What is the reason for owning a firearm that holds more then 5 rounds?.

[RifleSharpShot]

You will be praying for more rounds in your gun when the King of England comes to push us Americans around again.

Am i missing something lol..Whats this mean?

[ELMER J. FUDD]

It's coming around again! On New Year's Eve Obama signed the NDAA. It's got some funny double speak Regarding indefinite detaining of U.S. citizens.

[DTG3k]

Am i missing something lol..Whats this mean?

Its the original reason for the second amendment. Protecting the young America from the King of England. Who knows when he will be back to push us around again.

[cbx46]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TwRIIoUSNgs

[cbx46]

There is a reason

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I just found the thread re: NYC ordering all guns that hold six rounds or more have to be modified, sold or destroyed. Seems like an apologist for the anti-gun lobby. Is that you Mayor Bloomburg?

so a simple hunting rig like a 3" chambered Mossberg 500 would fall under this since you can put in 6 2-3/4" shells?

What a bunch of jokers these politicians are.

[virgil]

Am i missing something lol..Whats this mean?

It means that 'because I want to' or 'because i can' are not real answers to the question. It's pointing out the silliness of arguing that gun ownership is everyone's responsibility and that someday we're going to need our guns to protect our liberties. DTG3k is pointing out that the laws that established gun rights were written in a time when society was very different than it is today- and that today's society is different; and that laws do occasionally need to be modified or re-written to reflect the current needs of society. 'self protection' is a reasonable argument- the others are just silly. the comparison to the 'car that can travel over 100mph' also holds no water- for your comparison to work, you'd have to suggest eliminating speed limits. the real question is whether the 'rights' of a few of us who like owning high capacity guns should be more important than public safety.

[DTG3k]

Am i missing something lol..Whats this mean?

It means that 'because I want to' or 'because i can' are not real answers to the question. It's pointing out the silliness of arguing that gun ownership is everyone's responsibility and that someday we're going to need our guns to protect our liberties. DTG3k is pointing out that the laws that established gun rights were written in a time when society was very different than it is today- and that today's society is different; and that laws do occasionally need to be modified or re-written to reflect the current needs of society. 'self protection' is a reasonable argument- the others are just silly. the comparison to the 'car that can travel over 100mph' also holds no water- for your comparison to work, you'd have to suggest eliminating speed limits. the real question is whether the 'rights' of a few of us who like owning high capacity guns should be more important than public safety.

Woah Woah Woah Virgil. Dont put words in my mouth. I support a mans right to have 360 round magazines if HE WANTS.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil,

I would agree that today is much different that it was way back then. In many cases it is far worse. But I can't agree with your statement- "the real question is whether the 'rights' of a few of us who like owning high capacity guns should be more important than public safety. "

I don't think our legal gun ownership of guns with capacities over 5 is a threat to public safety. The threat to public safety is the criminals not the law abiding folks that choose to own a pistol with a clip of 8 or more.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Am i missing something lol..Whats this mean?

It means that 'because I want to' or 'because i can' are not real answers to the question. It's pointing out the silliness of arguing that gun ownership is everyone's responsibility and that someday we're going to need our guns to protect our liberties. DTG3k is pointing out that the laws that established gun rights were written in a time when society was very different than it is today- and that today's society is different; and that laws do occasionally need to be modified or re-written to reflect the current needs of society. 'self protection' is a reasonable argument- the others are just silly. the comparison to the 'car that can travel over 100mph' also holds no water- for your comparison to work, you'd have to suggest eliminating speed limits. the real question is whether the 'rights' of a few of us who like owning high capacity guns should be more important than public safety.

Sorry, but the comparison to the car holds water just fine. No need to eliminate speed limits, as there are limits on what types of guns you can own (no automatics, etc without proper licenses) already. What doesnt hold water is your "public safety" notion. Please explain why law abiding gun owners are any type of threat to public safety. Restricting capacities of firearms ONLY restricts those that abide by the law, and would have no effect on criminals or those that pose a threat to public safety.

[RifleSharpShot]

so a simple hunting rig like a 3" chambered Mossberg 500 would fall under this since you can put in 6 2-3/4" shells?

What a bunch of jokers these politicians are.

Yup a shotgun would fall under that law.But the gun rules in general are a lot stricter in nyc.I'm not 100% sure,But i'm pretty sure we can not go into the city with a shotgun or pistol with pappers/permit for outside the city itself..I was allways wondering if i was ever to move to nyc {highly unlikely lol}..Would i even be able to bring my firearms with me?And if not theres the #1 reason i will not move there lol.

~RSS~

[RifleSharpShot]

And one thing I allways wonder when I see threads like this is...Why does the person start the thread and then not even come back to atleast defend his point??

