This message was self-deleted by its author

[Hiawatha Pete]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Hiawatha Pete) on Thu Jun 16, 2022, 08:35 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Phoenix61]

1. Florida hunting law limits it to 3. nt

[Hiawatha Pete]

3. Three rounds... five...

Point is here we have no possession of hi cap mags for any reason whatsoever. Non-compliance is punishable by jail time.

[WarGamer]

4. This very subject is being tried in California

Lower Courts found it was unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit reversed that but set aside enforcement while it's appealed to SCOTUS.

[Phoenix61]

6. My point was there is no legit legal reason in the states to

have a high capacity mag. I don’t understand why they haven’t been banned a long time ago.

[Hiawatha Pete]

8. OK, thanks for clarifying, n/t

[Chainfire]

5. That is because in Florida we are more interested in protecting game than children.

DeSantis promises that he his going to cut gun regulations further by bringing us "Constitutional Carry."

[Phoenix61]

7. I'm currently in Bali.

If I didn’t have two fur babies at home I’d be working out how to stay here.

[WarGamer]

2. It all comes down to SCOTUS... AFAIK it's never been tested.

Last year, the 9th Circuit Court reversed lower Court findings that a high capacity magazine ban in California was unconstitutional.

In fact, the 9th Circuit set aside enforcement of the law until the other party can take it to SCOTUS.

SO right now... there's no enforcement of high cap mag bans in Ca.

It may make it to SCOTUS.

BTW, the Va TECH shooting was done with a handgun with 10rd magazines.

[budkin]

9. The constitution says nothing about ammo

Ban the fucking ammo!

[Chainfire]

11. The argument is that ammo is "arms" it is all up to the SC to decide.

Who do you think that this court would support in an attempt to ban ammo. If the issue was so simple it would have been settled long ago.

[Amishman]

30. Several court decisions have supported that 'arms' includes ammo

Gun Save Lives vs Ali, Illinois Ass’n of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago, and Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco all have touched upon and supported the idea that the second amendment covers ammunition.

[honest.abe]

10. Not sure the general public needs high or low capacity magazines.

[SoCalDavidS]

12. They're Gonna Do Nothing

Count On It!

[Beartracks]

13. Even strict constitutionalists can see the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about ammo.

==========

[hack89]

35. There have been court cases that say ammo is covered by the 2A

kind of like paper and ink are covered by the 1st - it prevents backdoor bans.

[ymetca]

14. In this particular case

the person(s) who sold all that ammo could have just said "no, not gonna sell you a thousand rounds".

No law demands anyone sell anyone that much lethal force.

They could have just said "no".

But they didn't.

[Hiawatha Pete]

16. Good point

[mercuryblues]

15. Add to that a high tax rate

at least 100%. Guns may have protection under the constitution, but not bullets.

[MichMan]

17. Pretty certain they do

People have proposed the same thing here for years. The SC would see it as a back door method to circumvent the 2nd Amendment

[Tommymac]

38. And require ALL Gun Owners to purchase potentially expensive Liability Insurance just like on a car

Shotgun - cheap.

Traditional hunting rifle (single shot, non automatic) - cheap.

Handgun - Bend over baby, it is going to hurt.

Assault Rifle - 1% only need apply.

Get convicted of a DUI, a violent crime, domestic abuse, under psychiatric care etc. - You are fucked, no soup for you.

[mercuryblues]

41. bingo

[Generic Brad]

18. Why can't we ban guns?

Amendments can be added, changed and nullified.

[moonshinegnomie]

21. no chance of getting 3/4 of the states to go along with it

[Generic Brad]

25. If we want moderation, we start negotiating from an extreme position

That’s what Republicans do. They take an extremist position on issues and we offer common sense solutions. The result is that they don’t budge and we settle on a compromise that leans to the right. That disappoints our voters and waters down our support.

If we don’t stand for something, we fall for anything. If we’re accused of being* extreme leftists all the time, then let’s be unabashed leftists. By trying a new tactic perhaps we can move the nation back to moderation or the left of center.

