . . or Athens.

========

How in the world did you reach the conclusion he'd pull it if someone tried to take it from that?

Sheesh dude, take a pill and chill. You're readin what ain't there.

[beevul]

56. Retract that false statement hoyt.

Its dishonesty. At its worst.

"Well your buddy above insinuated he'd pull if someone tried to take it."


I said nothing of the sort. Claiming otherwise is a flat out lie.


Retract it.

[shadowrider]

58. I tried to defend ya bud, but that guy just won't quit. n/t

[beevul]

59. Not a problem.

Honestly, I said nothing that needs defending.

That poster on the other hand, wins people to our side far more efficiently than we alone could.


Hopefully, He'll continue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. Victims of Paisley Syndrome cannot grasp the meaning of 'counterproductive'.

Some of them undoubtedly laugh at Sarah Palin (as do we all)- then proceed to act in the same manner.

[jeepnstein]

27. No way.

A cops job is hard enough without having to resort to searching citizens and summarily destroying their property. You really have not got a clue about how most police officers view the armed lawful citizen. Start passing heavy handed laws like the ones you support and it won't be long before nobody bothers calling the police about anything. There's nothing like driving a wedge between the police and lawful citizens for growing your crime rate.

[Hoyt]

32. You guys have unbelievable arguments to protect packing a gun in public.

[jeepnstein]

35. Such as?

[4nic8em]

72. Here's my non TeaBagger opinion...

Jesus Christ…Everybody knows that guns don’t kill people. What kills people are those little chunks of lead that fly out the end of a gun barrel. Sadly and all too often, sometimes people while exercising their 2nd amendment rights and who legally own firearms (whether they should or not), decides it’s completely appropriate for one of these little chunks of lead to be directed straight into the face of a 9 year old little girl. I seriously doubt if she cared which 9mm bullet in an extended magazine took her life. That being said, the way the situation played out in Arizona, if it had been the 16th or higher cartridge that killed her or anyone else, it would not have happened beyond the 15th round capacity in a standard Glock 19 magazine. For the responsible “CCW-OC” gun owner, limited rounds means reduced bullets flying around. As hard as it might be, for just a moment consider this might be really important to a non gun owner (perhaps your kids) if you happen to be hanging out in public or at some Safeway on a Saturday morning. Spare me the “what if’s” bullshit, as a father, grandfather, veteran and owner of all types of weapons for the past 40 + years with CCW, I’ve heard just about every conceivable situation from the “doomsday zombie killers” justifying everyone packing a Thompson (with unlimited drums)…just in case. I personally don’t buy the “slippery slope”, “gun infringement”, “cold dead fingers” comments used to prevent any reasonable measure of safety for the common good. No one can prevent another person from doing what they feel justified to do with a handgun (insane or not) but we ALL should prevent their ability to do extended harm.

Say hi to your kids.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Your repeated Lovejoying aside, the proposed ban wouldn't have helped in two notorious cases

It has happened at least twice:

Virginia Tech and the Luby's massacre in Texas (mishandling the reaction to that cost Ann Richards reelection as governor of

Texas and put George Bush on the road to the White House).


There the spree shooters packed 2 guns and/or a bunch of "normal" magazines, reloaded, and went on about their demented business.



I'll grant you a sincere concern for children- but said concern doesn't affect the validity of what you say about guns.

[4nic8em]

80. Your stated lack of concern aside, the proposed ban would have helped in the one case I stated

The only instance of gun violence I referred in my reply was in regard to the incident in the Arizona Safeway parking lot. It did happen in Arizona exactly like I described, and indeed had this particular gun owning dipshit had not had access to the extended mag he used (recently bought), it most certainly would have helped to at the least partially prevent innocent gun deaths. Again, this specific case...Arizona Safeway. FYI, what you describe has happened a whole lot more than twice...and will continue.

