The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Mag size limits are usually pushed through in an attempt to stop drive-by shootings. They are not at all effective to that end.
however effective it is or isn't, the only argument against it seems to be that gun owners find it inconvenient
boo fucking hoo
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
yeah, you didn't prove that your argument was not retarded. which, it was. if anything you just said it does nothing having the restrictions, making this whole argument moot!
the cheat on
0
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
there's really no reason any civilian weapon should have a magazine size above 10-12 rounds.
there's just not
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has a Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine in my home. I use it for target shooting and while firing off 30 rounds with no reloads is fun, I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if I couldn't use those magazines anymore. you can't use a rifle like that for home defense, because the penetration risk is too great.
Which is exactly why there's rarely any real fuss about it.
No one needs huge clips, but why ban them to begin with?
It's more an example of bloated bureaucracy than anything else.
So what if I like to sit down and fill a paper target full of holes with 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 magazines at one time?
I'll probably have more magazines than one. I just don't think I should be limited to what I can fucking choose. Thankfully, I'm not here in Texas.
If I have a semiautomatic CCW, I'd like to have 3 magazines. 1 in the gun, two in the pocket or in a holster or whatever. I hope I'd never even need to use it, but shit happens. I'd like to at least feel good about what I have available.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
there's really no reason any civilian weapon should have a magazine size above 10-12 rounds.
there's just not
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has a Mini-14 with a 30-round magazine in my home. I use it for target shooting and while firing off 30 rounds with no reloads is fun, I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if I couldn't use those magazines anymore. you can't use a rifle like that for home defense, because the penetration risk is too great.
You could use it for home defense. No more penetration than a .45 or a 9mm or even a shotgun. You should probably look up what ammunition does to drywall.
You can use it at the range and you can use it on feral hogs because they're considered a pest down here.
Point is, it's fucking pointless, and I'm gonna start some legislation to ban Dru's special running shoes that fit his feet because I don't see the point, and really, running in shoes from Reebok and Nike isn't that much of an inconvenience.
So suck it, faggot.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
Mag size limits are usually pushed through in an attempt to stop drive-by shootings. They are not at all effective to that end.
however effective it is or isn't, the only argument against it seems to be that gun owners find it inconvenient
boo fucking hoo
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
So what if I like to sit down and fill a paper target full of holes with 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 magazines at one time?
I'll probably have more magazines than one. I just don't think I should be limited to what I can fucking choose. Thankfully, I'm not here in Texas.
If I have a semiautomatic CCW, I'd like to have 3 magazines. 1 in the gun, two in the pocket or in a holster or whatever. I hope I'd never even need to use it, but shit happens. I'd like to at least feel good about what I have available.
it's this idiotic definition of freedom that pisses me off
so some smoker gets up in arms because he can't smoke in a bar and has to step outside and this is somehow equivalent to us fighting for our independence due to taxation without representation among other important issues
you people talk like you're such fucking badasses but the fucking reality is that you're a bunch of fucking crybabies who compare having to reload more often or step outside a restaurant to smoke with the fight for our independence or women's suffrage
do you get the sense I'm not at all sympathetic to your "cause"? good
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
so keep boohooing
he's not making another argument for it because... he'd have to pull it out of his ass.
Mag size limits are usually pushed through in an attempt to stop drive-by shootings. They are not at all effective to that end.
however effective it is or isn't, the only argument against it seems to be that gun owners find it inconvenient
boo fucking hoo
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
so keep boohooing
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
Mag size limits are usually pushed through in an attempt to stop drive-by shootings. They are not at all effective to that end.
however effective it is or isn't, the only argument against it seems to be that gun owners find it inconvenient
boo fucking hoo
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
so keep boohooing
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
where is the argument of why you would need a larger mag size?
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
the cheat on
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
So what if I like to sit down and fill a paper target full of holes with 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 magazines at one time?
I'll probably have more magazines than one. I just don't think I should be limited to what I can fucking choose. Thankfully, I'm not here in Texas.
If I have a semiautomatic CCW, I'd like to have 3 magazines. 1 in the gun, two in the pocket or in a holster or whatever. I hope I'd never even need to use it, but shit happens. I'd like to at least feel good about what I have available.
it's this idiotic definition of freedom that pisses me off
so some smoker gets up in arms because he can't smoke in a bar and has to step outside and this is somehow equivalent to us fighting for our independence due to taxation without representation among other important issues
you people talk like you're such fucking badasses but the fucking reality is that you're a bunch of fucking crybabies who compare having to reload more often or step outside a restaurant to smoke with the fight for our independence or women's suffrage
do you get the sense I'm not at all sympathetic to your "cause"? good
Man what the hell. All I said was that it is just kind of a dumb law as it serves no purpose. Just downright needless. It does not inconvenience me in the slightest because I don't like in California, nor do I own a gun. So I really don't give a shit, it just seems stupid to have laws inconveniencing people for no reason whatsoever.
