PDA

View Full Version : Trading magazine capacity for other gun rights


Tmckinney
12-17-2012, 4:24 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.

DMorris2321
12-17-2012, 4:29 PM
That's a tough one, but I would have to say if it came down to it, I would much rather lose the option of standard magazine capacity then all of my rights, but this is coming from someone who started shooting after the ten round law.

taperxz
12-17-2012, 4:31 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.

That's a tough one, but I would have to say if it came down to it, I would much rather lose the option of standard magazine capacity then all of my rights, but this is coming from someone who started shooting after the ten round law.

My, how easily we give in. Giving up anything is going to do what to save who from losing their lives by a violent criminal?

4DMASTR
12-17-2012, 4:34 PM
Whats the phrase? Not one inch?

No trades, no bargaining, Ill keep all of my freedom please. (Or what is left)

Guntech
12-17-2012, 4:34 PM
My, how easily we give in. Giving up anything is going to do what to save who from losing their lives by a violent criminal?



This + 100000000000

RMP91
12-17-2012, 4:34 PM
If the AWB was inevitable, I would compromise with a 30 round limit for rifles and 20 for handguns. No more than 3 "features" on an AW (most don't even have that many coming from the factory). I wouldn't lose any sleep over this if those 2 compromises were made.

Again, this is only hypothetical and if (when) the antis calm down... I'd say give it another week... Christmas is next week...

Glock22Fan
12-17-2012, 4:35 PM
Don't trade nothing (double negative for emphasis). The anti's idea of compromise is that you give up half your rights NOW. Then, when there's another disaster, they'll want half of what's left and then again, and again, and again. Anyone not see where this leads?

This lunatic had already murdered his mother (2 shots, IIRC). So, we have a known unstable person, guilty of murder and firearms theft, entering a school to commit a massacre. How much difference would ten round magazines have made anyway?

JackRydden224
12-17-2012, 4:37 PM
You know what I don't understand? Why my rimfire weapons are limited to 10 rounds.

The only good thing about a Federal 10 round mag limit is that we Californians will never be denied purchase of a magazine or worry about a FFL not wanting to ship LOL :facepalm:

But yea, that's no bueno. Not one inch.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 4:44 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.


You are confused, they will gladly take away any mags over 10 rounds, but you need to back off the crack pipe if you think they will give everyone suppressors and say everyone can have AK.

Maybe we will all get unicorns and a pot of gold too.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO STFU AND STOP OFFERING TO GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS TO APPEASE THE GUNGRABBERS. THIS IS A FIGHT THAT WILL BE WON OR LOST, WE WILL NOT HAND OVER OUR RIGHTS.


Away with you troll.

sholling
12-17-2012, 4:48 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.
In other words strike the 2nd Amendment from the constitution - no!

SKSer
12-17-2012, 4:56 PM
there should be no compromise, this didnt happen because we are allowed to own so called "assault weapons". This happened because of fail on local,state and federal government. All of this could have been prevented by tighter security measures at schools, and why in the h*** wasnt it a priority in the first place. Our children are our most irreplacable treasures, yet we lock up our money in vaults and our precious valuables in safes, yet these kids were just behind a door with a window that could be broke. I bet you the first question investigators asked was, "how did this guy get in here??" and rightfully so.
FACT: there are millions of guns in circulation in america, and even the most stringent ban will do nothing to change that.
FACT: there are potentially millions of Psycho's out there and it is completely un-feasible to think that we can stop them before something happens because no one can predict the future

That only leaves one option that is viable, and that is tight security for our schools, not teachers carrying assault rifles but real security, the security at this school probably couldnt have kept a coyote out. proper security could have prevented ALL of this from happening, and these beautiful children would still be here. Now all the sudden schools care about security, look at all the articles about schools ramping up security, yea DUH. so because people were lazy and it cost the lives of innocent little angels, we have to pay the price for their obvious mistake? Not one inch, the media is not putting this on us, the government is not putting this on us, society is not putting this on us. 100 things failed before the first shot was fired.

SKSer
12-17-2012, 4:56 PM
there should be no compromise, this didnt happen because we are allowed to own so called "assault weapons". This happened because of fail on local,state and federal government. All of this could have been prevented by tighter security measures at schools, and why in the h*** wasnt it a priority in the first place. Our children are our most irreplacable treasures, yet we lock up our money in vaults and our precious valuables in safes, yet these kids were just behind a door with a window that could be broke. I bet you the first question investigators asked was, "how did this guy get in here??" and rightfully so.
FACT: there are millions of guns in circulation in america, and even the most stringent ban will do nothing to change that.
FACT: there are potentially millions of Psycho's out there and it is completely un-feasible to think that we can stop them before something happens because no one can predict the future

That only leaves one option that is viable, and that is tight security for our schools, not teachers carrying assault rifles but real security, the security at this school probably couldnt have kept a coyote out. proper security could have prevented ALL of this from happening, and these beautiful children would still be here. Now all the sudden schools care about security, look at all the articles about schools ramping up security, yea DUH. so because people were lazy and it cost the lives of innocent little angels, we have to pay the price for their obvious mistake? Not one inch, the media is not putting this on us, the government is not putting this on us, society is not putting this on us. 100 things failed before the first shot was fired.

vintagearms
12-17-2012, 5:04 PM
Liberals dont know the word compromise so the answer is NO!

pHredd9mm
12-17-2012, 5:06 PM
:oji: No more compromises!! This is what happened with the original "assault weapons" ban -- the "hunters" and the "target shooters" and the "skeet/trap" gang and LEO unions sold the rest of us down the drain in order to save THEIR interests. :facepalm:

No more compromise. Follow the 2A and the rest of the US Constitution.

FullMetalJacket
12-17-2012, 5:09 PM
The other side wants to abolish your 2nd Amendment rights entirely. Any compromise offered today will just move the starting point for their future demands that much closer to their goal.

Von13
12-17-2012, 5:17 PM
If your old enough to remember hand guns of all types including revolvers were the #1 focus of the anti-gun people till the popularity of the Semi-auto rifles exploded.

They were very focused on handguns back when the revolver was king. That was well before the High Capacity Semi-autos exploded onto the scene.

Once one thing is disallowed they focus on the next thing. The anti-gun people are crafty enough to start with things that sound reasonable and then they will just work there way down the list.

