So Homes used an assualt rifle? Really?

The magazine was precisely why the casualty count was so high, so it is absolutely relevant.

I'll ask again because the question in my original post was neveranswered. What is the purpose of 100 round magazines, if not "assault?"

 

If I apply your definition, anything over single shot, bolt action is an assault weapon. Then I disagree with your premise. 50 round clips, 25 round clips rooted together in a taped magazine is just as deadly. I have been in combat. I know.
So, I take it you have never fired a semi-auto firearm that was magazine fed, or you wuold know better than to say there is a difference between 100 round mag or two 50 round mags when in fact they are the same. In a practiced hand, it takes no more than a split second to change up. Under that defintion, then the twin 50's are assault style because he has 100 rounds available at his feed. So, if I again examine your premise; you demand an answer to which none will satisfy you. They make them, legally, they are bought, legally, and in all but ths one case, used legally. Since it requires no licensing to own 100 round clips, they cannot be considered assault, merely lengthy clips.
Now for my opinion. I have no idea, and will make no assumption, why someone else would own one or more. Maybe because it's included in the 2nd Amendment, maybe it's because they can and want to. I do not own anything near that size, but can be nearly as deadly. Does that redefine what I own? Perhaps not, because I would never deploy any weapon for that event except for self-defense.
If that feller really wanted to go for effect, he could have used a 10ga goose gun with 00 buckshot.
I understand your view and what you maybe attempting to get me to agree with, but I don't and won't split hairs over this. You'll just have to be satisfied with your ideas and I'll be just as happy with mine.
Bottom line, the 100 round clip is not illegal. The whole event was immoral and henious, and you would split hairs over a magazine. I don't play the "what if" game. It is what it is....a dam*&d shame.

 

You're totally missing the point. You don't need 100 (or 50 or 25) rounds to defend yourself, hunt or sport. So there is only one other reason: assault. Not to be rude, but I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what an AR-15 is or isn't. My problem is that, with 100 rounds, it's purpose becomes assault. I'm sure survivors would agree.

So why is it legal to sell and own these massive magazines?

 

ask your government.....just admit, you festering up to total ban......
and who are you to determine what I can have to defend myself. Your opinion? Personal experience? Self defense is my right against people who would steal from me or harm my family. Why should you care how I do it as long as I'm not breaking the law?

 

I don't get how anybody in the post-Goldberg era can still equate Jewishness with pansyness.

 

You could need that many rounds to defend yourself. It's unlikely, but if you did, you'd be pretty annoyed at the law that stopped you from having them.

 

You're completing avoiding the point. You don't need100 rounds to defend yourself, so what is the purpose?

You gun nuts are very emotional. Put that aside and use reason. There is only one purpose for having that many rounds. Definitions be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

Nonsense!

 

Well, just hypothetically, what if you had to defend yourself against a group of armed assailants? It's not like this has never happened.

 

ad hom.......

 

I get it now...this is all about indefinite arguments. Neither shall prevail. So get over it. There's only two types of people out there that don't want us to have guns. Thieves and politicians. Both know they can steal from an unarmed man, and thieves wear alot of different hats.

 

How about you go back to school and come back when you obtain a passing grade in reading comprehension?

 

Nope.

I can reload in three seconds. Magazine capacity certainly not the end card in this argument.

 

So what is that one purpose?

So I have a 75rd. drum, I bought that to assault?

Laughable.

How many rounds does a person need for self-defense? 24? 13? Please be specific.

Why are so many magazines sold yet so few are used for your imagined purpose? So maybe because reality contradicts your argument your argument is rendered invalid?

 

And in three seconds you can be tackled to the ground.

 

It was an all out assault in Aurora. Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) that the primary weapon used wasn't technically an "assault rifle?"

Quit hiding behind definitions. Why shouldn't 100 round magazines be banned?

 

Better idea, how about you make a point that doesn't fall flat on its face.

 

Please stop being difficult. My point was simply this. When you attach 100 rounds to ANY weapon it becomes exponentially more dangerous when in the hands of whackos like Holmes. You gun proponents are saying "but it wasn't an assault rifle" in order to avoid having an adult discussion about how to prevent, or at least curtail these types of tragedies.
One way to do that is to ban such enormous magazines.

 

Your lack of reading comprehension is YOU falling flat on YOUR face.

 

No, your side, which keeps calling them Assault Rifles because they look scary, isn't having an adult discussion.

The definition of Assault Rifle has been explained countless times, in this one and others, and yet your side on this forum keeps on calling them Assault Rifles solely for shock value.

There's ignorance, willful ignorance and flat out telling lies. Which one do you fall under?

 

Listen kid, your point was that I would feel just as threatened by an AR-15 with 10 rounds as I would with 100 rounds. Since I (anybody) would feel just as threatened with a 9mm your point does indeed fall flat on its face. Sorry about that.

 

Yes, I point out the flaw in what you said and that means I fell on my face.

Well done.

You fail to understand what an Assault Rifle is, you fail to understand the difference between the words Rifle and Weapons, and yet I'm the one who fell flat on my face.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).

Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commerical airliners. ~3,000 people dead.

 

This is going to go nowhere if you keep hiding behind definitions. Once again, for the last time, I'm not arguing definitions.

Why shouldn't 100 round magazines be banned? Come on, justify your need for them. I don't care what it is you are attaching it to.