But, like Viagra, you can buy it on the Internet.

....Gifford have a high round drum or clip also?

Regards

on some of the gun nuts I know.

I think viagra is somthing like $15/ea... a 100rnd beta mag costs about $250/ea

Your post is idiotic, then again this does not surprise me.

Same reason many folks like a 400 horsepower car instead of a 150 HP car.

...the question isn't about what people "like" to do

It's about the practicality of having something that can reek so much havoc on society as a whole

Regards

a nut case with a 100 round magazine shooting me.

...rifle any longer

Who used a fully automatic pistol???

I agree...

But since I know congress is NOT going to get off their lazy dead asses and do something about this,
I'm considering concealed carry while I'm out in public-- to protect myself and family.

I've had enough of psychos being allowed to run amok among us.

do squat about any of this. I don't know what the right solution is, but I doubt any bright ideas will be coming from congress than to try to gain votes.

The M1 Garand won WWII and it carried a maximum of 8 cartridges.

nt

Not sure what your point is...?

for over a century. But in the last couple decades with the civilian arms race promoted by the NRA and the arms industry they now have to carry a semi-auto with a 20 round capacity or be outgunned. It's just like with the millitary arms race, when is enough enough?

we should freeze all technology, everywhere, maybe even revert back to 1940's level.

Sure. You first.

military style weapons and 100 round magazines. It's the NRA and the arms industry that have promoted that stuff
and created a civilian arms race. Nobody ever shot 72 people in less than a minute with any S&W revolver. What do you need to feel adequate a nuke? As far as freezing all technology everywhere and reverting back to 1940's level may not be a such a bad idea.

People hunted and target shot for centuries without 5-8 round magazines. So what? Again, technology progresses. By the way, those 100-round mags? Not legal for hunting anywhere I know of. in fact, the only place I know of where it's legal to hunt deer with anything over a 5 round mag is.... California.

Weird, huh?

attempts to put any restrictions on guns the NRA and the pro gun people claim they need it for hunting and target shooting. Tell me why anyone needs to have a 100 round magazine other than a mass murderer. I live near a Cabela's
go to the store every week or so. What items are selling like hot cakes? military style weapons and equipment. I have a friend that works at the gun counter, last weekend guess what the hot seller was? high capacity magazines AR-15s and Glocks. I'll bet my SS check the NRA has already sent out the word that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are going to take your guns, even though Mitt Romney is the only one that has enacted any kind of gun control.

as it was the fire-power employed by the drug gangs in the cocaine ' 80s. They had obtained uzis and macs and such. I think your average street criminal still had revolvers and .22 semi handguns.

upon the criminal enterprise with a S&W 38 say hey this isn't fair let me drive back to the building and get my M-16.

That it wasn't street thugs or an armed drunk at a domestic disturbance that caused the police to upgrade weapons... it was the increase in firepower by organized gangs.

your point in the least. The COPs had to acquire increased firepower or be killed because of the easy
availability of guns with high capacity.

I'm pretty sure it was bolt action. The M-16 was introduced because of the military need for a light automatic weapon. Sometimes tactics call for throwing a lot of lead in the air making the enemy take cover and preventing them from returning fire. The M-1 was not capable of this unless you had a whole lot of soldiers. Automatics are innacurate and wasteful of ammunition, which is why the M-16 has select fire.

anything more is more or less a waste of ammo. I once saw the figures on how many rounds of ammo that was fired in Vietnam per enemy casualty it was like into the thousands. The M1 was a semi-auto. It's predecessor the Springfield was a bolt action.

...that he can run faster then me.

It is unreliable. They usually jam, like his did.

I don't know any gun owner who would ever use one. The military has special high-capacity magazines for assault rifles and what we call machine guns, but the public aren't allowed to own either of those.

I answered your question honestly and you just keep baiting and poking. I do not understand it.

I was a unit armorer, how come I never saw any of these special magazines?

Wouldn't the sensible thing be to outlaw the normal capacity 30 round magazines and only allow the unreliable 100 round ones? If your ridiculous claim was true, then 100 round magazines are the only ones that should be legal.