Von13
12-17-2012, 5:21 PM
Also remember James Brady was shot by a .22 revolver.

Don't think your guns are safe because they are not AR's or semi auto Handguns. If you do you are kidding yourself.

stix213
12-17-2012, 5:22 PM
Can't make a trade with someone who doesn't keep their word and lies about everything to to promote their agenda.

hnoppenberger
12-17-2012, 5:22 PM
murder and stealing a firearm is already illegal so whats the point of making new laws? isnt that the definition of insane?

cdtx2001
12-17-2012, 5:24 PM
TRADE NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Too much has been picked away over the years already. Sure, now they want 10 rounds as a maximum all across the country. Next it will be 5. Then 1. Then none.

Get it?

All a 10 round limit does is put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when going up against a criminal with a 30, 75, or 100 round mag. What do you do at that point? Do you say "hold on while I reload"?

No more compromises. I'll keep my rights thank you very much.

Sakiri
12-17-2012, 5:25 PM
What I want to know, is what kind of "help" do they think banning hi-cap mags is? I can reload in seconds. The only thing a higher capacity magazine does for me is make it so that I have to spend 5 seconds less time every minute or so.

I don't see how a ban helps.

spetsnaz
12-17-2012, 5:26 PM
Cant believe what i just read(op's statement)

im not the enemy i dont have to give up anything, they've taken everything from us, cant have s#$%^ in this dam state and now im going to give up my right even more in the name of "safety" forget about it

we dont need to have a discussion on what else they need to take away because if you look throughout history you will see that out of the thousands of laws they passed it didnt do anything.

Fatgunman
12-17-2012, 5:26 PM
No deal, don't give one inch, IMHO the NFA act and the 1960's firearms control act are infringement enough, I say no more, NO MORE!!

Skidmark
12-17-2012, 5:43 PM
Magazine capacity is not a gun right.

GM4spd
12-17-2012, 5:52 PM
I think the "cold dead fingers" approach applies here! Pete

Erik.Golobic
12-17-2012, 5:58 PM
Not one inch.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 6:02 PM
What I want to know, is what kind of "help" do they think banning hi-cap mags is? I can reload in seconds. The only thing a higher capacity magazine does for me is make it so that I have to spend 5 seconds less time every minute or so.

I don't see how a ban helps.

It helps because it takes them one step closer to an all out ban and seizure of arms. Get real folks, that is the end game, they will not stop attacking the 2nd amendment until its gone. Telling you they want a compromise is BS.

Might as well ban the 1st Amendment too, remember that guy who made the video about islam that caused the Embassy attack in Benghazi? His words in his video caused that. OH WAIT, NO THEY DIDN'T, THAT WAS BS TO COVER OBAMAS ***

CSACANNONEER
12-17-2012, 6:05 PM
Great, all we need is "divide and concour" tactics started from within. This is the reason we have ten round restrictions in CA already. The antis got the cowboy shooters to accept and stop fighting the ban last time. We need to learn from our mistakes instead of eagerly repeat them.

M1Kev
12-17-2012, 6:07 PM
The 2nd ain't about hunting, ain't about protecting your right to make little holes in paper at long distances, and it ain't about making compromises. It is about making sure the people retain the right to their own freedom. It was put there by forward thinking men who realized that human beings are weak and power corrupts. The minority can govern as long as the majority has the power. Firearms in the hands of the majority prevents the minority from grabbing it all.

As many love to point out, the minority controls the military with all of their fancy weapons and the population, even without gun bans, would be woefully under equipped to support open confrontation. That is not the point. It is the consequences and destruction that would follow any type of confrontation that keeps all sides sane (or should).

Let them whittle down our right to control our own destiny with compromise after compromise and we may as well throw in the towel ourselves. I am no scholar, but I believe Jefferson said that the beauty of the 2nd is that it should not be needed until someone tries to take it away, or something to that effect. I am not advocating anything, just trying to explain my understanding of things. I keep seeing the phrase "not one inch" being thrown around here. IMHO, the only measurement I am interested in is the length of time it takes to get back what we already compromised on.

Exile Machine
12-17-2012, 6:08 PM
Good plan. All the 10+ round mags have been bought up in today's panic anyway... :43:

Seriously, you don't compromise with evil.

-Mark

vintagearms
12-17-2012, 6:11 PM
Great, all we need is "divide and concour" tactics started from within. This is the reason we have ten round restrictions in CA already. The antis got the cowboy shooters to accept and stop fighting the ban last time. We need to learn from our mistakes instead of eagerly repeat them.

Sadly this is missed by alot of people. Case in point, one of the big NFA dealers (Ruben Mendiola: DealerNFA) helped draft the language of the first AWB to further his own investment of Class 3 items of which he is a dealer.

scarville
12-17-2012, 6:12 PM
Not one inch.

Big problem with antis is if you one of them an inch he suddenly thinks he's a ruler.

email
12-17-2012, 6:16 PM
Which finger is better to lose?

lilro
12-17-2012, 6:30 PM
No compromise. Compromise only means they will come for whatever they let us "keep" in 5-10 years. The 10 round cap WAS proposed as a compromise instead of the AWB. They just made it part of the AWB. Thank Bill Ruger for supporting that one.

bwiese
12-17-2012, 6:34 PM
Last time I heard of trading games I heard of SASS lobbyist and CAFR lobbyist dancing
together to protect single-action revolvers [while also protecting large chain dealers
from smaller competition.]

We ended up with the Roster.

F**** trades. Never presurrender.

mag360
12-17-2012, 6:34 PM
Lol you think they stop at 10 rounds and move on? We dont give anything. We push for mental health and more training stuff.

The War Wagon
12-17-2012, 6:44 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.


I give up NOTHING.

TRAITORS to the U.S. Constitution give up their seats in CONgress.


