Skip to main content

View Diary: It's not logical to limit magazine size. (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, I'm hardly a gun nut and I think your (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, andalusi

    ideas are extreme. I do not, and never will, own a gun. But I live in a rural area and know people who have a need for them. Thus I support gun ownership with limits not the NRA "Arsenals For All" insanity.

    You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:07:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How are they extreme? Be specific, please. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BvueDem, BusyinCA

      You said people need them in rural areas. Okay. I'm suggesting we limit guns to those you have to load one bullet at a time. That means they can still have their hunting rifles, their shotguns, their revolvers, even their 357 magnums.

      I'm not suggesting a ban on all guns. Far from it. Just a ban on detachable ammo containers and guns that can utilize them.

      Seriously. How is that extreme?

      Who needs a weapon with detachable ammo containers, other than mass shooters?

      •  Well, by it's very nature the limit of one is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        extreme. That's as low as you can possibly go, the definition of extreme or limit. And you even realize it. For example, you allow for revolvers. How is a six shot revolver any different than a magazine? You do realize that a simple plastic clip that holds the bullets in proper alignment will make reloading a revolver nearly as easy as reloading a magazine? So if you're going to allow revolvers and not magazines that's kind of silly.

        You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:21:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what Diomedes77 wrote: (4+ / 0-)
          One bullet at a time, with a limit of six per gun. No detachable ammo container allowed.
          More like the revolver.
          Six shots per gun, max. But you have to load each bullet by hand, one at a time.
          No detachable, removable magazines or drums or anything you want to call them. It would be illegal to add or remove any ammo container from the gun.
          For most of American history, gun capacity didn't exceed six rounds per gun, and everyone had to load bullets one at a time.
          It improves dialogue to respond to what other people actually say. :-)
          •  Yes, that's what he said (0+ / 0-)

            But the reality is quick load revolvers already exist. So that makes a revolver and a 6-round magazine virtually identical. He wants to ban one and not the other. Sorry, but that's just silly.

            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Most people know nothing about . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Keninoakland, BvueDem

              quick load devices. And mass shooters, when given the choice, choose their weapons with magazines. They go on their sprees with those, even though they have access to all kinds of other weaponry. They choose the AR-15s.

              If these things are just as good, supposedly, then why do we never hear of mass shooters using them?

              Psychologically, this is because many of them have combat fantasies, or game or movie fantasies. And it's pretty rare that you'll see a speed-loading revolver in any of those, but you will see gunmen swapping out magazines.

              You immediately reduce the sense of power that comes from a high-capacity combat-like weapon when you ban those.

              And, seriously, how can anything be "silly"
               when it comes to this subject, other than fighting every single idea to reduce carnage? We're talking about the reduction of firepower in order to save lives, and you think that's "silly"?

              No one needs magazines or detachable ammo containers in general. No one. Except for people who want to massacre their fellow human beings.

              Why fight so hard to protect them?

              •  And there's that extremism again (0+ / 0-)
                No one needs magazines or detachable ammo containers in general. No one. Except for people who want to massacre their fellow human beings.
                And I'm on your side, whether you believe me or not. Just don't kid yourself. You're taking an extreme stance with some "creative" logic. But I still applaud your actions.

                You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, how is that extreme? Don't just (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BvueDem

                  say it's extreme. Demonstrate how it's extreme.

                  Can you honestly say that magazines are necessary?

                  Can you honestly say they aren't the weapons of choice (guns with magazines) for mass shooters?

                  Than how can a ban on magazines and the guns that use them be "extreme"?

                  They aren't necessary for hunting, target practice or self-defense. They are virtually always the go-to weapon for mass killers.

                  Why allow them? They serve no useful purpose other than to make massacres easier. And that's not an "extreme" statement. It's simply factual.

                  •  You make the claim that the *ONLY* reason (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose

                    the one and only reason for wanting a magazine is mass murder and you want me to tell you why that isn't extreme?

                    Wow. I'm speechless. I'm done with this diary. Goodbye.

                    You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:08:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, come on. I never said "wanting". (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BvueDem

                      I never said the only reason that a person "wants" magazines is to massacre others.

                      I said magazines aren't necessary, except for gun sprees.

