Oregon Gun Magazine Limit Proposal

Good point and rep worthy. I agree that its hard to defend against crazy no matter how many laws you have in place.

 

I guess my question is who or what does the limit hurt?

 

No, it's dealing with the question of limiting the size of magazines, and the fact that such legislation would have absolutely no impact on anything except giving politicians something to wave at their base and say they're doing something important.

 

It hurts everyone because instead of working on legislation that might have a positive effect on the economy, politicians are climbing all over each other to capitalize on a horrific event just to score points with voters.

 

WOLVERINES!!!!!!

 

Ok let me try a different angle since you are a gun guy and I am not, although I do support the right to bear arms. What purpose does a megaclip serve and why would an average person need one?

 

Ok, well, we don't have time machines, so can't take away them drafting it. So that time wasted has been wasted. What negative effect does the legislation have?

 

I'm guessing there are hundreds of thousands of guns already in the owned by law abiding Oregon citizens that have guns with mags that hold more than 10 rounds. They bought those guns legally, in Oregon.

New guns start around $300, and go up, a lot, from there. Why should all of those law abiding people, who use these guns recreationally, for home protection and as a hedge against government running amuck have to give them up, when it won't do anything to help the gun homicide rate?

Go Blazers

 

the guns are a hedge against government running amok? good luck with that

 

Gonna say I agree with you on this one. I don't own a gun, but I don't see a highly qualified person able to carry one. The real problem isn't the experienced gun owners. It's the damage something like this could do being in the wrong hands. I see nothing wrong with limiting the mag limit. Although a person just can carry more clips. Regardless; a government can only do so much, until it has to completely ban guns.

 

With todays technology, if government runs amok then we are screwed with or without guns. It sucks that law abiding people suffer because one asshole shoots up a school or a mall but thats how life works. One turd in the pool and no one can go swiming, but really its not one turd its a constant flow of diarrhea to the point that something needs to be done to protect the rest of us law abideing citizens. Would any of you gun advocates feel differently if it was your wife or daughter shot in Clackamas on tuesday?

 

well, anyone that has a gun that has more than ten rounds

what I find supprising is that those who lean left would cry out if it was something that they enjoyed, but side with the gov on this?. Personaly, I dont own anything that this would take into account. It is really a matter of surrendering another personal freedom to the gov, Just because I dont like to varmint hunt does not make me want to keep others from doing so. I dont drag race anymore, so should I also allow bans on HP? There is a lot of things that can be used to hurt people that I would object to the gov regulating.

 

For all practical purposes, yes. Less than 1 second.

 

so you think that ten rounds makes you safe? Fact is if he had ten rounds per clip, I would bet he would have taken better aim rather than spraying bullets around. Sounds to me like you would prefer to not hae any guns..

 

I like how you use the word fact to make an assumption.

 

Ginny Burdick has literally made a career out of trying to disarm and shackle Real Americans in Oregon. Every time a car backfires in the state she's on her soapbox screaming incoherently about the need for a defenseless, obedient populace. She is a Facist in every sense of the word.

 

Repped.

 

Of course not. How would disarming my wife help protect her from someone who stole a gun?

 

It doesn't matter what the purpose is, and it matters even less why the average person needs one. If such a useless law was on the books already, fine. While my default position is to vote on the side of more freedom vs. less freedom, the reasons for owning them are completely irrelevant. What bothers me is that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are spending even a few hours discussing/arguing a law that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

And since when is "you don't really need it" a reason to ban it?

 

You do not support or even comprehend the purpose of The Second Amendment, or you would not be asking this question in the first place.