The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. Some still may be- the Vegas shooter had money and a clear record and outwardly looked and acted just like some members of this forum- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?


The number of the refered to guns smaller, you might succeed in reducing their use in crime, but it doesn't follow that the crime rate will go down. Because a psychotic person might be unable to buy a M4orgery, he is not going to conclude he should not do the Deed, he most likely will just use another weapon. In another post I suggested a 12 gauge pump shotgun would work very well .

If I was getting shot at, I'd prefer my assailant would have a squirtgun.
But if I ever do come under fire, it will be with whatever the assailant has, not what I would "prefer" he had, and he'll most likely be trying to kill me if he's shooting at me, so forgive me for believing I might die if one round of 9mm. hits me in the chest .....
 
If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. ...- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.
Citation needed.
This has not been true since... forever.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?
If you are being shot at, would you rather return fire with a capable semiauto with a double digit round count or a manually actioned weapon?

Especially considering that the criminals will not use (don't follow laws, remember?) your preferred weapon (bolt action), I will keep my semi and as many rounds in the mag as I can.
 
I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.
1. For purposes of discussion, please define "assault weapon". Please don't just list makes and models, describe what makes one thing an assault weapon and another not.
2. Do you propose to limit the number of loaded magazines someone can have in their pocket?
Just curious. Every discussion I've ever had going back decades, can't get those answered.
 
An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.
 
This goes against my general principles of arguing with an obvious troll but here goes nothing.

Why is the arbitrary capacity of the magazine chosen to be 8? If this is the limit for me then I want EVERYONE (law enforcement and military) to be restricted to the same standards.

I personally have been in situations where I felt the need for more than 8 shots per reload. This was in the aftermath of a major natural disaster prior to outside law enforcement and National Guard assistance. There were groups of 10-15 individuals who would go from street to street looting with no concern for rule of law.
I have friends who used "assault weapons" to defend the few possessions they had left, things like food, water, gasoline and medical supplies. I do not want to have to rely on reloading multiple times to stop a mob of people when I can use a larger standard capacity magazine to perform the same job.

Should you ever find yourself in such a situation I would like to believe that your mindset would change. I have heard the saying about there being no atheists in the foxholes, so the same should apply in time of stress.
 
An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.
My definition is "as scary black rifle we can demonize in order to alarm the public and push harsher gun control laws"

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.
No, an actual "firearms historian" will tell you that "assault weapon" is a made up term created by the popular media and gun grabbers to make semiautomatic rifles sound more frightening. An assault rifle on the other hand in a selective fire rifle firing an intermediate power cartridge and is for all practical purposes virtually impossible for civilians to purchase.
 
If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings.
Semiautomatic rifles are already used in only around 1% of gun crime (The FBI statistics don't actually break out semiautomatic rifles. The percentage included all long guns).
 
An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.

So a Ruger 10/22 is an "assault weapon" but a Marlin model 60 isn't?
 
If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings.

Yeah and if we were exposed to less criminals, there would be less crime too but there are lots of liberal policies that are counter to that thinking.
 
^. That’s it, like following a drunk, they always know where they are going and how to get there, even if they don’t.

They try out their policies in their own community and when they fail they just double down and say everyone should do what they are doing.

Like the blind leading thoes who can see...
 
If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

If I am getting shot at, I would like to be at least on equal footing as my opponent.

Preferably, at an advantage.

Putting laws on the books that limit me, as a law abiding citizen, would put me at a disadvantage.

This is because a shooter, shooting at me, would be breaking the law, shooting a good guy, like myself.

So I would rather he/she have a slingshot but they obviously don’t care about laws or they wouldn’t be trying to kill me and breaking one in the process.

So what do they care that they break the law having an illegal gun? Their intention is to break laws with it.

Your argument is to disarm law abiding citizens so they have no ability to defend themselves?
 
Last edited:
Something I posted in another thread regarding California and how it is now going to take down a lot more of the nation:

California's population nearly doubled in two decades, most of the growth being foreign immigration, and children and grand children of those given amnesty by Republican President Ronald Reagan and was the primary population growth in the state.
The number of illegals is in the millions so the state population is actually millions higher than documented, although their children had in the US would all be considered citizens and may be part of the census.
You wouldn't have seen the cost of living in California shoot up so fast and the culture change causing the mass exodus that is now going to result in the legislative change of many other states they move to if the issue had been properly addressed.
California citizens even voted for ballot measure prop 187 in 1994 and passed it by a majority of the people and it would have stopped the problem by removing government funding of illegals and further criminalizing the hire of illegal labor. Yet California was then prevented by a federal judge from implementing any of it, and then the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
So California wanted and tried to stop the issue when they could see they had a short window left before the demographics skewed too far to ever correct it again. Yet was prevented from doing so by the US government. That resulted in a massive population increase and a dramatic demographic shift as a result of the federal government blocking the State from dealing with the issue while simultaneously failing to deal with it themselves.
The US federal government also sets the policies on legal immigration and swamps California with Asian immigrants as fast as businesses can ask for them.
The state is being given and sold to a foreign population.
Do a quick look at the numbers, here is https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-in-california
In 2015, 10.7 million immigrants (foreign-born individuals) comprised 27.3 percent of the population. ... In 2016, 9.3 million people in California(23.8 percent of the state's population) were native-born Americans who had at least one immigrant parent.
27.3+23.8 = 51.1%
(The children typically favor policies that would not have prevented their parents from coming and vote very predictably.)


