Gun Mag Ruling Spoiler Alert: Gun rights upheld...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
6,887
3,391
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#21
I don’t even think it’s useful then. By the time you’ve killed or heavily wounded two or three, either the other 8-9 have already rushed you , shot you, or run off. My guess is most would run off out of survival instinct and a preference for easier prey.

My guess is it’s only useful in a few scenarios.
  1. Military scenarios
  2. Law enforcement encounters
  3. Gang wars
  4. Mass shootings
Home invasions.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,912
4,630
1,743
41
Lily Lake, IL
#22
OK, I’ll play the semantics game. What is the point of having a right to more than 10 round clips?

I would like to see the data (though it may bore Rack) because my assumption is most self defense only requires 2 rounds maximum. You’re threatened, fire a couple of rounds, the threat is eliminated or flees. How often is more than 10 rounds required for self defense?

I grew up in the country. We had guns. The 12 gauge was enough. Once to scare off some pit bulldogs with birdshot. Once my mom had someone follow her car home for several miles. She went in and grabbed the 12 gauge. He was walking up to the porch and my nephew said “That’s a BIG GUN Nana!” And the guy took off.

I don’t disparage the right to bear arms. I just don’t understand the need for automatic weapons, bump stocks, extended magazines, silencers, etc.

Where do we draw the line, and why there? Once again, I’m sincere and willing to change my mind.
I’m not even going to read this. I don’t have to justify what I buy for protection or sporting or anything to you. Stop poking your nose in other peoples business Karen.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,259
2,064
1,743
46
DFW
#23
That’s a consideration, but how many times has a person had to use more than 10 rounds in a home invasion? I honestly don’t know.

I know someone very experienced in law enforcement. I may ask him. He would have the incentive to want citizens properly protected, yet not equipping criminals including those wanting to go on a mass shooting spree.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,259
2,064
1,743
46
DFW
#24
I’m not even going to read this. I don’t have to justify what I buy for protection or sporting or anything to you. Stop poking your nose in other peoples business Karen.
Wow. Seems this touched a nerve. (I’m not sure how this makes me a Karen. I think that has become a disparaging term people use when they find someone annoying. Fine.) But if you actually took the time to read what I’m asking, I’m not asking for much.

I’ve actually been very impressed with most of the responses here. I have historically sided with conservatives on this issue. Recent events have caused me to reconsider and I’m simply looking for information.

So far, I tend to lean toward something moderate like Teachum mentioned. But I’m just one voice and one vote, just like you.
I think the answer to any of these type debates is not about banning or allowing, but rather another classification of ownership like with fully automatic weapons. If you really want to own an AR-15 with a 30 round clip, so be it, but you should have to jump through a few more hoops. I don't know what those hoops should be, I just know the laws around fully automatic weapons have been extremely successful in removing them from criminal activity. I seem to remember reading somewhere that since those laws went into effect, there had only been one homicide in the US from a fully automatic weapon, but I could be wrong.
I’m not sure why this triggered you so much. But I think the alt-right has a term for someone who gets upset easily. Something to do with frozen precipitation, I think.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
28,348
13,808
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#28
I enjoy that show, but can’t remember what his mom said. I think several folks on this board have a permit similar to his though.
View attachment 85051
Andy asked her why she had so many guns. She said this is America isn’t it? He said yes. She said then I don’t have to answer your stupid question on my own property
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,529
2,367
743
34
tractor
#29
Do we have any reliable data on this in the context of civilians, or is it simply anecdotal? Personally, I don’t know a single person, outside of law enforcement and military, who has had to pull a gun on an individual, let alone fire off a round... let alone 10+ rounds.
I do, and they were damn happy to have more than six bullets.
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,529
2,367
743
34
tractor
#30
That’s a consideration, but how many times has a person had to use more than 10 rounds in a home invasion? I honestly don’t know.

I know someone very experienced in law enforcement. I may ask him. He would have the incentive to want citizens properly protected, yet not equipping criminals including those wanting to go on a mass shooting spree.
So you would consider my belief I want my wife to have 20 rounds in her shotgun drum to be unnecessary?
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,259
2,064
1,743
46
DFW
#32
Criminals by their very nature don't care about breaking the law. Illegal drugs are sold every single day in this country. Why do you think high capacity magazines would be any different.
This is true. I get that argument. But maybe it should be more difficult for them to get high capacity magazines. And it probably doesn’t hurt to have one more charge to file against them, and their suppliers.

