Magazine Restrictions

[pocketfullofshells]

Clearly it is not logic but emotion that has prevailed, otherwise you could offer a rational explanation for why there should be limits placed on a firearms magazine capacity.

I own an M-11 (Mac-10 in 9mm) and a Tec-9, both with 30 round clips... Can you make a rational argument for why it should be illegal to have 31 round clips? Can you make a rational argument for why there should be any restrictions at all on the number of rounds in a magazine?

...So far you have not.

There is only one "limit" placed on rights, you do not have the right to violate the rights of others. Whether you own a tank, machine gun, F-14, or an ICBM it makes no difference to me or anyone else, so long as you are not violating the rights of others, it is your right to pursue your own happiness.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

first I have not given a argument as to why there should be restrictions on your clips...as like I said , I don't really care. Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need a larger clip in the first place? really poor aim? Your a big drug dealer needing to lay down heavy fire on your turf for deffence? Your scared the big bad Obama Army will come after you and plan to take them on? trying to over compensate for something? you just think they are cool and want to have one...really the last one is the only logical one I could see...

But thank you for showing Apathy, that yes, there are some people who are not logical enough to draw a line at any size arms...

 

[BigRob]

first I have not given a argument as to why there should be restrictions on your clips...as like I said , I don't really care. Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need a larger clip in the first place? really poor aim? Your a big drug dealer needing to lay down heavy fire on your turf for deffence? Your scared the big bad Obama Army will come after you and plan to take them on? trying to over compensate for something? you just think they are cool and want to have one...really the last one is the only logical one I could see...

But thank you for showing Apathy, that yes, there are some people who are not logical enough to draw a line at any size arms...

If you grant that a "right to bare arms" is in fact a right, then the onus on why it should be limited falls on the one trying to limit it...

It would be like saying "Yes, you have the right to freedom of religion, just not on Tuesday because you don't go to church that day." Then when questioned on it, telling the person to explain why they need that right to begin with.

If the right exits, the onus is on the person trying to limit it to explain why, not the other way around.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If you grant that a "right to bare arms" is in fact a right, then the onus on why it should be limited falls on the one trying to limit it...

It would be like saying "Yes, you have the right to freedom of religion, just not on Tuesday because you don't go to church that day." Then when questioned on it, telling the person to explain why they need that right to begin with.

If the right exits, the onus is on the person trying to limit it to explain why, not the other way around.

so you believe it should be legal for a citizen to have there own nuclear arsenal , tanks, ICMB as well then?

 

[Apathy]

I Own this!

only gun ill ever need.

 

[BigRob]

so you believe it should be legal for a citizen to have there own nuclear arsenal , tanks, ICMB as well then?

No, I don't. But the point is you have to make against why those should be limited as opposed to just asking "why do you want them", if you grant that there is a "right to bare arms."

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, I don't. But the point is you have to make against why those should be limited as opposed to just asking "why do you want them", if you grant that there is a "right to bare arms."

I would base it on the intent of what was talked about when was written, and also a common sense logic must be used in law as well..How about you? you say that you agree that they should not be able to have such thing...you also agree to a right to bear arms...how do you justify it?

 

[BigRob]

I would base it on the intent of what was talked about when was written, and also a common sense logic must be used in law as well..How about you? you say that you agree that they should not be able to have such thing...you also agree to a right to bear arms...how do you justify it?

I am not sure that it is actually illegal to own a tank is it?

 

[Apathy]

I am not sure that it is actually illegal to own a tank is it?

You can own one but the main gun must be disabled and the machine gun removed.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You can own one but the main gun must be disabled and the machine gun removed.

would make a nice gas guzzling car for work then right?

 

[Apathy]

would make a nice gas guzzling car for work then right?

Not road legal... It would make one hell of an ATV though.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Not road legal... It would make one hell of an ATV though.

your right,,,,damn liberals!

 

[GenSeneca]

If the right exits, the onus is on the person trying to limit it to explain why, not the other way around.

That's absolutely correct...

Pocket, how about the state of Minnesota limiting your right to free speech and declaring that you may no longer post more than 30 words in a single post on internet forums? They could say it's simply a matter of "logic" and a common sense limitation, since obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere... and then declare you have to be the one to explain why these restrictions should be lifted.

For some reason I think you would recognize such "logical-common sense" restrictions as a violation of your right to free speech. Also pocket, logic is a process that involves inductive or deductive reasoning, neither of which you have been able to demonstrate. So called "common sense" is rarely logical, it's usually based on emotion or intuition rather than any actual logical thought process.

BigRob... You appeared to agree with pocket that there should be some limits on our right to bear arms. Once there are limits placed on our rights that go beyond making it illegal to violate the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights, then our rights are no longer rights but privileges that are simply regulated by government.

Check out these two statements:

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully
rationed." - Vladimir Lenin

and once more from my sig line...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Placing limits on our rights for fear that someone may abuse their liberty is indeed a rationing of liberty. Pocket said that people will never agree on where the line should be drawn on placing limitations on rights... Is there anyone here that disagrees with me that we should not be allowed to violate the rights of others in the exercise of our own rights? It seems that is a clear line that everyone should be able to agree upon and since there will never be unanimous agreement on further limitation of our rights, no further limitations should be placed on them.

