Oregon Gun Magazine Limit Proposal

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
yeah. by normal, I strictly meant non-military, sorry.
Sure, he might have played around with it a bit. I think playing around with a gun a little bit and going through strict and rigorous training are two VERY different things. Chances are, when playing around with it at a friend's house, he wasn't popping magazines in and out to decrease his time in between.
Is there a general purpose to have it as is? Do people hunt with an AR-15, where you need to get off a whole bunch of shots quickly? Or any large magazine, fast reloading gun? Do you just pump a deer full of bullets?
 
RR7 said:
yeah. by normal, I strictly meant non-military, sorry.
Sure, he might have played around with it a bit. I think playing around with a gun a little bit and going through strict and rigorous training are two VERY different things. Chances are, when playing around with it at a friend's house, he wasn't popping magazines in and out to decrease his time in between.
Is there a general purpose to have it as is? Do people hunt with an AR-15, where you need to get off a whole bunch of shots quickly? Or any large magazine, fast reloading gun? Do you just pump a deer full of bullets?
Click to expand...

Everyone knows we all need Assault Rifles to kill the cops and army when they try to take away our freedoms!
 
DaLincolnJones said:
yeah, I have a better reason

Freedom

This is in line with the thinking that a drink larger than 32 oz iad for you and must be outlawed

every time someone missuses something, those that would "protect" us, jumps up and adds another law that removes another freedom. The elephant is being eaten, at the rate we are going we are surrndering Our bill of rights as fast as we can
Click to expand...

Cool, so bazooka's, grenades and flame throwers for everyone then?
 
BlazerWookee said:
Hyperconclusionarianism can be fun!
Click to expand...

Its a vailid point. Where is the line? Are megaclips in the same category as these other weapons? There is a good argument saying they are and the only counter argument so far really is "They took our gunz!"
 
donkiez said:
Its a vailid point. Where is the line? Are megaclips in the same category as these other weapons? There is a good argument saying they are and the only counter argument so far really is "They took our gunz!"
Click to expand...
Implying that if one opposes legislation that places limits on freedoms then one must be in favor of providing area-of-effect weapons to the masses is NOT making a valid point. It's the same bullshit argument technique that takes "I believe Affirmative Action has served its purpose" and turns it into "I believe black people should be held down and denied equal treatment."
 
California has a 10 round max magazine law. The fact that California did it first should tip you off that Oregon doesn't want to do that.

The gun homicide rate (per 100,000) in CA is 4.82, the fourth highest in the nation.

Oregon, without any laws around max magazine size is 1.34 gun homicides per 100,000. That is the 12th lowest in the nation.

Why should I think that this proposed law will make things better here?

The fact is, if some nut job wants to kill people, he will kill people. My folks made me understand that when I was a kid, and I don't stress about it. It is sad when it happens, but it will still happen, no matter how many laws are passed to try to stop it.

As a point of reference, the lowest rate in the nation is NH, at 0.48 per 100K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The stats are a little screwed up, but I don't know where to find data that differentiates between a gun homicide where some asshole was shot to death during a home invasion, and an actual murder by a low life scumbag.

Go Blazers
 
BlazerWookee said:
Implying that if one opposes legislation that places limits on freedoms then one must be in favor of providing area-of-effect weapons to the masses is NOT making a valid point. It's the same bullshit argument technique that takes "I believe Affirmative Action has served its purpose" and turns it into "I believe black people should be held down and denied equal treatment."
Click to expand...

Those are two completely different arugments. Lets not keep trying to derail this thread by comparing this issue with soda's and black people. The question in effect is dealing with limiting a weapon and a persons ability to cause mass damage.
 
oldguy said:
California has a 10 round max magazine law. The fact that California did it first should tip you off that Oregon doesn't want to do that.

The gun homicide rate (per 100,000) in CA is 4.82, the fourth highest in the nation.

Oregon, without any laws around max magazine size is 1.34 gun homicides per 100,000. That is the 12th lowest in the nation.

Why should I think that this proposed law will make things better here?

The fact is, if some nut job wants to kill people, he will kill people. My folks made me understand that when I was a kid, and I don't stress about it. It is sad when it happens, but it will still happen, no matter how many laws are passed to try to stop it.

As a point of reference, the lowest rate in the nation is NH, at 0.48 per 100K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The stats are a little screwed up, but I don't know where to find data that differentiates between a gun homicide where some asshole was shot to death during a home invasion, and an actual murder by a low life scumbag.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Good point and rep worthy. I agree that its hard to defend against crazy no matter how many laws you have in place.
 
I guess my question is who or what does the limit hurt?
 
donkiez said:
Those are two completely different arugments. Lets not keep trying to derail this thread by comparing this issue with soda's and black people. The question in effect is dealing with limiting a weapon and a persons ability to cause mass damage.
Click to expand...
No, it's dealing with the question of limiting the size of magazines, and the fact that such legislation would have absolutely no impact on anything except giving politicians something to wave at their base and say they're doing something important.
 
RR7 said:
I guess my question is who or what does the limit hurt?
Click to expand...
It hurts everyone because instead of working on legislation that might have a positive effect on the economy, politicians are climbing all over each other to capitalize on a horrific event just to score points with voters.
 
