Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   Actual headline: "No American Needs the Bill of Rights." Oh, sorry; I misread that: "No Gun Owner Needs 30 Rounds in a Magazine"   (azstarnet.com) divider line
    More: Fail, gun owners, Arizona Legislature, rocket propelled grenades, assault weapons, Dallas Green, magazines  
•       •       •

17609 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2011 at 7:35 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



757 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2011-02-22 4:23:05 PM  
This guy did

static.thehollywoodgossip.comView Full Size
 
2011-02-22 4:25:15 PM  
Since when is a magazine an "arm"?
 
2011-02-22 4:27:07 PM  
I soooo can't wait to be able to yell fire in a crowded theater.
 
2011-02-22 4:30:39 PM  
And no publisher needs a high speed offset press.

"I love reading the claffics, but one thing I can not get through my head if why any person would need a higher capacity machine for making copies."
 
2011-02-22 4:31:43 PM  

Display_Name: And no publisher needs a high speed offset press.

"I love reading the claffics, but one thing I can not get through my head if why any person would need a higher capacity machine for making copies."


You know, apples are a lot like oranges.
 
wee
2011-02-22 4:32:06 PM  
No, I need 32 rounders, because that's the smallest they made for my newest one. They're "key parts of collectible firearms" as the man said.

In fact I'm off to order 5 more just in case this woolly-headed nonsense ever sees the light of day.
 
2011-02-22 4:35:59 PM  
No car needs to ever exceed 65mph.

Oh, it saves time to go fast? Well it saves time at the range not having to reload every 10 freaking rounds! Such a pain.
 
2011-02-22 4:37:31 PM  
Sill waiting on legalization of that 14-incher I see every damn time I see the USS North Carolina.
 
2011-02-22 4:37:41 PM  
How's that well-organized militia to which you must obviously belong treating you?
 
2011-02-22 4:43:46 PM  
So, says he unloaded the gun in 30 seconds. I'm fairly sure he could have done about the same with 2x15 or 3x10 if he wanted.

Blaming the clip capacity of a gun for people dying? That's full retard.

AZ Star is a rag.
 
2011-02-22 4:44:15 PM  
The Bill of Rights says nothing about "guns." It says "arms." And every sane, rational person believes in arms control. Call me a leftist looney, but I just don't think a civilian should be allowed to possess a nuclear warhead on an ICBM. So, the debate isn't really between no arms control and total arms control, it's really just a debate about where to draw the line.

Quit acting like you have some moral, constitutional high ground subby because, at most, the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket. Everything else is up to the interpretation du jour of the courts.
 
2011-02-22 4:47:03 PM  

mfsteve: Blaming the clip capacity of a gun for people dying? That's full retard.


Except the part where he was tackled and disarmed while reloading.
 
2011-02-22 4:52:57 PM  
I will just point out one thing. Standard capacity magazines sometimes exceed 10 rounds, calling them extended capacity just because they have more than 10 rounds is wrong. A Glock 17, for example, in it's standard and initial design holds 17 rounds it always has.
 
2011-02-22 4:53:17 PM  
If you need more than 30 rounds, you should upgrade to explosives.
 
2011-02-22 4:54:09 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Everything else is up to the interpretation du jour of the courts.


Which have decided that it does mean an individual right to own weapons.
 
2011-02-22 4:54:31 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The Bill of Rights says nothing about "guns." It says "arms." And every sane, rational person believes in arms control. Call me a leftist looney, but I just don't think a civilian should be allowed to possess a nuclear warhead on an ICBM. So, the debate isn't really between no arms control and total arms control, it's really just a debate about where to draw the line.

Quit acting like you have some moral, constitutional high ground subby because, at most, the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket. Everything else is up to the interpretation du jour of the courts.


Muskets were inferior in many respects to the long rifles favored by many in the militias in the Revolution. Muskets, being shorter and lacking rifled barrels (hence the name "rifle" for weapons with that feature) made pretty lousy hunting guns, and most militia men needed a multi-tasker to feed as well as protect their families. The British Army favored muskets for two reasons: they were much cheaper than the comparatively expensive rifles, and could be reloaded more quickly. Range and accuracy aren't as important when you are exchanging volleys in formation in an open field, but when the militia marksmen attacked from covered positions, it's easy to see the tactical advantage there. Just FYI.