THAT'S how we play this game. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/mad.gif

MLC
12-17-2012, 7:08 PM
OP, don't let the soft, gentle call for "common sense gun laws" that "keep guns out of the hands of criminals" fool you. All it's ever meant was another step in eroding your rights. It's not a battle they'll try to win in one fell swoop. It's a battle that takes years. An inch at a time. The only thing that kind of thinking gets us is the order in which our rights will be removed.
We stand firm on bullet buttons? They'll trade that for a magazine capacity ban. We want national CCW? OK, but they're going to define the rules and regs of who can apply and what the criteria are. You think their won't be a registry involved? Expensive licensing? Restrictions based on everything they can think of?
If we give up Thing A in order to protect Thing B, they'll smile and agree and wait before coming after Thing B again, and promise to leave Thing C alone. Repeat until the only people that have guns are cops and the criminals that never gave a damn about gun laws in the first place.

wjc
12-17-2012, 7:16 PM
not...one...inch.

I'm done compromising....

JTecalo
12-17-2012, 7:16 PM
the shark doesn't swallow you whole, and there are a lot of sharks in the water right now.

Cut off your arm and throw it to them, see if they are satisfied and swim away

Capybara
12-17-2012, 7:19 PM
I would tell any politician or legislator proposing this to eff off. Not one inch, damn straight. This is the classical slippery slope and we have already been down this road. Giving any is a recipe for eventual disarmament.

Personally I think it is just a matter of time until they try to disarm us of all weapons, especially in this state, the question is, does that happen in 2013, 2018 or 2023?

Sniper3142
12-17-2012, 7:21 PM
The other side wants to abolish your 2nd Amendment rights entirely. Any compromise offered today will just move the starting point for their future demands that much closer to their goal.

+1000000!

Unfortunately any compromise works towards their goal of total disarmament.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 7:27 PM
You better believe if we walk in there hunched over looking at our toes and say, "we are ready to compromise" they will smell fear and eat us alive.


Let this not be our story.

“Most people don't believe something can happen until it already has. That's not stupidity or weakness, that's just human nature.”


It is easy for them to attack us while we stand in the shadows.

“Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart's content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence.”

EM2
12-17-2012, 7:46 PM
Trading magazine capacity for other gun rights
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.



What you are talking about is compromise and to that I say HELL NO.

When we (good) "compromise" with them (evil) we (good) will always lose for to compromise on our principles is to be a traitor to those principles.
I am assuming we all agree that freedom & liberty are principles to be protected?

And in any case if we truely believe that firearms rights & the right to defend ourselves from both criminal activity & oppressive government activity are in fact rights then they are not ours to trade or compromise with.

Luieburger
12-17-2012, 7:48 PM
Rights are not meant to be traded. They are meant to be enforced.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 7:49 PM
Also you are ****ing diluted if you think CA will start adhering to Federal law and repeal state laws banning detachable mags.

slidecatch
12-17-2012, 7:58 PM
This is actually a pet peeve of mine, so forgive me, but I think a ban on high-cap mags is even dumber than a gun ban.

Think about it. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The exact same logic applies to magazines—only more so because magazines are cheaper, easier to manufacture, and more plentiful than guns.

For every gun, there are probably 2+ magazines floating around out there (given that most semi-autos are sold with two). Criminals would have very little difficulty getting their hands on high cap mags in the event of a ban.

Which would leave the rest of us law-abiding gun owners under-armed in the event of a home invasion, mass shooting or whatever.

If you're against banning guns, you should be doubly against a magazine ban. To ban high-cap mags is to give the bad guys more bullets than the good guys. Why on earth would you want to do that?

formerTexan
12-17-2012, 8:29 PM
lol, I think there will be a lot of 10 round 458 SOCOM mags made if a Fed 10 round mag ban is enacted (see Canada). Standard cap mag bans make no sense, and its a pure "feel good work" by the politicians, if there is no ban on possession on existing mags. And they know that can't do that, yet.

My hope is that these dems that are/were pro-RKBA and are now suddenly not so solidly pro-RKBA are simply mouthing what the dem leadership is pushing, perhaps to shake things up and see if the NRA will flinch. Our last line of defense is the House of Representatives, but I'm so sick of playing defense on the legislative side...

Burla
12-17-2012, 8:42 PM
Hmmmm, we already have a 10 round limit and if we keep the same 10 round limit that means we will always be able to have AW's? OK no brainier. There just isn't a huge need for drum mags, they just aren't relevant for 99.9 percent of us anyway. Nothing in the Constitution tells we can have thousand round mags, million round mags etc. I have had a pre ban Bush master that came with 30's and a BB AR and I just do not see the big deal. To be honest the BB is a pain, but the 10 round magazine isn't. I understand you don't want to punish the law abiding citizen for what a mass murder does, but having a drum mag is way to much benefit for a mass murderer and has little value for most of us shooters.

There are actions that can force any of us to through our safety away to rush down the barrel of a loaded gun. Actions so HEINOUS that a school principal will give her life even though she had zero chance at stopping the shooter. She used her life only to slow him and perhaps give more time for someone else to help. All the people if working as a unit have a legitimate chance to save lives if the shooter has to change out clips every ten shots. Don't the next 20 children involved in the next school shooting at least deserve a chance. US second Amendment lovers aren't giving that much for those unfortunate victims to have a fighting chance. Just be honest and have a frank discussion, the children that died last week at least deserve a conversation. Bottom line is if the security of the militia was ever in doubt, drum magazines would be available with not a lot of effort. The law would prevent having them for now, but if we had an invading force or the gov't was the threat, it wouldn't be hard to get drums into production and during those times the law is out the window anyhow.

There are other common sense things too, we all should be responsible for our own guns. They should all be locked and fastened to studs. And most importantly we all should have the right to carry at a certain age and with certain training. Preventing open carry only benefits the criminals because they don't care about the law in the first place, so they get to carry regardless. It is good people that could be responsibly strapped that don't carry because they want to stay out of Jail. There should be a trained representative at every school that should be armed responsibly.

If 10 round clips are the rule, then what possible credible argument could be made that an AR 15 and like weapons are more dangerous then a hand gun in a mass murder situation? There is none, your hand gun option would carry twice the fire power as you can have one in each hand, and the round is much more deadly at close range then the .223. The only benefit would be in a mid range fire fight facing someone with a bullet proof vest and a like weapon, in other words the gov't. The only people that benefit from an Assault weapon ban is the gov't. Common sense regulation and relaxing carry laws are over due. If we continue to have these shootings like we have been, our rights will be in more and more jeopardy. If we don't give an inch, they are going to take it anyway at some point. Let's make our argument stronger by having a iron clad position that with a 10 round limit, there is no extra danger in having weapons that require two hands to shoot as opposed to hand guns. Then if the gov't wants to come after hand guns, good luck with that. let's face it, Middle America supports hand guns, but when it comes to the Ar's support goes whatever way the wind blows. We are in a much better position with 10 round clip limits and to be honest I believe it is the right thing to do.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 9:23 PM
Troll

They are magazines not clips btw.