[moonshinegnomie]

31. theres no point ot even wasting tim on it

it requires a 2/3 vote in the house and senate and then 3/4 of the states.

we cant even get 60 votes to vote on a gun control bill in the senate how would we get 67?
then we need 292 in the house,i dont see 70 GOP reps voting for anything with the dems

Then find 38 states . if 12 oppose it you lose.
texas,Oklahoma,mississippi,alabama,arkansas,kansas,nebraska,wyoming,utah,idaho,south carolina,west virginia,tennessee. theres 13 no votes. amendment fails

[Generic Brad]

32. So continue with the same failed approach

Negotiate weakly and get nothing. That has never worked and it will sentence us to continued failure. I want us the settle in the middle. But when we start from there we get nothing or swing further right.

[Kaleva]

34. So how do you intend to negotiate strongly?

What new actions will you be taking?

[Generic Brad]

40. Threaten repeal of the second amendment

Put them on their heels for a change. Don’t relent and force them to move left.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

43. Threaten repeal of the 2A?

And just how do you threaten repeal of the 2A when it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to vote to repeal and 3/4ths of the States to ratify?

All the repukes would do is laugh at such a threat because they damn well know the votes aren't there so any threat would ring hollow.

[Generic Brad]

49. Like we laughed at the idea of abolishing Roe vs Wade?

I give up. Be sensible. Stay practical. Get used to continued senseless tragedy. And never get the reform we all want.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

50. I never said to give up,

but threatening repeal of the 2A is ridiculous when it's just a hollow threat is not productive.

Have a good weekend.

[MichMan]

51. Should the party adopt that as the official platform for the midterms?

I don't think that would be a winning message, but maybe you are right.

[Tommymac]

39. We can change things in November 2022. GOTV

YES - it IS possible, the naysayers are just that. And they are wrong.

The future is not set in stone.

WE CAN Change things if we can persuade everyone who wants to regulate firearms to gets off their duffs and vote all the candidates who support the NRA and the GQP out of office this November.

WE CAN DO IT. VISUALIZE IT. ACT IT OUT. MAKE IT HAPPEN.

#GOTV2022

[Hiawatha Pete]

22. I don't know, it's your system, not mine. Or ... how's that going for you? Your pick. n/t

[gldstwmn]

23. We could reinstate the 1994 ban with some improvements.

And before we throw up our hands and say won't work well it won't work if you don't try. It might not even work the first, second or thir time but we have to keep trying. Children's lives are dependent upon it.

[Emile]

19. Like they did on tobacco, raise taxes sky high on guns and ammo!

[moonshinegnomie]

20. ban the ammo

ban ammo based on muzzle velocity. its the muzzle velocity that determines the damage a bullet will cause uding teh formula 1/2mv^2 where v is the bullet velocity

a .223 slug from an ar-15 moves roughtly 3000 ft/second and has 1000-1500 ft lbs of energy

compared to a 9mm slug which despite hte bullet weigning 2x as much has a velocity of 1000 ft/seconds and only 3-400 ft lbs of energy.

we already ban any bullet over 50cal we could do the same with any bullet that has a velocity over the speed of sound. and when the hunters cry out allow them to buy a VERY limited amount for hunting. no more than 1 20 round box/month

[NickB79]

24. A shotgun slug is low velocity too

Approximately 1500 fps.

But it throws a hunk of lead the size of your thumb, and is absolutely lethal.

Know what one of the most popular rounds for the AR is? The .300 Whisper. A big .30-cal slug at just below the speed of sound that still drops deer-sized game out to 100 yards.

[moonshinegnomie]

29. no one is using shot slugs for mass shooting

and mass shooters arent using .300 rounds in their ar's. they use .223 or 5.56 becasue its cheaper and thats what the military uses

[NickB79]

33. Mass shooters use what's available

If high velocity ammo was gone, they'd just use subsonic. That's what I was trying to relay. The Virginia Tech mass shooting, one of the worst, was done with a .22-cal handgun firing small, subsonic bullets (almost all .22LR is subsonic out of a short handgun barrel).

