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

[virgil]

I would arue though that had she had training and a HIGH capacity mag pistol the outcome might have been different.

Or, maybe the perpetrator in this case would have had the pistol and been able to kill dozens of people instead of one. Flip a coin, right?

Of course the criminals are the problem. And, yes, there are already millions of these weapons out there and you can't easily push toothpaste back into the tube. But, if the manufacture of these weapons was restricted or banned, and enough of the existing weapons are turned in or destroyed, eventually there will be an effect. Coupled with stricter enforcement of the laws (ie longer and stiffer sentences for violators), I think the problem could be helped with a logical approach from all angles.

[k burke]

Haha - mortars could help ease the walking too!

IIRC, the 2nd amendment doesn't say firearms, it only refers to "arms" so someone could conveiably argue that biological, chemical, etc. weapons are just another form of "arms." But you're right, I haven't seen anyone try to use that argument. The point was only that you can't really argue that there are NO limits. Thankfully, I think the Supreme Court is coming around to resolving a lot of these ridiculous local restrictions.

DTG3k - I like you're line the best - may have to steal that one from you.

[NFA-ADK]

Yea well lets just limit all vehecles to 80 mph, why should they be allowed to go faster??? After all it is illegal to go that fast right? We should outlaw all VEHECLES they kill so many every year I bet many more than guns... I wonder what the vehecle to person kill is vs gun kill. Hell forget the facts let just outlaw all vehecles so everyone is safe!!!

I agree this is just a justification of some politicain to say yea I am tough on gun control, VOTE FOR ME... Limiting guns will affect nothing just like the import ban did. Yes I still have a H & K 91 w/20 round mag clips, and yes they are great for target shooting, usually that is what we use them for. And yes I have hunted with this gun you just have to get a 5 round clip... This sounds like another politican trying to get votes... Or figure out how to propose some stupid law that gets him brownie points... Again outlawing or resticting those guns will do nothing, the outlaw does not go to the local gun store for fire arms... He gets them off the street which can come from anywhere. This post sounds politicaly motivated and makes me wonder what the real point of this post is. Sorry for tone...

[NYbuck50]

Because this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and we may need to fight to keep it that way

[Doc]

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.

You do understand where the extension of this kind of argument leads, don't you? We have heard it all over and over from every anti-gun group and politician for literally decades. the arguments for "restricting the damage they can cause" can be used for, and has been attempted to be used for, the addition of laws restricting all gun ownership. That little phrase opens the door to literally complete firearms elimination. Perhaps you are trying to see some sort of difference, but believe me there is absolutely no difference. Perhaps you may want to eliminate semi-autos for exactly the same reason. Maybe any kind of repeating firearm could also be banned under the guise of restricting the damage they can cause. Where do you stop and why?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Or, maybe the perpetrator in this case would have had the pistol and been able to kill dozens of people instead of one. Flip a coin, right?

Coluld be. but if I have one my fate is in my hands. not standing waiting for the police to arrive. When you look at the multiple shootings that you keep refering to, has any of them had a victim in possession of a firearm? a CCW? I am not busting balls I am really wondering. dont want to sound too morbid but I can't help but think that more bad guy body bags would not be a bad thing.

[WNYBuckHunter]

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.

I understand what the thinking is behind such a law, or proposal, but it just simply does not add up. Going along those lines of thinking, no criminal in the US should be able to get ahold of an automatic firearm, grenades or other military type weapons. Guess what, they can get ahold of them relatively easily. The weapons come in from other countries, etc, and there is no practical way of stopping it. The bottom line is, laws ONLY affect those who obey them.

[virgil]

Doc, the fact that finding a solution to the problem will be difficult does not mean that the solution should not be sought. Most of your statement sounds like more rhetoric to me- 'give and inch and they'll take a mile' kind of stuff. We obviously have different perspectives- i do not honestly believe that anyone in government has any plans to take away my hunting rifles. And, i dont' believe that any restrictions on assault-style weapons or high capacity guns will impact my right to own hunting guns. I also don't believe in the bogie man, either.

Culver, i'm not sure what you mean as far as all the 'multiple shootings' that you say i keep referring to. I don't recall that topic being discussed. As far as your fate being in your hands- what you're forgetting is that the fate of everyone around you would be in your hands as well, not just your own. to me, this perspective is what's lacking on the side of the argument that is opposed that any regulation or restriction.

NYBuck- give me a break. Is that really the best you can do?

[JimR]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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

Or, maybe the perpetrator in this case would have had the pistol and been able to kill dozens of people instead of one. Flip a coin, right?

I guess I took those comments as a reference to a multiple shooting. that was the argument the anti-s put forth with thier push for restrictions after Columbine.

So are you telling me you would rather put your fate in the bad guy over someone that legally owns a gun and is intent on stopping the crime? I would trust you with a gun trying to stop a murder a lot more that putting my unarmed fate in the perp's hands.

[Single_shot]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

And because so many brave men and women faught and died for this,that is the reason many of us have legal weapons that will hold more than 5.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

Ther you go leaning on that old worn out document...lol. Seems the ones that are against it being use to protect gun ownership are sure fond of it to defend their positions when they need to. It is outdated only when convenient.