Guntech
12-17-2012, 9:29 PM
Only people whose opinions have changed are those that had none prior to this tragedy.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

DenaliPark
12-17-2012, 10:10 PM
I would have to say if it came down to it, I would much rather lose the option of standard magazine capacity then all of my rights

"Ahh" its not a right, if they can take it away from you, by definition thats a privilege. The socialist political party has long ago usurped your rights, or rather, the psychology behind them, from you, thus a very great many such as yourself, walk about with exactly your mindset, as though you are bargaining with a parent for access to their car for the night!

I have some news for you, its the socialist party thats responsible for the slaughter, the serfdom that they are peddling as freedom, is the sole source of the problem. The massacres sweeping the USA, well you'd best get used to them, its the neo-democrats new normal, and whether you know it or not, its their worldview that has manufactured these killers, not your gun rights!

So proceed, and barter away your remaining liberty, which in Kalifornia, you've already long since lost anyway....

MikeinnLA
12-17-2012, 11:34 PM
Personally, as a target shooter, I don't care.

However.

One intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizenry the ability to resist a tyrannical government. For this reason, I do not believe in diminishing the "balance of power" one iota further.

Mike

GJC
12-17-2012, 11:40 PM
Nope

IrishPirate
12-17-2012, 11:49 PM
trade? Only thing i'll trade them is a big F*** you in exchange for my full second amendment rights and no more attacks on them...

nothing4u
12-17-2012, 11:55 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.

Don't negotiate with terrorists.

bohoki
12-18-2012, 12:36 AM
why which is worse one gun that holds 30 or 3 guns that hold 10

i'm sure we've all saw boondock saints it might be just one guy with six guns

CSACANNONEER
12-18-2012, 6:59 AM
Sorry Burla but, you're obviously OK with selling out those of us with drums and belts just to further your own SELFISH cause. While I don't use either often due to ammo costs, I'm sure that far more than 1 in every thousand gun owners owns a drum, belt of box mag which holds more than 10 rounds. In fact, there are plenty of firearms that don't even have factory 10 round or less mags. While I personally would not have a problem with a ten round limit for my normal shooting habits, I sure the hell don't need the gubmit or you telling me that I can't have them. Besides, many people usee +10 round mags in several of the most popular shooting competition events. So, yes, there are very legitimate "sporting purposes" for +10 round mags.

DrjonesUSA
12-18-2012, 7:05 AM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.


They haven't even officially introduced legislation and already we're looking for ways to buckle, cave and compromise.

Way to fight for your rights. :rolleyes:

-hanko
12-18-2012, 7:32 AM
...you two are perfect reasons why CA has devolved into its current condition.

You have ZERO concept as to why the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution.

Try posting with a bit more intelligence, or please stfu and gtfo.

-hanko

Mitch
12-18-2012, 7:55 AM
Troll

They are magazines not clips btw.

Not according to Savage Arms:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8068/8273687926_b8b4b9c4f2_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonov/8273687926/)

ap3572001
12-18-2012, 8:08 AM
Are we talking about letting them take 10+ magazines in exchange for letting us have something else?

This is interesting....

MOST people I work with (LEO's) and most people I know who have a CCW (in CA and other states) DO NOT use 10+ magazines in their CCW/Off duty handguns. MOST carry single stack pistols and DA 2-3" barrel revolvers.


Most people I KNOW, do not keep a loaded AR with a 30RD magazine in their bedroom as a HD weapon.
They have a pistol or shotgun . Or both.

Are You asking if we should let them take what they want to take, if they promise not to take anything else?

I am lost......

Capybara
12-18-2012, 8:15 AM
The only reason the antis constantly harp on about "arsenals, drum and high cap magazines and having 'too much ammo' is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, because of the 2A, they have to slowly chip away at our rights, rather than just violate them outright.

What did it matter if Adam Lanza had 200 rounds of ammo or 2 million rounds, he had enough to perform his horrendous atrocities. What did it matter if he had 10 round or 30 or 100 round magazines when he is shooting a room of unarmed innocents? What did it matter if he used a Glock, SIG, AR or a single shot Pink Cricket .22? It is much easier to blame the inanimate object than the evil that thought of using it in this way.

There is no negotiating our rights away, they are God given at birth, the rest is all negotiation from liberal antis that want to impose their rules on anyone who doesn't agree with their rules. Total disarmament is the end game, they will not rest until we are totally disarmed, compliant and passive against their tyranny, period. Screw trading away magazine capacity or anything else. They have no right.

TATER313
12-18-2012, 8:26 AM
We as Californians already lost to many rights, that we currently fight to try to get back or look for loop holes. The politicians and the media are aggressively attacking our rights. 2A is our right not a privilege, we need to gain not lose. California has some of the toughest gun laws and wackos still get a hold of guns. Taking our rights does not make it safer for us, it gives the government more control over us. We need to stay strong and support our rights, not cave in, thats is what they want us to do.

violator22348
12-18-2012, 8:32 AM
Whats the phrase? Not one inch?

No trades, no bargaining, Ill keep all of my freedom please. (Or what is left)

The quote above is precisely the problem with us.

I'm old enough to know who Patrick Purdy was, and that's where this started (at least in recent memory). We fought against Roberti-Roos, we fought Dan Lungren, we compromised nothing. We screamed how taking away 75-round drums was a violation of our rights. We bayed when the anti's took away our bayonets , flash suppressors and folding stocks. The Clinton AWB came and went. Then the bullet button showed up.

Now, we have 20 little kids writhing in their own blood and gore last week, and all we seem to care about is our toys getting taken away.

It's time for real self-reflection, gents. You and I are probably never going to harm anyone with our weapons, but as society crumbles, the likelihood of more psychos getting their hands on assault rifles grows. These are horrific sea-changes in our society that just did not exist in decades prior in any kind of meaningful numbers.