That's why the OP's magazine limit is the best idea IMO. It's not the lethality of the bullet in most cases, but the sheer volume of fire. Limit the magazines, and you slow down the rate of fire.

[aocommunalpunch]

26. Who cares? The filibuster is more important.

How much does that suck?

[Emile]

27. Tax ammo and gun accessories at a very high rate! Worked on cigarettes.

[MichMan]

52. Why weren't cigarettes just banned totally ?

Not covered by the Bill of Rights.

[Emile]

54. It was an addiction people needed to break. You

could say the same about guns.

[slater71]

36. To hunt deer in my state, a 5 shot clip is all you are allowed.

But to hunt people, you can get a 30,60, or 100 round clip.

[BlackSkimmer]

37. K and r. nt

[JCMach1]

42. Single shot rifles, period unless you have an exempted

Occupational license such as LEO

[MarineCombatEngineer]

44. So you would trust LE to have these weapons?

Why? Because cops are so trustful?

[JCMach1]

45. Define trust. I just acknowledge they still might need them with 300M

Mainly semiautomatics out there.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

46. Sorry, but I have a healthy distrust of cops,

especially if they're the only ones with such weapons.

I know numerous cops and I wouldn't trust them with a cap gun, much less a semi auto rifle.

[JCMach1]

47. My only point is about actual need... Even in places like UK with strict laws

Some units/individuals are armed.

And absolutely, it should not be the dumbasses who are heavily armed.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

48. +100. nt

[Hiawatha Pete]

57. Per my response to pecosbob below, no reason (that I can see) that a qualified, vetted, law-abiding

citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun, even a semi auto, if they want.

Those who advocate for 'central storage' (ie only at an armory) have it wrong - 'keep & bear' means exactly that: 'keep & bear'.

In fact it's exactly what the Swiss do when they store their service rifles at home as part of their reservist/militia/rifle club program.

The problem is when you ignore the 'well-regulated' part of 2A (ie insufficient system of red flags, background checks ect)

That said, I still don't see any justification for hi cap mags at all regardless of the type of gun. Maybe it's because I was born & raised Canadian, I don't know.

Not an expert opinion, just my 2 cents

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. Really wish we still had the rec option for individual posts,

yours would earn one from me, so instead, here's a well deserved

[LiberatedUSA]

58. Saying a certain type of gun...

…is only good for mass murder or only belongs on the battlefield, then banning it from everyone but the same police that get protested for murder is…interesting. Either one doesn’t really think the weapon is ONLY for war or they feel the cops may need to go to war with the public and it would be a shame if the public had same; no even Steven.

[JCMach1]

53. And highly regulate Ammo

[pecosbob]

55. My take...banning the weapon, magazine or ammo is a lost cause, particularly with stacked courts

Eliminating the gun ownership loopholes is the proper course of action. Sixty percent of mass shooters have domestic violence flags or warnings. Gun shows, gun conventions and same day purchases should be outlawed. Responsible gun policy (see Switzerland) should prevent unhinged people from purchasing weapons.

[Hiawatha Pete]

56. Switzerland is an excellent example of one way to do it right & probably what the founding fathers..

...had in mind when they wrote 'keep & bear arms' & 'well regulated militia' - the Swiss are allowed/expected to keep their fully functioning service weapons at home as part of their rifle club/militia/reservist program.

No reason (that I can see) that a qualified, vetted, law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun - those who advocate for 'central storage' (ie only at an armory) have it wrong - 'keep & bear' means exactly that: 'keep & bear'.

The problem is when you ignore the 'well regulated' part.

Plus the Swiss also don't have to worry about going bankrupt from medical debt or going to college, having access to health & mental health care, not having a pension when they retire, or having 1/3 of their population not recognizing or wanting to overthrow their own govt.

And they have an infrastructure for keeping guns out of the hands of those who are violent, which is what the US would need to start doing in order to implement a similar system there.

I think a person who is not a danger to society should be able to buy a gun, even a semi auto, if they want but I don't see any justification for hi cap mags at all.

Just my 2 cents