The number leaving the state is higher than it appears because there is actually so many new foreigners coming into the state replacing people as they leave that even with a net loss the percent of the population leaving is lower than the actual percent of prior residents leaving.
(Most immigration now is from Asia, and Asian Americans are actually the largest demographic in favor of more gun restrictions. Also on the west coast British Columbia is now over a third Asian with much more permissive legal immigration policies. And there is more people in Asia that want to come to the USA than anywhere else in the world, with overcrowded India and China accounting for over a third of the world's population alone.)
You let so many come in they replaced rather than assimilated, and you prevented the state or the citizens from doing what they could about it. It wasn't California that failed, it was the US government that failed California and let California be conquered by a foreign invasion that has since totally changed the culture and demographics and now number such a high percent of the voters that they vote to allow it to worsen.

Outside of San Francisco and Hollywood California was actually quite conservative until that demographic shift and had some of the best self defense laws in the country.
 
^. That wouldn’t be that bad except the folks that voted thoes people in are fleeing into States that didn’t and still vote the same as they did it the places they are running from.
 
I have news for you folks. California is not to blame. Look to your school systems since the early 1970’s. Look at the media, television and movies with all it’s political messaging since the 1980’s.

Don’t believe me? Go to your local government meetings and listen to the hogwash that is being spewed to advance an agenda. I’ll bet none of the folks your hear speaking even know a Californian let alone have ties to

'We will take America without firing a shot' - Nikita Khrushchev

It all started in our education system a few years after this quote was made.
No, I don’t wear a tin foil hat. Crack a book and look into it.
 
I have news for you folks. California is not to blame. Look to your school systems since the early 1970’s. Look at the media, television and movies with all it’s political messaging since the 1980’s.

Don’t believe me? Go to your local government meetings and listen to the hogwash that is being spewed to advance an agenda. I’ll bet none of the folks your hear speaking even know a Californian let alone have ties to

'We will take America without firing a shot' - Nikita Khrushchev

It all started in our education system a few years after this quote was made.
No, I don’t wear a tin foil hat. Crack a book and look into it.

I'll give this a 75% truth rating. Especially where colleges are concerned ~~and doubly so for those in California, just to be ornery. Truly however, many colleges across the country -- especially public colleges -- have very very few conservative professors, and a very great many who are liberal, or even VERY LIBERAL.
These colleges ejumakate our young skulls full of mush.
And this is a REAL CONDITION with REAL CONSEQUENCES.
But let's not pretend we don't have another problem, one I think is dangerous, but I also think it's too early to really know where or how far it will go; the increase of "Democrat socialists" in government. Kongresskritters like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders for a start. But I should give those two some credit for being honest and labeling themselves correctly; there are many other Democrats who are socialist at heart and will NEVER openly admit it .... or, are deluded and don't believe they are because they're too ignorant to understand (a communist in Russia called these "useful idiots").
 
I'll give this a 75% truth rating. Especially where colleges are concerned ~~and doubly so for those in California, just to be ornery. Truly however, many colleges across the country -- especially public colleges -- have very very few conservative professors, and a very great many who are liberal, or even VERY LIBERAL.
These colleges ejumakate our young skulls full of mush.
And this is a REAL CONDITION with REAL CONSEQUENCES.
But let's not pretend we don't have another problem, one I think is dangerous, but I also think it's too early to really know where or how far it will go; the increase of "Democrat socialists" in government. Kongresskritters like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders for a start. But I should give those two some credit for being honest and labeling themselves correctly; there are many other Democrats who are socialist at heart and will NEVER openly admit it .... or, are deluded and don't believe they are because they're too ignorant to understand (a communist in Russia called these "useful idiots").

I’ll take 75%. ;)
 
I believe they tried to include rim fired cartridges but that ultimately got removed from the bill . I don't know much about the mini 14 but if it is semi auto and has a detachable mag and a flash hider then yes it is . I don't believe the specific amount of rounds loaded in the firearm at any given time matters .
 
An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.
I'm a little hazy on what a designed magazine is. Pretty much everything is designed. Somebody sat down at a drawing board and with pencil in hand designed something. A chair. A lamp. A 1965 Jaguar XKE....

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.

Actually, there is no current military of which I'm aware that is issuing average infantry troops semi-automatic rifles. Some snipers use semi-autos and even bolt actions. In 1977 I got issued an M-16 (made b y General Motors Turbohydromatic Div, believe it or not). It had safe semi and auto on the selector switch. Didn't have burst fire in those days. But, to the populace at large, unless they have made those pesky expensive offerings to the Fed Gov, they're not getting any rifle that will fire more than one round per per trigger squeeze. I think any troops issued a semi-auto only main battle gun would have problems going to war with that.
 
I believe they tried to include rim fired cartridges but that ultimately got removed from the bill . I don't know much about the mini 14 but if it is semi auto and has a detachable mag and a flash hider then yes it is . I don't believe the specific amount of rounds loaded in the firearm at any given time matters .
So, some Mini 14's are assault rifles, and therefore dangerous to society, and some aren't (either assault rifles or dangerous to society). Makes as much sense as getting rid of the Minis which fit the definition of assault rifle would make us safer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top