They have high-capacity mags and belts made just for them and their weapons.

That's what the Beta Mags are.

And I WUVV wabbit stew! Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh...

Or a conversation starter.

what is the justification for banning such a device?

Can it be statistically shown that with a smaller clip (say 10-15 like the VT shooter used) we are safer than with a 100 round magazine (like the CO shooter used that jammed and ended his spree).

100 round clips are for hobbyists. And if idiotic shooters get them as well, great. They're more prone to jam. Our chances are better dealing with someone with 1 hundred round magazine rather than 10 10 round clips.

Magazine jams; shooting ends.

Clip jams: put in the next one, shooting continues.

...them.

The question you ask is easy in the light of the CO shootings no?

It's logical to see that a person with a 100 round clip and doesn't need to be concerned with reloading can pepper an area longer

Regards

...clip is higher because it's easier not have to go through the mental disciple to do what this person did.

I'd like to make it harder for mass killers to mass kill...

and I can switch mags in two seconds. Magazine fed firearms are designed to be reloaded quickly. It's just not that hard.

Standard Hoyt Horseshit

....they feel under threat

somebody shoots at you. Or do you plan to dodge bullets waiting for your chance to rush him?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

...over the chance of no seconds and 80 rounds coming out before a jam.

Jus seems logical and due diligence NOT to allow for HVMs....

If the police aint using it why is Frank next door?

Regards

By the time you get the legislation pushed through how much political capital do you think you'll burn?

And the next lunatic will side step it before the ink is dry.

than jamming. That's why the military doesn't usually bother with these 100+ round magazines on their rifles.

It's logical to see that a person with a 100 round clip and doesn't need to be concerned with reloading can pepper an area longer

So it's okay to have 100 round clips, because they might jam. Got it.

...more gun control not against it.

Unfortunately, it didn't happen this time.

At least I don't think it did. The details of the shooting haven't been fully released. At some point, Holmes may have switched to his backup handguns. Whether because his drum magazine jammed or was empty (or if he switched at all) hasn't been made public.

I wouldn't miss 100-round drum mags if they were eliminated. They're silly. But people shouldn't pretend that eliminating them will have any real impact on safety, either.

...running out of too many bullets over a given time span.

It just doesn't take that much time to swap magazines.

We know that detail. I have no idea how many rounds he fired before then.

I am betting, when details are released, that is where most of the deaths will come from, especially since the Glocks were larger calibers. I've read both 9mm and .40. The rifle was a .223.

like the one the VT shooter used (since that totally stopped him).

Or the kind our military favors (since they don't really know how to kill people or anything).

I'm gonna answer that argument with the fact that it didn't jam until 71 people had been shot.

Obviously, I'm in favor of people having extremely limited access to anything stronger than a musket. So you can list all the hardware every mass shooter in the history of mass shootings has used, and I'll be against it.

I've noticed that when discussing any of these things with gun grabbers the chance of them intentionally mis-assigning words to you approaches 100%.

he emptied his shotgun then went to the rifle, the rifle jammed so he went to a pistol

The idea that this guy was able to clank around with three or four guns, body armor, and all those clips or rounds or whatever on his person, is freaking scary. And if he was the only one, and this was the only time it happened, it would be unacceptable.

But it happens all. The. Time. And I'm sick of it.

what's the difference between a magazine and a clip? I thought they were just different words for the same thing.

and therefore can't express an opinion about gun laws, gun violence in society, etc.

I think they are wrong and quite full of it. I don't need to know everything about cancer, poisons, investment bankers, Tbaggers, or guns, to know they have undesirable consequences.

"I don't need to know nuthing 'bout them . . . . to know that I hates 'em!"

Are you really proud of not knowing what you're talking about?

And given how often you hang out on gun threads one would think you would have picked up some knowledge by osmosis.

Mag vs. clip; semi vs. full auto; assault/tactical vs. stripped down version; etc., just doesn't mean squat to me. It's just crud to keep guns on the brains type occupied. However, knowing that majority of gun owners are right wingers and likely callous bigots, tells me a lot.