Also, I don't particularly need or even want a 30-round magazine, but the proposal to limit magazines to ten is pretty silly because many semi-automatic handguns these days come with magazines with twelve round capacity or so. As long as it is within the manufacturer's specs I don't get the big deal.
 
2011-02-22 5:10:03 PM  

manimal2878: Which have decided that it does mean an individual right to own weapons.


But, unless I have missed a SCOTUS decision, has not been extended to high capacity magazines.
 
2011-02-22 5:11:58 PM  

Nabb1: Also, I don't particularly need or even want a 30-round magazine, but the proposal to limit magazines to ten is pretty silly because many semi-automatic handguns these days come with magazines with twelve round capacity or so. As long as it is within the manufacturer's specs I don't get the big deal.


It might be silly, and you know, I don't necessarily agree with that position, but I can see the logic in it, and everyone is welcome to their position. If you think restricting 30 round magazines is silly, say "it's silly." Don't say "it's unconstitutional" until we have a constitutional amendment protecting it.
 
2011-02-22 5:13:26 PM  

dameron: mfsteve: Blaming the clip capacity of a gun for people dying? That's full retard.

Except the part where he was tackled and disarmed while reloading.


Via Wiki: "he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket"

See! If it weren't for the skill it takes to handle a 33 round clip he might have killed even more people!
 
2011-02-22 5:22:11 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Nabb1: Also, I don't particularly need or even want a 30-round magazine, but the proposal to limit magazines to ten is pretty silly because many semi-automatic handguns these days come with magazines with twelve round capacity or so. As long as it is within the manufacturer's specs I don't get the big deal.

It might be silly, and you know, I don't necessarily agree with that position, but I can see the logic in it, and everyone is welcome to their position. If you think restricting 30 round magazines is silly, say "it's silly." Don't say "it's unconstitutional" until we have a constitutional amendment protecting it.


As a practical matter it's silly and arbitrary. As a legal matter, I think anyone seeking to limit any of the enumerated rights bears the burden of justifying the restriction, and simply pointing out that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the issue is not exactly saying it is okay. If the Army showed up at your house and said some soldiers would be moving into your house for a month, it wouldn't be okay just because the Supreme Court hasn't ever ruled on a Third Amendment issue.
 
2011-02-22 5:27:06 PM  

Nabb1: it wouldn't be okay just because the Supreme Court hasn't ever ruled on a Third Amendment issue.


3rd Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Since we're at war, I guess they could quarter soldiers in my house if Congress passed a law saying they could. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
 
2011-02-22 5:32:35 PM  
Funny how there's a big fuss over the Second Amendment when the Fourth is arguably more important and almost gone.
 
2011-02-22 5:34:52 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Nabb1: it wouldn't be okay just because the Supreme Court hasn't ever ruled on a Third Amendment issue.

3rd Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Since we're at war, I guess they could quarter soldiers in my house if Congress passed a law saying they could. I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.


If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.
 
2011-02-22 5:35:16 PM  
as an originalist, i believe the second amendment guarantees your right to own a brown bess musket.
 
2011-02-22 5:35:23 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Funny how there's a big fuss over the Second Amendment when the Fourth is arguably more important and almost gone.


Well, if you get rid of the fourth it makes it easier to get rid of the second.
 
2011-02-22 5:36:37 PM  

brerrabbit: If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.


Good people will happily protect the foolish from losing their rights. It is the right thing to do.
 
2011-02-22 5:36:48 PM  
Gun cultures are so peaceful.
 
2011-02-22 5:42:25 PM  

brerrabbit: If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.


Setting aside a debate over whether Congress's authorization of force constitutes a declaration of war, which would just be tautological, are you saying the 3rd amendment doesn't allow Congress to a pass a law authorizing soldiers to be quartered in a home during wartime?
 
2011-02-22 6:02:19 PM  

brerrabbit: If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.


