A:
Something along these lines would be good for home defense.
Posted on 03/25/2011 5:33:10 AM PDT by marktwain
I don't really care if you have a gun for hunting or a pistol to give you some sense of protection at home. It's your right.
But what's the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip? I stopped by a legislative hearing Wednesday at which a roomful of gun enthusiasts was irate about a bill that would make it a felony to own a "large-capacity magazine" that uses more than 10 bullets.
The shooter in the Tucson attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this year that killed six and wounded 13 used a legally purchased semiautomatic Glock pistol with an ammunition clip holding more than 30 bullets. Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004, were used in the mass shootings in East Hartford, at Virginia Tech and in Fort Hood, Texas, to name a few.
Cops such as Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett see "no reason whatsover" for anyone to have these ammo clips. "The large-capacity magazines put not only the general public at risk, but especially the men and women of Connecticut's police departments," Gaudett told the General Assembly's judiciary committee in testimony Wednesday.
Banning these magazines isn't going to magically stop deranged killers. But it's an important start and it certainly might help police -- and prevent the next Jared Loughner from going into Walmart to buy a 33-bullet ammunition clip.
As I listened to opponents and read through their testimony, I realized how little I know about the violent wild-west-of-a-world some of these folks inhabit, a place that doesn't reflect the reality of Connecticut.
"Anyone who knows anything about firearm self-defense knows that you want as many bullets loaded as you can carry in a practical manner,'' Robert Crook, director of the Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance, said in his testimony. "He who throws the most lead wins."
A doctor from Guilford, Daniel Vining, said in his testimony that criminals will ignore the law while law-abiding citizens "will be hindered."
"As a practicing ER physician, I have seen many shooting victims with as many as 6 separate bullet tracks who are not seriously injured. Consider then, trying to defend your family with a 10-round magazine against two home invaders ... five shots per attacker, even with 100 percent accuracy might not be enough."
Michael Fifer, CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a gun manufacturer in Southport, explained further. "In defensive situations, magazines in excess of 10 rounds provide ... private citizens the ability to deal with multiple offenders ... one-third of aggravated assault and robbery victims are attacked by multiple offenders."
We should not let these views distort a sensible response to these recent mass killings. Instead of throwing lead at marauding home invaders, I keep thinking more what Dallas Green, grandfather of shooting victim Christina Taylor Green, said not long after the Tucson attack.
"Even though I'm a hunter and I love to shoot and love to have my guns, I don't have a Glock or whatever it is and I don't have a magazine with 33 bullets in it. That doesn't make sense to be able to sell those kind of things,'' Green said. "I just don't understand that."
Neither do I.
I agree with your statement if you’ll allow me to say it this way. The 2nd Amendment is our God given right which the consittuition and bill of rights spell out as an individual right. It is a personal God given right like the first, which guarantees we can speak or worship as we(indivuals) choose.
Here are some questions for you Rick:
How much Free Speech do you need?
How much Freedom of the Press do you need?
How much Freedom of Religion (or freedom from religion) do you need?
How much Freedom of Assembly do you need?
How much right to property do you need?
How much Privacy do you need?
How much Freedom from Unreasonabl Search and Seizure do you need?
How much Freedom from self-incrimination do you need?
How much right to legal representation do you need?
How much right to a trial by jury do you need?
I could go on, but if you don't get my point by now you are a helpless idiot.
People need to keep pointing out the elitist attitude of our would-be “rulers”.
I’ve pointed it out to some hardcore, yet very shallow thinking leftists with some interesting results.
They AFFIRMED the right of the “ruling class” to have different rules than everyone else.
Well, at least I got down to the nub of the issue - now we can talk about if that is the right view of things or not instead of arguing about surface issues that are just the symptoms of the worldview problem.
I don’t hunt. I don’t like putting bullets in animals. No problems with people, though, which is why I can reach out a hand anywhere in the house and come back with a handgun :)).
rick green has a small, marxist penis...
Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004...
Blatant lie. About what we've come to expect from the Left.
They're preparing to encounter the citizens.
THE POINT IS THAT MY RIGHT UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”... ANYONE THAT WANTS TO INFRINGE MY RIGHT... FU and YOUR MOMMA!
LLS
The Constitution does not specify any limitations on the 2nd amendment based on some bureaucrat’s assessment of what a citizen theoretically needs to protect themselves or to harvest wild game. In fact it does not mention either.
I wonder what the author’s thoughts are on limiting certain technologies in the exercise of free speech? How many people does an average citizen really need to reach anyway? Lookup the Fairness Doctrine and how it is (attempted to be) applied today. These issues are children of the same parents.
</s>
Cant this guy say what he needs to say within a ten word limit?
Does he think the 1st amendment says he can use more than ten words at a time?
How Much Horsepower Do You Need? (Rick Green)I don't really care if you have a car for commuting or an SUV to give you some sense of protection on the highway. It's your right. But what's the point of cars with large engines that allow the driver to go from 0 to 60 in four seconds?
Cops such as Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett see "no reason whatsover" for anyone to have these fast cars. "The large-capacity, high Horsepower engines, put not only the general public at risk, but especially the men and women of Connecticut's police departments," Gaudett told the General Assembly's judiciary committee in testimony Wednesday.
Banning these high Horsepower cars isn't going to magically stop deranged drivers. But it's an important start and it certainly might help police -- and prevent the next 'irresponsible Rich Citizen' from going into a Chevy dealer to buy a 500 Horsepower, 180 mph Corvette.
"Even though I'm a driver and I love to drive on Sunday afternoons and love to have my cars, I don't have a Corvette or whatever it is and I don't have a car with 500 Horsepower in it. That doesn't make sense to be able to sell those kind of things,'' Green said. "I just don't understand that."
Neither do I.
Sounds pretty STOO-PID™ now and DANGEROUS. These anti-gun nut leftists can't grasp the concept of 'need' vs 'want'. To them if THEY don't 'need' something, then nobody else should have 'it' either. Whether that person 'wants it' or not.
Just like it was in the Soviet Union!
(of course this Rick doesn't 'understand it', he's a liberal nut case.)
The “Chief” is such a Putz. The fool should resign immediately and drive slowly to a retirement home. I feel he is more of a danger to citizens with his low IQ than someone driving a high powered car.
My formula is twice as much as the bad guys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.