ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

[Ed Anger]

I jack off into my 30 round magazines.

Ed if you knew how many 20 and 30 rd mags I had in my possession from 20 years in the Army you'd be shocked. I gave them away in the last to years of my career. I had a footlocker full.

It was not controlled in the least bit. All I had to do was go to the armorer and he'd give me six new ones. No turn in of the old ones. Unsure how controlled it is now.

I'm sure some pinhead in supply is selling them to gunshow sellers.

[derspiess]

I jack off into my 30 round magazines.

I used to have a 40-round magazine when I had my AK.  Never used it, due to our weird-ass state law that says it's legal to *own* a magazine with a capacity higher than 30 rounds, you can't insert it into a firearm or that firearm instantly becomes a class 3 machinegun 

[Berkut]

Answer: Because you know I never thought that, but want to hold onto to it because you imagine it is scoring you fake internet points?

I need no internet points or what ever you are again trying to imply. Again disingenuous on your part. Typical

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

Squirm, boy squirm away. Again typical Berkut tactic.

What is their to squirm about? My statement is exactly as it says - the FF never said anything about magazine capacity, nor could they since they wouldn't even know what one is.

You are the one who then claimed that I said the second only applies to the right to own a musket, which is not at all what I said, rather obviously, since I then re-stated it several times.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not exactly what your statement said Berkut.

[Berkut]

I can't fit 10 rounds into my revolver anyway, so it doesn't bother me a bit.

So you'd be okay with Maryland reducing the legal mag capacity to 7?

I'll have my dealer send you a copy of his FFL so you can transfer your P38 to me

Considering how that was the provisions under the Brady Bill last time--civilian purchases of semi-automatics did not exceed 7 rounds--it wouldn't be much of a big deal, Koresh.

And go fuck yourself with a fetus skull, Teabagger.

and that's why it not an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's not an infringement on anything but opinion. Nowhere in the 2nd does it state you have the right to 15 rounds in a MAGAZINE. Hell get a Govmint model 1911. Capacity 7 rounds.

I will take your concession on the argument.

The SAFE act provision restricting magazine sizes is not challengeable on second amendment grounds.

Noted that you didn't have the balls to just agree with me to begin with, and instead are doing so without actually having the courage to just say you were wrong in your idiotic characterization of my argument.

I "made" your arguement for you despite "your" error. Yi also point out your error more succinctly than I.  I told you, you were making the wrong arguement. I never agreed or disagreed on magazine capacties you dumb fuck. Never stated whether it was right, wrong or otherwise pior to Post #156. I disagreed with your retarded musket and founding fathers intentions BS. Scroll your fucking disingenuous pile of shit self back and check.

My oh my, the internet rage is strong in this one.

You never made any argument for me, as I don't require your assistance in demolishing your own strawman.

But keep on with the rage. It suits you better than your strawman building.

You assumed I was on the opposite end of your arguement. Never stated I was, was I?

I never stated anything about where you were on the point I was making, until you agreed with me.

Just pointed out that I never made the point you continue to insist that I was making, even after I've stated I am not.

Never made an arguement against your or anyone elses premise of the SAFE act. Another ERROR on your part. You just keep fuckin up aint ya boy.    I pointed out the idiocy you tried to spew with the musket/ FF's intentions. You, Berkut. Your idoitic error. You are a disingenuous person by your statements above.

Oh please.

You claim I say something.

I say I didn't say that.

You insist that I did - I state unequivocally that I do not believe such a thing, and that it is stupid.

You continue to bleat and swear and get super internet enraged that I so totally do think that...and for what reason...?

Courage is lacked by you and your chicken shit inability to admit a mistake. Goes to your character.

Yawn. At least you got some Raz internet points - congrats on that.

[Berkut]

That's not exactly what your statement said Berkut.

So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:

" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."

Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?

And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?

[Admiral Yi]

So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:

" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."

Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?

And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?

Yes, that's a reasonable inference.  You stated (and I paraphrase) that the 2nd amendment can't cover magazines because the founders weren't aware of them.  It naturally follows that they only wanted the 2nd amendment to cover firearms technology they were aware of.  The unnatural conclusion is that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover magazines, but it does cover other technology not yet invented at the time...just because.

[Berkut]

So, the reasonable thing to assume then is that what I meant was:

" the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787."