Besides, smoking was banned in bars for a reason. Detrimental to the health of others and all that. But I don't think we want to get into that. Pretty sure you were not arguing for smoking in bars, but I don't see why you would even compare the two.
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
Hunting and safety may be legitimate arguments, you're right. So let me correct myself. I've never seen a convincing argument for any complex weapon (i.e. anything beyond a basic bolt rifle/shotgun or hand gun). As stated in the constitution a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, sure... but how does that give someone the right to own an assault rifle, something with an extended mag, or say a bazooka.
Mag size limits are usually pushed through in an attempt to stop drive-by shootings. They are not at all effective to that end.
however effective it is or isn't, the only argument against it seems to be that gun owners find it inconvenient
boo fucking hoo
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
so keep boohooing
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
where is the argument of why you would need a larger mag size?
Why is one needed? Would you propose that the burden of proof is on the public to establish that a law is unnecessary, rather than on the lawmakers to establish that it is?
As I've said, magazine size is a pretty minor issue. It's only significant as a symptom of a bloated bureaucratic system who's primary end is it's own continued existence.
laughingfuzzball on
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
Hunting and safety may be legitimate arguments, you're right. So let me correct myself. I've never seen a convincing argument for any complex weapon (i.e. anything beyond a basic bolt rifle/shotgun or hand gun). As stated in the constitution a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, sure... but how does that give someone the right to own an assault rifle, something with an extended mag, or say a bazooka.
I am really hoping this country does not get to the point where we would need a militia again for a very long, long time.
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
yeah but that doesn't apply to this debate
you don't need a 30-round magazine to hunt and you shouldn't need one for self-defense
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
yeah but that doesn't apply to this debate
you don't need a 30-round magazine to hunt and you shouldn't need one for self-defense
you vs well regulated militia?
futility on
0
ArtreusI'm a wizardAnd that looks fucked upRegistered Userregular
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
yeah but that doesn't apply to this debate
you don't need a 30-round magazine to hunt and you shouldn't need one for self-defense
I was responding mainly to his statement about weapons in general, outside of the retarded magazine debate.
Hunting and safety may be legitimate arguments, you're right. So let me correct myself. I've never seen a convincing argument for any complex weapon (i.e. anything beyond a basic bolt rifle/shotgun or hand gun). As stated in the constitution a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, sure... but how does that give someone the right to own an assault rifle, something with an extended mag, or say a bazooka.
I am really hoping this country does not get to the point where we would need a militia again for a very long, long time.
At the rate this place is going, I wouldn't be surprised if some revolt broke out in the next fifty years.
Futility, um, I don't know if you have seen the type of shit the army has, but if a militia has any snowball's chance in hell of winning, it is not going to be with handguns and bolt-action rifles. Pretty much not going to happen either way, but still, that argument there made no sense to me, sir.
Unless the militia has remote controlled aircraft and daisycutters, I seriously doubt they'll have a chance of "winning" regardless of how many bullets they can shoot before reloading
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
Hunting and safety may be legitimate arguments, you're right. So let me correct myself. I've never seen a convincing argument for any complex weapon (i.e. anything beyond a basic bolt rifle/shotgun or hand gun). As stated in the constitution a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, sure... but how does that give someone the right to own an assault rifle, something with an extended mag, or say a bazooka.
let's go ahead and put this out here.
assault rifle: any rifle with the ability to fire rounds with an extended pull of the trigger. automatic fire.
these have been hard to get since legislation in the thirties, sixties, and the more recent, 1986 bill that said "hey, no more machineguns for public use if they're made past 1986, so you can get one, but only if you spend thousands and thousands of dollars and go through months of background checks so you can get one, and only for a novelty at best!"
that's fine. i don't give a fuck. nobody needs automatic weaponry. but since civillians and especially law abiding citizens can't own assault weapons, then you are arguing nothing.
and dru, i'm not saying this is like women's suffrage or some great fucking movement at all. i don't smoke, i don't care if people smoke while i'm eating, or if they have to go outside to smoke. it doesn't affect me at all.
i'm just saying it's fucking stupid.
For the record, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting. It's about owning guns and having the means to defend life and property from whoever desires to take it away.
But, like most seem to have realized, any revolt is likely to get raped, so there's no point in talking about citizens getting all riled up and pissed off at a shitty government and going about changing things with firearms.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
0
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
yeah, the "militia" line was written in a time when the army was the militia, therefore they had the duel purpose of defending the U.S. and keeping the government in line (because federal government was the devil back then)
people who say that line gives them the right to carry assault weaponry or whatever are retarded
Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
Posts
Okay but what about the fact that the law is there that serves no clear purpose? I mean is there any real reason anybody can tell me for mag restrictions or what?
ok, we get it, you've read 1984
fuck off with your retarded fictional language
Which is exactly why there's rarely any real fuss about it.
No one needs huge clips, but why ban them to begin with?
It's more an example of bloated bureaucracy than anything else.
No.
I'll probably have more magazines than one. I just don't think I should be limited to what I can fucking choose. Thankfully, I'm not here in Texas.
