On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...






Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



------------------------------------------------------



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



----------------------------------------------------------



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive? Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or
offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life
necessity, but it can be fun.


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you. It's fun for the lazy and the feeble minded. I have
a couple of "large cap" mags for my CZ, and with them I have instantly
available at the pull of a trigger 19 rounds. The mags were packed in
with the pistol when I ordered it from the custom shop.

But I never use these mags. I can't use them in competitive shooting,
because they're not allowed. They make the handgun heavier and impact
balance. They are more difficult to reload. I use the 10-round mags in
my CZ. Same with my Ruger .22 - I used 10-round mags. In fact, I don't
believe there are higher cap mags for this particular Ruger pistol.

On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...







Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



------------------------------------------------------



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because
anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks
when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed
the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've
said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



----------------------------------------------------------



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive?
Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or
offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a
person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you
need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life
necessity, but it can be fun.


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you.

Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary...
won't read it.

On 12/19/12 11:48 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...








Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



------------------------------------------------------



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or
clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A
magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable"
number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the
weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because
anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks
when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed
the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've
said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip -
penis

power or not.



----------------------------------------------------------



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot
derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive?
Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or
offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a
person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you
need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life
necessity, but it can be fun.


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you.

Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary...
won't read it.


SNERK You're always the ignorant moron.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:34:36 AM UTC-5, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you. It's fun for the lazy and the feeble minded.

Lazy, feeble-minded people fail to pay their taxes and debts.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:34:36 AM UTC-5, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you. It's fun for the lazy and the feeble minded.

Lazy, feeble-minded people fail to pay their taxes and debts.

Indeed!

In article , says...

On 12/19/2012 11:34 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/19/12 11:18 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:31 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:34:29 AM UTC-5, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 8:00 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:11 -0500, JustWait

wrote:



On 12/18/2012 3:29 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:48:16 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:







"Califbill" wrote in message

...







Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First,

why

did a

person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why

target

assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.



------------------------------------------------------



My understanding is that he used an assault type rifle or clone of

one

to kill the children and adults.

He used a pistol to kill himself.



Raises a disturbing question though. Those who advocate bans on

assault and or/high capacity weapons (me included) have to

acknowledge that a "number" is basically being established in

terms of

how many people a nut case can kill with one weapon. A magazine

capacity of no more than 10 rounds seems to be a common

recommendation. In fact, Dianne Feinstein (D) California just

announced that she will introduce a bill immediately that limits

magazine rounds to 10.



So, does that mean that 10 people killed is an "acceptable" number

in

our society? Wouldn't 5 be better . How about 1?

There are those who advocate banning guns altogether in the false

hope

that it would end these tragic events, but it won't. Too many

guns

exist and there are many other ways for nut cases to carry out

mass

murders. Banning guns isn't the answer.



I find it a little strange that any number can be placed on

magazine

capacity that is "acceptable".





How about if I can change magazines in three seconds (very easy,

especially if one is taped to the

other)? Then it takes only three seconds more to get up to twenty

rounds. Another four or five

seconds, depending on the location of the new magazine, to get up

to thirty rounds off.



Magazine limiting should be done, but just to keep some folks

happy. It won't stop a determined

killer in any way.





It will.



Bull****. A few short practice sessions in the bedroom would make it

quite easy to change 10 round

magazines quite rapidly.



I have been watching videos of people put into situations where

they think they are drawing on a situation. Some dropped the weapon,

some froze, some got the thing caught in their tee shirt...



Well, there you go. We should go to ten round magazines because
anyone

using more than one will drop

his weapon, freeze, or get the magazine caught in a tee shirt.



Right.





A couple of the last shootings were stopped dead in their tracks
when

the shooter had mechanical problems, or had a bad clip, or jammed
the

weapon changing clips... Like I said, 1-10 is for defense. 30 is

either for penis power, or offense...



The jamming of a weapon may or may not be due to the clip. You've
said

nothing here that shows a ten

round clip to be less usable for killing than a 30 round clip - penis

power or not.



----------------------------------------------------------



There's no question that killing someone with a single shot derringer

is possible. That's not really the question or issue.

What has to be resolved in order to make any kind of meaningful gun

control reform possible in this country is to define what

the designed purpose of a weapon is. Defensive? Offensive?
Yes,

you can still kill with a gun primarily designed as a defensive

weapon. But why make guns primarily designed as "offensive" weapons

generally available to Joe Doe public? Doesn't make any sense.



Is a knife defensive or offensive? Is a sword defensive or
offensive? Is

a baseball bat an offensive weapon or a defensive weapon.



The common thread in all of the mass killings is that there is a
person
initiating the sequence of events.


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you
need
a 30 round clip?

Same reason someone "needs" a motocross bike. It's not a life
necessity, but it can be fun.


Well there you go... What's fun about it compared to a ten clip. I can
see if you have a fully automatic weapon, but a semi. Enlighten me??


I'll enlighten you.

Don't flatter yourself, your opinion on this subject is not necessary...
won't read it.

But you did, AND responded.

On 12/19/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:23:40 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/19/2012 10:11 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait
wrote:


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a
motorcycle.



Sure you do, if you are gonna' race Motocross... What do you use a 30
round clip for?

Convenience. I can take 3 magazines to the range and be done with it.

