Magazine capacity in CA

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Lemme ask you this; ever BEEN to one of the communist block countries? I have.

Lemme tell ya, you have no fuckin' clue what repression is if you think California is in any way shape or form comparable to the USSR.

Not a fuckin' clue.

Hell. I think he has a point. A couple yrs ago I was waiting for a ride to work in the morning next to my apt. complex. I was ordered AT GUNPOINT to put my hands over my head turn around and grab a lightpole. Me and my lunchbox were searched, warrant checks were run on me in various states. I was then let go and told to have a nice day. Also the fucking pigs tried to keep my florida ID. NOT. Another time I was arrested IN MY OWN APT for public drunk. I told the nazi pig bastards I wasn't in plublic til you drug me out the door. Glad the DA saw it that way too. Still spent a couple hrs. in jail and quite a few in court. Fuck California

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[quade 3]

Quote

Hell. I think he has a point. A couple yrs ago I was waiting for a ride to work in the morning next to my apt. complex. I was ordered AT GUNPOINT to put my hands over my head turn around and grab a lightpole. Me and my lunchbox were searched, warrant checks were run on me in various states. I was then let go and told to have a nice day. Also the fucking pigs tried to keep my florida ID. NOT. Another time I was arrested IN MY OWN APT for public drunk. I told the nazi pig bastards I wasn't in plublic til you drug me out the door. Glad the DA saw it that way too. Still spent a couple hrs. in jail and quite a few in court. Fuck California

The fact you can write this in a public forum, in plain language and with no fear of government reprisal should tell you otherwise.

Trust me. You live in -such- a privileged country you don't even know what you have.

Look at this thread. You guys are seriously concerned about the difference between 10 or 13 bullet magazines? WTF is that? Nothing. Not a god damn thing in the grand scheme of human rights.

Not a god damn thing.

"Waa waa! The Government won't let me shoot 3 more bullets before reloading! I'm so repressed! The government is out to get me!"

Get a fuckin' clue guys. If the government was actually repressing you, this entire web site wouldn't exist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Hmmmm......is that the best argument you can come up with? Those of us who feel the law is ridiculous are just whiners? Come on man....

Concerning repression.... Don't ya think a law that has absolutely no logical reason for existence is purely for repressive purposes?

Also if higher capacity mags are unneccessary then why is it the LEOs carry em? Certainly they are far more proficient in fire arm use than the average citizen so they shouldn't exempt from the law. Right?

How would you like it if there was a law that won't allow you to fly a parachute smaller than a 210? To me a law like that would make more sense since it is proven that the small parachutes are the "big" killers in our sport.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 3]

Quote

Hmmmm......is that the best argument you can come up with? Those of us who feel the law is ridiculous are just whiners? Come on man....

There are a couple of points I was addressing; the gun issue and the silly attitude toward California shown by one participant of this thread in particular.

Quote

Concerning repression.... Don't ya think a law that has absolutely no logical reason for existence is purely for repressive purposes?

In your opinion, no logical reason exists, yet in the opinion of the people that passed the law there had to be a logical reason. The law didn't simply occur spontaneously! SOMEBODY had to think that it made sense.

Quote

Also if higher capacity mags are unneccessary then why is it the LEOs carry em? Certainly they are far more proficient in fire arm use than the average citizen so they shouldn't exempt from the law. Right?

How would you like it if there was a law that won't allow you to fly a parachute smaller than a 210? To me a law like that would make more sense since it is proven that the small parachutes are the "big" killers in our sport.

The government can and does place limits on all sorts of things. it has nothing to do with repressing you. Your example of parachute size is not a very good one since the danger isn't absolute size but instead more along the lines of wingloading. Further, if the government said main parachutes must have a wingloading of no less than 1.2:1, I would be perfectly happy with that. While it may make no logical sense to you, it actually would make logical sense to me. I wouldn't feel repressed in the least.

So, back to your question, "Those of us who feel the law is ridiculous are just whiners?" Yeah, actually I kinda do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

In your opinion, no logical reason exists, yet in the opinion of the people that passed the law there had to be a logical reason. The law didn't simply occur spontaneously! SOMEBODY had to think that it made sense.

I think you are giving to much credit to the majority and their rightiousness. If there is a logical reason.....i challenge you to come up with one because I'm not seeing it.

Quote

The government can and does place limits on all sorts of things. it has nothing to do with repressing you. Your example of parachute size is not a very good one since the danger isn't absolute size but instead more along the lines of wingloading.

I knew you would say that. That is exactly why it is the PERFECT example. Man you guys need to stop making my points for me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 3]

Quote

I knew you would say that. That is exactly why it is the PERFECT example. Man you guys need to stop making my points for me.

What WAS your point again? . . . because so far I dont' think you've actually made one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In your opinion, no logical reason exists, yet in the opinion of the people that passed the law there had to be a logical reason. The law didn't simply occur spontaneously! SOMEBODY had to think that it made sense.

