Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Frankly, I don't carry it for a number of reasons which I won't go into here.

Thank you Joe. I was wondering how you would respond given I deliberately didn't use any emoticons.

I must say it was miles above your usual blood libel about drunkenness.

In any case, the point still remains that he couldn't dispatch the bad guys with a single gun.

Hehehehehe.

How funny the blood spurting and the people dying!

If a US tyrant rises (as unlikely as that may be)

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.

oralloy wrote:

I find it noteworthy that mainstream gun control advocates always want to make an exception for the police.

I'm curious if the police have any use for high-capacity magazines that would not also apply to a civilian defending themselves.

Why exempt the police?

For the same reason we let them run red lights.

Because of SWAT teams. No politician is seriously standing up to the increasing militarization of our police force.

Cycloptichorn

if you guys had only had this conversation with mister Loughner...

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

If he had only had a ten-round clip, it's likely he would never have done so much damage.

U 'd have been HAPPIER if he'd just made a bomb ?
Like Tim McV. ???

Based on what I've heard about this guy, I don't think he was capable of contructing a bomb. Building and using those things takes a sort of evil genius, which Loughner did not possess. It doesn't take much in the way of intelligence to shoot at people.

Glad to hear about this bill; hope it passes.

According to reports

According to reports

"Police said the suspects started tying Eva Castillo up and told Ramon Castillo to put his hands behind his back.

But Mr. Castillo used that opportunity to reach into his back waistband, pull out his pistol and shoot one of the suspects.

Police said the other two suspects started shooting at Ramon Castillo, who returned fire as he made his way to a shotgun he kept in the store.

Once he got the shotgun, police said Mr. Castillo killed the two remaining suspects."



Classic. Handgun in a holster. Use the handgun to fight your way to the long gun, then use the long gun.

A centerfire rifle loaded with hunting ammo might have been better than a shotgun though, since centerfire rifles ignore Kevlar and other soft body armor -- and even hard body armor if you swap the hunting ammo for AP ammo, although AP ammo has the tradeoff of low stopping power.

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I find it noteworthy that mainstream gun control advocates always want to make an exception for the police.

I'm curious if the police have any use for high-capacity magazines that would not also apply to a civilian defending themselves.

Why exempt the police?

For the same reason we let them run red lights.

We let them run red lights only when that red-light-running serves a social purpose -- like chasing bank robbers or something.

Is there a social purpose served by police having more than 10 rounds in their clips?

The gun control movement tells us that the only purpose of clips over 10 rounds is to massacre lots of innocent people. Surely we don't want the police massacring lots of innocent people.

oralloy wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I find it noteworthy that mainstream gun control advocates always want to make an exception for the police.

I'm curious if the police have any use for high-capacity magazines that would not also apply to a civilian defending themselves.

Why exempt the police?

For the same reason we let them run red lights.

We let them run red lights only when that red-light-running serves a social purpose -- like chasing bank robbers or something.

Is there a social purpose served by police having more than 10 rounds in their clips?

The gun control movement tells us that the only purpose of clips over 10 rounds is to massacre lots of innocent people. Surely we don't want the police massacring lots of innocent people.

You do understand the difference between police and murderers, don't you?

In theory the difference would be similar to the difference between "people exercising self-defense" and murderers.

If you can't comprehend that different rules apply to police, as agents of the state with the task of enforcing law and order, then you might want to reconsider your argument.

oralloy wrote:

In theory the difference would be similar to the difference between "people exercising self-defense" and murderers.

No, that's not the difference at all.

Look, I understand that you're trying hard to show that opponents of large-capacity handgun clips are somehow being hypocritical for supporting police use of those clips,

and I can appreciate just how difficult it must be to make sense out of that argument,

but you're doing a piss-poor job of it.

If you can't comprehend that different rules apply to police, as agents of the state with the task of enforcing law and order, then you might want to reconsider your argument.

In theory the difference would be similar to the difference between "people exercising self-defense" and murderers.

No, that's not the difference at all.

Look, I understand that you're trying hard to show that opponents of large-capacity handgun clips are somehow being hypocritical for supporting police use of those clips, and I can appreciate just how difficult it must be to make sense out of that argument, but you're doing a piss-poor job of it. If you can't comprehend that different rules apply to police, as agents of the state with the task of enforcing law and order, then you might want to reconsider your argument.

Sounds more like the home of the inmates running the asylum. However, carry on.