NJ limits guns and clips to 10 rounds

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I think everyone should have a hundred round clip, you know, in case the government gets weird.

Right?

Never seen a hundred round clip.  Can you post pics of one and the gun that uses it?

Still waiting on you to explain the functional reason for a 10 round magazine....?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[pallidin]

I've said enough. If you can get the gist then okay.

[Menhir]

5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I think everyone should have a hundred round clip, you know, in case the government gets weird.

Right?

Still waiting on you to explain the "functional reason" for a 10 rd magazine...?

[pallidin]

You just don't get it.

Nevermind... Bye.

[Menhir]

4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Anti-government people disturb me.

Does this mean you're quitting the local Antifa chapter?

[Menhir]

Just now, pallidin said:

You just don't get it.

Nevermind... Bye.

Translation: I can't deal with facts or answer the same questions I demand of others.

Buh-bye

[RoofGardener]

On 6/29/2018 at 4:05 PM, aztek said:

yes, i had to sell my Marlin 880 bolt action .22 with 7 rounds magazine ,  but if 5 rounders were available i would not have to,  i kept my lever action, with 10 round mag, only  because gunsmith permanently altered the tube to accept no more than 4 rounds,

Sorry to hear that Aztek. Perhaps you should move to New Jersey ? Under their new 10-round law, you wouldn't have been effected. (the law only applies to semi-automatic weapons). 

Not withstanding the earlier point about "infringement", I must admit that I struggle to understand why anyone would need a 11+ round magazine for self defense ? If the bad guys can't be deterred by 10 bullets, then it must be a REALLY bad situation. I would also suggest that the 2nd amendment framers never anticipated citizens having automatic weapons AT ALL. The height of military technology back then would presumably have been single-shot barrel-loading gunpowder muskets ? 

On a tangential note.... I seem to recall that the US Government banned fully-automatic weapons. How was that accomplished ? Did it require a constitutional amendment ? 

[Menhir]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Not withstanding the earlier point about "infringement", I must admit that I struggle to understand why anyone would need a 11+ round magazine for self defense ? If the bad guys can't be deterred by 10 bullets, then it must be a REALLY bad situation. 

So...do you think law enforcement should also be restricted to 10rd magazines?

[Menhir]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

On a tangential note.... I seem to recall that the US Government banned fully-automatic weapons. How was that accomplished ? Did it require a constitutional amendment ? 

Your "recall" is faulty.  Better get that checked out.  Could be a symptom of something serious.

[RoofGardener]

13 minutes ago, Menhir said:

So...do you think law enforcement should also be restricted to 10rd magazines?

Law Enforcement go into harms way, potentially against multiple armed criminals. (or random unarmed Black people, whichever story you believe  ) The situations are not comparable. Unless, of course, you anticipate going up against the Police in a gunfight ? 

11 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Your "recall" is faulty.  Better get that checked out.  Could be a symptom of something serious.

Why, thank you for your concern Menhir... that is most kind.  

I would refer you to the 1934 Firearms Act, as modified in 1986. OK, so they wheren't banned, but it is jolly difficult for the average US Citizen to acquire and transport an automatic weapon  

Curiously, the Republic didn't fall back in 1934 (or 1986). Black Helicopters didn't swarm down and take gun owners to those famous FEMA concentrations camps. 

 

 

[Menhir]

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Law Enforcement go into harms way, potentially against multiple armed criminals. (or random unarmed Black people, whichever story you believe  ) The situations are not comparable. 

Do you think only law enforcement encounter multiple armed assailants?

Many private citizens have defended themselves against attacks by multiple assailants.  I can post examples.

Let me know.  I'm here to help.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Menhir]

51 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I would refer you to the 1934 Firearms Act, as modified in 1986. 

Thanks but I am and was already very familiar with both.  I'm pleased you seem to have availed yourself of sources regarding same and acknowledged (albeit grudgingly) your previous claim was inaccurate.  Knowledge rocks in academic discussions.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Menhir]

34 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Thanks...

Happy 4th of July, btw

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Speaking as a pacifist and an outsider, I would have thought that limiting magazine size would have been a suitable middle ground - no ones right to own firearms have been infringed, only that now the magazines available are ten rounds only. 

