LA Bans Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

So do the mentally disturbed!

Okay! Sounds alright by me.

 

All this is about is getting another chip off the old block of freedom.

 

I do not explain things to folks like you who ignore my question going all the way back to post # 43.

 

I answered it.

You did NOT now stop fibbing

 

Nope, never found it!

 

And specifically how does the same not apply to you?

 

The above rounds of ammunition you mention are designed for the purpose of hunting, rather than personal defense.

Do not argue extremes, as you will not like how it is turned against you.

You explained nothing. You made a claim based on questionable intelligence. Now it is time to explain your reasoning. Now explain why absolutely no one possesses any legitimate need for possession of a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. If you are going to support this argument, then you should be prepared to defend it when its reason is challenged.

 

The mentally disturbed do not obey laws.

 

dont know about la national its not a issue to use higher capacity
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

 

Thread drift, from ammunition magazines to Barack Obama.

 

Clearly did

You did not

 

My post had absolutely nothing to do with BO. Perhaps you responded to the wrong post by accident?

 

note right bottom 1st generation 9 mm s&w model 38 with wood grips, that is a 9 shot mag not a high capacity,
http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/guide-smith-wesson-semi-automatic-models/
above that looks like a glock clone could be a high capacity shot mag

i see a ruger 9mm center top thats a 16 mag there a lot of revolvers there all 6 shot and these guns are a example of common ones use in the hands of criminals

 

Hunting? If you need to shoot an animal ten times, you don't have any business hunting, which meant your hours spent target practicing ended up being a waste of time. "Government started more wars than any private citizens" ? And what do you plan on doing about it, shooting back at them with a ten round clip of ammunition?

This whole post is an absolute joke.

 

I asked you if the motivation is to protect people, then why not address the top 5 killers instead of guns?

Also, the fella in the video did not have "high capacity" magazines, he had 3 guns.

And now you talk about people in a nursing home who are in danger of a person with a high capacity magazine. You should be more worried about bacterial infections as more die of that in nursing homes than of being shot.

Oh, if you don't like being a leftist then grab the Constitution, read it, understand it, and maybe there will be hope for you.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=san...2&ved=0CC8QsARqFQoTCNq-5pD_i8cCFQGMDQodtnINeQ If this is not reason enough, then people such as yourself are part of a pool of individuals who are beyond the point of reaching a true understanding of this issue. It simply is an issue that you and others are not willing to understand.

I posted a link comparing other countries gun laws to ours. Their stricter laws have had a huge impact on the lower numbers of deaths associated with guns. The differences are undeniable, and they have a much greater record than we do.

You can stay dialed into high capacity magazines all you like , and that better gun laws do not make a difference. But, as long as you and others continue your campaign with this type of gun crazy, you will always beconnected to Sandy Hook.

 

See I think Habana blew holes in your reasoning.

You say people shouldn't have more than X number of bullets in their gun because they can hurt X number of people.

So does that mean you're saying all things capable of hurting more than X number of people should be banned?

And if not, why not?

I'd like to hear why you think this ban should exist and also why similar instruments of death shouldn't also be banned.

Because reading all your posts on this thread makes you come off as self-righteous stooge of the liberal anti-gun agenda for no other reason than because somebody commanded you to hate guns and people who own guns.

Oh and if you answer that question perhaps you'll be kind enough to answer this one:

How are you going to get mags away from the nearly one hundred and fifty thousand gang members living in LA?

Keep in mind they're nearly all Black and Brown.

 

I responded to your post #108

Have you not noticed that Barack Obama has ignored the oath of office he took, has ignored the Constitution and has used executive orders to break the laws ?

Haven't you noticed that Barack Obama is a narcissist and that the worlds medical community has declared that "narcissistic personality disorder" is a mental disorder.

 

Did you know that if we ban all automobiles then we'll see a tremendous reduction in automobile accidents?

 

PS, I used to live in LA, and have many relatives still there.

The alternate reality is your own.

 

The main cause is the main cause. King was thug who started it.

I imagine that if Rodney had ran over a child in the street while going 100 MPH, liberals like yourself would have literally walked over the dead child's remains to condem the cops trying to subdue the raging beast.

 

Common sense at first glance, may be.
But look at this a little deeper. How do you enforce this, who is affected most? Do those who run the street illegally care about laws? How does possession of a standard capacity magazines compare to the more violent crimes committed by street gangs?
So who is left to punish but the otherwise law abiding citizen who seeks some sort of equal protection against heavily armed gangs?
It looks like law enforcement is overwhelmed by gangs. How is this restriction solving that? Don't we have laws already that say criminals shouldn't have guns, any guns?
This makes no sense to me, at all.

 

But it sends a tingle up their legs. It makes them feel good though it'll have no impact on gun violence.

 

Does one get reimbursed when they lawfully turn in their 30 round
mags.Meaning,does the once lawful possession now mean Joe Firearms
has to also take a hit in his pocket.
It will cost him money he used to buy the clip.That is Unamerican.

 

Logical fallacy.

People always wish to ban weapons and then claim the weapons don't work.