Question for the firearms owners here

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Your panties sure are bunched up aren't they? He didn't say a damn thing about banning anything. Bans are stupid and pointless anyway. Limit me to 10 rounds in a mag, I'll just take 10 of them instead of 4...

Limiting rounds in a mag has been tried. Nobody is going to confiscate what you already have. It is possible that sales of new mags and guns might be stopped.

Thats what they said in
australia
canada
and who can forget what happened in germany

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Your panties sure are bunched up aren't they? He didn't say a damn thing about banning anything. Bans are stupid and pointless anyway. Limit me to 10 rounds in a mag, I'll just take 10 of them instead of 4...

Limiting rounds in a mag has been tried. Nobody is going to confiscate what you already have. It is possible that sales of new mags and guns might be stopped.

You're dam right about that.

[Yssup Rider]

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Your panties sure are bunched up aren't they? He didn't say a damn thing about banning anything. Bans are stupid and pointless anyway. Limit me to 10 rounds in a mag, I'll just take 10 of them instead of 4.

I’m no mathematician, but if you’re looking for an equivalent amount of rounds by increasing the number of mags carried, you’d have to be currently carrying 25 round mags. Not that I’m against carrying all that, but it’s a little crazy unless you’re anticipating a gunfight or consider a ballistic vest fashionable. The Ruger I carry only holds 7, which is plenty to drop who needs dropped and gtfo.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I’m no mathematician, but if you’re looking for an equivalent amount of rounds by increasing the number of mags carried, you’d have to be currently carrying 25 round mags. Not that I’m against carrying all that, but it’s a little crazy unless you’re anticipating a gunfight or consider a ballistic vest fashionable. The Ruger I carry only holds 7, which is plenty to drop who needs dropped and gtfo.

How do you know that?

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

How do you know that?

I passed 2nd grade arithmetic.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I passed 2nd grade arithmetic.

They taught you how many rounds to carry? Or how to drop someone and gtfo?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

[Jacuzzme]

Forgot to have the meds refilled?

*SMFH*

[Yssup Rider]

Now you know that’s a forbidden topic, dude.

[biomed1]

Please read and be mindful . . .

#15 - Posting about/Speculating about another person's medical condition is strictly forbidden. If a member encounters a medical issue and would like to get feedback from others or share it with the community, this would be allowed, but under no circumstances is a member to discuss or state anything about another member in this regard, unless it is in response to a question posed by that member.

[ICU 812]

The liberal-Left and anti-gun folks always talk about assault rifles and lately "Weapons of War" as illegitimate, and not suitable for hunting . . .and I get what they are trying to say. The implication is that guns designed and intended for hunting wild game are acceptable, but not weapons used by the Army in combat.

One thing they miss is that about any "hunter" who has ever shot a deer has the mental discipline, stalking skills and tools to become an effective sniper.


About anyone who has ever qualified at the range as "expert" in any branch of the military is more than halfway there too.

[ICU 812]

A guy I know shoots a few deer every year on his farm. Not a range hound, he never uses up a full box of 30-06 cartridges in a season. And he always buys two boxes. Over the years, he has accumulated enough ammo to deal with whatever happens if or when "SHTF" as the preppers say.

Some things just cannot be regulated away.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

There is no mention of bunny rabbits or deer or hunting in the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution in general. The arms referenced were specifically weapons of war - that was the express purpose. Read Federalist 46.

[Yssup Rider]

The Second amendment does not reference weapons of war.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The Second amendment does not reference weapons of war.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you suck at this on purpose? So, at least you agree it is not a Rod N Reel or Hunt club provision as there is no mention of woodland creatures. Yet there is contained within that very Amendment the word - Militia.

Militia
noun

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

(Hat tip to dictionary.com)
From Federalist 46:
...Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger...

I rather doubt Madison envisioned the citizenry repelling the regular federal army with fishing poles.