"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

I hope and pray that you are right.

Virginia already had plenty of good "common sense" gun laws until the largely out-of-state, Bloomberg - Northam administration began its obsessive drive to disarm Virginia's law abiding gun owners.

 

Just a reminder—It was citizen with a gun that saved Texas. No, not that recent church shooting—though that was good—I mean Davey Crockett and the Alamo.

 

We make laws mandating that motorcyclists wear helmets, that automobile drivers and passengers wear seatbelts, that medicine bottles are childproof, and so forth. So no, not just guns.

 

I don't recall asking any questions about 30 round mags, but go ahead if you have something relevant. My virtual "ears" are always open.

 

How would you feel about background checks for alcohol purchases? Or limiting alcohol sales to say 3.2 beer? Nobody needs anything else. And it increases the risk of harm to self and others by a factor so much larger than firearms to not even be comparable. We don’t sell firearms to children so I can understand the pill bottles. We are supposed to protect children but I don’t believe in taking freedoms from law abiding adult citizens who are willing to take responsibility for their actions. We mandate seat belts because we removed the natural consequences for not wearing them. It just seems like a useless vicious circle.

 

For people like me who use firearms daily, the AR-15 and 20 rd and 30 rd magazines are ideal. The AR-15 I’ll try and leave for another discussion, but standard capacity magazines are in and of themselves invaluable to me. To help with brevity I’ll attempt bullet points with just enough commentary for clarity.

—20 rd mags are a good balance between capacity and compactness. If it wasn’t for weight and the extra protrusion of 30 rd mags I would use nothing else. The AR I have with me all day every day always has a 20 rd mag just because I’m in and out of vehicles constantly.

—Any time I’m certain the need to shoot is imminent a rifle gets a 30 rd mag. When I know I’m going near a prairie dog town I want to be prepared to shoot as many rounds as possible without having to reload. I don’t shoot dogs often and always shoot suppressed, so unnecessary movements to reload are more likely to spook the critters than anything else. I’m not out for recreation, it’s business, so efficiency is very important to me. A semiautomatic rifle with 30 rd mags is the point where efficiency and reliability intersect when controlling prairie dogs.

—Backup/spare mags are always 30 Rds. When you are away from home all day it’s important to have your ammunition in enough volume to cover any circumstance but in as efficient of storage as possible. Thirty rd mags keep sufficient ammo well organized, clean, protected and ready for use.

—Continuing from above, there are many circumstances that can develop that require efficient sized primary and back up mags. Probably the most common is having to confirm zero or re-zero an optic after a rifle is subjected to some kind of abuse such as being dropped, banged up against something, etc. If this happens it’s almost always far from home and you know you may need to use your rifle soon. I’ve missed shots that cost me money because I didn’t confirm zero. Now, if I’m at all suspicious, I fire however many rounds it takes to confirm or re-zero. Once this is taken care of, you don’t want to be low or out of ammunition. If all you had was 5 rd mags, you would be.

—30 rd mags are the best for medium term storage and readiness of ammunition. Many months of the year I simply don’t have time to mess around loading magazines. And those times are when there is the most economic risk for me if I’m not prepared. So I load mags in slow times and then have them ready when I need them. If I use 18 rounds out of a mag, instead of fooling around loading it back up to capacity, I just throw it in an ammo can, grab a full magazine and go. If I used five or ten round mags, I would have to keep track of and care for 3-6 times the number of mags. And I’d have a lot more money tied up in magazines as well.

—A 30 rd mag acts as an improvised mono pod for stability when shooting from the prone position and sometimes in other unorthodox positions. For me, no other sized mag puts the rifle in the correct position when used in this manner.

Hopefully that gives some idea of the utility of standard capacity magazines. In conclusion, removing 30 rd mags from my world would be like forcing accountants to go back to paper ledgers, construction workers to revert to plumbs and water levels, or requiring mechanics to give up their ratcheting combination wrenches.

 

All but two of the mass shootings in the US could have been equally perpetrated by a person with a pump-action shotgun; the two that could not are due to range of engagement, not the rate of fire of the firearm or its magazine capacity.

 

Your entire argument is a bumper-sticker cliche.

Why do you believe this means -all- regulations are constitutionally permissible?

 

Said no honest or knowledgeable person, ever.

 

So what?

The guns that fire bullets rapidly and use high capacity magazines are not for sport or fun or even just collecting. They were designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. They are not needed by anyone sane outside of our military. Why can't we at least try to get them out of the hands of citizens? Why do the gun hobbyists and lobbyists scream bloody murder if we even talk about buybacks and a ban on future sales?

And btw, could you please tell me what shotgun model comes with a high capacity mag? I've seen ones that hold five shots, then have to be reloaded manually, which means that every five shots, the shooter must stop and reload. Do they make one now with an autofeed?

 

So there's no rational basis for your focus on "guns that fire bullets rapidly and use high capacity magazine" when almost every mass shooting could have been committed, with equal efficacy, by someone with a pump-action shotgun.