In my M1A it also makes a nice rest for bench shooting.

Thank you...


The real issue here is, how effective is a ban? I had no problem
finding any kind of magazine I wanted during the Clinton ban. They
were just expensive. I am sure there are speculators buying up every
SA rifle and large magazine they can find.

I have no issue with how effective is a ban, I support your right to
bear arms. In fact I have been on the phone a lot recently with a member
of this group, helping a relative who has decided take classes and buy a
pistol for PP. At the same time, my youngest has always had a serious
interest in long guns and targets, no intention of hunting but she
really wants to shoot too.

I am amazed at what's available out there though, never really thought
of the machine that way, so much more than a hammer and primer I am
fascinated with the videos and the technology... Still not really
interested in going to the range... If I am going to spend a lot of
money to make a lot of noise, I would rather be burning race gas

Perhaps if you revoke the 5th and 6th amendment too, you might make a
small dent in legal sales. Kevin says most criminals get their weapons
from illegal sources.


I don't want to ban anything... If I were in charge the plan I would
produce would involve trained, armed employees being encouraged, better
tracking of weapons, and better enforcement with harsher penalties which
would probably close the gun show loopholes... That's where I would
start, even though I know that is just the tip of the iceberg...

I talk to my kid all the time, she says video games don't do ****.. My
response along the lines of.... "When I was a kid, each and every twelve
year old didn't know how to "clear a room" or "sweep a compound". They
didn't know how much time it takes to reload, have awareness to shoot
while taking cover, what that return fire might look like or sound
like......... When I was a kid, unless your parents had spent a lot of
time with you teaching you, most of my peers wouldn't even know what a
safety was on a semi-auto, thus probably couldn't really do **** with
one, even if we did get our hands on it...

These kids have hundreds of hours of tactical training now before they
attack a school or theater...

Either way, I am not for a ban, I am for a ban. In fact if it were up to
me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be
encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'...

On 12/19/2012 1:58 PM, JustWait wrote:


Either way, I am not for a ban. In fact if it were up to
me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be
encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'...

Sorry, fixed it...

In article , says...

On 12/19/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:23:40 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/19/2012 10:11 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait
wrote:


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a
motorcycle.



Sure you do, if you are gonna' race Motocross... What do you use a 30
round clip for?

Convenience. I can take 3 magazines to the range and be done with it.

In my M1A it also makes a nice rest for bench shooting.

Thank you...


The real issue here is, how effective is a ban? I had no problem
finding any kind of magazine I wanted during the Clinton ban. They
were just expensive. I am sure there are speculators buying up every
SA rifle and large magazine they can find.

I have no issue with how effective is a ban, I support your right to
bear arms. In fact I have been on the phone a lot recently with a member
of this group, helping a relative who has decided take classes and buy a
pistol for PP. At the same time, my youngest has always had a serious
interest in long guns and targets, no intention of hunting but she
really wants to shoot too.

I am amazed at what's available out there though, never really thought
of the machine that way, so much more than a hammer and primer I am
fascinated with the videos and the technology... Still not really
interested in going to the range... If I am going to spend a lot of
money to make a lot of noise, I would rather be burning race gas

Perhaps if you revoke the 5th and 6th amendment too, you might make a
small dent in legal sales. Kevin says most criminals get their weapons
from illegal sources.


I don't want to ban anything... If I were in charge the plan I would
produce would involve trained, armed employees being encouraged, better
tracking of weapons, and better enforcement with harsher penalties which
would probably close the gun show loopholes... That's where I would
start, even though I know that is just the tip of the iceberg...

I talk to my kid all the time, she says video games don't do ****.. My
response along the lines of.... "When I was a kid, each and every twelve
year old didn't know how to "clear a room" or "sweep a compound". They
didn't know how much time it takes to reload, have awareness to shoot
while taking cover, what that return fire might look like or sound
like......... When I was a kid, unless your parents had spent a lot of
time with you teaching you, most of my peers wouldn't even know what a
safety was on a semi-auto, thus probably couldn't really do **** with
one, even if we did get our hands on it...

These kids have hundreds of hours of tactical training now before they
attack a school or theater...

Either way, I am not for a ban, I am for a ban. In fact if it were up to
me, more good law abiding folks like Gene, Tim, or Bar would be
encouraged to have a CCL and use it... Just sayin'...

Welp, git that gurl a few guns, then guhilk!~

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:10:06 -0500, JustWait wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:32:08 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

On 12/18/2012 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:56:43 -0500, JustWait
wrote:



So what do you all think of 30 clips?

I bet you $1000 the guy did not have a single "clip".

There were no M-1s mentioned and I doubt seriously he had the charging
adapter to load a magazine from a stripper clip.


Forgetting that I support "your" right to bear arms... you sound like
the guys on the groups that can only answer the question as to why they
need them, the only answer they wrote up was "because we can"... It's a
dodge for them, is this a dodge for you?

Ok... then for those of us not in the cool group What do you all think
of a weapon that can hold and fire up to 30 rounds in succession without
anything but pulling the trigger?



Just making the point that a magazine is not a clip.



So why does anybody need 30 in a clip outside PoPo, or Military?

Well, if you've got the money, and you like to shoot a lot, then a 30 round clip can be fun! Is it
needed? Hell no.