Md. Handgun Law Found Unconstitutional!!

That still doesnt hold water. Again, your "read" on me is completely wrong. Those that drafted the second amendment in 1791 could not have imagined what was in store for technological advances in weapons. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms. We have that right. Why cant you own a rocket launcher? With your logic, you should have that right. As far as smokers and cheeseburger lovers, they do cost you additional money in the form of insurance premiums. I should know, I sell health insurance. However, they are hurting themselves. Unless a fat guy falls on us, we dont need protection from him or his fat. But give that same fat guy an assault rifle with a couple of 30 round magazines and we might have a serious problem. What if he was scolded that day at weightwatchers and goes a little nuts? Why can I go to jail if I let my child take a gun to school? Doesnt he have the right to bear arms? Or, is the safety and security of our private citizenship more relevant than some components of the second amendment. I say it is.

Once more, can someone please make a solid argument for the justification of large capacity magazines in the private sector?

 

Will banning hi-capacity mags solve anything? No, it strips away the right from law abiding citizens but does nothing to the criminals who are going to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

If all guns were banned would the crime rate increase or decrease? Increase is the correct answer.

 

If a criminal wants a high capacity magazine they will get it if it's legal or not.

 

Impossible if they were banned.

 

Yeah I'm sure they wouldn't find a way to get one.

 

You must have me mistaken for someone else. I never once I said I "read" you nor did I ever imply that I knew your personal beliefs inside and out. What I do know about you is from what I have read of yours over the years. Pretty conservative financially which includes not wanting to give your money to those don't deserve it, level headed, and you gun hunt so I assume you believe in the right to bear arms. I have no problem with you at all and from the minute I started debating with you I knew that you believed in the right to bear arms. I have no problem with 95% of the things you say politically. I guess this falls into the 5% that I disagree with you on and that is ok with me. I appreciate you not attacking me personally and I feel like I have not done that to you as well.

Lets just agree that we need at least a 20 round magazine or something!

 

All weapons have a purpose, and that is to hurt, mame or kill. Sometimes they can be used to scare people, but if your bluff is called their original intent will be needed. I think you guys are hung up of preference, 30 vs 1, or 5 etc...but make no mistake, a single shot in the wrong hands is MUCH MUCH worse than a fully auto in the right hands.

I will argue, 30 is better than one just in case I need it...but I will also argue 1 is better than none, again, just in case i need it.

 

I respect your opinion and understand that you and many others feel that it is simply a right. That's fine. I am just trying to show that we have many, many, rights that are "controlled", or "limited" in many ways. I have no problem with that because it is for our own good. No different than speed limits or mandatory education laws. I simply feel that its short sighted to say we need to have any right simply because it was given to us over 200 years ago. Remember we used to have the right to own slaves. It should never have been so. As an avid gun owner, I have absolutely no problem with common sense limits to gun ownership. I dont consider it an infringement on my rights any more than I consider it an infringement of my rights that women are now allowed to vote. I look beyond the small picture that the NRA paints and see the principles of the greater good. For now, we will agree to disagree and continue to enjoy our firearms as we see fit. I also appreciate the civil approach to your responses. As always, good hunting.

 

Is it much different then the kid running around a school with 3 10 shot clips. He is going to kill just as many. Where do you stop ?? Ban all guns ??

Now if the teachers/administration could carry weapons with 30 round clips or 3 10 shot clips, the bad kids knew it... hhhhmmmm... I bet the problem would be solved for the most part. As a parent... I feel my kids would be safer. You ??

Tim

 

fletch

I didn't read anymore of the thread before posting a reply to your first reply. I am just answering your question... not piling on you with the crowd. After reading the whole thread for some reason I just felt you needed to know that.


For the people having a problem with us saying clip instead of magazine... bite me !!!!!

Tim

 

Actually, yes, there is a difference. When the first magazine is empty, there is an opportunity available to stop the shooter. Most nutjobs arent going to be able to change out a magazine in competition shooter time.

I have no problem with letting well trained teachers being armed to defend themselves and their students. But, unless they are being attacked by aliens or zombies, they should get along just fine with 10 or fewer shots.

Also, in no way did I feel like anyone is ganging up on me. This is a hot topic and everyone is allowed their opinion. I feel strongly the way I do because I dont subscribe to the "slippery slope" analogy of gun laws and I see no reason to make large capacity magazines available to the masses. These magazines were illegal for 10 years and we still have our guns.

 

What he said. Restrictions, laws, bans, etc only impact those who follow the letter of the law. If a crook wants a gun, a 3o round clip, a grenade, almost anything for that matter they will get it. Yeah a 30 round magazine holds more rounds but to say that smaller magazine would give someone a chance to disarm a school shooter or some other nutjob is a joke. Any experienced shooter can swap a clip in a matter of a couple seconds and most of these lunatics aren't in firefights with the law they are shooting unarmed people(there are a couple I can think of though that did involve firefights like that bank robbery in CA years back and that marine gang member who went on a shooting rampage against some cops in CA as well).

The main reason I like a large magazine is they are fun to shoot and yeah I don't like reloading. But imo one of the most important reasons groups fight for gunowner rights is simple, if they didn't we wouldn't have squat. Say the gov. determines you don't need a 30 round magazine then they say you don't need a 20 round one either. Matter of fact you don't need more than 5. Actually you really don't need a semi-auto, let us tell you what you need and if you don't agree we'll make you a criminal.

http://offgridsurvival.com/criminalizinggunowners/

You can't think the gun control "lobby"/groups/whatever you want to call them are only about limting magazine capacity, and to not acknowledge the real agenda is extremely short sighted. For example this administration is not pro gun, Obama's history in support of strict gun control measures is on record and his stance hasn't changed. You just aren't hearing about it because it's not smart politically and it's an election year but don't think it's not coming if/when he's reelected.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/

 

I see you subscribe whole heartedly to the "slippery slope" NRA agenda. Guess what, high capacity magazines were illegal for 10 years and we all still own guns. That theory has already been proven inaccurate. The paranoia agenda has been marketing genius for the NRA. Suprising to me how many folks buy into it. One question for you, why arent you same people screaming on the rooftops about being limited on how fast you can drive? Why are you not legally allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre? Why are you not allowed to jaywalk? Next thing you know, walking anywhere may become illegal. My opinion is clear and backed by some logic. It will remain my opinion and I dont really expect others to subscribe to its merit. So be it. I am done with this topic and will continue to own and enjoy firearms and encourage all of you to do the same. Its our right and will continue to be so. I have no doubt about that, despite the doomsday predictions.

 

Not a big follower of the NRA. I do know history has proven laws only work when people obey them. The most recent school shooting in Ohio which claimed the lives of 3 students and wounded 3 more involved a .22 caliber pistol. People can kill with most any weapon and if someone is going to go down that road they don't care about laws.

Only time will tell how inaccurate that theory is(if at all) despite your claims. Our guns and the Second Amendment are always under scrutiny. In 2008 and 2010 the votes in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of an individuals right to keep an bear arms were both 5-4. Just the fact that the votes were so close proves how important it is to protect our rights as gun owners. A couple more gun control judges/justices get appointed and who knows what the future holds.

Handguns have been illegal in the past in some states, as a gun owner do you think that is alright as well? I respect your take on the matter just curious?