Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'd much rather have a semi-auto assault rifle chambered for .308 NATO, or even a pump shotgun loaded with slugs.

Semi-auto assault rifle? - No.
Semi-auto that looks like a real assault rifle? - Sure.

A .308/7.62mm x 51 SASS and a slugged semi-auto shotgun are my choice.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Sorry. Skeet shooting does not require guns over two rounds.

Neither does murdering a lot of people.

oralloy wrote:

And it is not a police duty in any case, so it could not be a justification for special police privileges even if it did require high-capacity magazines.

You asked: "Do you believe there is some other purpose for high-capacity magazines besides murdering lots of people?" You didn't say anything about police duty. I answered the question that you asked.

oralloy wrote:

There is a huge difference between trying to ban "an item that has a strong negative impact on society and no positive value for society" and trying to ban "an item that has some negative impact on society that is counterbalanced with some positive value for society".

Quite possibly. What's your point?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Sorry. Skeet shooting does not require guns over two rounds.

Neither does murdering a lot of people.

If your plan life plan includes murdering a lot of people, you will find that the gun is not required...
just ask your local radical Muslim terrorists.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I'd much rather have a semi-auto assault rifle chambered for .308 NATO, or even a pump shotgun loaded with slugs.

Semi-auto assault rifle? - No.
Semi-auto that looks like a real assault rifle? - Sure.

A .308/7.62mm x 51 SASS and a slugged semi-auto shotgun are my choice.

I've given up on trying to limit the use of the term "assault weapon" to full-autos. All it does is help the anti-gunners fool people into thinking that semi-auto guns are really full-auto guns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I'd much rather have a semi-auto assault rifle chambered for .308 NATO, or even a pump shotgun loaded with slugs.

Semi-auto assault rifle? - No.
Semi-auto that looks like a real assault rifle? - Sure.

A .308/7.62mm x 51 SASS and a slugged semi-auto shotgun are my choice.

I've given up on trying to limit the use of the term "assault weapon" to full-autos.

Not me, I continue to educate and enlighten those that don't know the difference.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Sorry. Skeet shooting does not require guns over two rounds.

Neither does murdering a lot of people.

Ignoratio elenchi: Has nothing to do with the question of whether society should allow the police to have a special right to have high capacity magazines.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
And it is not a police duty in any case, so it could not be a justification for special police privileges even if it did require high-capacity magazines.

You asked: "Do you believe there is some other purpose for high-capacity magazines besides murdering lots of people?" You didn't say anything about police duty. I answered the question that you asked.

There is a reason everyone hates lawyers. You know very well that the question was asked in the context of your suggestion that it is reasonable to allow the police to have special weapons that the general population is denied access to.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
There is a huge difference between trying to ban "an item that has a strong negative impact on society and no positive value for society" and trying to ban "an item that has some negative impact on society that is counterbalanced with some positive value for society".

Quite possibly. What's your point?

That *is* my point. Or at least one of them. The movement to ban these magazines depends on the illusion that they have a strong negative impact on society and no positive value to society. Dispelling that illusion derails the effort to pass the ban.

I guess I had two points. The other was the notion that the police should be limited to the same guns that ordinary people have access to.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Ignoratio elenchi: Has nothing to do with the question of whether society should allow the police to have a special right to have high capacity magazines.

You ask an irrelevant question and then you criticize me for answering it?

oralloy wrote:

There is a reason everyone hates lawyers. You know very well that the question was asked in the context of your suggestion that it is reasonable to allow the police to have special weapons that the general population is denied access to.

You introduced a strawman argument and wanted me to address it. I did. I'm not going to address a strawman argument in the context of the original argument, because your strawman argument doesn't have anything to do with the original argument. That's because it's a strawman.