Are the millions of people that own and use said guns for these, and other legal purposes, using them incorrectly?

Unsupportable nonsense.

- The absence of a rational basis for doing so
- The right to own and use them for traditionally legal purposes is protected by the Constitution

See above.

16 rounds.
16 rounds, 2 barrels.
25 rounds
[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

If the left decides to infringe on this right, it is they who are directly responsible for all violence that results. This our thin red line, cross it at your own peril. If you don't like our constitution, the solution is simple, leave.

 

Another conservative who doesn't understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor English grammar, it is called the prefatory clause, and nobody is going to lose any sleep over gun lovers telling everyone what they are going to do, we all remember Occupy Oregon

 

But weren't, do you think perhaps there is a reason why they weren't?

No, but enough are, Stephan Paddock along with others were using them for legal purposes up until the moment they fired

The "right" is not absolute, no Constitutional right is absolute, never has been, never will be, they all have restrictions, just as the Second Amendment has restrictions

 

You miss the point; as your doing so is likely deliberate, I will let you.

18,000,000 AR15s in the country and fewer than 20 have been used in mass shootings.
Please demonstrate your rational basis for banning them.

But the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms in common use for legal purposes, is.
In fact, the 2nd protects all such bearable arms, and to ban an entire class of bearable arms violates the constitution under any standard of scrutiny.
If you don't believe me, you can ask the supreme court.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the pics. What would one need such a gun for?

As for the people who already own guns like the AR-15, I never said they were using them wrong, I asked why they needed them.

An you are quite wrong, killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time is exactly what such guns were designed for ... for military purposes.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

If that isn't enough support for you, I'm wasting my time and yours. (And yes, I know that the versions made for and sold to civilians do not qualify as assault weapons because they don't have the "selective fire" fearure that would allow them to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire.)

These guns are wanted by collectors as well as nut jobs, but they are not needed. The reasonable responses from maker and retailers are a good start at reducing the number of these guns among civilians. Colt no longer makes the civilian version of the AR-15, and several retailers no longer sell them.

Stopping further sales, and offering generous buy-backs and/or tax incentives for turning them in, does not violate the 2nd Amendment. You are not in the majority on this issue.

 

Yes he was legal before he murdered people... Murder is illegal...

 

[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the pics. What would one need such a gun for?

As for the people who already own guns like the AR-15, I never said they were using them wrong, I asked why they needed them.

An you are quite wrong, killing as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time is exactly what such guns were designed for ... for military purposes.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

If that isn't enough support for you, I'm wasting my time and yours. (And yes, I know that the versions made for and sold to civilians do not qualify as assault weapons because they don't have the "selective fire" fearure that would allow them to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire.)

These guns are wanted by collectors as well as nut jobs, but they are not needed. The reasonable responses from maker and retailers are a good start at reducing the number of these guns among civilians. Colt no longer makes the civilian version of the AR-15, and several retailers no longer sell them.

Stopping further sales, and offering generous buy-backs and/or tax incentives for turning them in, does not violate the 2nd Amendment. You are not in the majority on this issue.[/QUOTE]

Strange i thought it was the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs....
Please dont break up quotes it makes a mess of the entire thread.. Thanks

 

Education is key; what you do with that education is up to you.

Your question has no relevance, as the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use them for legal purposes.

You said the guns in question are "are not for sport or fun or even just collecting"
The absurdly overwhelming majority of people who own these guns use them for exactly those things.
So... either they are using them wrong, or you assertion is wrong.
You choose.

Your question has no relevance, as the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use them for legal purposes.

The M16 is not an AR15, and the AR15 is not an M16.
So, we're back to "unsupportable nonsense".

Your opinion has no relevance, as the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use them for legal purposes.

Fallacy: argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, banning these weapons.
That is, your desire to ban them has no rational basis.

The 2nd protects the right to keep and use all bearable arms - that is, those commonly used for traditionally lawful purposes; a ban on any such class of firearm violates the 2nd under any level of scrutiny.
So yes, a ban on future sales does violate the 2nd.

 

See what happens when you ask a healthy woman carrying a healthy baby to justify why she needs an abortion.

 

Do you think peoples Rights are based on "need"? Do you really want to go down the path that one must demonstrate a "need" in order to exercise a Right?

 

Just the right to keep and bear arms.
Duh.

 

They're already charging down that path, and it's not just the Second Amendment they're attacking. The whole idea of limited government is anathema to them.

 

The Gun nuts have now taken to the state legislative chamber. Time for real action, require everyone in all the counties that voted for become "sanctuary counties" to go back to their counties and stay there, banning anyone from leaving the county borders or face a charge of insurrection for the invasion of the state house, and arrest by the state militia and trial under military court.

At which point the convicted get to either spend 20 years in prison or banishment to Alaska.

 

Try harder.