[virgil]

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

The text is not hard to understand at all. Interpretting the text in ways that further your own personal beliefs, is the part that is hard to understand. The authors also could never have imagined today's society and would probably have written an entirely different constitution if they were writing it in the 21st century. As stated in an earlier post, the 'free state' argument was intended as protection against an oppressor that no longer exists. This argument is only used today when an otherwise intelligent argument can't be found. Do you feel as strongly about the wisdom of our forefathers regarding slavery, women's rights, etc?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

And slavery and womens rights were addressed in other ammendments. not the back room deal route of today's politics. if they want to change the text of the 2nd Ammendment then there is an avenue the do that. You know why they won't. Because they will never get the required support to pull it off.

[Single_shot]

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

The text is not hard to understand at all. Interpretting the text in ways that further your own personal beliefs, is the part that is hard to understand. The authors also could never have imagined today's society and would probably have written an entirely different constitution if they were writing it in the 21st century. As stated in an earlier post, the 'free state' argument was intended as protection against an oppressor that no longer exists. This argument is only used today when an otherwise intelligent argument can't be found. Do you feel as strongly about the wisdom of our forefathers regarding slavery, women's rights, etc?

But the oppressor does exist.It's called the government.The amendment was put forth to protect us from our own government,should that goverment become a tyrant.

[k burke]

Virgil, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "oppressor" no longer exists. Many believe that the founders would have considered ALL governments a potential oppressor - including the new one formed by them at some later time.

[Doc]

Doc, the fact that finding a solution to the problem will be difficult does not mean that the solution should not be sought. Most of your statement sounds like more rhetoric to me- 'give and inch and they'll take a mile' kind of stuff. We obviously have different perspectives- i do not honestly believe that anyone in government has any plans to take away my hunting rifles. And, i dont' believe that any restrictions on assault-style weapons or high capacity guns will impact my right to own hunting guns. I also don't believe in the bogie man, either.

"i do not honestly believe that anyone in government has any plans to take away my hunting rifles" .......You can't be serious. Nobody could be that far out of touch with reality and the history of gun control to actually make that statement. I also note that you are only concerned with your hunting rifles. I guess you are not aware or concerned that there are many predator hunters who use AR style weapons for their hunting. You know those evil looking black rifles that politicians have been trying to outlaw for decades, simply because of their looks (speaking of the bogie man ..... lol).

"And, i dont' believe that any restrictions on assault-style weapons or high capacity guns will impact my right to own hunting guns" ...... I see that you have once again fallen back on that faulty thinking that relates gun ownership rights strictly to hunting as if there is no other reason for gun ownership. However, using your myopic view of firearms ownership, I might repeat what I noted above, that so-called assault style rifles are legitimate and effective hunting weapons. And if I can remove those blinders and pry your view just a little bit wider for a second, I might add that an awful lot of honest law abiding citizens use those same weapons for target practice, and self defense. Perhaps you don't get involved in any of those activities and that's why you are so willing to sacrifice the rights of those people. There's a lot of that kind of thinking going around these days.

[nyantler]

Because it's easier to carry one gun with 20 rounds .. than 4 guns with 5?..LOL Did I get the answer right??

[Pygmy]

Virgil... If the forefathers were writing this in the 21st century, they probably would have HUNG your sorry liberal ass...

[nyantler]

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

The text is not hard to understand at all. Interpretting the text in ways that further your own personal beliefs, is the part that is hard to understand. The authors also could never have imagined today's society and would probably have written an entirely different constitution if they were writing it in the 21st century. As stated in an earlier post, the 'free state' argument was intended as protection against an oppressor that no longer exists. This argument is only used today when an otherwise intelligent argument can't be found. Do you feel as strongly about the wisdom of our forefathers regarding slavery, women's rights, etc?

It was not intended as just protection from an opressor that no longer exists, but as protection from future opressors as well... and as long as there are people on this earth and governments overseeing those people.. there will always be the potential to have to protect oneself against tyranny... the subject of slavery and womens rights always come up as an argument when an otherwise intelligent argument can't be found... that is apples and oranges and you know it... but always a nice attempt... the subject of slavery and womans rights were not mentioned in the Bill of rights and was adjusted at a later date and was certainly not a position held by all at the time... taking away one of the original ammendments to the Bill of rights is unprecedented

[SteveB]

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

Because when seconds count, the police may only be minutes away.

[Skillet]

-"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so" - Adolf Hitler

-"An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject"

-"To enslave a nation, disarm it's people"

Bottom line guys, they can have my guns bullet first when they come to get them. Congratulations, we are all now on some watch-list, because of this thread.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Skillet

[WNYBuckHunter]

NYBuck- give me a break. Is that really the best you can do?

Apparently it was good enough to keep you from having any type of intelligent response.

[Skillet]

How hard is it to understand this simple text. This is not about hunting , or crime this is about the "security of a free State" The authors of this ammendment clearly felt it important for the general populace to have "arms" in order to have and maintain a free state.

The text is not hard to understand at all. Interpretting the text in ways that further your own personal beliefs, is the part that is hard to understand. The authors also could never have imagined today's society and would probably have written an entirely different constitution if they were writing it in the 21st century. As stated in an earlier post, the 'free state' argument was intended as protection against an oppressor that no longer exists. This argument is only used today when an otherwise intelligent argument can't be found. Do you feel as strongly about the wisdom of our forefathers regarding slavery, women's rights, etc?

The "Oppressor" certainly does exist, it is called the United States government, and it has very frightening intentions.

[Skillet]

I've been reading Virgil's posts & have come to the conclusion that he is a mole. Possibly a Brady campaign supporter, or one of the libs who drafts the U.N. proposals on international small arms control. Maybe "he" is really Dianne Feinstein herself.