McCarthy To Propose Ban On High-Capacity Ammo

[natty bumppo 297]

I don't think many people will understand you. Have you explained the difference between a clip and a magazine?

there was an invite to search google followed a few posts later with ...

this post ...

and this post ...

[slim 1,530]

Well, I'd wager a guess that they already do.

Not even close. While the military and police may have heavier and more advanced weapons than common folk, the average citizen has the opportunity to purchase weapons similiar to those used by the military and police.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not even close. While the military and police may have heavier and more advanced weapons than common folk, the average citizen has the opportunity to purchase weapons similiar to those used by the military and police.

Really? Tanks, fighter jets, heavy artillery? All available to the average citizen?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Really? Tanks, fighter jets, heavy artillery? All available to the average citizen?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Stunningly intelligent anti-gun rhetoric as usual. So sorry for McCarthy who was elected on an anti-gun agenda and not a single federal gun law has passed since.

There will be no high capacity magazine ban. If you wish to delude yourselves...go ahead.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't think many people will understand you. Have you explained the difference between a clip and a magazine?

To whom? They do not need to know what they are talking about to talk. Their talk will make no difference, no law will be passed. The gun haterz use these tradegies to promote their agenda while it is in people's minds. They do not need anything to be connected to facts to promote their agenda. Actually, they prefer to leave facts out of it (such as the magazine he used was always available by mail order and was never banned or unavailable at any time).

[slim 1,530]

Really? Tanks, fighter jets, heavy artillery? All available to the average citizen?

Sure, after capture. Are you familiar with the Liberator pistol?

I don't know if you saw the recent e-mails about how many sportsmen headed out to harvest deer in the US over the past few months but the sheer number of armed men - even armed with shotguns - would be enough to deter the military and eventually win a prolonged campaign. However, the fact of the matter remains it would never happen to begin with because the military doesn't do police work, and there aren't enough police to occupy America.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Really? Tanks, fighter jets, heavy artillery? All available to the average citizen?

So far the primitive Afghans have kept us busy without all that junk...likewise the Iraqis and the Afghans whipped the Soviets when they were a "Superpower". Privately owned firearms kept Hitler out of Sweden and Switzerland.

The police in LA were forced to go to local gunshops and beg to borrow rifles during the infamous bank heist in which two men held the police department at bay. I think LAPD bought some of their own since then.

As with any form of deterence...a locked door for example, it is not necesary to defeat the bully/enemy/criminal/government per se, it is only necessary to be a harder target than the next potential victim. Why should Hitler invade Sweden when he could get what he wanted in Norway/Denmark and they would more or less roll over and play dead?

The US population hold plenty of firearms to deter any form of totalitarian government taking over. The ironic and unique thing about the 2nd amendment is that as long as we have it, people like you can say "we don't need it"

[slim 1,530]

One of my favorites about the Swiss -

A popular story at the turn of the century concerned an earlier visit by the Crown Prince and later Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, to view the Swiss militia in training. He supposedly asked the Swiss commander how many men he had under arms. When the commander answered one million, Wilhelm asked what would happen if five million of his men crossed the Swiss border tomorrow. The Swiss commander replied that each of his men would fire five shots and go home.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

One of my favorites about the Swiss -

A popular story at the turn of the century concerned an earlier visit by the Crown Prince and later Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, to view the Swiss militia in training. He supposedly asked the Swiss commander how many men he had under arms. When the commander answered one million, Wilhelm asked what would happen if five million of his men crossed the Swiss border tomorrow. The Swiss commander replied that each of his men would fire five shots and go home.

That is true. While it can be croaked out by anti-gunners that Switzerland had no strategic value in WW2 (not sure about that given the money they have, money is universally useful) at any rate, the Swedes most certainly were strategically valuable and they stayed even farther away from them! Sweden was surrounded by hard fought battles in Norway, Finland and Denmark (not so hard fought in Denmark, I will concede) yet no one touched Sweden with their abundance of iron and steel and arms making ability. Curious eh?

[slim 1,530]

I don't think it's curious at all. I think that's common-sense legislation!

[Kevin and 10]

Sure, after capture. Are you familiar with the Liberator pistol?

I don't know if you saw the recent e-mails about how many sportsmen headed out to harvest deer in the US over the past few months but the sheer number of armed men - even armed with shotguns - would be enough to deter the military and eventually win a prolonged campaign. However, the fact of the matter remains it would never happen to begin with because the military doesn't do police work, and there aren't enough police to occupy America.

That doesn't even take into account the number of US military personnel that would say F that and side with the citizens.

[slim 1,530]

That doesn't even take into account the number of US military personnel that would say F that and side with the citizens.

Exactly.

[justashooter 430]

I don't think many people will understand you. Have you explained the difference between a clip and a magazine?

yeah, "it's that shoulder thingy that goes up".

That is true. While it can be croaked out by anti-gunners that Switzerland had no strategic value in WW2 (not sure about that given the money they have, money is universally useful) at any rate, the Swedes most certainly were strategically valuable and they stayed even farther away from them! Sweden was surrounded by hard fought battles in Norway, Finland and Denmark (not so hard fought in Denmark, I will concede) yet no one touched Sweden with their abundance of iron and steel and arms making ability. Curious eh?

swedish ore was railroaded at rock bottom prices into german controlled ports by an agreement between the neutral sweden and nazi germany. read the history. it's there. albert speer discusses it in detail in his auto-bio.

Edited January 13, 2011 by justashooter