It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2nd amendment & high capacity magazines

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
This is not a debate as to whether guns should be legal or not. Please do not turn it into one.

This is a debate regarding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms and how it applies to high capacity magazines like the 30-round glock-19 that Jared Loughner recently made famous in Arizona.

This video shows what that automatic-fire glock looks like, and how it fires - over 30 shots in less than 15 seconds.



The extended magazine capability of this gun is in the now-expired assault weapons ban.

There has been a lot of talk from people on the media (and some of these media mouthpieces have also been 2nd amendment advocates), and opinionated citizens, about how this weapon has no place in the hands of the general population. The reasoning is that it "fires over 30 rounds, and no use can be seen for that other than killing a lot of people." I can understand that. It's not for hunting. It's not for sport. It's for protection. And who says protection needs to be a single shot pistol? What if, and I hope this never happens, but what if there is a gang-uprising, or if the Mexican drug cartels infiltrate American ghettos and streets, or if a foreign nation invades our homeland... what will you protect yourself with when a group of 20 or more armed men with malice in their hearts come for you and your family? A single shot pistol? Because I'm pretty sure they'll have much more than that.

So my question is this. What are your opinions on the 2nd amendment and how it applies to high capacity magazines, or other high-powered weaponry? Is it "overkill" and should it be banned, or do we have an inalienable right to any weapon we so choose?




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


My personal opinion, as a non-gun owner, is that I have the right to own, whatever a tyranical government may be able to use againt me, or enough to deter a tyranical government from advancing on your personal persuit of happiness by means of force.

We should be a society of knowledge and learning and community and enjoyment, we shouldn't fear each other, and for the most part we don't. So we should be able to own rocket launchers, just also encourage socialization for the individual and classes on safety for the individual, so to have an understanding, we don't want you attacking people. Thats a very strong example, but I believe the 2nd is about protecting yourself from a forceful army or government, not for hunting or fighting Indians, though many I respect feel that to be the case, that we shouldn't be able to own autos or semi autos.. or extended mags..

Learning and knowledge is the key to bettering the world. Understanding and relationship is how you maintain it.. till then, protect yourself..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


That's my opinion as well, and I am also not a gun owner.

Now what I also wonder... do we have a right to nuclear weapons? As long as our government or any government has one, I guess we have the right to one as well. That's a tough one.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


Who wants that responsibility. plus, you forget, you'd still have to pay for it.. and someone with that much money, may have one.. Bush Sr. probably has one. for SHTF.. he probably thinks like ATS'ers



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


IMO the 2nd amendment does not say anything about this because they did not exist.

I think it is all farce because a person could have two weapons (so this issue is not about the capacity of a mag what-so-ever).

Just for the record, they are used for sport and you proved that with the vid but that is not the issue here.

edit on 12-1-2011 by blangger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
If someone has beef with someone so bad, and they used a nuke, thats like, weak... If you really have a problem with someone, meet them, and fight them.. we already have plenty of powerful weapons that could do enough damage at given times... theres really no need to nuke someone unless you really dont have a soul.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by blangger
 


I sort of hear what you are saying. Though remember, back then they were still trying to find ways to fire their weapons quicker. and they would probably be likes.."does 2nd amendment include extended mags? what in the hell kind of question is that? of course it includes extended mags, and the M1 Abrams!"



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust

So my question is this. What are your opinions on the 2nd amendment and how it applies to high capacity magazines, or other high-powered weaponry? Is it "overkill" and should it be banned, or do we have an inalienable right to any weapon we so choose?



Congress has no right to ban lawful citizens the use of firearms of high capacity or high power. The Clinton ban also determined I only needed 3 rounds in my shotgun for home defense. It is essentially useless in a home invasion involving more than one person. The people decide, not the government...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Ignore the 2nd.

Did the AWB do anything to reduce the a availability of high cap mags? Nope. So what's the point? It made some clueless people feel better I guess and it only cost hundreds of millions of dollars. What a bargain!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by blangger
 


."does 2nd amendment include extended mags? what in the hell kind of question is that? of course it includes extended mags, and the M1 Abrams!"


I am in total agreement.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
There is no point to argue this here. But here's my $.02 anyway.

The second ammendment was intended to protect the people against tyranny.

If the founding fathers would have had to follow the same logic we use now, well. They would have been using home made bow and arrow against the british muskets.

I agree that we the people don't need our own nukes or tanks. That would just be silly. But we should have the most up to date battle rifles and handguns that there are. Plain and simple.

Sorry my rant didn't make much sense. But I'm not typing as fast as I am thinking right now...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
as an NRA member and fire arm user, it is not how many rounds, but what one aims at. If it were true about what is said about gun ownership, he Jared, would have been Swiss cheese, full of holes, no one seems to have asked,where were the CC owners or even the open carry, after all you are to be taught when to use right!!! in steed he Jared is tackled and his clip taken away.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


My understanding of the 2nd amendment is that firearms are to be legal at all times, magazines, ammunition and "accesories" is an entirely different story.

Now mind you I live in a country with little to no pervasive gun culture, outside of hunting.

I'm quite happy it's difficult for the regular joe to go out and purchase a hand gun.

IMO extended magazines, armor piercing rounds and all those other goodies should be kept off the streets for many reasons.

~Keeper



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
pre ban 100 rounds, ban 5 round clip, after ban 300 rounds, tried to find the link i ran across earlier yes 300 round it was the Micky mouse for the AR 15 m16 m4a4 but three put together.



new topics




 
1

log in

join