By the way, I also don't like the idea of your kids, wife, parents or whoever you care about, taking one in the face because some deranged constitutionally driven, legally gun-owning dumbass with a self fulfilling plot thinks it might be fun. For some strange reason I don't think this is OK. Do You? You repond to my original point (Safeway incident) with typical TeaBagger/Repub logic, avoid & distract. Not everyone believes the means justifies the end. Plain and simple. Please feel free to read into my reply whatever you want...that's a constitutional right also. You not caring enough to defend or protect the reputation of responsible gun owners doesn't affect the validity of what you say about guns either.

[X_Digger]

81. Really?

Are you sure that the same people who tackled the shooter would have been in a position to do so after round #11? You're sure that the shooter wouldn't have changed tactics? You're sure that he wouldn't have brought the second gun that he purchased on Nov 30, and used it to cover the crowd while reloading as Cho did at VT and Hennard did at Luby's?

How naieve and dangerous, to assume that if you changed 'just one thing', X could have been averted.

[4nic8em]

82. This may be a bit hard for some to comprehend...

but let me try.

When you run out of bullets, you can't shoot anymore.

Not terribly hard to understand if you think about it, huh?


See post#72

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Then you'll have to ban all guns with detachable magazines.

Unless and until you manage to do such a thing, any idea that lowering magazine capacity will limit spree killers

is ahistorical. The maniacs at Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafeteria simply reloaded with McCarthy-friendly magazines

and kept on with their infernal business.

[X_Digger]

86. Then you do what's called a 'reload'.

Say it with me- 'reeeee-loooooad'.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/fast-reload-771633

Simplistic thinking leads to simplistic solutions to complex problems.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Congratulations, you have employed two of Lawodevolution's Tactics.

As described here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=361725#362548

By the way, I also don't like the idea of your kids, wife, parents or whoever you care about, taking one in the face because some deranged constitutionally driven, legally gun-owning dumbass with a self fulfilling plot thinks it might be fun.

The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.


From the post to which I originally replied:

...as a father, grandfather, veteran and owner of all types of weapons for the past 40 + years with CCW,

and this one:

You not caring enough to defend or protect the reputation of responsible gun owners doesn't affect the validity of what you say about guns either.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

88. Practice at detecing bs? Yah, I'd have a phd in it, if only u phoenix offered a degree. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. I saw post #72, and raise you post #86: How will you stop them from simply reloading?

All your insults and claims to speak for "the children" aside, your proposed ban has already been shown not to work,

in two high-profile spree shootings- Virginia Tech and the Luby's Cafeteria one in Texas. The shooters there used

"McCarthy friendly" magazines, and both managed to kill and injure more people than Loughner did with his "WMD" magazines.


You may choose to deny reality, but you damn well can't force us to.

[4nic8em]

91. Thank you for the challenge...

First off, If it's alright, please allow me understand where we are at and my personal views.

1. In post #83, You (Iconoclast) have me and X_digger colluding together on your "Lawodevolution's Tactics" theory. I am no conspirator.
I am and have not been familiar with X_diggers views until this discussion...no collusion whatsoever. I give you my word.

2. I have been trying (very unsuccessfully) for anyone to consider the Safeway incident as a single event...exclusive unto itself.
this invariably gets responses for everything EXCEPT the recent Arizona event. Not productive...

3. The comments about my view in post#72 are completely factual, including my personal association with firearms,
veteran, 40+ years as a gun enthusiast, CCW holder, father of 3 grown children, grandfather of 2.

4. Of special concern to me is the overwhelming lack of response from anybody with a suggestion of any type on how
we can REDUCE senseless murders of innocents (not just kids, anybody...whether you like them or hate their guts)

5. The suggestions I have been hoping to illicit to REDUCE senseless gun death to EXCLUDE the ban of all handguns.

6. I do not buy into the "slippery slope" of we shouldn't do anything because all of our guns will disappear over time.
President Obama has said about 1 1/2 million times that the 2nd amendment is settled law. Although individual states should dictate.