If I have a semiautomatic CCW, I'd like to have 3 magazines. 1 in the gun, two in the pocket or in a holster or whatever. I hope I'd never even need to use it, but shit happens. I'd like to at least feel good about what I have available.
Amazon Wish List
You could use it for home defense. No more penetration than a .45 or a 9mm or even a shotgun. You should probably look up what ammunition does to drywall.
You can use it at the range and you can use it on feral hogs because they're considered a pest down here.
Point is, it's fucking pointless, and I'm gonna start some legislation to ban Dru's special running shoes that fit his feet because I don't see the point, and really, running in shoes from Reebok and Nike isn't that much of an inconvenience.
So suck it, faggot.
if your only argument is that it doesn't seem to be doing much or any good, I remain unconvinced there's a good reason to reverse it because it comes back to what negative impacts it has
hmmm...inconvenient
nope, not a significant enough reason to remove the law as far as I'm concerned
as I think I've made pretty damn clear
so keep boohooing
why?
why not, all it's doing is inconveniencing stylists, duh
it's this idiotic definition of freedom that pisses me off
so some smoker gets up in arms because he can't smoke in a bar and has to step outside and this is somehow equivalent to us fighting for our independence due to taxation without representation among other important issues
you people talk like you're such fucking badasses but the fucking reality is that you're a bunch of fucking crybabies who compare having to reload more often or step outside a restaurant to smoke with the fight for our independence or women's suffrage
do you get the sense I'm not at all sympathetic to your "cause"? good
he's not making another argument for it because... he'd have to pull it out of his ass.
Passing, maintaining, and enforcing a law that has no clear public benefit is an improper use of tax funds and opposed to general democratic principle.
where is the argument of why you would need a larger mag size?
I'm sure it costs millions in tax money each year to enforce such a law. I am also sure it is adamantly enforced.
And, like futility said, you guys are beating around the bush here.
Man what the hell. All I said was that it is just kind of a dumb law as it serves no purpose. Just downright needless. It does not inconvenience me in the slightest because I don't like in California, nor do I own a gun. So I really don't give a shit, it just seems stupid to have laws inconveniencing people for no reason whatsoever.
Besides, smoking was banned in bars for a reason. Detrimental to the health of others and all that. But I don't think we want to get into that. Pretty sure you were not arguing for smoking in bars, but I don't see why you would even compare the two.
I don't think I've ever seen a convincing argument for any weapon other than "because I want one"
you don't ban things without cause, you have to have some reasoning
Hunting and safety are not convincing arguments?
legislative inertia
Hunting and safety may be legitimate arguments, you're right. So let me correct myself. I've never seen a convincing argument for any complex weapon (i.e. anything beyond a basic bolt rifle/shotgun or hand gun). As stated in the constitution a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms, sure... but how does that give someone the right to own an assault rifle, something with an extended mag, or say a bazooka.
Why is one needed? Would you propose that the burden of proof is on the public to establish that a law is unnecessary, rather than on the lawmakers to establish that it is?
As I've said, magazine size is a pretty minor issue. It's only significant as a symptom of a bloated bureaucratic system who's primary end is it's own continued existence.
I am really hoping this country does not get to the point where we would need a militia again for a very long, long time.
yeah but that doesn't apply to this debate
you don't need a 30-round magazine to hunt and you shouldn't need one for self-defense
you vs well regulated militia?
I was responding mainly to his statement about weapons in general, outside of the retarded magazine debate.
the only way I survived was because two of em stood in a line
At the rate this place is going, I wouldn't be surprised if some revolt broke out in the next fifty years.
Futility, um, I don't know if you have seen the type of shit the army has, but if a militia has any snowball's chance in hell of winning, it is not going to be with handguns and bolt-action rifles. Pretty much not going to happen either way, but still, that argument there made no sense to me, sir.
I don't know what we're even arguing about
let's go ahead and put this out here.
assault rifle: any rifle with the ability to fire rounds with an extended pull of the trigger. automatic fire.
these have been hard to get since legislation in the thirties, sixties, and the more recent, 1986 bill that said "hey, no more machineguns for public use if they're made past 1986, so you can get one, but only if you spend thousands and thousands of dollars and go through months of background checks so you can get one, and only for a novelty at best!"
that's fine. i don't give a fuck. nobody needs automatic weaponry. but since civillians and especially law abiding citizens can't own assault weapons, then you are arguing nothing.
and dru, i'm not saying this is like women's suffrage or some great fucking movement at all. i don't smoke, i don't care if people smoke while i'm eating, or if they have to go outside to smoke. it doesn't affect me at all.
i'm just saying it's fucking stupid.
For the record, the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting. It's about owning guns and having the means to defend life and property from whoever desires to take it away.
But, like most seem to have realized, any revolt is likely to get raped, so there's no point in talking about citizens getting all riled up and pissed off at a shitty government and going about changing things with firearms.
people who say that line gives them the right to carry assault weaponry or whatever are retarded
I demand that such a double standard be addressed