|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 10, 2011 8:09:07 GMT -8
What are they designed for? What is their purpose?
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 10, 2011 8:48:41 GMT -8
What are they designed for? What is their purpose? Look, I don't get it either. I guess the Virginia tech weapon was similar. I grew up with a single shot 22 rifle. Probably has to do with gun rights and any discussion of capability is treasonous. But I respect both Stu and Davesid's opinion on this. Not trying to start a fight...but good question. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 10, 2011 12:13:47 GMT -8
What are they designed for? What is their purpose? Look, I don't get it either. I guess the Virginia tech weapon was similar. I grew up with a single shot 22 rifle. Probably has to do with gun rights and any discussion of capability is treasonous. But I respect both Stu and Davesid's opinion on this. Not trying to start a fight...but good question. It was once legal to own Thompson sub-machine guns. Now it is not. It has, as far as I know, never been legal to own military artillery (20mm and larger). Furthermore, the NRA has no problem with such weapons being illegal. The point is clear; guns are legal but not everybody can own just any gun he or she wants to. I would certainly think it reasonable that large capacity magazines should not be legal. They do not prevent a citizen from exercising his Second Amendment rights, nor to defend home and family. How we prevent crooks from getting them is another question. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 10, 2011 14:35:40 GMT -8
What are they designed for? What is their purpose? Look, I don't get it either. I guess the Virginia tech weapon was similar. I grew up with a single shot 22 rifle. Probably has to do with gun rights and any discussion of capability is treasonous. But I respect both Stu and Davesid's opinion on this. Not trying to start a fight...but good question. Hmmm... ...I didn't know there was such a thing as a 31 shot 9mm, but I guess there is. I can't imagine how such a thing would be concealable...the magazine would have to extend halfway down the carrier's pant leg. If I were interested in a handgun, I would opt for a single action revolver... but that's just me. I'd say, though, the more important thing is the "who", rather than the "what". The "who" in Arizona seems to have been a candidate for the no-no list based on comments coming from those who knew him. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 10, 2011 14:59:57 GMT -8
These weapons are not needed for anything. Revolvers and hunting rifles/shotguns are fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 10, 2011 15:52:56 GMT -8
Look, I don't get it either. I guess the Virginia tech weapon was similar. I grew up with a single shot 22 rifle. Probably has to do with gun rights and any discussion of capability is treasonous. But I respect both Stu and Davesid's opinion on this. Not trying to start a fight...but good question. Hmmm... ...I didn't know there was such a thing as a 31 shot 9mm, but I guess there is. I can't imagine how such a thing would be concealable...the magazine would have to extend halfway down the carrier's pant leg. If I were interested in a handgun, I would opt for a single action revolver... but that's just me. I'd say, though, the more important thing is the "who", rather than the "what". The "who" in Arizona seems to have been a candidate for the no-no list based on comments coming from those who knew him. I may have misread the article, or perhaps the article was wrong. There is this, however... www.glockworld.com/item/42680_Glock_High_Capacity_Magazine_Glock_MF17033_G17_Magazin.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jan 10, 2011 22:52:55 GMT -8
They are made for a high body count
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 7:54:40 GMT -8
They are made for a high body count Or, to put as many holes through as many bodies as necessary. [BAL mode on] I am going to switch from sick old man to Born Again Liberal and postulate that we should specifically designate what weapons can be used by the state militias in this Great Country. A 2008 Supreme Court decision would have to be overturned to effect that. In my proposal, any weapon not approved for State Militia use would be illegal unless it was in a historical collection that only people of established sound mind can maintain. We just have too many weapons killing too many people on the streets of America. [BAL mode off] In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 11, 2011 16:37:17 GMT -8
In general, I don't think automatic weapons have any use in hunting or target shooting. Now if we were to limit weapons to those approved for use by The Militia, it would make sense to me to make sure that The Militia had as much fire power as possible so that they would at least match criminals and terrorists. If we limit what you can buy legally, are we not also making sure that those with illegal weapons have us outgunned?
Maybe what we should be doing is just making sure that the gun buying process includes some sort of suitability requirement so that nuts and felons are restricted from legally buying weapons. Maybe if you have ever used any illegal drugs you should not be able to buy weapons.
I am caught up in a little bit of a quandary in that I also do not want to register any weapons. That seems at odds with what I have stated above. Maybe if records of suitability requirement investigations were destroyed after a certain period of time.
