Sneaky Liberals.....

 

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill - The Hill's Video

 

 

Dems Sneak in Mag Ban In Cyber Bill

 

This right here Clyde is why I've asked several times what your definition of high capacity clips are. According to the amendment proposed they're saying that the average clip couldn't carry more than 10 rounds, a lot of people that have pistols that carry more than that, not to mention the AR-15 clips I mentioned before in which the "average" clip size hold about 30 rounds. If this passed I wouldn't even be able to buy the same type of replacement clips for the one I already have. I would say this is the slippery slope many have been referring to.

Unlike your examples no one is arguing "Constitution" like they are about the larger issue of weapons.

 

Is there a need for high-capacity magazines? Can the 2nd Amendment still be complied with if we outlaw them?

Talk about a dodge!

But what Clyde is asking is: would a specific type gun ban violate the 2nd? If so...other than "slippery slope" what is the reason against such types of legislation?

You're going to have to explain to me how it wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

I've been very clear in this thread and others that I FULLY support the 2nd amendment. I'm not advocating anything near banning guns completely. There has to be some middle ground here on what makes sense. You can't hide behind the fact that we all may disagree on what constitutes high capacity. That's every issue every day in this country.

We already have middle ground. You can't even answer what is high capacity and what isn't yet you're clambering for legislation for banning high capacity magazines. You and a few others on here are perfect examples of having knee-jerk reactions whenever something like Aurora happens.

You're going to have to explain to me how it wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

I think that she is saying that by not allowing EVERY type of gun/accessory to be legal does not prevent one from owning many other types of guns so that our right to bear arms is not eliminated. Reduction of choices does not prevent us from excercising our right.

 

It is something that I have thought about a great deal this week and I understand what many of us will call an "over-reaction" due to Aurora. We want to prevent someone from being able to go into a theatre, or school, or football stadium and open fire with dozens of people being killed in less than a minute. But the problem is that even if you DO limit legal gun ownership to those that can fire say ten rounds, others are out there. The "bad guys" will now be the only guys that have them. So me, being a citizen that follows the law could have to (in the worse case scenario) use my weapon with a capability of only ten rounds against someone wanting to do me harm using a weapon with a capability of thirty rounds. I don't want to have to reload while my advesary is still firing. When one group is undermanned in that way, it hasn't turned out good for them historically. I think back to many of the US Calvary-Native American battles.

 

Just to clarify, I am not saying that I do or do not own high capacity weapons. (RTS knows what I own.) But because I CAN own them, that is a possibility that any advesary has to consider. No, I'm not paranoid. I don't think that I will ever be attacked in my lifetime, with a gun or other weapon. But...if I am, I am prepared...and my advesary knows that it is possible that I am better equipped than he/she is.

 

So, no. I'm not going to support a ban on weapons with a "high capacity" however it might be defined. Keeping those weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't do any good in reducing gun violence and could truly make it worse.

TB&G A law abiding citizen like James Holmes , because that is what he was until that Friday two weeks ago .

TB&G A law abiding citizen like James Holmes , because that is what he was until that Friday two weeks ago .

 

Doesn't matter. The law abiding citizens that only want to protect themselves should be able to be as well armed as those that would harm them.

 

It is cliche, but it is seriously true. Since we can't snap our fingers and magically remove all guns, whichever guns we might outlaw will then only be available to those that are outlaws.

 

However, I'd argue that the shooter (have no interest in his name) became a criminal when he planned out his attack.

We already have middle ground. You can't even answer what is high capacity and what isn't yet you're clambering for legislation for banning high capacity magazines. You and a few others on here are perfect examples of having knee-jerk reactions whenever something like Aurora happens.

 

RTS, you seem to be hung up on my definition of high capacity to the point you can't answer my simple question. I've ALREADY stated that I don't have a definition. All I'm asking AGAIN is do we need high-capacity (you can use your own definition)? Can there be a law that limits the capacity AND still abide by the 2nd Amendment?

RTS, you seem to be hung up on my definition of high capacity to the point you can't answer my simple question. I've ALREADY stated that I don't have a definition. All I'm asking AGAIN is do we need high-capacity (you can use your own definition)? Can there be a law that limits the capacity AND still abide by the 2nd Amendment?

 

Sure there can be a law. Then those of us that are law abiding will be limited in our defense and our non-law abiding attackers won't be.

Here's my two cents worth...

 

I fully support the 2nd Amendment in every way, shape, and form.

 

I struggle to see even a slightly compelling case that can be made to ban any type of gun, including "high capacity". None of the arguments make a lick of sense to me. If myself, RTS, or any other law abiding citizen wants to own an AK47 because we enjoy shooting them in a safe, controlled environment, where's the harm? If we ban those weapons, RTS & myself will lose out on something we do in a safe, controlled enjoyable manner, and those who are going to use them to reek havoc will still have them. Again, I just don't see any sense in the argument that banning them will somehow make society safer. :idunno:

Here's my two cents worth...

 

I fully support the 2nd Amendment in every way, shape, and form.

 

I struggle to see even a slightly compelling case that can be made to ban any type of gun, including "high capacity". None of the arguments make a lick of sense to me. If myself, RTS, or any other law abiding citizen wants to own an AK47 because we enjoy shooting them in a safe, controlled environment, where's the harm? If we ban those weapons, RTS & myself will lose out on something we do in a safe, controlled enjoyable manner, and those who are going to use them to reek havoc will still have them. Again, I just don't see any sense in the argument that banning them will somehow make society safer. :idunno:

 

I get that argument. My guess is that we have other laws that harm those who would do something without harm to others so it would not be unprecedented.

Someone posted earlier that there are already banned weapons. Was he wrong?

No. To the best of my knowledge though the only weapons that are banned are fully automatic weapons made after 1986. And even then there are probably gray areas.

RTS, you seem to be hung up on my definition of high capacity to the point you can't answer my simple question. I've ALREADY stated that I don't have a definition. All I'm asking AGAIN is do we need high-capacity (you can use your own definition)? Can there be a law that limits the capacity AND still abide by the 2nd Amendment?

If you don't have a definition then how can you ask if they are needed?

Saw this on facebook...

I get that argument. My guess is that we have other laws that harm those who would do something without harm to others so it would not be unprecedented.

 

Are there ones that have a constitutional amendment attached to them?