As for why police get to have some kinds of weapons that ordinary citizens don't, I've already answered that question. If you want to refute the point that I made, I suggest you address it directly, rather than introducing a strawman argument into the discussion.

oralloy wrote:

That *is* my point. Or at least one of them. The movement to ban these magazines depends on the illusion that they have a strong negative impact on society and no positive value to society. Dispelling that illusion derails the effort to pass the ban.

No it doesn't. Private citizens, for the most part, are not allowed to have automatic weapons. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone who opposes the private ownership of automatic weapons also opposes automatic weapons for the armed forces. Just because some people want to ban ownership of large-capacity handgun clips by private citizens doesn't automatically mean that they oppose it for law enforcement as well.

oralloy wrote:

I guess I had two points. The other was the notion that the police should be limited to the same guns that ordinary people have access to.

And yet another strawman.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Ignoratio elenchi: Has nothing to do with the question of whether society should allow the police to have a special right to have high capacity magazines.

You ask an irrelevant question and then you criticize me for answering it?

No. I ask a relevant question and I criticize you for responding with a logical fallacy.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
There is a reason everyone hates lawyers. You know very well that the question was asked in the context of your suggestion that it is reasonable to allow the police to have special weapons that the general population is denied access to.

You introduced a strawman argument and wanted me to address it. I did. I'm not going to address a strawman argument in the context of the original argument, because your strawman argument doesn't have anything to do with the original argument. That's because it's a strawman.

You attempted to wriggle out of explaining why the police should have the right to have high-capacity magazines (which, we are told, are only useful for murdering lots of people) by implying vaguely that such magazines might actually have a use other than murdering lots of people.

Asking you to explain what that use might be is not a strawman. It is asking you to justify your point.

joefromchicago wrote:

As for why police get to have some kinds of weapons that ordinary citizens don't, I've already answered that question.

Yes, but when asked to justify your answer, you could not respond with anything other than logical fallacies.

joefromchicago wrote:

If you want to refute the point that I made, I suggest you address it directly, rather than introducing a strawman argument into the discussion.

I was not trying to refute your point, and am willing to contemplate the possibility that you were correct.

However, given that your point can't seem to be justified without resort to massive logical fallacies, perhaps you are actually wrong, and there is actually no reason that the police should have access to high-capacity magazines.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That *is* my point. Or at least one of them. The movement to ban these magazines depends on the illusion that they have a strong negative impact on society and no positive value to society. Dispelling that illusion derails the effort to pass the ban.

No it doesn't. Private citizens, for the most part, are not allowed to have automatic weapons. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone who opposes the private ownership of automatic weapons also opposes automatic weapons for the armed forces. Just because some people want to ban ownership of large-capacity handgun clips by private citizens doesn't automatically mean that they oppose it for law enforcement as well.

I guarantee you that dispelling that illusion will end any possible chance that the bill will ever become federal law.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I guess I had two points. The other was the notion that the police should be limited to the same guns that ordinary people have access to.

And yet another strawman.

No, that was an expression of my personal beliefs. That would be categorized as an opinion, I believe, rather than as a strawman.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

No. I ask a relevant question and I criticize you for responding with a logical fallacy.

Your "relevant" question is a strawman.

oralloy wrote:

You attempted to wriggle out of explaining why the police should have the right to have high-capacity magazines (which, we are told, are only useful for murdering lots of people)...

Stop right there. We are told that large-capacity clips are only useful for murdering lots of people? Who is telling us this? And don't give me any "all those liberals" type of non-answers. If there is some public figure or organization out there who is actually taking the position that large-capacity handgun clips are only useful for murdering people, then you should have no problem identifying that individual or group. Otherwise, you're just creating a strawman argument.

oralloy wrote:

Yes, but when asked to justify your answer, you could not respond with anything other than logical fallacies.

It's a good thing for you that you at least seem to know something about guns, because you know nothing about logic.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No. I ask a relevant question and I criticize you for responding with a logical fallacy.

Your "relevant" question is a strawman.