I'd also like to say this is the same sort of dumbass mentality that has brought us the police state. Police know every trick in the book, and the Supreme Court, instead of standing up for people's rights, continually add rules. You have the right to remain silent, but the police don't have to tell you that you have the right when they're taking you back to the station for a breathalyzer because you're not technically under arrest yet, and oh, yeah, you have to actually say the words "I'm invoking my right to remain silent" you can't just shut up because otherwise the police can interrogate you for 12 hours until you finally crack, and since you didn't say the magic words, you didn't actually invoke your right to remain silent.

The point of rights is to protect everyone, and you shouldn't have to be a friggin' constitutional lawyer just to make sure your rights aren't violated. You, sir, are a dumbass.
 
2011-02-22 6:03:39 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: brerrabbit: If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.

Setting aside a debate over whether Congress's authorization of force constitutes a declaration of war, which would just be tautological, are you saying the 3rd amendment doesn't allow Congress to a pass a law authorizing soldiers to be quartered in a home during wartime?


Actually yes.

There is that whole due process thing you would have to work around for starters.

Then there would be the government having to justify confiscating private quarters when the military has other means of keeping out of the weather.

You might actually look up the history of the third sometime. It had little to do with the government needing housing for it's soldiers and a lot more with the crown forcibly housing it's troops with rebellious colonies to control them.
 
2011-02-22 6:07:21 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: brerrabbit: If you do not understand your rights, you deserve to lose them.

I'd also like to say this is the same sort of dumbass mentality that has brought us the police state. Police know every trick in the book, and the Supreme Court, instead of standing up for people's rights, continually add rules. You have the right to remain silent, but the police don't have to tell you that you have the right when they're taking you back to the station for a breathalyzer because you're not technically under arrest yet, and oh, yeah, you have to actually say the words "I'm invoking my right to remain silent" you can't just shut up because otherwise the police can interrogate you for 12 hours until you finally crack, and since you didn't say the magic words, you didn't actually invoke your right to remain silent.

The point of rights is to protect everyone, and you shouldn't have to be a friggin' constitutional lawyer just to make sure your rights aren't violated. You, sir, are a dumbass.


You are the one explaining to everyone that the second only covers seventeenth century firearms and you are calling me a dumbass?

Go print something on your first amendment certified fixed type press, dumbass.
 
2011-02-22 6:09:43 PM  
 
2011-02-22 6:09:53 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Quit acting like you have some moral, constitutional high ground subby because, at most, the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket. Everything else is up to the interpretation du jour of the courts.


The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms. Period. New paragraph.
 
2011-02-22 6:10:38 PM  
aw, christ. didn't we have this discussion just a couple weeks ago. FFS, let it go already.
 
2011-02-22 6:10:57 PM  

wee: In fact I'm off to order 5 more just in case this woolly-headed nonsense ever sees the light of day.


The ammunition market thanks you for your paranoia.
 
2011-02-22 6:11:25 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket.


Yeah, just like it protects publishers' rights to issue newspapers printed with hand-set lead type. No photos, of course.

And this whole Internet thing doesn't apply at all because it didn't exist back then.
 
2011-02-22 6:13:12 PM  
I'm not sure I understand the "you don't NEED 30 round capacity" argument.

Who gets to decide what I need? Where does the 2nd amendment talk about what you need?
 
2011-02-22 6:14:27 PM  

Sensei Can You See: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket.

Yeah, just like it protects publishers' rights to issue newspapers printed with hand-set lead type. No photos, of course.

And this whole Internet thing doesn't apply at all because it didn't exist back then.


thus proving the idiocy of Constitutional Originalism
 
2011-02-22 6:16:00 PM  

downpaymentblues: I'm not sure I understand the "you don't NEED 30 round capacity" argument.

Who gets to decide what I need? Where does the 2nd amendment talk about what you need?


This this THIS!

The 2nd Amendment is the only subjected to this "but why do you NEED [whatever weapons Congress is scared of this week]?"

The Bill of Rights is just that -- The Bill of Rights, not The Bill of Privileges Based Upon Demonstrated Need.

Have you ever heard anyone say "Yeah, but why do you NEED to be able to publish that newspaper?"
 