7. I have attempted to propose in the sense of the common good for ALL, that a large capacity mag holds a lot of bullets.
Again, when you run out bullets you can't shoot your gun.
Specifically, in the case of Arizona, as the events unfolded and were recorded, a reduced capacity magazine definitely
would have prevented people from getting killed or wounded, yes even kids. Surely that would seem agreeable.

8. The ability to reload quickly can be pause enough for conscious bystanders to intervene SOMETIMES...which is EXACTLY what happened at
the Arizona Safeway. Hence my assertion that reduced magazine capacity COULD help in reducing handgun deaths.

9. As a side point, Dick Cheney himself has stated very recently that while he subscribes to 2nd amendment law,
"reduced magazine capacity would be appropriate to REDUCE handgun deaths". Not that I personally care what Dick Cheney's viewpoints are on anything.
This statement is to illicit a response from the TeaBaggers who by the way, want it legal for congress to be packing heat on the House floor.

10. Afford me if you will, YOUR practical suggestions on what RESPONSIBLE gun owners SHOULD do to keep us all SAFER.
Parents, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, cousins or whoever you think shouldn't be needlessy shot in some Safeway parking lot.
Don't try to convince me that NOTHING can be done...I don't buy it, and it proves that innocent life means nothing. We are better than that.

11. I am an avid believer of gun ownership, but adamantly oppose anybody NEEDLESSLY killed by any armed CIVILIAN. (sane or not)

12. I also assert that a complete lack of empathy for SAFER handgun solutions displays a closed and ignorant mind. Something a gun owner should not have.


I would appreciate an honest response from those who might care.


To Iconoclast: I've never suggested in any way for you (or anyone else) to be forced to do a damn thing. Relax a bit on the righteousness...

[beevul]

54. Its not the police I have no respect for.

Its not the police I have no respect for.

"Are you going to "pull" your gun when the police ask to see your weapon to make sure you are in compliance?"

I don't carry a gun or even own high cap mags, first of all. I'm not sure why you think police would be checking my compliance.

As I said, Its not the police I have no respect for.

Its people that have no courage of conviction.

I'll leave you to figure out whom that might apply to.


I just like to point out the hypocracy of people that want guns/mags banned, and resort to people with GUNS to do it for them, rather than step up and demonstrate the courage of their convictions.

Can't demonstrate what ain't there, I guess.

[Hoyt]

76. A bit difficult to demonstrate on internet. I think I'm clear we don't need guns in public.

How else would you like me to demonstrate my "conviction" and opinions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. I have no doubt whatsoever you sincerely believe that.

I do doubt that you've proved that opinion should be encoded into law.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Fight on, culture warrior, fight on! Screw the Constitution,screw practicality,

screw the idea of not making the Democratic Party the new Whigs. These things matter not, for your strength is as the strength of

ten because your heart is pure.


Fight on, say I!

[cleanhippie]

24. ALways gotta throw in those insults, don't you? Why is that?

Why are you unable to keep your irrational fear in check and at least keep the conversation civil?

to feed the sick habits of their customers

purchasing this crap to satisfy their baser instincts.

kiddie porn inventory destroyed



Just goes to show that you have no substance left in your argument. When you have to resort to insults, you have lost. Have a nice day.

[X_Digger]

26. So, unconstitutional bullshit?

Amazing the lengths some so-called liberals will go to further their pet projects.

I expect that kind of authoritarian crap from RW sites, not here.

[YllwFvr]

28. doesnt work that way

for example in Canada when they banned a firearm, they reimbursed the owners. A shipment into the country was siezed. It doesnt mention unsold firearms, but they did pay for the guns that were outlawed
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/17/guns-confiscation.html

[Hoyt]

34. Fine pay for it. I'll contribute. Just get them off the streets.

[shadowrider]

37. Uh Uh. Anytime gov't pays for anything it's coming out of taxpayers pockets

ALL of them, including those from which the object is being purchased.

You want them paid for, YOU pay for it.