My relevant question was a request that your suggestion, that police might have a use for high-capacity magazines other than murdering lots of people, be backed up with an explanation as for what this other use is exactly.

Asking you to justify your claims is not a strawman.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
You attempted to wriggle out of explaining why the police should have the right to have high-capacity magazines (which, we are told, are only useful for murdering lots of people)...

Stop right there. We are told that large-capacity clips are only useful for murdering lots of people? Who is telling us this? And don't give me any "all those liberals" type of non-answers. If there is some public figure or organization out there who is actually taking the position that large-capacity handgun clips are only useful for murdering people, then you should have no problem identifying that individual or group.

Well, off hand, Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J:

Quote:

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Lautenberg added.

LINK

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.:

Quote:

“The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” McCarthy wrote in a letter to her colleagues that accompanied the bill. “There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.”

LINK

There is also this bit of nonsense from the front page of the Brady website (although I don't know how long they'll keep it there):

Quote:

Large capacity ammunition magazines are designed to enable shooting mass numbers of people quickly and efficiently without reloading. They are not useful for hunting or self-defense.

LINK

The same cast of characters has spewed variations on the same bilge each time assault weapons legislation was in the news, but I had trouble finding older statements under the sheer mass of quotes of these current statements.

Senator Feinstein from California has in the past denounced high capacity magazines, and were I to dig deep enough I'm sure I could produce quotes from her of a similar nature to the ones I just provided.

I didn't find anything by VPC (Violence Policy Center) but they belong in the mix too, as their positions are even more extreme than the Brady people.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Yes, but when asked to justify your answer, you could not respond with anything other than logical fallacies.

It's a good thing for you that you at least seem to know something about guns, because you know nothing about logic.

I'm not the one who is trying in vain to defend a logically untenable position.....

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

My relevant question was a request that your suggestion, that police might have a use for high-capacity magazines other than murdering lots of people, be backed up with an explanation as for what this other use is exactly.

Except that you never asked me that question.

oralloy wrote:

The same cast of characters has spewed variations on the same bilge each time assault weapons legislation was in the news, but I had trouble finding older statements under the sheer mass of quotes of these current statements.

Why give up so easily? You still haven't found any individuals or organizations who claim that large-capacity handgun clips are only useful for murdering lots of people.

oralloy wrote:

I'm not the one who is trying in vain to defend a logically untenable position.....

Think again.

2 Replies

It is a historical fact that while arguing for Ratification of the Constitution,
before the Bill of Rights was enacted, the Founders, the Federalists, argued
that the citizens coud and woud use military force to overthrow a tyrannical government,
as thay had just finished actually doing.

In that spirit, the same Congress who proposed the Bill of Rights to the States (the First Congress),
also capped the membership of the US Army at 840 men. (Thay have since changed their mind.)

Accordingly, one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the citizens
of America woud always have enuf power
to fire a government that became abusive
(e.g., suspending elections, suppressing free speech, robbing people of their guns, etc.)

That political goal is impossible if the personal firearms
of American citizens were as dictated by the entity
against which thay were to be applied.

This is indicative of the mindset and the political environment
in which the 2nd Amendment was enacted.
The same way that government has no jd to make u buy the NY Times if u don't wanna,
so also it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the purchase of any size of ammo magazines.

David

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Since the 2 promoters of this Bill freely admit it has not the slightest chance of passage, what do you think is the purpose for which they propose it to begin with? I'm asking you because my impression is that you're generally sympathetic to restrictions on guns and ammo, and I genuinely want to know.

1 Reply

MY opinion
is that thay r:

1) GRANDSTANDING for their leftist constituencies

and

2) getting their emotional rocks off.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

These are the 2 most probable causes I can come up with as well, but I hope to hear from some supporter of gun control on the unintended consequences of introducing such bills; one of them being general contempt for all such future bills because they're demonstrably a waste of everybody's time.

