patrick.net

leo707 says

I thought that was the Homer Simpson remote.

NO but he was the first to use a gun to open beer bottles.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

Common are you going to leave me hanging, that loophole is...?

You can sell them disassembled as rebuild kit for a pre-ban magazine already owned by buyer. This way the liability is shifted from seller to buyer: if latter does not in fact have pre-ban magazines he'll be assembling hi-cap mag, which is no-no.

Hmmmm...the assembly is still illegal. But it does seem to be a loophole in order to sell the high capacity mags. Somewhat useless for law abiding citizens. However, I suppose that if I had not already bought a bunch of mags before the ban I might get a couple kits to throw into the Cannibal Anarchy-day emergency kit.

leo707 says

Hmmmm...the assembly is still illegal. But it does seem to be a loophole in order to sell the high capacity mags. Somewhat useless for law abiding citizens. However, I suppose that if I had not already bought a bunch of mags before the ban I might get a couple kits to throw into the Cannibal Anarchy-day emergency kit.

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

FortWayne says

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

If you are caught going over the speed limit, in your e.g. 65 you get cited/ticketed etc.

Whats your point?

And my original question stands, when does one need more than 10 rounds in a clip?

FortWayne says

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

A magazine capacity limit at 10 rounds is hardly disarming anyone.

Are you suggesting that we have zero regulation in terms of guns?

This is a thread about bad gun analogies, so to tie this comment into that I gotta say that I disagree that the car analogy is a "bad" one. I think that the car analogy for guns is right on. Cars are not "necessary"; they are extremely dangerous. It is silly that we ignore something as dangerous as cars (swimming pools to), and focus so much effort on guns if we are trying to maximize the prevention of deaths.

However, recognizing that cars are dangerous do we ban them? No, but we do restrict who can use cars (we have different licensing for different types of vehicles), we have regulation on how they are built, etc. All in order to try and reduce the death and misuse of cars.

Hell, people can be more scrutinized when adopting a dog than when buying a gun.

Are, guns not also dangerous?

kunal says

And my original question stands, when does one need more than 10 rounds in a clip?

I for one find my greater than 10-round clips very useful at the range. They allow me to maximize my shooting time without having to reload.

In very rare occasions they would be useful in self-defense situations.

Suburban Gal says

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed it or not, but the latter is a comment a lot of pro-firearm people people seem to like repeating over and over again in these kinds of debates with anti-gun people.

They seem to like pretending that they hold a logical position, even though most of it is based on a belief that they could prevail against the federal government in an armed uprising, something that has never happened in the entire history of the United States, and has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening in the future.

Homeboy says

They seem to like pretending that they hold a logical position, even though most of it is based on a belief that they could prevail against the federal government in an armed uprising,

What do you think the armed uprising in Syria started with? Kitchen knives and tire irons?

Homeboy says

something that has never happened in the entire history of the United States, and has approximately a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening in the future.

In the current state of things, sure, but the US is not some special magical place immune to human nature and failings; and with its sociopolitical status frozen in time, never to change.

leo707 says

Hell, people can be more scrutinized when adopting a dog than when buying a gun.

For that matter, where are the child bearing licenses?

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

I think that any analogy thats logical conclusion is a ban is a bad analogy.

FortWayne says

kunal says

FortWayne says

while honest people who use their firearms legally are stuck reloading every 10.

What reasonable and legal use of a gun requires more than 10 rounds in one clip?

What reasonable and legal use requires a car that can go faster than 65 MPH?

That's one of the best bad gun analogies yet. Thanks for posting. :D

FortWayne says

Liberals, with good intentions of course, always do and will only disarm only law abiding citizens. And thank you for stating that in your own ways.

As far as I know, Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen who legally purchased the high-capacity magazines that are currently allowed. How did that help her?

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

leo707 says

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

This is why Liberals scare me.
While there are valid points to curb gun ownership, if we're going to trounce our constitutional rights in the process 'ala Ronald Regan, HW Bush and GW Bush, I'd rather take my chances with the fucking Adam Lanza's.
At least being killed by their bullshit is greater odds than being struck by lightening.
Using news events as an excuse to whittle down our constitutional rights, will make short work of all of our rights quickly guaranteed.

leo707 says

Well, the highest legal speed limit in the US is 85...maybe another 5/mph after than for passing. I would say that there is no reasonable or legal use for a car to go over 90/mph.

For a car to have a strong power curve at the maximum speed limit, it would have the unintended consequence of being able to go faster than that. A car that craps out at 66 mph wouldn't be much use, especially going up hills, and would probably me MORE dangerous than a car with sufficient power.