[Hoyt]

39. I think taxpayers won't have a big problem paying to get 30 shot mags off street.

If that's what it takes. It does not appear that the pro-gun guys are going to step up and do anything other than bitch and whine about why they can't live without 30 shot magazines.

[X_Digger]

41. Need I remind you it's not 30 rounds, it's anything over 10?

At minimum $15 per, let's say 20 million standard sized mags (conservatively)..

Check your sofa cushions, let's see if you can scrape up a third of a billion dollars.

[Hoyt]

45. We'll spend that much this year protecting lawmakers after Tuscon. And gun owners are responsible

for creating the demand for the things. No demand for "assault" magazines, manufacturers would not have made them.

[YllwFvr]

52. he is being very conservative

my large capacity magazine was $80, and they can go up from there. id say double that number, approach 2 billion

[shadowrider]

42. You're pretty good at deciding what taxpayers would involuntarily pay for

You ever consider a career in D.C.?

[Hoyt]

43. Pretty small cost to save some lives.

Might be difficult to get some Republicans to agree. But it's a wiser expenditure than many things.

Besides taxpayer money would not be needed, if manufacturers would stop making them and gun owners would stop buying them. Fat chance of that, though.

[shadowrider]

44. So that 3/4 of a billion can't be spent on better things, like mental health

evaluations to determine who is, and who is not, a threat?

Let me repeat myself.

Sheesh

[Hoyt]

46. Breakthrough -- gun owner finally suggests tougher laws. Thanks God, and thank you if you mean it.

[shadowrider]

47. Wrong kemo sabe

I'm not suggesting tougher laws. I'm suggesting that instead of spending 3/4 billion on magazine confiscation, as YOU suggest, we could better use the tax increase necessary to find a way to NON-INTRUSIVELY find a way to determine who is, and who is not, a threat WITHOUT INTRUSIVELY tramping on the civil rights of gun owners OR the object of the investigation.

[Hoyt]

48. Civil Rights? LMAO -- 30 vs.10 round mag ain't a "Civil Rights" violation. Look it up.

I think a thorough mental health assessment for gun owners would be a tougher law. I wonder how many people who feel they just have to have assault magazines to take their kids into Chuck E Cheeze could pass such an assessment (unless administered by the NRA)?

[shadowrider]

49. You once again misinterpret

I'm not talking about 30 round mags. I'm talking about mental health RIGHTS and gun RIGHTS.

Would you be for civil rights violations to protect society from a perceived threat (someone deemed mentally unstable enough to own a gun)?

[Hoyt]

50. Well, I certainly agree too many gun owners/carriers are not mentally stable enough.

And, I would like to see every gun purchaser and everyone applying for a permit to carry submit to an exhaustive mental health evaluation. I'd also suggest a re-evaluation every 6 months. Again, if that is your recommendation (except for the re-evaluation), I agree. Now, if we can get all the other gun owners, gun carriers, and the NRA to agree -- it's a done deal. Are you going to spearhead this? I'll gladly help.

[shadowrider]

51. You are intentionally ignoring the question and turning it around

I'm done with you

[YllwFvr]

53. since many long guns are designed to take 30 round mags

you are talking a de facto ban. It is rather difficult to own a firearm with no magazines to hold ammunition. What would be the point?

and what about all of the Glocks, Sigs, etc that come with higher than 10 round mags (which is almost all of them)? It would be rendering useless a large percentage of firearms across the nation. Thats not a significant impact upon lawful or rightful gun ownership?

[Hoyt]

64. I used to have an Evans Repeater from the 1870s with a 42+/- round mag. And,

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with folks carrying those in public. You couldn't carry it far, it would jam regularly, and it was extremely unwieldy. But none the less, a cool gun. And would certainly fulfill the need for protection for all but the fringe percentiles.

I'd be willing to support that if one wants/needs/thinktheyneed a multiple shot -- assault range -- weapon, your options are an Evans Repeater or modern version. Other alternatives would be muzzle loaders, or even a blunderbuss.

