stanc Wrote:False analogy. The part of a car that's actually analogous to a firearm's magazine is the gas tank, not the engine.

The correct analogy would be a law requiring the 18-gallon gas tank be replaced by one with a 6-gallon capacity.

A Corvette with a 6-gallon tank would still be a "true" Corvette, able to accelerate just as quickly, and go just as fast. The only difference is it would have to refuel more often.

Likewise, an AR-15 limited to 10-round magazines can fire the same ammo just as rapidly, just as far, as an AR-15 with 30-round mags. It just has to be reloaded more often.

jasmith Wrote:more twisted logic.

montana Wrote:The AR-15, Glock, Beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds. The point "purpose" of owning a "MODERN" firearm is the capacity of rounds held and the speed they can be shot and reloaded.

montana Wrote:A better analogy of yours would be a requirement to fill the "limited gas tank" of a Vette with gas pump nozzle the size of a straw while trying to compete at Le Mans with other nationalities who have no such restrictions.

montana Wrote:Imagine if the insane logic used by the anti-gun fools today had been applied to the American people back in the 1800's? We are going to ban all Winchester lever action assault rifles because the Indians used them to massacre the 7th cavalry and no one needs more than a one shot capacity. You will also be able to keep your Army Colt pistols if 5 cylinder chambers are rendered in operable. Nuts!

Quote:...these states are neutering modern firearms for civilians and the 2nd Amendment with it.

bj139 Wrote:These are just tests for the gun owners.
First 10 rounds only, then 5 rounds only, then single shot only, then rocks only. Slippery slope.
In Connecticut, most citizens just ignored the law as being unconstitutional.
What do you think Stan? Rocks only?

stanc Wrote:There is no capacity common to all modern semi-autos. Design capacity varies with make, model, and caliber. The Glock 36, for example, was designed to hold only SIX rounds.

stanc Wrote:When a 6-shot pistol is considered adequate for self defense, it's difficult to support the claim that magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds are truly a necessity.

stanc Wrote: Now you're just being silly.

stanc Wrote:Yeah, but the point is moot. We don't live in the 19th Century..

stanc Wrote:I agree. And it sucks.

montana Wrote:Now you are being disingenuous, the grips of most modern hand guns are designed to be as ergonomically possible with the highest possible capacity. The Glock 36 was designed as a concealed carry firearm, not an open carry firearm.

montana Wrote:If it is difficult to support the claim that a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds is necessary, then why do the police need more than 10?

montana Wrote:So when our founding fathers studied the history of Greece and Rome governments to form our Constitutional Republic, it was a moot point? It was a perfect example of how insane and ridiculous our gun laws have become.

stanc Wrote:concealed versus open carry is not relevant. You said: "the ar-15, glock, beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds."

it's not at all disingenuous to note that there are many "modern semi-auto firearms" designed around magazine capacities of less than 10 rounds, yet which are deemed quite suitable for self defense.


Because most of their shots miss the target.


Granted, but it's still moot. Guns are viewed differently now by a large segment of society, and more importantly, by many of those who make (and enforce) laws.

If we were still fighting the indian wars, i doubt that we'd have such "insane and ridiculous" gun laws. However, we're not, and we do.

stanc Wrote:No, that's not why.

When the country was founded, there was a small standing army. Both private citizens and government forces had the exact same types of guns: Muzzleloading muskets, rifles, and pistols.

Today there is a very large standing army. Private citizens (with few exceptions) are still limited to having rifles and pistols, while government forces have rifles, pistols, machine guns, self-propelled artillery, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, etc, etc.

In the 18th Century, an armed citizenry posed a credible counterbalance to an equally armed government.

In the 21st Century, the disparity in force is so great that, IMO, the original concept is no longer adequate in and of itself to be an effective counter to a government becoming tyrannical.

phishfood Wrote:Really?

phishfood Wrote:Heard anything about Afghanistan lately?

bj139 Wrote:Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecticut-gun-law-ignored/2014/02/13/id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/

phishfood Wrote:Well, in Afghanistan, several different major military powers sent in troops in armored vehicles, backed by air support, and in some areas artillery.

Despite vast technological, numerical, and weapons superiority, Afghan insurgent groups were able to continuously present a serious threat to all of the world's badass military power. Same thing happened to Russia in that same area 30 or so years prior.

phishfood Wrote:Our military's experience there and in Iraq really puts a dagger in the heart of your argument that an armed populace cannot hope to resist a government that wishes to subjugate it.

bj139 Wrote:Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecticut-gun-law-ignored/2014/02/13/id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-halts-plans-round-firearms-finding-cops-state-list/

stanc Wrote:In ...when the population enthusiastically embraced a strong, charismatic leader who promised to make Germany great again...

JASmith Wrote:Likely true, but use of the term "make Germany (America?) great again" seems to be more like trolling for knee-jerk responses than a serious attempt at offering insight.