I know NRA advances gun causes AND other right wing causes and owns many in Congress. I know those who say they are opposed to NRA, love it when NRA helps get laws passed like Stand Your Ground, etc. I know a lot of gun owners think Zimmerman is cool. I know folks right here on DU who would shoot an unarmed teenager over property.

I understand a lot about gun owners, why they are obsessed with the dang things, and the issues they present for society.

Are you pulling my leg?

Also I've seen many of your "facts" about gun owners and suffice it to say you don't understand gun owners as much as you feel that you do.

Maybe you are blinded by your guns, and need to have one close by.

you're just having fun with us.

Good one.

...as a collection of bigoted stereotypes.

going down the drain at once. And let's not even think about the heat cycles that put's a barrel through.

What is the 'need' for a Corvette?

...a 1000 hp daily driver vette but I can sure lay a lot of rounds in a KZ with a reliable 100 round mag.

semi-auto is semi-auto, one trigger pull = one bang.

As to "get to legal MPH faster", doing so will net you a ticket for "Excessive Acceleration".

pulls with bullets coming out of barrel.

As to "get to legal MPH faster", doing so will net you a ticket for "Excessive Acceleration".

"time for more gun regulation then no?"

"Time"? Time, as in it's time to "do SOMETHING because OMG we need to do SOMETHING!!1!"? More gun regulation huh? 20,000+ gun laws on the books, how about enforcing the ones we already have?

Nahhhhhhh, we don't need no stinking heath care, just more gun laws!

...the easy access of mass murder tools off the market no?

Regards

...elaborate and I know people who have mental defects (like Romney and his constant lying about things he doesn't need to lie about) and don't go around killing a lot of people...

K, I don't trust romney with "the button"....wouldn't vote for the guy even if he were a dem

Romney? He's a latent Fascist, signed a statewide AWB in Massachusetts.

This is a Ruger 10-22, it is okay under his ban. The second is the same exact gun but with pistol grip and sidefolding stock. It's SCARY so it's banned.

But a hell of a lot of people die every day from excessive speeds. Driving isn't protected by the constitution so why should you be allowed to own anything other than a 2 cylinder golf cart? If you need to move anything big around call a federally licensed truck driver.

Driving a car isn't a right guaranteed in the constitution.

That's why we have laws against it and he'll be punished for doing so.

No need to have a nuke if I'm just gonna go to jail for using it....

Shoot C-Mags every day and don't hurt anyone.

mean there's no need for speed limits.

Bottom line, the speed limit on a clip should be that of the security forces.

Recreational uses of these items could reak more havoc than necessary.

The potential is there, and no-one really needs them.

Besides, 'vettes suck. If we get rid of them, my M5 will be worth more....

And also the Lotto numbers for next week?

is the right to own an assault rifle ... Or the right to privacy, for that matter.

The right to privacy should be and I would approve an amendment stating that.

if there are no controls, people should be allowed to purchase machine guns, bazookas, anything that is handheld.

If controls are reasonable, they are not going far enough.

The 2nd amendment talks about arms without a definition. Aren't arms the things that your hands attached to? No one should infringe on that right.

...jail "if they're used".

This is a good conversation, I'm learning some of the counter arguments seemed to be canned and not thought through

but sweeping statements such as:

gun regulations will lead to all my guns being taken away
the shooter would have killed using something else (a bat, car)
a machette attack in south africa is proof that gun control doesn't stop mass killings

are all considered to be 100% fact and brilliant in their structure.


here's the scary part - aside from a very few, most of us probably agree in many other areas.

You can legally own a machine gun, the other gun laws were passed as a compromise and amazingly it never seems to be enough. If you wish to repeal the 2nd amendment then that's a position we'd have to debate you on, but quit trying to nibble at the apple in an attempt to accomplish the same goal.

telling me to quite is against my first amendment rights.

Wow, just when you think you've seen it all.

...people with an unreliable piece of equipment.

Yeah...

The irrational position is to have less regulation of firearms relative to the danger they pose to greater society no?

Regards