~RSS~

[DTG3k]

Yup a shotgun would fall under that law.But the gun rules in general are a lot stricter in nyc.I'm not 100% sure,But i'm pretty sure we can not go into the city with a shotgun or pistol with pappers/permit for outside the city itself..I was allways wondering if i was ever to move to nyc {highly unlikely lol}..Would i even be able to bring my firearms with me?And if not theres the #1 reason i will not move there lol.

~RSS~

If you move into the city, you must apply for your Shotgun/Rifle Permit. Or your Pistol Permit.

[RifleSharpShot]

If you move into the city, you must apply for your Shotgun/Rifle Permit. Or your Pistol Permit.

I'm staying right were im at lol.

~RSS~

[virgil]

Sorry DTG, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Culver, i understand your last point. But,I think you're choosing to turn a blind eye to the reality that many of these guns are not in the hands of law abiding citizens. And, these are exactly the types of guns that ae most often used in crimes. And, the only way to prevent that from happening is to have these kinds of laws. I agree, it's a slippery slope. I just do not agree that clinging to antiquated 'rights' is the answer.

WNY: No, law abiding gun owners are not a threat to the public. But, neither are 'safe drivers' or professional racecar drivers- and they still have to abide by speed limits. The idea of these laws is to restrict access to these guns to people who might use them to break the law. Since there is no way to predict who will own the guns legally and who will use them to commit crimes, the only effective way to be sure that they will not be used in crimes is to restrict access to them to everyone. I understand that criminals are not the ones who will register their weapons with the authorities. But, these types of laws take time to be effective.

[Elmo]

Virgil,

While I agree that having laws in place prevents some criminals from getting their hands on certain weapons but until the law completely bands manufacturers from making magazine that exceed 5 round clips, criminals will still get the hands on illegal weapons. If the criminal is already going around the system, what's the point in strengthening an already existing restrict rather than blocking the holes in the system? The best analogy I came make to argue this point is one where the government is putting an extra lock on the door because a criminal broke in through the window. Now, every time I need to get in, I have to use two keys yet the criminal is still entering through the window.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil, But if you take a person that will break a law to commit a crime what makes you think a new law that limits the mag capacity would change that. I see these rugulations as mainly effecting law abiding folks with little impact on crime.

[G-Man]

So limit mag capacity..how many millions of guns have mags or clips that exceed this now?. there is no way to enforce this law it just feel good legislation. Something someone who has no understanding of the general gun owner, proposed to show their tough on crime! be tough on the criminials that use/do illegal activities not the weapon or choice ot tool they use to commit them. next they will be banning rocks because criminials use them to break windows...how would they enforce that...

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Get the criminals off the street and it won't matter how many rounds their gun holds.

[virgil]

Culver, maybe you could not prevent someone from committing a crime. But, you might be able to restrict the damage they can cause if they were not able to get their hands on high capacity weapons. I think that all of you have reasonable points. Maybe the real answer is to more strictly enforce the current law, as opposed to strengthening it. Maybe the real answer to is ban the manufacture of them- though i know that the mere suggestion of this will make a few heads explode. Either way, the status quo is not working and I still feel that the old 'my rights' stance, is silly.

[G-Man]

Virgil, there are millions of guns and clips that exist already exceeding this propoasl , stopping manufacturing will do nothing. Public Hanging /executionof the criminial that use these in a crime would maybe deture others from using these in a crime. there is no way to recall/collect all existing clip/mags guns. Feel good legislation.... thats all this is

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil.

I am getting a case of de' ja vous...lol. I understand your stance. I don't share it but I understand it. What is your position on the actual criminal themselves. I think the criminals being on the streets are our problem and the system does not do enough to ensure they never see the light of day again. Ask the family of the woman stabbed in Alba walmart barking lot by the illegal alien....I am betting they see no difference in the result of the knife used. I would arue though that had she had training and a HIGH capacity mag pistol the outcome might have been different. One mom goes home and two criminals to the morgue in stead of how it turned out.

I guess my point is criminals are criminals. if we could take all the guns in the world and destroy them there would just be crimes cimmitted with knives.

[k burke]

I agree with most that it's a stupid law and that what's needed is more emphasis on going after criminals. I don't think magazine, ammunition or the number of gun limits are the answer to reducing gun violence.

I also agree with Virgil's point that you can't argue that there's no limit on firearms / weapons. Would anyone here say that biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons ownership should be allowed for law abiding citizens with the proper permit?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I also agree with Virgil's point that you can't argue that there's no limit on firearms / weapons. Would anyone here say that biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons ownership should be allowed for law abiding citizens with the proper permit?

I don't remember anyone on this site or the Constituion every saying it was OK for ownership of weapons other than firearms. I have to admit that live fire with a cannon would be pretty cool though..lol i have a couple swamps the deer hide in that I am awefully sick of walking through

[Elmo]

Slingshots and blowguns are illegal in NYC. If someone held me up with a blowgun I might just bust out laughing so hysterically, they'll be able to take my wallet while I'm still rolling around on the floor laughing.