The 'not one inch' mentality is an absurd position that only paints us all as wacko's. I'm telling you all, the American public is rapidly changing, and guns are not coming with them. When I first saw assault rifles in my teens, I viewed them as awesome devices to repel terrorists and filthy Commies. They were the tools of the righteous, machinations ensuring peace----as they did in the hands of Allied soldiers in wars. The 2012 American public does not see these guns as anything other than a menace, to be feared and only coveted by bunker-dwelling kooks and psychos.

We know that AR-15's (or any other semi-auto rifle) are low to medium powered rifles in standard calibers for decades. We know a single round of .375 H&H would probably go through six human bodies. but all Joe Hippie and Soccer Mom Susie know is that their kids might have their kids' skulls blown open by a nut with a rifle that we often own.

And those people are in greater numbers now.


We better put something on the table and soon, before we lose it all.

ap3572001
12-18-2012, 9:01 AM
The quote above is precisely the problem with us.

I'm old enough to know who Patrick Purdy was, and that's where this started (at least in recent memory). We fought against Roberti-Roos, we fought Dan Lungren, we compromised nothing. We screamed how taking away 75-round drums was a violation of our rights. We bayed when the anti's took away our bayonets , flash suppressors and folding stocks. The Clinton AWB came and went. Then the bullet button showed up.

Now, we have 20 little kids writhing in their own blood and gore last week, and all we seem to care about is our toys getting taken away.

It's time for real self-reflection, gents. You and I are probably never going to harm anyone with our weapons, but as society crumbles, the likelihood of more psychos getting their hands on assault rifles grows. These are horrific sea-changes in our society that just did not exist in decades prior in any kind of meaningful numbers.

The 'not one inch' mentality is an absurd position that only paints us all as wacko's. I'm telling you all, the American public is rapidly changing, and guns are not coming with them. When I first saw assault rifles in my teens, I viewed them as awesome devices to repel terrorists and filthy Commies. They were the tools of the righteous, machinations ensuring peace----as they did in the hands of Allied soldiers in wars. The 2012 American public does not see these guns as anything other than a menace, to be feared and only coveted by bunker-dwelling kooks and psychos.

We know that AR-15's (or any other semi-auto rifle) are low to medium powered rifles in standard calibers for decades. We know a single round of .375 H&H would probably go through six human bodies. but all Joe Hippie and Soccer Mom Susie know is that their kids might have their kids' skulls blown open by a nut with a rifle that we often own.

And those people are in greater numbers now.


We better put something on the table and soon, before we lose it all.

Agree.

aklon
12-18-2012, 10:13 AM
No trade, no compromise, no BS.

I tell these people they're sick and need help for wanting to create a society where the elderly, the weak, and the sick are nothing moe than prey items for violent criminals. I also ask them where in the Constitution do they get authority to ban anything?

elSquid
12-18-2012, 11:29 AM
The 'not one inch' mentality is an absurd position that only paints us all as wacko's. I'm telling you all, the American public is rapidly changing, and guns are not coming with them. When I first saw assault rifles in my teens, I viewed them as awesome devices to repel terrorists and filthy Commies. They were the tools of the righteous, machinations ensuring peace----as they did in the hands of Allied soldiers in wars. The 2012 American public does not see these guns as anything other than a menace, to be feared and only coveted by bunker-dwelling kooks and psychos.

...snip...

We better put something on the table and soon, before we lose it all.

And what are you going to give away the next time a school shooting happens?

All semi auto rifles? All pistols? Because school shootings are not going to stop, and the cry for increasing gun control will not either.

Appeasement with the antigunners is a losing game. And trading magazines for 'immunity' for EBRs isn't going to happen; Feinstein has made that clear. She's going after guns.

Is Feinstein going to go for a complete ban on rifles? No. A complete ban on semiautos? Doubtful. A 'stronger' federal feature ban? Probably. So if that is her likely goal, why the hell would you capitulate at the start? It makes no sense.

The reality is that while gun control is 'popular' in the heat of the moment, the politicians know that gun owners vote and that there are political repercussions for antigun legislation nationally. The best example is how President Obama has largely avoided the issue during his Presidency; gun control is not as important to him as other issues that a fight over guns could derail. Feinstein can propose whatever she likes - she's from a 'safe' area. Other national Democrats have to be more careful.

My view is that there is no need to 'compromise', because there is nothing to compromise. If a new Federal AW ban is floated, fight it. If it's passed then work to vote out all who voted for it. Perhaps it's time for politicians to be again reminded of the fallout from the 94 AWB.

And if it's passed, we will take it to the Supreme Court. The reality is that, as quoted recently in Moore:

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. Bishop,
supra, at 922–23; Mark V. Tushnet, Out of Range: Why the
Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns 110–11
(2007). Anyway the Supreme Court made clear
in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear
arms depend on casualty counts. 554 U.S. at 636.
If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried
in public would increase the crime or death rates
sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been
decided the other way, for that possibility was as great
in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

And the reality is that so-called assault weapons are not over represented in gun crime deaths, despite the impression people get from tragic events such as in CT. Assault rifles simply 'look evil', and hence are easy political targets. An AR15 is functionally the same as a plain jane wood stocked Mini14. I'm not sure how a feature ban would survive scrutiny, since it's nothing more than feel good legislation.

Ultimately, if the antigunners push legislation too far...fine. Let's take it to the Supreme Court and get this resolved now, once and for all. Best to do it while we have the Heller 5.

-- Michael

Tmckinney
12-18-2012, 11:44 AM
Contrary to previous posts, I have a very good understanding of why the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution, becasue an armed populace is a backstop against tyranny. What do you think its for?

And I am all for an armed populace. I just don't think 30 rd magazines are sufficiently more of a deterent to government tyranny than generally armed populace. Nor are they practical for family protection, unless you honestly see your self in a sustained firefight with criminals. I just dont think I am going to be in sustained firefight with criminals anytime soon, they are just too lazy for that ****.

If the government turns tyranical-- and I dont think we are there yet--the amount of guns in private hands is a much more meaningful deterent than a 30 rnd mag. Especially when they govenrment has tanks and belt fed miniguns.

