You're not advocating restricting the right to bear arms, however you want a ten round magazine restriction, only for civilians. You want to restrict private party sales and the secondary market.
Tell me again how that's not a restriction on the right to bear arms?
You so silly SC. I wish I could be this blind and delusional.
You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.
Blind and delusional says the guy that has yet to prove anything. And we are melting down? Your credibility in this issue is a poster for epic fail.
But I guess when you can't counter facts and nobody bites on the race bait, what is left but being the pivot man in your own little circle jerk.
There is a huge difference between the courts disagreeing and not ruling. As you and i discussed 10 pages ago. To date not of the current laws which restrict firearm ownership have been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The closest they have come is in DC vs Heller:
This establishes that civilians. Can own the same firearms as the military and law enforcement.Quote:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Ther is also McDonald v Chicago:
This didn't establish limits but left the door open to them. Either way the examples cited were based on location or personal history. weapon type or number of rounds is not specifically mentioned.Quote:
The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
What, exactly, is reducing magazine size going to do? These people are packing mag upon mag in tactical vests. It's not going to make much of a difference in weight or space to pack 3 ten-round mags vs. 1 thirty-round mag.
The argument that people can take action while one is changing mags is BS. The single example that argument is used on is Tuscon. What those who argue with that one forget to bring up is that Loughner dropped the mag. Dropping the mag gave time for people to react, not changing the mag.
If the whole mag issue made such a difference, why didn't it in Aurora or Sandy Hook? Holmes started with a shotgun (not on the ban list) and then had his "assault rifle" jam after firing less than thirty rounds. From there he used a handgun (again, not on the ban list). He used a pump shotgun, and no one was able to stop him between rounds. He then switch guns, and no one was able to stop him. His gun jammed and he swapped again, but no one was able to stop him. He changed mags in the Glock at least three times, but no one was able to stop him.
Lanza changed out mags several times, but no one managed to stop him.
Harris and Klebold swapped guns and mags several times, yet no one was able to stop them. They were also using banned weapons. (Than ban worked well, didn't it)
Cho swapped mags and weapons several times, yet no one was able to stop him.
So tell me, where is the data that shows that a reduction in magazine size is going to help anyone? Or is it just a hypothesis based we should test on a permanent basis? If we're going to use past experience, perhaps we should require every shooter to drop their mag when they change out.
All the gun control argument does is take away from the real problem- our government can't enforce the laws we already have and prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting them. Yet they want to pass more laws that they can't enforce. Helluva idea!
Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention public hearing:
He does a very good job making his points and obviously came prepared.
Are you going to use more conjecture and hypothesis of how many escaped while he was swapping? How about something factual.
Every one of these people involved in mass shootings were, by law, restricted from owning a gun. However, they got them anyway.
The problem here is that certain people aren't interested in actually enforcing the law, they are interested in being on TV and pushing their agenda.
Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation
And in fact they want select-fire for personal defense.
This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.
hearings as we speak.
Even members of congress disagree with you.
Grassley on magazine capacity:Quote:
"We hear that no one needs to carry larger magazines than those used to hunt deer, but an attacking criminal, unlike a deer shoots back."