Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

@BillRM,

Quote:

I don 't carry it for security, being only 9mm.
I have it as an artifact of history.

BillRM wrote:

Did you know David that there are a few 45 cal lugers in existed?

They was manufacture to try to get a US army contract for side arms
that in the end was won by the colt 1911 45.

Yes, that 's absolutely right, Bill.
Army Ordnance asked him for 200 of them
to test among themselves; he cheaped out and lost the contract.

Georg Luger was up against ANOTHER Genius:
John Moses Browning, blessings be upon him, on behalf of Colt.

Those .45 caliber Lugers are very rare
and thay command a high price among collectors.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I'll make this simple for you:

"Killing" and "murdering" are two different things. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. Laura Bush killed someone when she was 17. That doesn't make her a murderer.

So when a person says that large-capacity clips are only useful for killing lots of people, that's not the same thing as saying that large-capacity clips are only useful for murdering lots of people, and when you accuse people of taking the position that large-capacity clips are only useful for murdering people when they actually have said that those clips are only useful for killing people, you are misrepresenting their position and creating a strawman argument.

Society permits the police, in certain circumstances, to kill people. That's why cops carry guns.

Because the police are permitted to kill people, they are also, presumably, permitted to kill lots of people. Consequently, when some folks say that large-capacity clips are only useful for killing lots of people, they would not be hypocrites if they also took the position that it would be permissible for cops to have those clips, notwithstanding your increasingly childish attempts to the contrary.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Consequently, when some folks say that large-capacity clips are only useful for killing lots of people, they would not be hypocrites if they also took the position that it would be permissible for cops to have those clips, notwithstanding your increasingly childish attempts to the contrary.

Cops are not soldiers as must as they like to play at it and if the need arrived to kill a lot of citizens that is the job of the national guard not a police force unless we are in the third world.

Maintaining order with minimum use of deadly force should be the goal of any police force and the idea of cops just spraying large areas with rounds and as a result endangering innocents citizens is distasteful.

The normal firearm of a police officer should be a revolver in my opinion not a submarine gun for example.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

You think we need to regulate the police to revolvers but the common citizenry to simi-automatic weapons with a 50 shell magazine capacity? Tell me that I misunderstod you or my opinion of you will go way down.

2 Replies

I prefer revolvers for my own defensive security.
Automatics jam too much,
and I don't like their spraying out that brass all over the place.

David

0 Replies

I wish we had fasers,
like Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock.

David

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

You think we need to regulate the police to revolvers but the common citizenry to simi-automatic weapons with a 50 shell magazine capacity? Tell me that I misunderstod you or my opinion of you will go way down.

First my comment address the claimed "need" for the police to carry such weapons beyond the public "need" to do so and as far as auto-handguns verse revolvers I would take my 357 revolver again any semi auto weapon handgun in the world as I hit anything I aim at within 75 feet and five dumb dumb rounds of a 357 would stop a bear let alone a man.

A fifty rounds handgun would do a person with one 357 round in the heart no good at all and my return fire is not going to kill others as in a spray and pray method is highly likely to do.

There is zero reason for a police officer to be using a spray and pray as he should at least have my skill level and be able to take someone down without fulling the air with bullets.

Now do you understand?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Do you not understand the ignore function?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I understand your a John Wayne type who thinks he never misses. But at 75 feet I perfer a 12 ga shotgun. And most of the police officers I know wont fire into a crowed because they know that they cant hit what their shooting every time. Something the gun nuts dont seem to realize.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I am hardly the most skill handgun shooter of all times just good one and at 75 feet my average in the central of mass shooting is 80 percent or so and I do have 5 rounds so the odds of not getting a killing hit in approach zero.

Now there been far too many cases of the police opening fire at someone fulling the air with rounds with at lest half missing and only luck keeping others from being kill down range.

Spray and pray is not call for in police work and should not be allow.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Society permits the police, in certain circumstances, to kill people. That's why cops carry guns.

Society permits lawful people to defend themselves from and even kill unlawful people. That's why citizens carry guns.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Society permits the police, in certain circumstances, to kill people. That's why cops carry guns.

Society permits lawful people to defend themselves from and even kill unlawful people. That's why citizens carry guns.

There are plenty of reasons why people (including cops) carry guns, but these two reasons are precisely why people (including cops) are allowed by Society to carry guns.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Im sure that if you get off 5 rounds from a 357 magnum you will get a killing shot. The question is do you kill the person you are shooting at or some innocents who just happen to be in the way?

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

The question is do you kill the person you are shooting at or some innocents who just happen to be in the way?

With the lone exception of the perpetrator(s), aren't all of us, armed and unarmed... aren't we all just some innocents who happen to be in the way?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

The question is do you kill the person you are shooting at or some innocents who just happen to be in the way?

With the lone exception of the perpetrator(s), aren't all of us, armed and unarmed... aren't we all just some innocents who happen to be in the way?

No need to add to the odds

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Im sure that if you get off 5 rounds from a 357 magnum you will get a killing shot.

The question is do you kill the person you are shooting at
or some innocents who just happen to be in the way?

U do the best u can
to preserve your life under the circumstances.
Possibly, that might mean that if u see someone
using an ax or a knife butchering everyone within his reach
that u simply turn around and walk away from the general area,
go home or to a movie, silently deciding "I don't wanna by a hero;
I might injure an innocent bystander" as u walk away, carrying your
safely holstered .44 special revolver loaded with hollowpointed slugs,
UNLESS, of course the bad guy attacks u, yourself,
in which case, u empty out all of your ammo
into his large intestine. That shoud slow him down a bit.

Neither the NRA nor the 2nd Amendment Foundation
has alleged that any citizen has any duty to be a hero, against his will.

Peacefully walking away during the slaughter, RABEL222,
can be the easiest, most convenient and least expensive way to abandon the carnage.
That way u will surely spare yourself the expense
of hiring any lawyers, and u will not have injured any innocent bystanders,
nor wasted any ammunition.

U might make an anonymous call to police later,
if u remember.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Interesting case David of a little girl that got kill in Miami by being in the cross fire of a gang/drug shoot out.

They found because the man who round kill the girl was not the one who started the shootout and therefore he was acting in legal self defense they could not charge him for the death of the little girl even those the firearm he was carrying was not legal for him to have.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

The question is do you kill the person you are shooting at or some innocents who just happen to be in the way?

With the lone exception of the perpetrator(s), aren't all of us, armed and unarmed... aren't we all just some innocents who happen to be in the way?

No need to add to the odds

Meanwhile, progressive radical democrat liberals are working hard to make the odds more favorable for the perpetrator(s) by restricting gun ownership and use by lawful citizens making more and more citizens totally dependent on government for self protection and increasingly at the mercy of the lawless perpetrator(s). Kind of a jobs program for federal, state and local law enforcement, not to mention embalmers.

Progressive radical democrat liberals are working hard at creating more victims to rule over.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Interesting case David of a little girl that got kill in Miami by being in the cross fire of a gang/drug shoot out.

They found because the man who round kill the girl was not the one who started the shootout and therefore he was acting in legal self defense they could not charge him for the death of the little girl even those the firearm he was carrying was not legal for him to have.

That sounds like a good legal result.

David

0 Replies

Gun related facts:

Only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have actually been traced to
the U.S. not the fabricated 90 percent quoted by Obama democrats and the liberal media.

0 Replies

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know