What is the purpose of having 100-round clips? How many people have a genuine defensive need of such a thing?
A weapon that can fire a large number of rounds quickly.
toldailytopic: After the Colorado Movie theater shooting liberals are calling for mor
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
What is the purpose of having 100-round clips? How many people have a genuine defensive need of such a thing?
A weapon that can fire a large number of rounds quickly.
In the words of Christian conservative Selwyn Duke in his article
"The Aurora propaganda award goes to..."
"...Next, further making its case that Second Amendment supporters have blood on their hands, the [New York Daily] News spoke of the "body count" during heinous crimes: Columbine, 13; Virginia Tech, 32; and numerous smaller shootings that claimed 3 or 4 lives. Let's talk about body count.
On the day of Columbine, 3,332 children were murdered through abortion.
On the day of Virginia Tech, 3,332 children were murdered through abortion.
And on the day of each smaller shooting, 3,332 children were murdered through abortion.
The total is approximately 1.21 million a year.
It's clear what kind of legislation would save lives — and it has nothing to do with gun-control..."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/120726
As atheists tell us Christians: "Clean up your own house first".
Alate_One
Well-known member
No, the question is why does an ordinary citizen need a clip with 100 rounds locked into a semi-automatic rifle?
Deer hunting with such a thing would seem to be ridiculous. It has no other purpose than a weapon for mass murder, or something fun to do at a shooting range.
I'm sure it would be fun to toss grenades and fire the main gun of a tank at a shooting range as well but I think it's pretty obvious why that isn't allowed.
Fun vs. mass killings, hmm. Lets think about that one a little.
A weapon "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range."
Only on the point of assault weapons.
There should be an obvious limitation for ordinary civilians to not own weapons designed for military engagements that can be used for mass killings.
Holy Moses
New member
No. Gun control does nothing but disarm the people who follow the law. Criminals will still get their weapons illegally no matter what.
Quincy
New member
:thumb:
Glad to know there are kids out there that won't shoot themselves in the leg if they ever go into a nightclub haha.
PureX
Well-known member
Why tighter regulations regarding gun ownership and use would be a good idea ...
The problem was never the guns. It's putting guns in the hands (and pants) of idiots.
Concealed gun owner shoots own buttocks and wounds children at Dallas Walmart:
A licensed concealed handgun owner from Waco, Texas hurt more than his pride on Monday when his weapon accidentally discharged while he was reaching for his wallet at a Dallas Walmart store.
Police said that Todd Canady, 23, was in the checkout line when he fired the pistol he was carrying inside his pants.
“The bullet struck Canady in the buttock, then ricochet on the floor and broke into pieces,” KDFW reported. Two children and a woman were also wounded when they were struck by bullet fragments. - link here
A licensed concealed handgun owner from Waco, Texas hurt more than his pride on Monday when his weapon accidentally discharged while he was reaching for his wallet at a Dallas Walmart store.
Police said that Todd Canady, 23, was in the checkout line when he fired the pistol he was carrying inside his pants.
“The bullet struck Canady in the buttock, then ricochet on the floor and broke into pieces,” KDFW reported. Two children and a woman were also wounded when they were struck by bullet fragments. - link here
The problem was never the guns. It's putting guns in the hands (and pants) of idiots.
Can someone tell me again which gun we should ban?
How about both? Will that make you feel better?
I agree that we shouldn't just arbitrarily make a list of guns to ban based on how they look. That's why I based my definition of assault weapons on the rate at which they can fire rounds. And it might also help to control clip size. If there are other useful criteria, perhaps other people can suggest them. Or are you not interested in being constructive?
Consider the story equivalent to liberals and their God-given constitutional right to free speech.
Except liberals have many many more 'negligent discharges'.
Few.
But the question is irrelevant. a 100 round clip does not turn a person into mass murderer.
You've just described every firearm and none of them. Your description is useless because it doesn't distinguish an assault weapon from any other.
Why not? It saves time on reloading. It doesn't turn a person into a murder.
You do realize you are banning the fun at the shooting range with your sweeping ban? And for what? Almost nothing.
And then, the next murderer uses a 30 round clip so it must be banned, and then a 20 round clip, and then a 10 round clip. Turns out you were never interested in a 100 round clip at all.
Here's a hint: arbitrary (number) law is a usually bad law. Just avoid it entirely.
Because it can't be directed at a single individual. That's the criteria for a citizen's defensive weapon.
That would be a valid comparison if fun on a target range was related to mass killing.
You've just described every firearm and none of them. Your description is useless because it doesn't distinguish an assault weapon from any other.
Which, as you show, is every weapon. Or none, but I know you don't have that in mind.
Again, you've described every firearm and none of them. Any firearm, as history has proved, can be used in a military engagement. They could also all be used in a mass killing.
Last edited:
No, but it helps. It's certainly easier to shoot 71 people in a minute and a half if you have a 100-round clip.
All guns can fire a large number of rounds in a short time?
Why not?
To keep people from being shot at the movies. :duh:
The most recent nut would have been beaten to death inside of five minutes if he'd had to try that with a breech loader. :think:
It helps someone become a mass murderer if 100 round clips exist? How so?
Or even easier with a 200 round clip. Or just about as easy, if not easier, with 2 x 60 round clips which are more reliable.
So what is a safe number of rounds that can go into a clip that will stop mass murderers? 99? 98? 97?... And can you do that without infringing on the freedom of someone's property to load 100 rounds at a time at the firing range? Or do you think freedom just isn't that important?
What is your definition of "large" and "short time?"
I don't suppose your favorite liberal leader would use the slippery definition to define it a little smaller than you and a little longer time than you? Na, that'll never happen.
Because any semi-automatic rifle can be made to do the same thing, and with such a sloppy definition any firearm can be shoe-horned based on the same principle.
By making killing quicker.
That's fine. The number of cases for self-defense with even a sixty-round clip seem pretty small too, unless you're defending yourself against the Syrian army.
It would have to be a fair amount smaller. Say, 10, perhaps.
I think a person's right not to be shot at a movie theater trumps the right not to have to reload as much at the shooting range. I will gladly inconvenience someone during their recreation time if it saves lives.
Yes, I was intentionally vague about that because I'm more interested in establishing the principle of the thing than the specific attributes. If we could agree on the concept of the regulation, I think that would be progress. Certainly, some values would be impractical, useless, and counterproductive.
That doesn't really bother me.