CaptainShuddup says

if we're going to trounce our constitutional rights in the process

You need to read my post right above yours, and then consider why you are wrong to believe constitutional rights are absolute in every situation.

CaptainShuddup says

leo707 says

I disagree, just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

This is why Liberals scare me.

I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that as long as it is written into the constitution that anyone should be able to do it anytime anywhere?

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Well, the highest legal speed limit in the US is 85...maybe another 5/mph after than for passing. I would say that there is no reasonable or legal use for a car to go over 90/mph.

For a car to have a strong power curve at the maximum speed limit, it would have the unintended consequence of being able to go faster than that. A car that craps out at 66 mph wouldn't be much use, especially going up hills, and would probably me MORE dangerous than a car with sufficient power.

The car's computer should be able to manage the power while limiting your to 66/mph if that was the barrier, but I would still advocate for a 90/mph limit.

Homeboy says

You need to read my post right above yours, and then consider why you are wrong to believe constitutional rights are absolute in every situation.

OK will do...

Homeboy says

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

If there was indeed a Fire nothing would happen.
If there was NOT a Fire, then you would be liable for any damage or injuries your stunt may have caused.
Look I'd be the first one to make pranks just as serious as a crime as fraud. They have the same motive, illegally gaining something through shameless self promotions.

leo707 says

I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying that as long as it is written into the constitution that anyone should be able to do it anytime anywhere?

The Constitution isn't a blanket, people have the right to bare Arms.
Do I? NO I despise guns and don't want them anywhere around. My brother is required by his job description to be armed at all times. He's not allowed in my house, unless he breaks the rules. Which he's to much of a "by the book" straight shooter for that, so he's never been back to my house since I threw him out on Thanksgiving 2005.
How ever people do have the right to bare Arms, it's in our constitution.
They don't have the right to use their weapons how ever they want or bring those weapons every where they want.
It just means the Government can't knock on your door and tell you, "you can't have a gun".
It doesn't mean you get to shoot your gun anywhere or anyway you want.

The problems with the Constitution isn't what's written in it.
What is written is rules for the Government to play by.
That doesn't mean, that you as individual don't have your own constitutionality.
You don't have freedom of speech in my house. acceptable
You can't bring a gun in my house. acceptable
This is my house if you don't like the rules then get the Eph out(in regard to the to peruse happiness) acceptable
Where it gets ugly is when people want to rework the constitution to work they way they exercise their house rules to impose them on everyone.

In other words it's a free country, you can do what ever you want. Just not in my(your) house.

CaptainShuddup says

How ever people do have the right to bare Arms, it's in our constitution.

Yes.

CaptainShuddup says

It just means the Government can't knock on your door and tell you, "you can't have a gun".

My "scary" "liberal" comment did not say that.

CaptainShuddup says

They don't have the right to use their weapons how ever they want or bring those weapons every where they want...
It doesn't mean you get to shoot your gun anywhere or anyway you want.

Sounds like a scary liberal comment...

leo707 says

just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that it can be exercised by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

CaptainShuddup says

What is written is rules for the Government to play by.
That doesn't mean, that you as individual don't have your own constitutionality.
You don't have freedom of speech in my house. acceptable
You can't bring a gun in my house. acceptable
This is my house if you don't like the rules then get the Eph out(in regard to the to peruse happiness) acceptable

Wow, you really have very little understanding of the constitution don't you. You do realize that when someone walks through your door you don't have carte blanche to violate their constitutional rights? right?

You're talking to the guy in the "Stand your ground" state.

CaptainShuddup says

You're talking to the guy in the "Stand your ground" state.

Oh, so if you find out that a guest of yours has a gun in your house. Then if they refuse to leave, they can legally shoot you if you try and force them out.

IDDQD says

You forgetting a 800 lbs gorilla in the room: adopting a dog (driving a car, flying an airplane) are not rights per US Constitution. Owning guns is. Any analogy that tries to omit this fact will be lacking.

No, its not. You are not part of any militia defending yourself against the federal government.

CaptainShuddup says

Homeboy says

Try exercising your First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room. See where that gets you.

If there was indeed a Fire nothing would happen.
If there was NOT a Fire, then you would be liable for any damage or injuries your stunt may have caused.
Look I'd be the first one to make pranks just as serious as a crime as fraud. They have the same motive, illegally gaining something through shameless self promotions.

You are missing the point by so much, that the light from the point would take 10,000 years to reach you.

Call it Crazy with a late entry:

We need to ban your hands and feet because they kill more people then rifles and shotguns.

