celebrities-push-gun-control-surrounded-by-wall-armed-officers

[spookyturtle 9,466]

57 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

This is exactly how it is in CA and one of many reasons why I left. It's ok for the rich and powerful to do whatever they want but it's not ok for us peons.

I think it’s similar everywhere. The rich and powerful can do pretty much as they please. Our government is a prime example. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I think it’s similar everywhere. The rich and powerful can do pretty much as they please. Our government is a prime example. 

It's just worse there in regards to guns because CA is a MAY ISSUE state which means that every county has different rules they follow that are handed down by the Sheriff. So LA County under Baca and now McDonnel do not give out concealed carry unless your: 1. Friends of the Sherriff 2. Rich and Powerful 3. See one of the above.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

who needs a pickup truck?  who needs a huge house?  who needs more than one flat screen tv?  who needs more than 10 mb/s?

 

anytime i see someone justifying their position with "who needs......." - it reminds me of animal farm.

 

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

who needs a pickup truck?  who needs a huge house?  who needs more than one flat screen tv?  who needs more than 10 mb/s?

 

anytime i see someone justifying their position with "who needs......." - it reminds me of animal farm.

 

 

I appreciate your counter point, I really was not going down the right to own property but the ethical implications specific to 5 versus 10 round magazine.

Some of my counter point to your argument would be embedded in the part of my statement you did not quote.

 

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

 

8 hours ago, IDWAF said:

No, you can articulate a DESIRE for them.  The Amish do just fine without them.  I have a cordless drill/screwdriver, but often reach for that Phillips screwdriver.  

 

Like I said... not need for 10.  Nor 5.  Nor 3.  1 only?  Three-shot revolvers?  Muskets?  How about... no guns at all?  (Jim, stay out of this!). There is no need for a gun today.   I haven’t shot mine in years.  And I also don’t NEED insurance, yet I keep paying for it year after year.  

You claim I can only articulate desire, I claim I can articulate true need, let's leave it there.

 

Even if I could articulate that the ownership of these items was essential for my freedom and happiness, I would have to consider other arguments if the ownership contributed to the harm of others.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Il Mango Dulce

[Crazy Cat 42,218]

Don't take away my constitutional rights because someone else abuses those rights.  It is possible to defend both the innocent from those abusers and my rights.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, missileman said:

Don't take away my constitutional rights because someone else abuses those rights.  It is possible to defend both the innocent from those abusers and my rights.

I totally agree.

[charmander 692]

Ahhh a link from Breitbart. Meanwhile Bannon enjoying his Roman holiday in Piazza Navona...

[Crazy Cat 42,218]

7 minutes ago, charmander said:

Ahhh a link from Breitbart. Meanwhile Bannon enjoying his Roman holiday in Piazza Navona...

Nice try at deflection.....but failure.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

31 minutes ago, missileman said:

Nice try at deflection.....but failure.

That kind of sums up Bannons political efforts "Nice try at deflection.....but failure"

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ok, Mango.  You need those things.  Some gun owners need 10 round magazines.  Let’s leave it at that, eh?

[Dashinka 24,771]

11 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I keep handgun, rifle to hunt,fly, have two vehicles and can swear on a stack of Bibles that my Ryobi cordless tools are essential for modern Life. All of those items fit in some level of "need" in my view. 

 

No one has ever described a legit use of a 10 round magazine to me. Just asking for a friend.

Nope, but if you choose to watch or not it is your choice.

So a one round magazine would be better?  I guess in that case, it wouldn't be a magazine.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So a one round magazine would be better?  I guess in that case, it wouldn't be a magazine.

If you want to maximize lethality, a larger magazine would get you closer to that goal. I think we agree on that. 

 

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Ok, Mango.  You need those things.  Some gun owners need 10 round magazines.  Let’s leave it at that, eh?

I am just trying to understand that perception of need, I have not seen it articulated well anywhere. 

Here is what I found from the NRA 

"While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense."

 

How likely is it that someone is involved in a situation where more than 5 rounds is needed?

[jg121783 3,921]

18 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

If you want to maximize lethality, a larger magazine would get you closer to that goal. I think we agree on that. 

A larger magazine OR multiple smaller magazines would equally get you closer to that goal. 

 

19 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

How likely is it that someone is involved in a situation where more than 5 rounds is needed?

About as likely as it is that someone needs 100 pairs of shoes. We don't restrict how many pairs of shoes someone can own just because they only need one pair.

[Dashinka 24,771]

33 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

If you want to maximize lethality, a larger magazine would get you closer to that goal. I think we agree on that. 

 

I am just trying to understand that perception of need, I have not seen it articulated well anywhere. 

Here is what I found from the NRA 

"While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense."

 

How likely is it that someone is involved in a situation where more than 5 rounds is needed?

Nice deflection to my question.

[Ban Hammer 13,516]

40 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

If you want to maximize lethality, a larger magazine would get you closer to that goal. I think we agree on that. 

 

I am just trying to understand that perception of need, I have not seen it articulated well anywhere. 

Here is what I found from the NRA 

"While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense."

 

How likely is it that someone is involved in a situation where more than 5 rounds is needed?

following that logic, why should condoms be sold in more than as singles?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

44 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

If you want to maximize lethality, a larger magazine would get you closer to that goal. I think we agree on that. 

 

I am just trying to understand that perception of need, I have not seen it articulated well anywhere. 

Here is what I found from the NRA 

"While a police officer can carry extra magazines on his duty belt, and have a rifle or shotgun in his patrol car, and call for back-up, a private citizen attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense."

 

How likely is it that someone is involved in a situation where more than 5 rounds is needed?

I agree with you, for the most part.  Unless laying down suppressive fire in a gunfight, there is no NEED for anything more than about 3-5 rounds.  I grew up hunting with a cingle shot rifle, and did just fine with it.  Unless you are hunting coyotes or prairie dogs with a suppressor, having 10 rounds (or more) serves little purpose.  At a range, it removes the need for frequent reloads.

 

In a home defense situation, emotions are high, and shot placement goes downhill quickly.  IMO, a shotgun is THE gun of choice.  But in my situation, a shotgun is very impractical.  An AR style is as well.  So a handgun with 12-15 rounds serves my purpose well.