[PavePusher]

66. You are a liar in your own words.

"You couldn't carry it far, it would jam regularly, and it was extremely unwieldy."

Then this:

"And would certainly fulfill the need for protection for all but the fringe percentiles."

By your very description, the gun you present is unsuitable for self-defense.

You are a liar. Stop lying.

[Hoyt]

67. If you couldn't protect yourself with one, you probably do need to wear your gun on your sleeve.

Sad case, and why I have an issue with just letting any ole soul carry in public where children play.

[X_Digger]

68. Oh lawdy, it's fer the lil chillins now!

[Hoyt]

69. When it comes to those who use guns to compensate, yep I worry about the kids (chillin ?) & others.

This really is like discussing things with tea-baggers.

[PavePusher]

73. So, you want to allow only unreliable, impractical weapons

for self defense.

You don't really care about people at all, do you?

[Hoyt]

75. I think you -- like most toters -- do it for more than self-defense purposes. That's my point.

So, address your own issues and think about why you need to tote. I think toters are pretty selfish actually and aren't doing anything to improve society for the "people."

You might also ask your pro-gun-expansion buddy why he finds his "Oh lawdy" posts necessary.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Whether they do or not is irrelevant.

And banning something on the basis that it isn't "doing anything to improve society for the "people."" is rather authortarian.

[beevul]

57. Further dishonesty... (and another one for our growing list)

Further dishonesty...

I'm shocked. :eyes:

"Just get them off the streets."


But you don't just want them off the streets. You want them out of dealer inventories. You want them out of private ownership.

Thats called dishonesty. Period.


Another confirmation that "off the streets" is code for "ban them all", people.



I think thats another one for the list.

[DissedByBush]

65. That's going to be very interesting

Walk up to someone, tell him his Second Amendment right isn't worth shit, and try to forcefully take his gun loaded with 30+ rounds of ammo.

Oh yeah, that's not a recipe for disaster.

[Hoyt]

70. So, how are you implying gun toters would respond to LE in that case?

LE = Law Enforcement.

Worst case is certainly another reason for tough restriction on public carrying.

[PavePusher]

74. "we need to disarm the public...

because if we try to disarm the public they might get violent on our arrogant asses."

Do you even bother to parse through the things you say?

[Hoyt]

77. No, we need to keep guns out of public places -- has nothing to do with disarming the public.

Just keeping it clean.

[PavePusher]

78. More insinuation.

Stay classy.

[TheWraith]

61. Which if any Democrats were stupid enough to vote for it, would practically destroy us.

The 1994 AWB, as toothless and ridiculous as it was, was one of the two biggest issues that gave the Republicans their landslide. If you want to ban and confiscate every standard magazine for all the most popular rifles in the country--which is what you're proposing--it would end the career of any Democrat who voted for it, and many others who didn't, probably losing us the Senate and the White House.

[beevul]

16. OMG lol.

"30 round mags should not be banned."

"It would be much better to make possession of them illegal."

What exactly do you think the word "banned" means?

If you favor making possession of them illegal, you do in fact favor banning them.

:rofl:

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That pretty much means that not only is there a due process requirement, there is a requirement to pay market prices. It is pretty apparent that you espouse nothing short of the taking and give a fuck less about anything else. You are, from all indications, pretty much, "Constitution be damned; it's just a piece of paper."

[DissedByBush]

60. Of course not, 31 is the magic number

Below that, they're not exceptionally dangerous anymore.

Above that, and they're weapons of mass destruction.

Why 31?

I pulled that number out of my ass just like everyone else does for their proposed magazine size limits, but I believe my ass is more accurate.

[Brilliantrocket]

63. Good luck getting them back

Most of the right wingers would have damn near have an aneurysm. They would probably yell and yell until that b.s. got overturned. I'd support them on that one.

[jody]

9. Good point. In the gym youngsters work on their six-pack and I use the same machine for my keg. nt