You have an annoying habit of arguing against points no one has made. It makes people feel like they waste their time sharing their opinions with you.
Well I note your posts have a hard time pulling the trigger when it comes to dealing with the anti gun side. You seem unable to state the obvious-those laws will be far more limiting on law abiding citizens than people who decide to commit mass murder
Not at all. I said I oppose bans. I have said it countless times, and I said it again on this thread. The problem is that you argue imaginary arguments aka strawman arguments. How about you say what you want to say, and let others say what they want to say. I addressed other things about the TOPIC, and clearly I wasted my time.
do you agree with that statement that magazine bans are far more likely to handicap law abiding gun owners than those intending to commit mass murders?
Do you agree that you validated the "banners" argument? I oppose bans, and I already offered my view on your question. Would a cap of 10 rounds in a magazine "handicap" me? No, and I think most people wouldn't feel handicapped either, When I carry, I carry a .45 SIG with 8 round magazine. I said (twice): "Whether or not a ban would reduce mass shootings and casualties is another story, because there are millions of high cap magazines already out there". So, yes, if there are millions of them already out there, then a mass murderer would probably find one.
It’s all part of their plans. If they ever get away with limiting magazine sizes, they will then declare that the ability to quickly change magazines is a “loophole” and press to outlaw detachable magazines. And if they ever get away with outlawing detachable magazines, they will declare that the ability to carry multiple handguns is a “loophole” and push for limiting the number of handguns that people can own.
As a foreigner: If you insist on guns as a constitional right, why do you insist on a) possesing more than one gun - would one weapon be more unconstitutional than two or five? b) guns, that are far more efficient than any of the founders of the constitution ever could imagine, and even plenty of them?
Because we choose to have more than one gun. Limiting the number of guns that someone can own would be unconstitutional. The number doesn’t matter. Because we choose to have them. That’s what freedom means. We get to do whatever we choose to do. If your government is a democracy, you should press your government to allow freedom in your country. Freedom is actually pretty nice.
because the second amendment is about what the government CANNOT do versus what we always were allowed to do. The government doesn't suddenly gain the power to ban my third or 300th handgun merely because I own others.
For me, it’s a simple thing; anyone who has ever experienced a gunfight would never vote for a limit on magazine size. Then too, there is no real logic beyond the La La Land of those with Magic Wand fantasies. If Magic Wands, then why limit magazine size for the law abiding and just limit size for criminals.Lol
The one time I had to actually fire a gun to defend myself-it was one shot only. But even though I have held national speed shooting records (pins) and am a GM speed shooter, I would never limit myself because I have had 100s of hours of tactical and defensive shooting training and understand even world class shooters can miss when being shot at
"As a foreigner"- full stop. You don't need an opinion on US law, and none of us need take your opinion. Try it this way to see if you understand: As a foreigner: If you insist on books as a constitutional right, why do you insist on a) possessing more than one book - would one book be more unconstitutional than two or five? b) books, that are far more accessible, contain different subjects, and materials the founders wouldn't have thought of, and even plenty of them?
