yeah, I have a better reason Freedom This is in line with the thinking that a drink larger than 32 oz iad for you and must be outlawed every time someone missuses something, those that would "protect" us, jumps up and adds another law that removes another freedom. The elephant is being eaten, at the rate we are going we are surrndering Our bill of rights as fast as we can
The 32 oz thing is another story, I don't think we should derail this thread. Freedom to protect who?
man I mangled that post not freedom to protect, rather Our personal freedoms This was intended to be a free and democratic republic we keep surrendering Our freedoms to the babysitters in this country The 32 oz thing is just the same as how we have gone from seat belts to black boxes in cars tha track every move, or how tablets and cell phones are tracked.. Think about the things you could do as a kid that are no longer allowed For me its easy.. now there are regulations on almost everything from where you can ride a dirt bike to where one can smoke, what you can eat and if you can get a brand of cold medicine in this state. Try to go fishing like you did as a kid..or even ride your bike without a helmet..meh
China's companies don't have regulations on how much they can pollute. There are an increasing number of people interested in dirt biking. Dirt bikes tear up the land. I would like to CONSERVE the land. I guess that makes me a conservative. All of these things are done because it does affect someone. I can give you specific examples to each if you want, but I'll assume you don't want a hammer over the head.
With practice? Almost. Especially if you're not worried about keeping the empty magazine. When I was in the Army, I could change mags in an M16 with less than a three-second gap between shots if I let the empty just drop to the ground. Almost every large capacity magazine I've ever used has had issues with jamming, even when they were meticulously maintained and lubricated. This is a complete waste of legislative time.
In case of a zombie apocalypse. You would be thankful when a few thousand zombies come rushing your way.
big difference between a "normal" person, and someone with military training flipping out that magazine.
yep Also take into account how once the gov gets their hands on something, its liike the camel getting its nose under the tent How many shot mags does a colt 45 have? how about a 9mm of almost any make? If we let these do gooders start fucking with clip count, they will start outlawing hand guns with too many rounds.... If some shithead wants to off himself and take others with him, he does not need a gun, he can create an IED with little trouble. Or for that matter how about that 95 impalla on the sidewalk?
not trying say that this kid was on parr with someone in the military, I know for fact he was not. But most of these guys that flip out like this have had time with wat ever they end up using. odds are that this kid had "played" with the gun he stole. No one just picks up an ak or ar15 or anything like that and intuis its usage. Ad as far as "normal" well we can rule that out..
Ah yes, the tools not designed to kill being used to kill. As opposed to the tools designed to kill being used to kill!
yeah. by normal, I strictly meant non-military, sorry. Sure, he might have played around with it a bit. I think playing around with a gun a little bit and going through strict and rigorous training are two VERY different things. Chances are, when playing around with it at a friend's house, he wasn't popping magazines in and out to decrease his time in between. Is there a general purpose to have it as is? Do people hunt with an AR-15, where you need to get off a whole bunch of shots quickly? Or any large magazine, fast reloading gun? Do you just pump a deer full of bullets?
Everyone knows we all need Assault Rifles to kill the cops and army when they try to take away our freedoms!
Its a vailid point. Where is the line? Are megaclips in the same category as these other weapons? There is a good argument saying they are and the only counter argument so far really is "They took our gunz!"
Implying that if one opposes legislation that places limits on freedoms then one must be in favor of providing area-of-effect weapons to the masses is NOT making a valid point. It's the same bullshit argument technique that takes "I believe Affirmative Action has served its purpose" and turns it into "I believe black people should be held down and denied equal treatment."
California has a 10 round max magazine law. The fact that California did it first should tip you off that Oregon doesn't want to do that. The gun homicide rate (per 100,000) in CA is 4.82, the fourth highest in the nation. Oregon, without any laws around max magazine size is 1.34 gun homicides per 100,000. That is the 12th lowest in the nation. Why should I think that this proposed law will make things better here? The fact is, if some nut job wants to kill people, he will kill people. My folks made me understand that when I was a kid, and I don't stress about it. It is sad when it happens, but it will still happen, no matter how many laws are passed to try to stop it. As a point of reference, the lowest rate in the nation is NH, at 0.48 per 100K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state The stats are a little screwed up, but I don't know where to find data that differentiates between a gun homicide where some asshole was shot to death during a home invasion, and an actual murder by a low life scumbag. Go Blazers
Those are two completely different arugments. Lets not keep trying to derail this thread by comparing this issue with soda's and black people. The question in effect is dealing with limiting a weapon and a persons ability to cause mass damage.