Just wondering. I might be able to be talked out of part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 12, 2011 17:10:42 GMT -8
Hmmm... ...I didn't know there was such a thing as a 31 shot 9mm, but I guess there is. I can't imagine how such a thing would be concealable...the magazine would have to extend halfway down the carrier's pant leg. If I were interested in a handgun, I would opt for a single action revolver... but that's just me. I'd say, though, the more important thing is the "who", rather than the "what". The "who" in Arizona seems to have been a candidate for the no-no list based on comments coming from those who knew him. I may have misread the article, or perhaps the article was wrong. There is this, however... www.glockworld.com/item/42680_Glock_High_Capacity_Magazine_Glock_MF17033_G17_Magazin.aspxNope, you're right. I saw my daughter (the police sergeant) today, and she said yes indeed there are such magazines for the 9mm. She has a Glock 9mm, but the magazines are 15 rounds. She prefers to carry an S&W .40 caliber, though. She said the 31 round magazine would extend out of the butt of the pistol to a degree that would make it difficult to conceal. I suppose there could be a 100 or more round magazine that would function in the semi-auto pistol, and the bottom of the magazine could be used as a support. But that's beside the point here. I can't think of any reason to have such a device, not even in a combat zone. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 13, 2011 8:57:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 14, 2011 13:42:06 GMT -8
I thought you wanted to discuss? Go ahead.... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 14, 2011 22:49:15 GMT -8
I think that the type of weapon that was used should not be available to the general public. I understand why people would want handguns. I just see no valid reason for the one used in the Tucson massacre.
I would propose that handguns available to the public be limited to 6 shot revolvers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 15, 2011 7:50:33 GMT -8
I think that the type of weapon that was used should not be available to the general public. I understand why people would want handguns. I just see no valid reason for the one used in the Tucson massacre. I would propose that handguns available to the public be limited to 6 shot revolvers. It is probably a start, but it is more important to make sure people who are unstable do not have access. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 15, 2011 10:15:06 GMT -8
I think that the type of weapon that was used should not be available to the general public. I understand why people would want handguns. I just see no valid reason for the one used in the Tucson massacre. I would propose that handguns available to the public be limited to 6 shot revolvers. It is probably a start, but it is more important to make sure people who are unstable do not have access. Win our present system allows just about any nutcase to get one. There is no check and balance...and the NRA would lobby and intimidate against any additional scrutiny....you can take that to the bank. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Jan 15, 2011 10:41:10 GMT -8
I think that the type of weapon that was used should not be available to the general public. I understand why people would want handguns. I just see no valid reason for the one used in the Tucson massacre. I would propose that handguns available to the public be limited to 6 shot revolvers. I come from a military background, and after seeing the destruction weapons cause, from personal experience in action, I don't have a weapon. I don't have an issue with people having access to Glock's or other types of weapons that aren't specifically military related. My issue is with the access those deemed "unstable" have to them and the size of the magazines being sold. I think if that nut case had had to swap out a magazine it would have given someone time to act swiftly to help stop the carnage that idiot created. It would've at least slowed down the violent action for a second or two for someone to react to the pause in action. But, I don't know how you enforce those two sentiments above. It just seems like this idiot and the VA Tech gunman have access to weapons that cause catastrophic incidents. It would be nice if we had some system in place to help stop those types of idiots from getting weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 15, 2011 14:14:31 GMT -8
It is probably a start, but it is more important to make sure people who are unstable do not have access. Win our present system allows just about any nutcase to get one. There is no check and balance...and the NRA would lobby and intimidate against any additional scrutiny....you can take that to the bank. Maybe and maybe not. Do you think the NRA would lobby against a ban on gun ownership for convicted felons or drug users? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 15, 2011 14:35:42 GMT -8
Actually, Arizona has laws in place that would have resulted in this nut being denied the ability to purchase a firearm. The biggest failure here is the authorities not using the tools the law gives them, and it's no wonder that the sheriff is twisting and spinning, trying to blame everyone but his own failures and that of the education authorities. www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-01-13-arizonalaws13_st_N.htmAs for the extended magazines, and the issues posed by the WAPO article, I have said I see no reason for magazines such as the one cited to be generally available. Perhaps they should be categorized with other Class 3 devices under the NFA, like full-auto machine guns and silencers. I disagree with banning semi-auto handguns altogether. I have no interest in them, and do not own one, but they are in common use, and as such are protected by the 2nd A. OTOH, the extended mega-magazines are NOT in common use, and IMO are not protected. I would suggest magazine capacities be limited to what are common use capacity, such as the police and most other civilians commonly use. "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." -DC v. Heller- |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jan 16, 2011 9:29:52 GMT -8
Problem is the NRA will fight for a felon to be able to keep his or her gun rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 16, 2011 14:53:27 GMT -8
Problem is the NRA will fight for a felon to be able to keep his or her gun rights. You really like to sling gobs of snot against the wall and hope they stick, don't you? "Let's get one thing straight about both groups right now; neither side wants to see guns end up in the hands of criminals or those who have committed violent crimes. Anti-gun propaganda would have the public believe the NRA wants to set up shop in crime-plagued inner cities across the nation.
The fact is that the NRA strongly supports legislation that forbids felons and other violent criminals access to firearms. Moreover, they also applaud continued efforts to effectively screen potential gun buyers with electronic background checks."Read the whole thing: tinyurl.com/48etajc |
|