I also am not advocating caving in before a fight, but I am suggesting that planning and having a strategy for said fight might be a good idea. You can fight without a plan, but I'd rather have one.

If the majority of Americans want more gun control and have the politicalpower to get it, well I'd rather give them something ephemiral than give up actual guns. I am also suggesting a way to improve our situation in California.

Moreover, failure of a mag ban to actually do anything about crime--which I think is your other point-- might be the fact that one day educates the non gun owner that gun control doesnt work. And then we can solve the mental health issues that cause these ****ed up killings. Of course that might require a national health system and I'd bet dollars to donuts you don't like that idea either

deckhandmike
12-18-2012, 12:12 PM
Ask the Native Americans how compromise with the government worked out... Seriously, that's what the 2nd is for. Protection of your other rights.

billmaykafer
12-18-2012, 1:02 PM
the government that gave 2,500 semi-automatic rifles to mexican drug cartels during fast & furious wants to pass laws infringing on my civil rights/gun rights???? whay has eric holder not been disbarred and incarcerated????

billmaykafer
12-18-2012, 1:11 PM
Also you are ****ing diluted if you think CA will start adhering to Federal law and repeal state laws banning detachable mags.

diluted??? you mean like watered down???? how does federal law stack up to fast and furious government gun running/walking?

Burla
12-18-2012, 2:35 PM
Troll

They are magazines not clips btw.

If by calling me a troll you mean 3rd generation US soldier injured during training I accept. Grandfather fought in 3 wars, WWI, WWII, and he was too old for Korea but they let him transport troops, dad was in Korea, and Brother was a Marine during peace time and I'm a disabled vet out of FT Jackson. I had something to say and I said it, if you don't respect I have a right to my opinion that is on you. They have many sayings in the military, nearly all of them have the theme of making do with what is available or improvise. Give a trained soldier a one shot Mosin and he will be just as effective as he needs to be to get the mission done.

For those of you that call me a sell out, I was never ok with drum clips in civilian use, so I always held this position that I am true too. It seams like there are so many sick azz people here, that if you are not ok with every person having a right to everything short of a nuke, you are somehow a Commie sellout. There is not enough of a reasonable voice here to bother and try and stay a member here, even though I think this place serves a good cause. I will re-up my NRA card and hope Gene is successful with his continuing mission. As for you sick people, freedom does not exist in a clip or a magazine or whatever you want to call it. Get over yourself.

GutPunch
12-18-2012, 2:43 PM
Contrary to previous posts, I have a very good understanding of why the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution, becasue an armed populace is a backstop against tyranny. What do you think its for?

And I am all for an armed populace. I just don't think 30 rd magazines are sufficiently more of a deterent to government tyranny than generally armed populace. Nor are they practical for family protection, unless you honestly see your self in a sustained firefight with criminals. I just dont think I am going to be in sustained firefight with criminals anytime soon, they are just too lazy for that ****.

If the government turns tyranical-- and I dont think we are there yet--the amount of guns in private hands is a much more meaningful deterent than a 30 rnd mag. Especially when they govenrment has tanks and belt fed miniguns.

I also am not advocating caving in before a fight, but I am suggesting that planning and having a strategy for said fight might be a good idea. You can fight without a plan, but I'd rather have one.

If the majority of Americans want more gun control and have the politicalpower to get it, well I'd rather give them something ephemiral than give up actual guns. I am also suggesting a way to improve our situation in California.

Moreover, failure of a mag ban to actually do anything about crime--which I think is your other point-- might be the fact that one day educates the non gun owner that gun control doesnt work. And then we can solve the mental health issues that cause these ****ed up killings. Of course that might require a national health system and I'd bet dollars to donuts you don't like that idea either

Please take the troll elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Wita09
12-18-2012, 2:55 PM
NO!

ACfixer
12-18-2012, 2:59 PM
"They" aren't about protecting children from mass shootings, WE are about that. They want your guns, period. They want to take your right to own guns right out of the constitution. They'll take what they can get and then some if you ever let them.

Not one inch.

badreligion
12-18-2012, 3:46 PM
Anyone who would think about trading their personal Rights away is no friend of mine. In my opinion it calls into question what kind of person you are because if your willing to trade away something so basic, so essential what else would you trade away?

Your Rights are yours, not mine, not the Governments, yours. Weather you choose to exercise them or not, or the manner you exercise them is of no concern to me they belong to you.

You cross the line when you suggest I compromise or give away My Rights.

Take ownership of your Rights and leave other people's Rights alone!

sorensen440
12-18-2012, 3:50 PM
No compromise when it comes to rights.

ap3572001
12-18-2012, 4:06 PM
I wrote a response to this question once....

I just don't get what "trade" are we talking about here????

Letting them have 10+ magazines in exchange for what????

For NATIONAL shall issue CCW? For leaving evertything else alone? Or for what????

Uxi
12-18-2012, 4:07 PM
Not one inch. Their goal is the whole mile and a complete ban.

MultiCaliber
12-18-2012, 5:11 PM
I am sure others have posted similar ideas, but I wonders how most gun owners would feel about trading magazine capacity (I.e. allowing a 10 round magazine restriction to become law) in exchange for congress occupying the field of fire arms regulation under the commerce clause (blocking any state regulation) with federal shall issue ccw permits, no bullet buttons, yes on silencers, yes on semi auto rifles with pistol grips.

Everyone could claim a win. The anti guns would be aleto claim a national vicotry and I'd much rather have a silenced ar with a 10 round clip that doesn't need a bullet button than what I am currently able to buy. And while its not for me, I do see that ccw permits are very important to many in cal guns community.

What has the average non gun owner bugged about these shootings is the ability to shoot so many rounds and while a trained shooter could switch clips with out a problem, the perception is that such a reduction in clip capacity would make a difference.

This person's incorrect usage of firearms grammar identifies them as a troll. Have a nice day. ;)

teebiss
12-18-2012, 5:16 PM
Not one inch.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

CessnaDriver
12-18-2012, 5:25 PM
Give up nothing. Next they will say bolt action only.

How can we let the tools of tyranny be put in place when we know one day someone will be tempted to use them against us?

SilverTauron
12-18-2012, 5:27 PM
There are no pacts between lions and men.

