rangerssuck wrote:

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:03:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:

It's just more slight of hand to deflect attention from an issue they
refuse to deal with. The mentally ill voted for him, they are his
people.

Michael Terrell, you now have the opportunity to make you case for unlimited magazine size.


Dumbass. HTH would you carry an 'unlimited magazine'? HTH would you
be able to lift the rifle, if one had an 'unlimited magazine'
installed. Where would you find enough ammo to load an 'unlimited
magazine'?


It has already been stipulated that if a killer wants to kill, he will, but that limiting the magazine size may, possibly, have saved a few kids at Sandy Hook.


Sigh, I guess it would take 15 minutes for a clumbsy fool like you to
change the magazine.


It almost certainly would have saved at least some lives at the Giffords shooting (the perp was subdued while changing clips). What is a rational argument infavor of unlimited magazines?


There are no unlimited magazines, fool. There are practical limits
as to the size that is useful. Too small gets you killed. Too big gets
you killed even faster. There was a damn good reason for GIs to tape
two magazines together for their M16s, in Vietnam.


You have the floor, I yield the balance of my time.


The balance of your time was used, long ago.