Which compromise is what NJ has done.  On principle, I have no complaint with a community setting modest restrictions like mag capacity.  Let's see how this works over the next couple of years.  If a school or office shooting occurs and the shooter only has 10 rounds and kills (God forbid) 10 people, then what?  5 round mags?  Single shot?  Not to mention that this law in NJ actually provides for confiscation.  Prior legislation hasn't done this.  Citizens who own mags of 20 or 30 rounds or more are not forced to sell them or turn them in.  My guess is that most gun owners there won't comply and they'll just become criminals waiting for some reason for the cops to search their homes.  The cops are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of the violence that will come from confiscation.  Those on the Left KNOW this.  If they had to be the ones to forcibly take weapons it would never be an issue because there wouldn't be enough of them to do the job.  That's not to say that 2Ais exclusively a Left/Right issue.  MANY Dems believe fervently in 2A.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, pallidin said:

I'm fairly certain that the Constitution does not provide for common citizens to utilize, say, a mini-gun or other assault weaponry.

The state militia is allowed.

It doesn't specify any type of guns.  The Founders made it clear that any rights not specifically given to the federal government devolved to the states to decide.  The hardcore gun grabbers won't stop until they remove the right to keep and bear arms.  Each step along the way is just that... one step.  

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

I think YOU should be granted the right to have a nuclear weapon.

Don't you??

Sure... but more to the point, I think citizens who have a government try to nullify 2A should shoot to kill anyone who actually comes to enforce these restrictions.  UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.  They aren't given by a government so no government has a right to take them away.  These arguments are tiresome.  The bottom line is that for now, no federal government will try confiscation because they understand where that will lead.  That's GOOD.  They need to respect the obligation or be afraid of the consequences.

[RoofGardener]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

It doesn't specify any type of guns.  The Founders made it clear that any rights not specifically given to the federal government devolved to the states to decide.  The hardcore gun grabbers won't stop until they remove the right to keep and bear arms.  Each step along the way is just that... one step.  

Hmm.. this is interesting. I just read the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It's quite an eye-opener. Apparently one of the framers specifically envisaged that the states Militia would act as a bulwark against a federal army ! In other words, he anticipated the Black Helicopters and the Secret FEMA camps etc etc. (well, Federal government over-reach, anyway). 

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

Anti-government people disturb me.

That's very good, Pallidin.  It's even better when the government understands they can't take the weapons.  It will save this country another civil war.  I can promise you that THAT is the bridge too far.  Confiscation will lead to civil unrest all over this country and once it is understood that the government is serious, martial law will follow.  The death toll that would occur will make people think fondly of the small numbers of casualties that public shootings have caused before now.

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. this is interesting. I just read the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It's quite an eye-opener. Apparently one of the framers specifically envisaged that the states Militia would act as a bulwark against a federal army ! In other words, he anticipated the Black Helicopters and the Secret FEMA camps etc etc. (well, Federal government over-reach, anyway). 

The Founders explained much of their thinking in the Federalist Papers and that theme runs throughout those essays.  The entire premise of this new government that they worked to craft for us was based on resisting tyranny from a government that got out of control.  Today, for me, that means if a local or state cop comes to my door demanding my weapons without a constitutional amendment, they are no longer "law enforcement".  They will be "tyranny enforcement" and will be treated appropriately.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Speaking as a pacifist ... if I could own a mini-gun I would

[pallidin]

The US government is not your enemy, people.

We are compassionate, yet firm on issues which affect societal stability.

Or would you rather us be torn into a third-world country with gangs everywhere and unregulated assault weaponry in their hands?

[pallidin]

Talked with an avid gun enthusiast.

He says the government is "chipping away" our right to "bear arms"

That is total bull****. The government has zero desire to remove your standard handgun or rifle.

However, ownership of weaponry that can inflict massive harm on multiple people's, such as high capacity magazines, assault rifles and modification kits have absolutely no place in common society.

Well, unless you're a paranoid anarchist, or gang member, I suppose.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by pallidin

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

Talked with an avid gun enthusiast.

He says the government is "chipping away" our right to "bear arms"

That is total bull****. The government has zero desire to remove your standard handgun or rifle.

However, ownership of weaponry that can inflict massive harm on multiple people's, such as high capacity magazines, assault rifles and modification kits have absolutely no place in common society.

Well, unless you're a paranoid anarchist, or gang member, I suppose.

Or if .. like the framers of the Constitution .. you where concerned that the US Military might become a tool of oppression, and come knocking at your door ? 

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Or if .. like the framers of the Constitution .. you where concerned that the US Military might become a tool of oppression, and come knocking at your door ? 

No. That's just irresponsibly paranoid in my opinion.

[RoofGardener]

4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

No. That's just irresponsibly paranoid in my opinion.

And yet, at least ONE of the original framers EXPLICITLY warned about that possibility ?