-Achilles

bohoki
12-18-2012, 6:35 PM
if anybody has watched california they should be fearful of our innovation to comply with laws

i'm sure that someone would have come up with a gun that has a magazine that feeds magazines into the gun

six seven tango
12-18-2012, 6:38 PM
Not one inch. No discussion. No compromise.


.

Merovign
12-19-2012, 2:15 AM
Seriously, when have people who want more power and control ever "honored a deal?"

And why would I ever accept a "deal" that punished me and doesn't even slow down the bad guys?

And why would they ever accept a deal that gives them 5% of what they want?

It's like the ultimate non-starter.

Robidouxs
12-19-2012, 2:28 AM
Not one inch. Once you have more rights than what you experienced in California you do not ever want to go back to what it was.

violator22348
12-19-2012, 10:44 PM
Perhaps it's time for politicians to be again reminded of the fallout from the 94 AWB.

-- Michael

Umm....we just got our asses handed to us in November. You've got Warner and Manchin (NRA "A" rated)...seeing the writing on the wall...Soooooo, what politicians are we going to remind about a gun ban?...

We are phuqqed, and we are largely to blame, unfortunately.

elSquid
12-19-2012, 11:10 PM
Umm....we just got our asses handed to us in November. You've got Warner and Manchin (NRA "A" rated)...seeing the writing on the wall...Soooooo, what politicians are we going to remind about a gun ban?...

Things are changing daily...

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/joe-manchin-im-so-proud-of-the-nra-85311.html

...so apparently he's had a change of heart.

The proposed AW ban is by no means a fait accompli at this point. The next few months should prove to be very interesting!

-- Michael

AngelDecoys
12-20-2012, 12:15 AM
The gun control side wants something from us, and wants it badly. They don't have to power to get it without GOP support. While i remain hopeful, who knows what will be agreed to. We would be fools not to demand a ton of concessions. So let me give you and others some ideas on what i want. Some of it will sound ludicrous, and unlikely to the point of delusion, but when we are asked to compromise, it would be a good idea for us to retort with a long list of things we may, or may not get, from the courts and legislature. Then we can say, what are you going to give us?

1. Deregulate suppressors.
2. Online sales of firearms in and across state lines. Background checks occur at point of sale. Item shipped to my doorstep just like CMP.
3. CCW nationwide. No federal standard. Set by home state.
4. All firearm training to be considered tax free and tax deductible.
5. All ammunition and firearm purchases to be tax free and tax deductible.
6. All DROS, background checks will be done on the NCIS system. Whatever subsequent background checks, and other requirements by states will be dropped.
7. Gun stores and FFL's will receive tax exempt status just like churches (prevent local and states from taxing stores out of business).
8. The machine-gun registry will be opened. The Hughes amendment wasn't passed properly anyway (not going to happen but might as well put it down).
9. Liability protection - Any citizen who stops an active shooter is protected from being sued from the nut job's family/spouse.
10. Sensitive places as defined by the Heller decision will only include places secured by metal detectors like court houses, etc

I'm sure everyone here can come up with better ideas but it would benefit us if any list for compromise was passed to someone who can effect, introduce, negotiate policy.

And for this, we give you background checks on all used guns. That's it. Its the one issue that we can frame as keeping bad/mentally unstable people from obtaining firearms. Personally, I think background checks are PR and ineffective, but the general public accepts it.

We allow the so called gun show loophole to be closed provided the following is met. Transfers can be completed by an FFL, police station, or by an 1-800 number as in CT. It will be free and not apply to family, inherited guns, and or firearms older than 50 years.

The way I see it, the gun rights end of things have taken it in the rear since the 1930's. So i expect a lot in return for even the slightest of restrictions.

strongpoint
12-20-2012, 4:23 AM
reading the OP and subsequent posts of a similar mindset, the word "quisling" springs to mind.

foxtrotuniformlima
12-20-2012, 7:09 AM
The politicians will attempt to take away everything bit by bit. This is not a contract negotiation in a commercial environment. Once something is agreed to, it will be a matter of time before they take another freedom away.

I'd like to see this all resolved around who can own what and not what can be owned.

foxtrotuniformlima
12-20-2012, 7:10 AM
And I think all citizens should be equal. No LEO exemptions.

donw
12-20-2012, 7:47 AM
1. the 2A does NOT say what kind of firearms we may "Possess and bear" nor does it say we have a "Right for unlimited capacity magazine fed arms".

2. according to the SCOTUS, the state may not interfere with the 2A "Right" to "own" firearms but it does not say the state cannot control the type of firearms we may own and how we use, store and transport them.

3. the term "Assault weapon/rifle" is highly abused by civilian legislatures when speaking of semi-automatic firearms...the difference is NEVER explained by them or in the media. today's MSR's do resemble the military arms but do not function the same. but that makes little difference to legislators.

4. we may be between a rock and a hard place whether we like it or not in that we, probably, will have little, if any, to say about any "Trades" or "Compromise"...UNLESS...we make our voices heard LOUD AND CLEAR. it's highly unlikely that this is going to "Go away"...i fear that nothing short of a march on Sacramento, and Washington D.C., will change anything.

5. the "March" would be very effective...but...in reality, swamping them with emails, faxes and fone calls will work just as well, or better.

6. magazine capacity, now get this...TO ME, is not as important as it is to others, but i do NOT want to see farther restrictions...but i would not be crushed by farther restrictions...i hope that's clear.

7. i believe that is the very least we can expect, come what may.

remember...legislators, for the most part, are irrational, dysfunctional, people, looking for rational solutions for irrational issues.

joash
12-20-2012, 7:50 AM
Nobody is asking us to trade anything.

rplusplus
12-20-2012, 8:01 AM
None of the ideas being floated out there will make anyone in the world safer... NONE. Violent Criminals will still be VIOLENT C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S! What makes anyone think that they will follow the law? These laws only restrict the law abiding who do not go and shoot kids, moviegoers, and congresswomen.

I want the bullet button off my rifle, I want my standard capacity magazines, I want my Shall Issue CCW, and I don't want any more of my rights infringed.

amd64
12-20-2012, 8:09 AM
NO. It's b.s. and weak for gun owners to think we need to give up any freedom because someone else committed a crime.