BlazerWookee said:
No, it's dealing with the question of limiting the size of magazines, and the fact that such legislation would have absolutely no impact on anything except giving politicians something to wave at their base and say they're doing something important.
Click to expand...

Ok let me try a different angle since you are a gun guy and I am not, although I do support the right to bear arms. What purpose does a megaclip serve and why would an average person need one?
 
BlazerWookee said:
It hurts everyone because instead of working on legislation that might have a positive effect on the economy, politicians are climbing all over each other to capitalize on a horrific event just to score points with voters.
Click to expand...

Ok, well, we don't have time machines, so can't take away them drafting it. So that time wasted has been wasted. What negative effect does the legislation have?
 
RR7 said:
I guess my question is who or what does the limit hurt?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing there are hundreds of thousands of guns already in the owned by law abiding Oregon citizens that have guns with mags that hold more than 10 rounds. They bought those guns legally, in Oregon.

New guns start around $300, and go up, a lot, from there. Why should all of those law abiding people, who use these guns recreationally, for home protection and as a hedge against government running amuck have to give them up, when it won't do anything to help the gun homicide rate?

Go Blazers
 
the guns are a hedge against government running amok? good luck with that
 
RR7 said:
the guns are a hedge against government running amok? good luck with that
Click to expand...

Gonna say I agree with you on this one. I don't own a gun, but I don't see a highly qualified person able to carry one. The real problem isn't the experienced gun owners. It's the damage something like this could do being in the wrong hands. I see nothing wrong with limiting the mag limit. Although a person just can carry more clips. Regardless; a government can only do so much, until it has to completely ban guns.
 
oldguy said:
I'm guessing there are hundreds of thousands of guns already in the owned by law abiding Oregon citizens that have guns with mags that hold more than 10 rounds. They bought those guns legally, in Oregon.

New guns start around $300, and go up, a lot, from there. Why should all of those law abiding people, who use these guns recreationally, for home protection and as a hedge against government running amuck have to give them up, when it won't do anything to help the gun homicide rate?

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

With todays technology, if government runs amok then we are screwed with or without guns. It sucks that law abiding people suffer because one asshole shoots up a school or a mall but thats how life works. One turd in the pool and no one can go swiming, but really its not one turd its a constant flow of diarrhea to the point that something needs to be done to protect the rest of us law abideing citizens. Would any of you gun advocates feel differently if it was your wife or daughter shot in Clackamas on tuesday?
 
RR7 said:
I guess my question is who or what does the limit hurt?
Click to expand...

well, anyone that has a gun that has more than ten rounds

what I find supprising is that those who lean left would cry out if it was something that they enjoyed, but side with the gov on this?. Personaly, I dont own anything that this would take into account. It is really a matter of surrendering another personal freedom to the gov, Just because I dont like to varmint hunt does not make me want to keep others from doing so. I dont drag race anymore, so should I also allow bans on HP? There is a lot of things that can be used to hurt people that I would object to the gov regulating.
 
donkiez said:
With todays technology, if government runs amok then we are screwed with or without guns. It sucks that law abiding people suffer because one asshole shoots up a school or a mall but thats how life works. One turd in the pool and no one can go swiming, but really its not one turd its a constant flow of diarrhea to the point that something needs to be done to protect the rest of us law abideing citizens. Would any of you gun advocates feel differently if it was your wife or daughter shot in Clackamas on tuesday?
Click to expand...

so you think that ten rounds makes you safe? Fact is if he had ten rounds per clip, I would bet he would have taken better aim rather than spraying bullets around. Sounds to me like you would prefer to not hae any guns..
 
DaLincolnJones said:
so you think that ten rounds makes you safe? Fact is if he had ten rounds per clip, I would bet he would have taken better aim rather than spraying bullets around. Sounds to me like you would prefer to not hae any guns..
Click to expand...

I like how you use the word fact to make an assumption.
 
Ginny Burdick has literally made a career out of trying to disarm and shackle Real Americans in Oregon. Every time a car backfires in the state she's on her soapbox screaming incoherently about the need for a defenseless, obedient populace. She is a Facist in every sense of the word.
 
donkiez said:
Would any of you gun advocates feel differently if it was your wife or daughter shot in Clackamas on tuesday?
Click to expand...

Of course not. How would disarming my wife help protect her from someone who stole a gun? :crazy:
 
Last edited:
donkiez said:
Ok let me try a different angle since you are a gun guy and I am not, although I do support the right to bear arms. What purpose does a megaclip serve and why would an average person need one?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the purpose is, and it matters even less why the average person needs one. If such a useless law was on the books already, fine. While my default position is to vote on the side of more freedom vs. less freedom, the reasons for owning them are completely irrelevant. What bothers me is that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are spending even a few hours discussing/arguing a law that does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.

And since when is "you don't really need it" a reason to ban it?
 
donkiez said:
Ok let me try a different angle since you are a gun guy and I am not, although I do support the right to bear arms. What purpose does a megaclip serve and why would an average person need one?
Click to expand...

You do not support or even comprehend the purpose of The Second Amendment, or you would not be asking this question in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top