Honestly, I would need to do a lot more research in order to offer any real solutions. My primary goal was to gain some understanding here.
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,529
2,367
743
34
tractor
#34
We were talking about more than 10 being necessary, but that may not make a difference.

I honestly have no idea. Why do you have that belief?
If its a home invasion the data indicates that you will generally have more than one intruder. We live way out of town and the nearest law enforcement is 25 minutes away at best, there's no sense in not giving the best chance if it happens.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,259
2,064
1,743
46
DFW
#35
If its a home invasion the data indicates that you will generally have more than one intruder. We live way out of town and the nearest law enforcement is 25 minutes away at best, there's no sense in not giving the best chance if it happens.
I get the sentiment, and I respect that you want your wife to feel and be safe. Would she not feel/be safe with 10 rounds vs 20? Especially in a shotgun. I can’t imagine anyone is going to stick around after they see/hear that thing blast.

Maybe I’ll change my mind when I have time to watch the video above.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,073
16,980
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#36
And it probably doesn’t hurt to have one more charge to file against them, and their suppliers.
If you want tougher penalties on gun crime then let's increase them on existing gun laws, sounds like we could find common ground there. The problem is that so many existing gun laws aren't even being enforced now.....no reason to think hi capacity mag laws would be any different.
Put pressure on you elected leaders to get tougher with the laws they already have before you push for new laws that only law-abiding people will follow.


Honestly, I would need to do a lot more research in order to offer any real solutions. My primary goal was to gain some understanding here.
I appreciate that. This is a touchy subject and it's not easy to have rational discussions about it. I would just say the times we live in are a perfect example. We see riots across the country and in some cases the police are being ordered not to stop them.

Also don't forget the main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from the government itself, so yeah, I want a magazine that can hold 30 rounds and hope like hell I never need it.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,093
730
1,743
#37
And we all should be forced to live with edicts from people with your sentiments contrary to our second amendment rights? AR's are virtually never used in a crime. 99% of all armed crimes are with handguns. If safety is you angle, your argument fails. Also If safety is your angle, you might shift your concern to the amendment responsible for death of 44 million by abortion since 1973. Your concern for life would be better served.
Oh yea, handguns would definitely be on that schedule along with high capacity magazines. And to me it is more about responsibility. I feel perfectly safe with responsible people having the firearms they want to own. And going through a few more criteria should not be too much to ask for responsible gun owners like us. Let me ask you, do you feel infringed by having to get a concealed carry permit?? I have no problem with those who want to carry, heck I wouldn't have any problem with open carry honestly, provided the people doing it were responsible. The permit process shows me that at least the person was responsible enough to do that minimum requirement, and therefore is most likely not a danger to me or my family.
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,529
2,367
743
34
tractor
#38
I get the sentiment, and I respect that you want your wife to feel and be safe. Would she not feel/be safe with 10 rounds vs 20? Especially in a shotgun. I can’t imagine anyone is going to stick around after they see/hear that thing blast.

Maybe I’ll change my mind when I have time to watch the video above.
She would feel safer with 200 rounds. Why penalize a law abiding citizen for the possible actions of non law abiding citizens. Why are you wanting to take anyone's right to have a firearm?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,073
16,980
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#39
Let me ask you, do you feel infringed by having to get a concealed carry permit?? I have no problem with those who want to carry, heck I wouldn't have any problem with open carry honestly, provided the people doing it were responsible. The permit process shows me that at least the person was responsible enough to do that minimum requirement, and therefore is most likely not a danger to me or my family.
I'm honestly torn in this. I do think people carrying a gun in public should undergo some training and unfortunately in today's world we can't trust that everyone will do it on their own unless forced to. The flip side is of course I don't trust government either.

I would be willing to compromise to a process where the permit is for training only and is not used as either a gun registry or a source of revenue.
 
Nov 6, 2010
2,093
730
1,743
#40
I'm honestly torn in this. I do think people carrying a gun in public should undergo some training and unfortunately in today's world we can't trust that everyone will do it on their own unless forced to. The flip side is of course I don't trust government either.

I would be willing to compromise to a process where the permit is for training only and is not used as either a gun registry or a source of revenue.
That's where I think the NRA could really be a force for positive change. Let them be the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment specifies. Instead of just being anti anything, I think they'd get a lot more traction and membership if they would act more as a proactive partner in not only guarding the rights of gun owners, but also insuring the owners were responsible. I think it would be a pretty powerful statement from the NRA to the folks in society that are wary of guns if they promoted that having their responsible gun owners in their midst actually increases public safety.