                      Are you telling me you can't see the difference between wanting something and its necessity?

                      Come on.

                      Your reading is "extreme". Not what I said.

                      •  You might want (or rather you might need) to study (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        the English language.

                        want [wont, wawnt]  

                        verb (used with object)  
                        1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.  

                        2.  to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive):

                        Need and want are often used interchangeably. While it is the case 'need' can be seen as a 'necessity' it does not carry the same weight in conversation especially when used as a verb. If you're going to go "word lawyer" as your defense you might want to actually check with a source before you do.

                        You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I could teach English, bud. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BvueDem

                          There is a huge difference between wanting something and needing something.

                          My father, the English teacher, taught me that when I was four.

                          But this does help flesh out the absurdity of your entire argument a bit more. It's based solely on a misreading of want and need, a bad splitting of hairs that is totally irrelevant to the topic.

                          It would benefit your argument if you actually focused on the subject of gun safety, instead of your bizarre projections.

                          •  If that's your sole defense to calling people (0+ / 0-)

                            murdering wannabes then have at it. And you will be called "extreme" by more folks than me.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:53:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But I DIDN'T call them that. Sheeesh. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            Man, take a deep breath, step back from the computer for awhile, and then reread what I said.

                            You won't be able to come to the same conclusion. It's simply not on the page.

                            You. Are. Projecting.

                          •  I don't want, need, or require a gun (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            I don't want, need, or require a magazine. I don't want, need, or have the desire to control people that do. Now, who is projecting? Thanks for playing!

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:01:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you want to reduce gun violence? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            I do.

                            Do you think America NEEDS to reduce it?

                            I do. Most Americans do. The families of the victimized do. The numbers show we do. There are 32,000 gun deaths a year. Actual human beings. Real people.

                            We NEED to reduce that, if we can't eliminate it altogether. I can't think of a reason to not WANT that reduction.

                            My suggestions would reduce gun violence, while still complying with the SA.

                            Why do you WANT to fight against that?

                          •  Psst. Here's a little tip -- most gun deaths don't (0+ / 0-)

                            come from magazines or spree killings. Good old fashion pistols accomplish that. It's not the crazy add-ons, it's the guns -- period. So you need to find a way to get rid of the guns. But the 2nd kind of puts a cramp in that. So you have to find other solutions -- like ending the war on drugs, that would probably save 10,000 lives a year in the stroke of a pen. Reducing poverty and therefore crime would get rid of thousands more. Providing good mental health care to reduce suicides would get rid of thousands more. And not a single gun regulation would be required. Mind you, I still think we should have universal background checks, registration of all firearms, even gun liability insurance. I think those things would be good ideas that would further lower gun violence and deaths. But they're the small potatoes things. Of course they're also the small potatoes things we might be able to achieve. The question for you is do you want to reduce deaths or merely get rid of the guns? I want to focus on the attainable and work for the greater good. But I welcome people pushing the conversation back to the left even if I don't agree with them.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:08:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   Lots of common ground there. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm an anti-capitalist egalitarian, an ecosocialist, a radical democrat by choice. Not as in the Democratic Party, but as in democracy.

                            So, yeah, I'm in favor of strong remedies for inequality, a total end to the drug war, a society that provides health care and education and all the rest as a matter of citizenship. As a right. One that views improving quality of life for everyone as the prime directive of government.

                            If I had been there at the writing of the BOR, I wouldn't have included a special set aside right for guns. But I would have included special set aside rights for clean water, safe food, shelter, clothes, quality healthcare, a healthy environment and education. The necessities of life. To me, it's crazy that they had one for guns but NOT for life's necessities.

                            As for the rest. It's a process. Banning certain guns will reduce overall supply, which will reduce overall gun violence, and reduce the perception that more guns need to be bought -- with or without magazines. A gun ban will start a downward trajectory of gun purchasing, to reverse the trend of upward trajectory now:

                            (Fewer homes have them. But more guns are being purchased by fewer people, etc.)

                            Saving lives will have a ripple effect and will start to break the hold of guns on the American imagination. That is the first step in a long process of evolution and growth away from barbarism.

          •  You need a refresher (0+ / 0-)

            in lobbing HRs -- but, frankly, no skin off my nose.

            " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

            by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site