Even though THAT sure as hell isn't "exactly what I said" either, and since then I've posted about a dozen posts stating precisely what I did mean?

And of course all of them are ignored in favor of this imaginary statement?

Yes, that's a reasonable inference.  You stated (and I paraphrase) that the 2nd amendment can't cover magazines because the founders weren't aware of them.  It naturally follows that they only wanted the 2nd amendment to cover firearms technology they were aware of.  The unnatural conclusion is that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover magazines, but it does cover other technology not yet invented at the time...just because.

Horsehit.

That is an idiotic inference. That is NOT what I stated - my statement was specifically addressed to the question of how many rounds a magazine could have.

I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.

It is YOUR leap to then assume that I am arguing that then the second should only cover technology they are aware of - that is a huge leap.

And then to continue that I MUST mean that even when I state time and again I do not, and state exactly what I do mean? WTF is the point of that?

You are taking a single line in a few hundred, and insisting that you can only draw a conclusion about my argument (and of course it is an idiotic conclusion) from THAT singular sentence, and anything I say otherwise (before or after) should be ignored in favor of this precious, precious strawman.

[ulmont]

Plus that only applied to the guns as sold.  My Glock 17 came with a 10-round magazine but in a separate transaction I bought a couple 17-round mags off the shelf in the same store.

Interesting. I bought my FNP-9 in 2005 and it came with two 16 round mags.

...which was after the ban had expired in 2004.

There were lots of large capacity magazines available back then though (1998) and I could swear that somehow they were still being manufactured or imported using some sort of loophole. 

Large capacity magazines were produced feverishly before the ban actually kicked in.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt

[Admiral Yi]

I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.

And this is the tenth time it doesn't make any sense to me.  How could they have an opinion on semi-auto vs. full auto vs. single shot?  How could they have an opinion on folding stocks?  How could they have an opinion on teflon bullets?  How could they have an opinion on percussion caps vs. flint locks?  How could they have an opinion on *any* of the technological advancements in firearms since their time?

[Berkut]

I stated exactly what I was arguing - that the second could not cover a very particular element of a specific law (the reduction in magazine size from 10 to 7) because they certainly did not know what a magazine was,so how could they possibly have an opinion about what size was necessary? That doesn't mean the second doesn't apply to anything they could not know, only that it cannot apply to specifically whether a magazine can have 7 or 10 rounds in it. I think this must be about the tenth time I've stated that.

And this is the tenth time it doesn't make any sense to me.  How could they have an opinion on semi-auto vs. full auto vs. single shot?  How could they have an opinion on folding stocks?  How could they have an opinion on teflon bullets?  How could they have an opinion on percussion caps vs. flint locks?  How could they have an opinion on *any* of the technological advancements in firearms since their time?

Well, at least now we are arguing about what I said, rather than what you wish I had said!

The answer is that in most cases, they can't have an opinion on most of those things, except insofar as the basic SC finding that the second does cover weapons that are the equivalent of a arm of the time (at least I think that is what the SC said).

If someone proposes a ban on folding stocks, I think it is crazy to try to argue that said ban is a violation of the second amendment - how could it be, since the second clearly has nothing to say about folding stocks? The only way to claim that it would cover such a thing is to claim that it's scope if incredibly broad, and if it was THAT broad, then it would cover all kinds of other things that we as a society have already clearly stated it does NOT cover - like machine guns and AT missiles, which are arms as well.

I think you can make some arguments of course, if you limit their scope to reason, but of course that becomes pretty slippery. Which is part of the reason why I think the second is ridiculously over-used in all these arguments, and we would be better off if it simply did not exist and we debated the merits of gun control legislation without reference to it.

[derspiess]

There we go-- repeal the 2nd Amendment! 

[Berkut]

There we go-- repeal the 2nd Amendment! 

Haven't we already agree that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with this issue anyway?

Or is this just you finding the idea of its repeal so incredible that you like to mention it regardless?

[derspiess]

Or is this just you finding the idea of its repeal so incredible that you like to mention it regardless?

Pretty much, yeah.  Prevents me from wasting much time listening to your opinions if that's what you ultimately think should happen.

[CountDeMoney]

The Brady Bill is just the required background check, Seedy.  You're thinking of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the cutoff was 10 rounds.

Ah, that's right.  I remember buying my .45 and it came with only 7 round magazines because, well, it was a .45.  D'oh.