Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

She likes a 30 round mag in her AK

I like 10 & 30 round mags and 75 & 100 round drums in my AKM

I love the 100 round drums.
There are 200 round drums made for the beloved .45 Thompson Sub.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, I fully understand the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. But lets face it, if we had to attempt to overthrow a tyrant in the US today and said tyrant had control of the military, then we're screwed no matter how many rounds are in our clips. Unless of course we can begin owning armored vehicles, fighter jets and what not. So yeah, based on that fact, I don't see any major issue with limiting clips to 10 rounds. And if being realistic is clownish, then I'll happily return to my clown avatar.

As I said on my first post, this is an area where many of my fellow conservatives will disagree with me. But I'm comfortable with my view on this issue.

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

I don't see any major issue with unlimited rounds, only ass clowns would consider limiting capacities.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Guess then this is one of the few areas we would disagree about. Sorry you feel the need to resort to making a smart ass remark simply because we disagree.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Finn, I fully understand the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. But lets face it, if we had to attempt to overthrow a tyrant in the US today and said tyrant had control of the military, then we're screwed no matter how many rounds are in our clips. Unless of course we can begin owning armored vehicles, fighter jets and what not. So yeah, based on that fact, I don't see any major issue with limiting clips to 10 rounds. And if being realistic is clownish, then I'll happily return to my clown avatar.

As I said on my first post, this is an area where many of my fellow conservatives will disagree with me. But I'm comfortable with my view on this issue.

The legal theory behind the whole Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights
was enacted, was that we citizens coud fire
our hireling government, using force, if necessary.
This was argued and was undisputed by any side
even before the Bill of Rights was enacted.
It was argued in the Federalist Papers,
in support of ratifying the Constitution of 1787.

That historical fact, that intention,
has not changed along with new military technology.

That is definitive Constitutional theory
governing subsequent statutory law.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I've not disagreed David. As I will state again, I understand what the founding fathers were saying and writing. And if we had to fire our hireling government, as you say, and use force back then, the citizens being well armed would be on a relative equal footing with whatever the government could bring against them. As of today, even with 100 round clips, citizens could not match the fire power a government controlled military could bring to the fight. As such, you could own an entire arsenal of 100 clip weapons and a well placed air strike would make it all useless.

So applying logic, I would be quite satisfied to have 10 clips with 10 rounds in each which will still leave me just as dead as you with your 100 round clip but in between time may well limit what a criminal is capable of doing to innocent citizens in a public setting.

So I couldn't care either way if a 10 round limit per clip were made law. Makes no difference to me and seems a reasonable compromise with our liberal brethren. And if such a law is eventually declared unconstitutional, well, that's all fine and good too.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Hell, I don't have any problem with hand gun vending machines.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Somehow I didn't think you would. Smile

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

It's easily safer than vending machines that dole out sodas and snacks .

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That's true. We can't expect parents and kids to take personal responsibility for their eating habits, now can we?

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I've not disagreed David. As I will state again, I understand what the founding fathers were saying and writing. And if we had to fire our hireling government, as you say, and use force back then, the citizens being well armed would be on a relative equal footing with whatever the government could bring against them. As of today, even with 100 round clips, citizens could not match the fire power a government controlled military could bring to the fight. As such, you could own an entire arsenal of 100 clip weapons and a well placed air strike would make it all useless.

Granting that, it has no effect
on the deal that was struck as of Dec. 15, 1791, during the founding of this Republic.
(Here, I argue that adoption of the Bill of Rights
was part of the Founding of the Republic.)
A deal is a deal. All that is to be done
is to ascertain what that deal WAS and to apply the principles of that contract.

CoastalRat wrote:

So applying logic,

Most Respectfully, I deny that that is logical. I believe that logic does not yield that result.

CoastalRat wrote:

I would be quite satisfied to have 10 clips with 10 rounds in each which will still leave me just as dead as you with your 100 round clip but in between time may well limit what a criminal is capable of doing to innocent citizens in a public setting.

As a matter of principle, if u concede to our hireling
the authority to decide what means we can bring
to bear when firing the hireling,
then we can be reduced to single-shot .22s
or to water pistols. If we compromise the principle of sovereignty then everything is lost,
at the discretion of the hireling that wants us to be helpless and for IT to have a monopoly of power.
It woud be like Israel conceding to Iran
the authority to decide what weapons Israel can have.

CoastalRat wrote:

So I couldn't care either way if a 10 round limit per clip were made law.
Makes no difference to me and seems a reasonable compromise with our liberal brethren.

