On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:39:04 PM UTC-5, RD Sandman wrote:

The difference between firing 30 rounds from a single high capacity
magazine and firing 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines is about 6
seconds. Not a lot of time in a room full of people.

In that case, what is your argument for NOT banning the high capacity magazines?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:42:02 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:39:04 PM UTC-5, RD Sandman wrote:

The difference between firing 30 rounds from a single high capacity
magazine and firing 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines is about 6
seconds. Not a lot of time in a room full of people.

In that case, what is your argument for NOT banning the high capacity magazines?

But why ban something that in reality has nothing to do with the
problem?

Or is it simply to be seen to have done something, even if
ineffective? the ultimate politically "statement".


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Jan 17, 5:05*am, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:42:02 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:39:04 PM UTC-5, RD Sandman wrote:

The difference between firing 30 rounds from a single high capacity
magazine and firing 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines is about 6
seconds. *Not a lot of time in a room full of people.

In that case, what is your argument for NOT banning the high capacity magazines?

But why ban something that in reality has nothing to do with the
problem?

Or is it simply to be seen to have done something, even if
ineffective? the ultimate politically "statement".

--
Cheers,

John B.

LOL..note how when someone doesn't have the answer they answer your
question with a question.

High cap mags ARE one of the problems.

Your stupid ass thinking is another.

TMT

"J.B.Slocomb" wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:42:02 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:39:04 PM UTC-5, RD Sandman wrote:

The difference between firing 30 rounds from a single high capacity
magazine and firing 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines is about 6
seconds. Not a lot of time in a room full of people.

In that case, what is your argument for NOT banning the high capacity magazines?

But why ban something that in reality has nothing to do with the
problem?

Or is it simply to be seen to have done something, even if
ineffective? the ultimate politically "statement".


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.

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. 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. 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?

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

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.

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:30:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
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.

So, you have nothing to add to the conversation. How about we try this in more specific terms that even you may understand: Replace the phrase "unlimited magazine" with "non-statutorially limited magazine" or perhaps even more clear, "magazines with as large a capacity as you choose, with no governmental limitations imposed"

Or, more directly: Do you, Michael Terrell, have a problem with the government enacting a law which prohibits civilian sales and posession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition? If so, why?

Conjecture about how long it would take me to change a magazine is totally irrelevant. This is not about me, it's about you. Calling me a fool adds nothing to the discussion. I addressed this question to you because of the many gun advocates in this group, I thought that you were one of the few who could carry on an intelligent conversation. Perhaps I was mistaken.