4
   

The stupidity of "magazine control"

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 11:00 am
@roger,
Quote:

Too bad you gun control people can't be counted on to stop there, but we know you can't, dont we.

Yeah.. first they license cars, then they will take them away.
First they license businesses then they will take them away.
First they license professionals like Drs, then they will take them away.

The slippery slope argument is still a logical fallacy even when it is used to argue we can't license guns.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 11:12 am
@roger,
OR I , I dont trust the "Second Amendment uber alles" dudes as well as the radical gun controlists.

Dave and ilk scare me, (but so do those who wont want armed guards at schools because they fear a "gunfight")
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 11:27 am
@farmerman,
Dave don't scare me, but there are a couple here who do.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 11:41 am
@farmerman,
The 34 act was intended mainly to give idled prohibition workers something to do. Nobody in those days gave a rat's ass about what kinds of firearms anybody owned.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 06:42 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
draconian assault on the constitution.....that's rich


Some of us think things like civil rights are important.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 06:47 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Luckily that is offset by the fact that most black bears are not nearly as big as the browns. But still, if a hungry black bear decides to have you for lunch, you better be prepared to fight.


That must explain why there are so few people killed by black bears. Rolling Eyes

27 in North America in the last 24 years. Wow.. We better be careful of black bears.


If you want to go feed yourself to a bear, go right ahead.

But don't complain when others choose differently.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 06:50 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
SO, banning several other assault weapon "appurtenances" may be built upon the NFA. (BUT, Im not certain that this Supreme Court isnt just an arm of the NRA)


Any ban on harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips will be struck down.

All the Supreme Court is doing is upholding the Constitution.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 07:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
All the Supreme Court is doing is upholding the Constitution.
Duhhh
It was the USSC that upheld the intent of the NFA of 1934.
dmit it, we are neither legal scholars but that you are misinformed of this point
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2013 10:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
All the Supreme Court is doing is upholding the Constitution.


Duhhh
It was the USSC that upheld the intent of the NFA of 1934.


They weren't upholding the Constitution then. They are now.

That said, hard to say whether any of the NFA actually violates the Constitution.



farmerman wrote:
dmit it, we are neither legal scholars


I'm close enough.



farmerman wrote:
but that you are misinformed of this point


No, the constitutional principles are quite clear. The government is only allowed to pass a law that impacts a fundamental right if they have a good reason to do so.

And there is no good reason for banning pistol grips and adjustable stocks.

Had there been any real effort to limit magazine sizes alone, that may have made it through. But I'm pleased to announce that all the focus on pistol grips has successfully killed magazine limits. The only thing Congress is interested in passing now is expanded background checks.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 11:02 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

No, the constitutional principles are quite clear. The government is only allowed to pass a law that impacts a fundamental right if they have a good reason to do so.

Large numbers of citizens being killed isn't a good enough reason for you it seems.
I guess the Constitution is a suicide pact for you.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 11:13 am
The real stupidity of this entire business starts to sink in when people start to grasp the realities of the basic M4/M16/AR15 rile.

The ONLY thing about an M16 which is even a tiny bit difficult to manufacture is the barrel. Unlike a FAL rifle whose upper receiver has to take the stress of firing and which has to be hard forged and whose barrel is fitted to the receiver with something like 130 ft-lbs of torque, the only thing which takes any stress in an M16 is the barrel, the bolt carrier locks into the breach of the barrel and not into the receiver.

Also unlike the case with a FAL, the lower receiver of an M16 which, for all intents and purposes could be made of plastic, is the legal part of the gun i.e. carries the serial number. Ordering a complete upper receiver and barrel for an M16 is legally the same as buying a sack of potatoes, don't take my word for it check it yourself:

http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=m16+upper
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=m4+upper

Anybody with any sort of a machine shop could manufacture M16 bolts, bolt carriers, triggers and springs and what not.

Very shortly, people will be making M16 lower receivers, butt-stocks, and magazines (the evil 20 and 30 round types) with inexpensive 3D printers and the only way you could get past the problem I mention regarding barrels and upper receivers would be to ban and outlaw the M16 altogether, which would leave our military standing around with, in the immortal words of Santino Corleone, just their dicks in their hands.









0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 01:42 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, the constitutional principles are quite clear. The government is only allowed to pass a law that impacts a fundamental right if they have a good reason to do so.


Large numbers of citizens being killed isn't a good enough reason for you it seems.


I'm pretty sure that allowing pistol grips on rifles has never caused even one death, much less large numbers of them.



parados wrote:
I guess the Constitution is a suicide pact for you.


Allowing pistol grips on rifles causes no damage whatsoever to American society.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 01:50 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Large numbers of citizens being killed isn't a good enough reason for you it seems.
I guess the Constitution is a suicide pact for you.


Large numbers of people being killed IS a problem for me.

Problem is you're looking at the thing ass backwards. Gun violence kills relatively tiny numbers of people; gun CONTROL on the other hand leads to fascist government, which kills people by the millions and tens of millions.

Try going on ebay and buying a few history books....
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 02:36 pm
re snake:
That is a total logical non sequitur. And gun violence has killed in the area of 150,000 people in the US since 9/11, more than 30 times as many as the terrorists killed. I don't regard that as a tiny number, tho you seem to..
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 02:36 pm
@oralloy,
I guess if you want to cling to your strawman like you do, go ahead. I won't stop you.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 02:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
I guess if you want to cling to your strawman like you do, go ahead. I won't stop you.


Pointing out that "a ban on pistol grips" is unconstitutional, is not in any way a straw man.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 03:00 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
And gun violence has killed in the area of 150,000 people in the US since 9/11,


They'd be just as dead if they were killed with knives.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 03:01 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
I guess if you want to cling to your strawman like you do, go ahead. I won't stop you.


Pointing out that "a ban on pistol grips" is unconstitutional, is not in any way a straw man.

It is a strawman since this discussion is about magazine control. You introduced an argument that isn't in play here and then proceeded to beat it up. Classic strawman.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 03:28 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
They weren't upholding the Constitution then. They are now
SO, were they lying then or are they lying now?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2013 03:34 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
I guess if you want to cling to your strawman like you do, go ahead. I won't stop you.


Pointing out that "a ban on pistol grips" is unconstitutional, is not in any way a straw man.


It is a strawman since this discussion is about magazine control. You introduced an argument that isn't in play here


No, farmerman raised "banning several other assault weapon 'appurtenances'" and I merely responded to what he said.


However, even if it hadn't been raised by someone else, it would still be on topic, since:

a) so many people insist on tying any "magazine ban" to "a ban on assault weapons", and

b) the push to limit magazine sizes has been defeated, and largely due to overreach by the people mentioned in "a" above.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 08:53:05