1 Reply

The telltale characteristic of a FREE COUNTRY
is sovereignty and power being in the citizens,
NOT in government. Hence, the 2nd Amendment
to the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Joseph Story, a Justice of the US Supreme Court (1811-1845)
explained:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties
of the republic since it offers a strong moral check against
usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers and will
generally, even if these are successful in the first instance,
enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
3 J. Story "COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION" 746 (1833)

The palladium was an ancient Greek statue of Pallas Athena,
godess of war and wisdom. Athenians believed that as long
as the statue existed and was preserved, the people'd be safe
from attack.

David

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

These are the 2 most probable causes I can come up with as well, but I hope to hear from some supporter of gun control on the unintended consequences of introducing such bills; one of them being general contempt for all such future bills because they're demonstrably a waste of everybody's time.

In MY opinion, the filosofy of gun control has its foundation in leftists' minds in:

1) the unexamined ASSUMPTION that ordinary private citizens cannot make guns
(the same as thay cannot make bathtub gin, nor can thay grow marijuana),
nor can anyone have access to blackmarket gunsmiths,
so criminals will be unarmed, if gun control is enacted. (Their guns will all vanish, by magic.)

2) the belief that it is good for government to control society
as mother and dad controlled their household
with the citizens being forever in docile obedience
and in unwavering trust in the politicians,
to whose wisdom thay must ever defer.

IF individual citizens are slain, in a state of helplessness
because thay are unarmed by force of law,
then that is their moral duty to pay that patriotic sacrifice
for the good of collectivism in a quiescent society quietly marching toward Marx.

Hence, gun control is the rejection of the very deepest essence
of the Original American viewpoint of rugged Individualism
in an environment of personal freedom.

Gun control is a counter-revolution
against the libertarian, Individualist Revolution of 1776.
It is anathema to the legacy of freedom of George Washington,
James Madison & Thomas Jefferson,
all of whom were gun lovers who organized
and participated in gunnery competitions for the citizens.

I can say, without exaggeration that thay were
to the right of the NRA.
Thay 'd say that the NRA is a Quisling, giving away the store,
compromising American liberty.

I will be accused of overstating the case; let it be,
but the choice between candidates who favor and who oppose gun control
is analogous to an election between George Washington and Karl Marx.

Such an election addresses the Big Question:
WHO is the boss? the citizen, or the government that he created, his child ?

The conservative, who does not vary
from the filosofy of the Founders
insists that in America sovereignty is in the CITIZEN.

The supporter of gun control abhors this,
declaiming: "no, sovereignty does not befit the Individual; his proper role is docile humility
in the fullest quiescence before his sovereign government.
Let him prove his loyalty to collectivism on his knees."
(Shades of Frankenstein)

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I like how congress only acts when it is one of their "own" who is the victim. But had all the victims had been black males absolutely nothing would have been done. How do I know? Because there have been hundreds of cases of gang violence where larger than 10 round clips were used yet you get nothing out of that.

This is typical have and have not mentality. Congress doesn't care about the people, it only cares about itself. What they don't realize is that by banning these clips it will only make things worse not better. People who want the clips will still find them so banning does absolutely nothing.

If the government wants to stop being targeted for violence, maybe they should actually do something like, pay attention to the people instead of themselves for once.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I like how congress only acts when it is one of their "own" who is the victim.

MY guys, the good guys, intend to see to it that NOTHING will change.

We intend to forget the bill to death in committee,
to the greater glory of American FREEDOM.

David

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

.... by banning these clips it will only make things worse not better. People who want the clips will still find them so banning does absolutely nothing.

I disagree, and have stated reasons for that: attempts to ban clips over 10 rounds will accomplish something, an increased contempt for any such new legislative attempts. Any actual ban via passing a - hypothetical - law will of course result in increasing general lawlessness and contempt for all laws.

That's the immutable law of unintended (by those 2 legislators) consequences, and I wonder why they don't see that - or do they?

1 Reply

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know