Extra points for using "then" instead of "than".

drew_eckhardt says

NO but he was the first to use a gun to open beer bottles.

Wrong.

The Israelis have been doing that since the late 1960s. Their Galils (AK47 variants chambered in 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 NATO) have a built-in bottle opener

I meant opening beer bottles by shooting the bottle neck off.

Here are five of the dumbest I've heard.

If we're going to have gun control...

we should outlaw pencils to end misspelled words
we should outlaw cars because there are car accidents
we should outlaw silverware to end obesity
we should outlaw airplanes because of 9/11

If a crazy didn't use a gun, he'd use a rock, etc.

leo707 says

In very rare occasions they would be useful in self-defense situations

I would be interested to hear even one account of a private, law-abiding citizen who successfully defended himself against an illegal attack, in a situation not of his own making, where a 30-round magazine was necessary.

http://www.demandaplan.org/

It’s time. Join more than 750 mayors and 750,000 grassroots supporters to demand that President Obama and Congress step forward with a plan to end gun violence.

Our efforts cannot bring back the 20 innocent children murdered in Newtown, CT -- or the 34 people murdered with guns every day in America. But we can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
Make gun trafficking a federal crime, including real penalties for “straw purchasers”

Homeboy says

leo707 says

In very rare occasions they would be useful in self-defense situations

I would be interested to hear even one account of a private, law-abiding citizen who successfully defended himself against an illegal attack, in a situation not of his own making, where a 30-round magazine was necessary.

A while ago there was a talk on the radio about this pregnant woman who shot the rapist who broke into her house and tried to rape her.

Of course it was on NPR so they were having a usual snobbish philosophical debate if she should go to jail or not. Either way she was found right in her actions.

FortWayne says

Two years ago there was a talk on the radio about this pregnant woman who shot the rapist who broke into her house and tried to rape her.

She used a shotgun, not nothing with a more than 10 round clip.

http://www.parents.com/blogs/parents-news-now/2012/01/06/safety/oklahoma-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-after-911-operator-gives-ok/

Homeboy says

leo707 says

In very rare occasions they would be useful in self-defense situations

I would be interested to hear even one account of a private, law-abiding citizen who successfully defended himself against an illegal attack, in a situation not of his own making, where a 30-round magazine was necessary.

Well, the real question is not 30 rounds but 11+ because that is the limit of the ban.

You would be hard pressed to find someone how needed more than 10 rounds.

This guy:
http://defensivehandgun.blogspot.com/2009/07/retired-marine-thwarts-robbery-felony.html
Required seven shots to fend of two assailants who had guns on him. I dunno, maybe if there were three he would have needed more than 10 rounds...

And here is a guy that fired 5 times to save a cop being attacked:
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/02/armed-citizen-saves-cop-in_114058863533452150.html

I have also heard of people getting in shootouts when their shop is robbed and while they fend off their attackers they fire 11+ rounds, but it is with multiple revolvers, etc. Sorry, no links though.

Oh, here is one where a guy goes through several high capacity magazines:
http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Interesting thing from this story is that he fired 105 shots, most of which were meant not to kill, but to put his assailants under cover until the police arrived. If he had been working with less ammo he probably would have had to shoot to kill.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

She used a shotgun, not nothing with a more than 10 round clip.

You do realize, that every 12ga shotgun shell with 00 buckshot holds from up to 18 "bullets", right? Shooting someone with just one shell at close range is roughly equivalent of pumping full double-stack pistol magazine into him and then some.

Are you telling me that you think a single 00 ball is = to a single 9mm hollow point? .357? Aside from the fact that 18 is on the high-end for 00 shot; the standard is 9 balls right? Also, for home defense #1 shot is better (hint: more bullets, no over penetration).

Anyway, I believe that legally one shotgun shell = one bullet for magazine caps. Feel free to "cheat" that system all you want and load up on that 00 buckshot. Hell, maybe I will load my .357 with bird shot and multiply the number of bullets it holds by an order of magnitude.

http://www.demandaplan.org/

Sign this petition, help create policy and show the NRA what leadership is.

FortWayne says

Shotgun is the best weapon for home defense, in closed space like a house you just need to point it in the right direction.

Yep, and it does not shoot through walls too much either (depending on the load).

"if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Hussein Obama.

The 2nd amendment was written for a reason. You got a problem with it? Fine, that's why there are 2 clear ways to amend the constitution. Go ahead and get that level of support for your cause and do something about it. The burden is on the liberals to garner support/justification. Not those that understand the logic behind the 2nd amendment.