Compromise of PRINCIPLE is immoral. Compromise = annihilation.
If u have a yard sale, u can negotiate the price
of an old table, but if a customer demands
that u sell (or rent) him your wife or mom,
that shoud not be the occasion of compromise.

David

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Somehow I didn't think you would.

"Equal protection of the laws" does not allow for discrimination.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Ok. Not sure where I argued it did allow for discrimination. Maybe that thought just popped into your head and you thought writing it out and posting it would somehow impress me. I don't know. But in any case, I would certainly agree with that statement.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Ok. Not sure where I argued it did allow for discrimination. Maybe that thought just popped into your head and you thought writing it out and posting it would somehow impress me. I don't know. But in any case, I would certainly agree with that statement.

The only purpose of licensure is to discriminate.

Do u deny that ?

Vending machines cannot discriminate.
I believe that was Waterman's point.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Compromise of PRINCIPLE is immoral.

Correct. The principle in this case is the constitutional right to bear arms. I wouldn't compromise on that. But compromising on the number of rounds a clip can legally hold is not the same thing. The constitution makes no mention of the right to bear 100 round clips of ammo. So I think I'm content if that compromise ever became law.

Quote:

Most Respectfully, I deny that that is logical. I believe that logic does not yield that result.

So why don't you tell us the result that you believe logic would yield.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Ok. Not sure where I argued it did allow for discrimination. Maybe that thought just popped into your head and you thought writing it out and posting it would somehow impress me. I don't know. But in any case, I would certainly agree with that statement.

The only purpose of licensure is to discriminate.
David

There is a public safety element of the equation as well. Do you quibble with the fact that known criminals and people with known insanities cannot buy guns? Or that illegal aliens (supposedly) cannot buy guns under our laws?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Did I argue with H2OMan? Nope. And last I looked, this topic had nothing to do with licensing anything. So again, I'm not sure why you've assumed I am in favor of requiring a person to license a gun.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Finn, I fully understand the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. But lets face it, if we had to attempt to overthrow a tyrant in the US today and said tyrant had control of the military, then we're screwed no matter how many rounds are in our clips. Unless of course we can begin owning armored vehicles, fighter jets and what not. So yeah, based on that fact, I don't see any major issue with limiting clips to 10 rounds. And if being realistic is clownish, then I'll happily return to my clown avatar.

As I said on my first post, this is an area where many of my fellow conservatives will disagree with me. But I'm comfortable with my view on this issue.

You misunderstood my prior post. I was not suggesting that you were clownish, but that you should return to the clown icon because your current dog one looks so much like CalamityJane's. It was an attempt at humor that obviously failed. No offence intended.

As I wrote, I won't lose sleep over a ban of 10+ clips, but I also don't believe the Framers would be so quick to approve of it.

If a US tyrant rises (as unlikely as that may be) armed citizens will need elements of the armed forces to side with them.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

David wrote:

Compromise of PRINCIPLE is immoral.

Correct. The principle in this case is the constitutional right to bear arms. I wouldn't compromise on that. But compromising on the number of rounds a clip can legally hold is not the same thing. The constitution makes no mention of the right to bear 100 round clips of ammo. So I think I'm content if that compromise ever became law.

David wrote:

Most Respectfully, I deny that that is logical. I believe that logic does not yield that result.

CoastalRat wrote:

So why don't you tell us the result that you believe logic would yield.

Yes.
By the 2nd Amendment, sovereignty is PHYSICALLY vested in the citizens
and citizens' possession of firearms has been put beyond the reach of government in America,
the same as possession of newspapers or books.

To the Revolutionaries who founded this Republic,
ridding ourselves of government was a very real possibility, as thay had just finished DOING it.

Government is CONSTITUTED of the Constitution,
the same way that ice is constituted of water.
What the citizens have rights to do
is governed by that agreement
and the invention of nuclear weapons did NOT change that deal.
The deal remains intact.

IF government has the authority to decide
whether we can have 11 round magazines or not,
then that authority can be used to deny us any weapons of its choice.
EITHER that authority exists or it does not exist.

THAT is what the logic yields.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, I didn't take your post wrong. I took some minor offense at H20's "ass clownish" retort, but I know you didn't mean anything by your remark. We're good. Never known you to get personal that I can recall.

I didn't realize my dog looks so much like Jane's. I'll have to check that out.

I'm not sure the framers would approve of the ban either. I'm not certain it would pass constitutional muster. My point has only been that I'm not bothered one way or the other.

1 Reply

Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know