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?

I'm "hung up" on your fear trying to supersede my want/right.

 

One quick example of why anyone might "need" them: Remember the L.A. riots when we saw Korean store owners with AKs standing on the roofs of their businesses guarding what was theirs? Recall anyone attempting to steal from them?

 

Point is, we never know when things are going to get out of control to such a degree that we may need something like high capacity weapons to defend ourselves, property or loved ones.

 

Also, consider how large of an invading force it would take in this country when an enemy knows full well how well armed citizens in this country are.

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.

I've always said, whether we agree on a topic or not, you're always very level headed. :thumb:

That's a good question.

 

I used to work with a guy that had a 50 cal. machine gun. It must be legal, because I can remember him waiting for his permit to come in the mail. So what's next, LAW rockets (Light Anti Tank Weapon) ) are they legal? :idunno:

 

Yes there are guns that aren't legal to the public. His .50 caliber machine gun isn't legal unless he has several different types of permits many of which cost a great deal(thousands of dollars) and take quite a while to obtain. It's possible he had a 50 cal gun that was semi-automatic that sounds a great deal more likely. Guns that are automatic or have sliencers etc are obtainable legally but it takes a long long time and lots of paper work to get those.

 

I really didn't go into the details of the permit/ permits needed. I believe it was fully automatic because he was very concerned that he might not qualify for the permit, because the wait time was long and the application had tons of personal info requested on it. In fact he just happened to be moving to a diiferent apartment, after he recieved his permit, and the black trash bag that he had covering the reciever and barrel of the gun had slipped off. One of his new neighbors saw that and quickly called the police. There were cops all over the place and then the swat team showed up. From what I heard everything turned out ok. I wasn't a close friend to this guy, I did't ask many questions, and he didn't share a lot of specifics about the gun. He didn't mention anything about money,and I don't know about his financial situation, so I guess we will never know.

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

 

Then I guess we could expect the same from you? Or are you not a law abiding citizen??

I'm "hung up" on your fear trying to supersede my want/right.

 

One quick example of why anyone might "need" them: Remember the L.A. riots when we saw Korean store owners with AKs standing on the roofs of their businesses guarding what was theirs? Recall anyone attempting to steal from them?

 

Point is, we never know when things are going to get out of control to such a degree that we may need something like high capacity weapons to defend ourselves, property or loved ones.

 

Also, consider how large of an invading force it would take in this country when an enemy knows full well how well armed citizens in this country are.

 

I was with you a bit until the last line.

I was with you a bit until the last line.

Hey, with it or not, it's true. It isn't my reason, but it's still a consideration.

 

Forget that last line and take the L.A. point and add to it what TB&G said, that sould be suffice.

I was with you a bit until the last line.

 

You obviously missed "Red Dawn."

Hey, with it or not, it's true. It isn't my reason, but it's still a consideration.

 

Forget that last line and take the L.A. point and add to it what TB&G said, that sould be suffice.

 

I can't speak for thieves and other criminals but my mind tells me that ANY gun is going to be a deterrent. Had the owner stood on the roof of his business with a .45 he would have achieved the same result IMO. That's my point.

I can't speak for thieves and other criminals but my mind tells me that ANY gun is going to be a deterrent. Had the owner stood on the roof of his business with a .45 he would have achieved the same result IMO. That's my point.

 

 

I bet if he had a choice between the two he wouldn't have chose the .45.

Sneaky Liberals.....

 

Redundant?

I can't speak for thieves and other criminals but my mind tells me that ANY gun is going to be a deterrent. Had the owner stood on the roof of his business with a .45 he would have achieved the same result IMO. That's my point.

You're missing the point ENTIRELY. Angry mob. Thieves, thugs, hooligans, hoods chaotically running through the streets. Which ones are armed? How many are armed? What are they armed with? The fact that they didn't arm themselves with .45s but instead with AKs should tell you something. That's THE point.

 

If you're in that situation, which would you prefer? A gun with 6 rounds? 13? 14? Would you rather have a rifle that has a 30 round capacity? I know what my choice would be. A lot less chance getting shot than reloading a gun of lesser capacity, it's a no brainer.

Edited July 27, 201214 yr by Run To State

I can't speak for thieves and other criminals but my mind tells me that ANY gun is going to be a deterrent. Had the owner stood on the roof of his business with a .45 he would have achieved the same result IMO. That's my point.

 

A .45 pistol nor any pistol would have been very much of a deterrent from a roof top.

Hey, with it or not, it's true. It isn't my reason, but it's still a consideration.

 

Forget that last line and take the L.A. point and add to it what TB&G said, that sould be suffice.

 

Thanks, but I think except for a few of you, I am invisible in this thread. :lol:

Magazines don't kill people, regardless of their size. Limiting capacity of available magazines will do absolutely nothing to stop or even deter this type of crime.

Thanks, but I think except for a few of you, I am invisible in this thread. :lol:

 

I've taken note TBG, so if I haven't commented I apologize. When posting from work I have to pick and choose whom I respond to due to time constraints sometimes.