 

[Gipper]

That's absolutely correct...

Pocket, how about the state of Minnesota limiting your right to free speech and declaring that you may no longer post more than 30 words in a single post on internet forums? They could say it's simply a matter of "logic" and a common sense limitation, since obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere... and then declare you have to be the one to explain why these restrictions should be lifted.

For some reason I think you would recognize such "logical-common sense" restrictions as a violation of your right to free speech. Also pocket, logic is a process that involves inductive or deductive reasoning, neither of which you have been able to demonstrate. So called "common sense" is rarely logical, it's usually based on emotion or intuition rather than any actual logical thought process.

BigRob... You appeared to agree with pocket that there should be some limits on our right to bear arms. Once there are limits placed on our rights that go beyond making it illegal to violate the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights, then our rights are no longer rights but privileges that are simply regulated by government.

Check out these two statements:

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully
rationed." - Vladimir Lenin

and once more from my sig line...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Placing limits on our rights for fear that someone may abuse their liberty is indeed a rationing of liberty. Pocket said that people will never agree on where the line should be drawn on placing limitations on rights... Is there anyone here that disagrees with me that we should not be allowed to violate the rights of others in the exercise of our own rights? It seems that is a clear line that everyone should be able to agree upon and since there will never be unanimous agreement on further limitation of our rights, no further limitations should be placed on them.

Well said. Liberty is precious and we must protect against any infringement of our liberties. But, sadly we are well down the road of lost liberty and we won't get it back without a fight.

Do you know where I can buy an ICBM or a battle tank for cheap? Not sure if they will fit in my garage, but I would love to have one.

Libs love to make that argument as a defense for their desire to limit rights. But, it is a fallacious one. I can't afford an ICBM or a tank and even if I could, who would sell one to me?

Another analogous problem is the failure to apply swift and unbiased justice to those who violate other's rights. This failure leads to more violations which leads liberals and others to allowing government to take our rights under the guise of protecting us. When all that needed be done, is the swift imposition of justice.

 

[BigRob]

BigRob... You appeared to agree with pocket that there should be some limits on our right to bear arms. Once there are limits placed on our rights that go beyond making it illegal to violate the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights, then our rights are no longer rights but privileges that are simply regulated by government.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a natural outgrowth of the right to self-defense.

Michael Cannon from the CATO Institute spells it out pretty well in my opinion:

We possess an inherent right to keep and bear arms so that we may have the means necessary to defend ourselves against acts of violence.

Your neighbor has a right to keep a gun in his home to defend himself, because the threat of home invasion is real. But your neighbor does not have a right to keep a nuclear weapon in his home, because it is not reasonable to think that he would need such a weapon to defend himself.

The right to self-defense thus creates a bulwark that government regulation of arms may not breach. If a weapon would permit a proportionate defense against a reasonably foreseeable threat, the government cannot prohibit you from owning or carrying it.

That said, the issue then seems to be "what is a foreseeable threat... and what is a proportionate defense." I think that line gets somewhat blurred with assault weapons (and I would not favor banning those), but in terms of a tank/nuke etc, I think he has a pretty good point.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That's absolutely correct...

Pocket, how about the state of Minnesota limiting your right to free speech and declaring that you may no longer post more than 30 words in a single post on internet forums? They could say it's simply a matter of "logic" and a common sense limitation, since obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere... and then declare you have to be the one to explain why these restrictions should be lifted.

For some reason I think you would recognize such "logical-common sense" restrictions as a violation of your right to free speech. Also pocket, logic is a process that involves inductive or deductive reasoning, neither of which you have been able to demonstrate. So called "common sense" is rarely logical, it's usually based on emotion or intuition rather than any actual logical thought process.

BigRob... You appeared to agree with pocket that there should be some limits on our right to bear arms. Once there are limits placed on our rights that go beyond making it illegal to violate the rights of others in the exercise of your own rights, then our rights are no longer rights but privileges that are simply regulated by government.

Check out these two statements:

"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully
rationed." - Vladimir Lenin

and once more from my sig line...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Placing limits on our rights for fear that someone may abuse their liberty is indeed a rationing of liberty. Pocket said that people will never agree on where the line should be drawn on placing limitations on rights... Is there anyone here that disagrees with me that we should not be allowed to violate the rights of others in the exercise of our own rights? It seems that is a clear line that everyone should be able to agree upon and since there will never be unanimous agreement on further limitation of our rights, no further limitations should be placed on them.

you can't see how a random limit of 30 words per post I make by the government...is not the same as saying someone can't have a ICBM..

You can't see how letting people own nukes for there own private arms...is insane to say the least..

but you claim I can't use logic?

This is why people look at many on the right who are pro 2nd amendment as completely nuts and a perfect example why they agree we need some sane limits...Even when you have pro 2nd liberals like me, you look like a crackpot extremist because your Semi Auto AR-15 with a 30 round clip , is just not enough for you....