Mitch
12-20-2012, 8:37 AM
Umm....we just got our asses handed to us in November. You've got Warner and Manchin (NRA "A" rated)...seeing the writing on the wall...Soooooo, what politicians are we going to remind about a gun ban?...

It's not 1994 anymore. The AR-15 is now the most popular centerfire rifle in America. The grabbers won't be able to divide gun rights advocates from Elmer Fudds like they did last time.

Great avatar, BTW.

dr16o49
12-20-2012, 8:49 AM
It's not 1994 anymore. The AR-15 is now the most popular centerfire rifle in America. The grabbers won't be able to divide gun rights advocates from Elmer Fudds like they did last time.

Great avatar, BTW.

That is what I am pinning hope on.

TheYellowDart
12-20-2012, 9:31 AM
The 2nd ain't about hunting, ain't about protecting your right to make little holes in paper at long distances, and it ain't about making compromises. It is about making sure the people retain the right to their own freedom. It was put there by forward thinking men who realized that human beings are weak and power corrupts. The minority can govern as long as the majority has the power. Firearms in the hands of the majority prevents the minority from grabbing it all.

+1

If there's going to be a slide towards a police state it's going to be a slow process of "compromises". It's our responsibility to ourselves and future generations to halt this process by standing firm. DO NOT COMPROMISE

Like M1Kev said, the 2nd amendment is about ensuring our liberties not be infringed by powers both foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. They have no right to ban these weapons.

For those that don't think that small arms can stand up to an organized military, look at what Americans armed with rifles did to Britain (the greatest military force of the time) in the American Revolutionary War. The Viet Cong and Al Qaeda put up a hell of a fight with AK's. Have no doubt that a compromise today is just a step towards complete disarmament tomorrow. The right to bear arms ensures our freedoms, and must be wholly maintained.

P.Charm
12-20-2012, 9:33 AM
Whats the phrase? Not one inch?

No trades, no bargaining, Ill keep all of my freedom please. (Or what is left)

I agree. give up nothing and take back what we lost.

baddos
12-20-2012, 9:54 AM
For those of you that call me a sell out, I was never ok with drum clips in civilian use, so I always held this position that I am true too. It seams like there are so many sick azz people here, that if you are not ok with every person having a right to everything short of a nuke, you are somehow a Commie sellout. There is not enough of a reasonable voice here to bother and try and stay a member here, even though I think this place serves a good cause. I will re-up my NRA card and hope Gene is successful with his continuing mission. As for you sick people, freedom does not exist in a clip or a magazine or whatever you want to call it. Get over yourself.

So you and your family has time and time again fought for our freedoms but yet you are okay with the government telling us what we can and cannot own? Care to explain how a heavy 100 round magazine drum in a semi-automatic firearms is any more dangerous than a 10 round?

rayrayz
12-20-2012, 9:57 AM
it is very easy to give up things (insert any rights here) but it is very hard to get it back. If we have to loose some rights give them hell in the attempt of taking it!

CCWFacts
12-20-2012, 10:02 AM
Everyone could claim a win.

It would be a big loss for us. Crippled capacity magazines are TERRIBLE. Modern handguns are designed around double-stack mags. The single-mag versions are AWFUL and you get the too-fat grip without the benefit of additional capacity.

I actually didn't mind any of the 1994 AWB restrictions except the mag ban. My 1994-era rifle is still in its 1994 configuration because that's fine with me.

The mag ban was the worst aspect of the 1994 AWB in my opinion.

TheYellowDart
12-24-2012, 3:40 AM
It is very easy to give up things (insert any rights here) but it is very hard to get it back.

+1

What's most frightening about this is that it creates a system in which prohibitions, bans, regulations, etc. (essentially all limitations of freedom) occur a greater frequency than our ability to repeal them/regain our freedoms.

If you remember your calculus, this is an integral function of time in which limitations approach infinity at a greater rate, such that as time progresses freedoms approach zero. Basically, if you had more freedoms last year than you do this year, and that trend continues you will eventually end up with no freedom.

While I don't personally believe a dystopian future will occur within our lifetime, I feel that we have a responsibility to our progeny to ensure it not occur in theirs.

This is why it is important that we not concede on issues such as gun control.

Hiking CA
12-24-2012, 6:10 AM
Whats the phrase? Not one inch?

No trades, no bargaining, Ill keep all of my freedom please. (Or what is left)

This x 1,000,000.

billmaykafer
12-24-2012, 6:20 AM
anti-gun 1st amendment to keep my 2nd amendment. otherwise not 1/10000 MM. i did not spend 21 years defending the constitution to give up any rights to "infringement".

Bbonez
12-24-2012, 6:48 AM
The OP is a gun grabbing liberal. He is trying to see what he can take from us without a fight.


We do not need to give up anything. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

ap3572001
12-24-2012, 6:55 AM
I think I understand what OP is saying.....

What I don't understand is to trade for what ????? They want to TAKE from us , not to trade with us.

ap3572001
12-24-2012, 6:57 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-look-restrict-gun-magazine-capacity-082617451.html

billmaykafer
12-24-2012, 7:01 AM
since i own mosin nagant the ban or limiting of Magazines does not affect me,but i say not 1/100000MM movement on the assualt on the 2nd amendment.

adrenaline
12-24-2012, 7:22 AM
I have a few YouTube videos out showing how quickly I can switch my BB magazines. I won't post it here because I don't want a search to pick it up. They are calling for mag capacity limitations and then what. What if they find a video of me (actually there are others as well) quickly switching out videos after they agree to the magazine restriction.

They are trying to pass the feel-good restriction but as any active shooter knows (who have BB'd AR/AKs or even featureless AR/AKs) ....switching out 10 round magazines is fast enough for someone who is trained (with a secondary)....so that no one can "tackle" them most especially in a gun free zone.

When the anti-gun people figure that out, they'll try U.K. style single shot rifles and maybe even handguns.

kZyBhooTv0M

Isn't the Constitution still the law of the land? I'm going to still go with "Shall not be infringed" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

artoaster
12-24-2012, 7:31 AM
OP has 35 posts and calls magazines clips. The hi-cap restriction simply does nothing except create criminals out of gun owners. It is impossible to keep existing magazines and parts out of determined people both moral and evil.

It's the anti's turn to give up something. How about Feinstein's job to an NRA executive.