2011-02-22 6:16:37 PM  

manimal2878: I will just point out one thing. Standard capacity magazines sometimes exceed 10 rounds, calling them extended capacity just because they have more than 10 rounds is wrong. A Glock 17, for example, in it's standard and initial design holds 17 rounds it always has.


I have 10, 17, and 32 round mags for my 17. I may go get more.
 
2011-02-22 6:28:18 PM  

Sensei Can You See: The 2nd Amendment is the only subjected to this "but why do you NEED [whatever weapons Congress is scared of this week]?"


You're right! We should be able to own rocket launchers, because why the hell not?

/Colt 1911A1 owner.
 
2011-02-22 6:28:35 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: You are the one explaining to everyone that the second only covers seventeenth century firearms and you are calling me a dumbass?

You completely missed the point of that, didn't you? That the constitution isn't a fixed document but that our understanding of it is shaped by centuries of legal precedent, and the the development of new weaponry necessitates a different reading of it? That we can't simply say "oh, well, it says the right to arms must not be infringed so here's your hellfire missile citizen."

/don't know why I bother


Me neither.

The government has done their best to wipe their ass with the constitution even in the days that the founders were still alive.

I do not buy into that living document shiat like a lot of other people. When you say that it is a living document that means that the rights and protections it states can be removed or restricted by a simple act of congress, local law, or even a policy. When this happens, those rights become little more than privileges that can be removed at the drop of a political hat.

Many of us prefer that our rights be set in something much firmer than the whims of a congressperson, local councilman or a bureaucrat.
 
2011-02-22 6:28:48 PM  
50 rounds of fun!
i201.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-02-22 6:31:01 PM  

brerrabbit: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: You are the one explaining to everyone that the second only covers seventeenth century firearms and you are calling me a dumbass?

You completely missed the point of that, didn't you? That the constitution isn't a fixed document but that our understanding of it is shaped by centuries of legal precedent, and the the development of new weaponry necessitates a different reading of it? That we can't simply say "oh, well, it says the right to arms must not be infringed so here's your hellfire missile citizen."

/don't know why I bother

Me neither.

The government has done their best to wipe their ass with the constitution even in the days that the founders were still alive.

I do not buy into that living document shiat like a lot of other people. When you say that it is a living document that means that the rights and protections it states can be removed or restricted by a simple act of congress, local law, or even a policy. When this happens, those rights become little more than privileges that can be removed at the drop of a political hat.

Many of us prefer that our rights be set in something much firmer than the whims of a congressperson, local councilman or a bureaucrat.


You cant have it both ways. either it changes with the times, or all you get are 18th century arms. pick one.
 
2011-02-22 6:32:45 PM  

Sensei Can You See: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: the Bill of Rights protects your right to own a black powder musket.

Yeah, just like it protects publishers' rights to issue newspapers printed with hand-set lead type. No photos, of course.

And this whole Internet thing doesn't apply at all because it didn't exist back then.


And the Fourth Amendment doesn't cover your cars, because they didn't have those, either.
 
2011-02-22 6:34:53 PM  
I dunno... if your pee pee is REALLY tiny - I mean REALLY - you might need a 30-round magazine.

Otherwise, no... you don't.
 
2011-02-22 6:36:16 PM  

bronyaur1: I dunno... if your pee pee is REALLY tiny - I mean REALLY - you might need a 30-round magazine.

Otherwise, no... you don't.


Ah, the good old "Sorry about your dick" argument.
 
2011-02-22 6:37:56 PM  
I see no reason to restrict the clip size, so long as it's not exceeding manufacturer's specs in some way.

Ultimately the focus should be more on preventing shootings than on quibbling over reload frequency.
 
2011-02-22 6:40:40 PM  

jackiepaper: You cant have it both ways. either it changes with the times, or all you get are 18th century arms. pick one.


That argument makes no sense at all. Otherwise you're insisting that the First Amendment can't apply to any technology invented since about 1780, that we are protected from unreasonable search and seizure only for property and possessions at least 240 years, that we are protected only from quartering colonial-era soldiers and that habeus corpus is applicable only to laws written before 1780.
 
2011-02-22 6:41:30 PM  
Well, I better stock up on 100 round drum magazines then, just in case.

mississippiautoarms.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 757 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.