McCarthy's fascist gun ban bill now has 65 sponsors!

[KurtM]

Good question. It sounds like the arguement is that bad guys have less firepower? They are saying the shooter in Arizona, for example, was taken down when he went to reload. No source on that so I can't verify.

Then again if they have bad intentions they will get whatever type of weapon without whatever magazine they want.

So, I don't know how it would save lives.



Did the framers envision civilians owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons? And owning more than a few each? Bearing a gun that took 60 seconds to reload and could barely hit the broadside of a barn at 50 yards is different than owning a modern firearm isn't it, at least a little? There is this religious-like fanaticism that the constitution is infallable. It was made with provisions to allow it's ammending because they knew it was not perfect and that things change.

I wonder what the framers would say about 30 round magazines. Or a better question, what would they do to limit gun violence?

This is the worst example of disinformation that is propounded by the "anti,s". First off the accuracy was quite good for some forms of rifles. Second it was not UNCOMMON for people living on the fringes of settled areas and "frontiersmen" to carry MULTIPUL firearms. It was not uncommon for these people to carry 2-3 rifles a shotgun or two and several pistols. Liturature of the area mentuions people plowing their field with two rifles and a pistol or two near to hand. Lew Whetzel was know to carry two pistol and two rifles with more on the horse. Boone is attributed to having at least a shotugn and rifle near to hand and a brace of pistols when in the "frontier". Multipul weapons were a fact of life for many , BECAUSE it was slow to reload...and the founders of the Constitution were WELL aware fo that fact,

What they would do about "firearm violence" is exactly what they did! Convicted for murder...HANGED, in an expedicious manner. Sometime even the same day as conviction.

What the Framer,s would have said about 30 round magazines?? Well that is all speculation, but in reading many of the works by multipul "framer,s" it would have been 30 round magazine?? Stack them by the door for quick use...I'll take 50 of them!
I know many peole who have the idea that the Framer,s of the Constitution were a bunch of benevolent "gentlemen" whos thoughts are archaic, but make no mistake, many of them were veterans of war and the frontier and had no illutions about the use and utillity of arms and if the technology had been available they would have happily embraced it! Jefferson was known to armed most every where he went and one of his contempoaries who latter became president was known to carry a brace of pistols EVERYWHERE, Maybe it would have only been ONE if the capacity had been greater! KurtM

 

[Danny Tanner]

Good question. It sounds like the arguement is that bad guys have less firepower? They are saying the shooter in Arizona, for example, was taken down when he went to reload. No source on that so I can't verify.



So, I don't know how it would save lives.

In the other hand, a shooter saving lives can be taken down when he goes to reload. That's how it saves lives.

Not to say that scenario constantly plays out during all hours of the day, of course neither does the AZ shooting scenario, but for every one of McCarthy's arguments against high-cap mags, the same can be argued on the pro side.

And regarding her law, the most common sense argument against it is really all that needs to be said -- Passing this law doesn't automatically make all 10+ round mags magically disappear. A person with criminal intent will still have his 30 round mags and will still use them for malicious purposes.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Did the framers envision civilians owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons? And owning more than a few each? Bearing a gun that took 60 seconds to reload and could barely hit the broadside of a barn at 50 yards is different than owning a modern firearm isn't it, at least a little? There is this religious-like fanaticism that the constitution is infallable. It was made with provisions to allow it's ammending because they knew it was not perfect and that things change.

I wonder what the framers would say about 30 round magazines. Or a better question, what would they do to limit gun violence?

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is protect us from tyranny in government. That is the driving force behind its creation. Knowing this, why would the framers then want and allow a government to regulate what kind of arms we could have while the government gets what they want?

Sounds like bringing a knife to a gunfight if you ask me and that certainly isn't want the framers envisioned.

"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty simple phrase to understand unless you're part of the SCOTUS. Then somehow is becomes extremely complicated. Like something scratched onto the surface of four-thousand year old stone tablet. "We just can't make any sense of it!!!"

 

[bulbboy]

Good question. It sounds like the arguement is that bad guys have less firepower? They are saying the shooter in Arizona, for example, was taken down when he went to reload. No source on that so I can't verify.

Then again if they have bad intentions they will get whatever type of weapon without whatever magazine they want.

So, I don't know how it would save lives.



Did the framers envision civilians owning automatic and semi-automatic weapons? And owning more than a few each? Bearing a gun that took 60 seconds to reload and could barely hit the broadside of a barn at 50 yards is different than owning a modern firearm isn't it, at least a little? There is this religious-like fanaticism that the constitution is infallable. It was made with provisions to allow it's ammending because they knew it was not perfect and that things change.

I wonder what the framers would say about 30 round magazines. Or a better question, what would they do to limit gun violence?

Civilians had cannons and everything the government had.

The whole point was so that we could overthrow a corrupt government if we had too - like they just did with England. Not very hard to understand