Same sort of thinking gave us the Patriot Act. I guess you're a supporter of it? SOMEBODY had to think that it made sense.

[livetofall 0]

Quote

Quote

I knew you would say that. That is exactly why it is the PERFECT example. Man you guys need to stop making my points for me.

What WAS your point again? . . . because so far I dont' think you've actually made one.

Being an intelligent man, I am suprised you didnt get his point. Point is a 210 would be ultrasafe for someone 120 lbs, but for a 350 pounder, quite a wing load. As for guns, the magazine capacity is not going to keep a gun out of the wrong hands, it is ridiculous. IT IS a perfect example of how California liberals have nothing better to do but spend taxpaxers money on time dedicated to coming up with new laws such as this. Face it Quade, Downward just touche'd you quite well

www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

[quade 3]

Quote

Same sort of thinking gave us the Patriot Act. I guess you're a supporter of it? SOMEBODY had to think that it made sense.

Don't confuse the issue here.

I didn't say that he should be FOR it, only that there had to be a logic behind it.

EVERYTHING . . . has a reason.

Even the most vile, horrible acts you can possibly think of, the most vicious horrible leaders of all time had a logic behind what they were doing. It might not make sense to YOU, but to deny that there is logic behind something is simply silly. It HAD to make sense to someone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Don't confuse reason with opportunity. Or grandstanding.

9/11 gave Washington the opportunity to give us the Patriot Act. Americans were suddenly willing to give up their freedom. The visible miltary guys at the airport contributed little, but made the lambs feel secure.

101 California and Columbine gave California Democrats the opportunity to pass several gun control laws that solve nothing, but give them incremental progress towards their goal of a gun ban.

[quade 3]

Do you seriously believe that the majority of people in California want a 100% ban on all guns?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Hell. I think he has a point. A couple yrs ago I was waiting for a ride to work in the morning next to my apt. complex. I was ordered AT GUNPOINT to put my hands over my head turn around and grab a lightpole. Me and my lunchbox were searched, warrant checks were run on me in various states. I was then let go and told to have a nice day. Also the fucking pigs tried to keep my florida ID. NOT. Another time I was arrested IN MY OWN APT for public drunk. I told the nazi pig bastards I wasn't in plublic til you drug me out the door. Glad the DA saw it that way too. Still spent a couple hrs. in jail and quite a few in court. Fuck California

The fact you can write this in a public forum, in plain language and with no fear of government reprisal should tell you otherwise.

Trust me. You live in -such- a privileged country you don't even know what you have.

Look at this thread. You guys are seriously concerned about the difference between 10 or 13 bullet magazines? WTF is that? Nothing. Not a god damn thing in the grand scheme of human rights.

Not a god damn thing.

"Waa waa! The Government won't let me shoot 3 more bullets before reloading! I'm so repressed! The government is out to get me!"

Get a fuckin' clue guys. If the government was actually repressing you, this entire web site wouldn't exist.

Yeah. And they are reading everything we print for the future. Get a clue

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you seriously believe that the majority of people in California want a 100% ban on all guns?

Nope.

That's why those who are so inclined make incremental proposals using emotional arguments rather than ones with any basis in logic or fact.

[shropshire 0]

I take it from the above posts that this is not a publishing thread.
As a paper boy, I find the capacity of some magazine way too much... they're dead heavy and difficult to get through the letter box.....


My Bad

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DZJ 0]

Surely Sunday papers are worse though?

[shropshire 0]

right little bastards and no mistake.... but it's the magazines, them colour suppliments... 32 pages, 32 ! they're taking the piss.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

All "assault" type of weapons now must have non-removable mags and be limited to 10 rounds. Who wants an AR or AK where you can't remove the mags...

How do you load an AR-15 if the magazine is non-removable?
How do you clear a jam in the magazine?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

EVERYTHING . . . has a reason. Even the most vile, horrible acts you can possibly think of, the most vicious horrible leaders of all time had a logic behind what they were doing. It might not make sense to YOU, but to deny that there is logic behind something is simply silly. It HAD to make sense to someone.

That's a point without a point.

Just because an idea is based upon someone's twisted version of "logic", doesn't make it right.

[quade 3]

Quote

That's a point without a point.

Just because an idea is based upon someone's twisted version of "logic", doesn't make it right.

Actually Rich, I wasn't trying to make the point that it was "right" only that there was it did make sense to some person at some point.

If you go back and read this branch of the thread in CONTEXT rather than taking the quote outside of it, it does have a point.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

I thought John summed it up much better than I did.

A point without a point.

Legislation does not need to have reason supporting it. Just a majority of votes.

[DZJ 0]

How then does a reasonless or unreasonable piece of legislation get that majority of votes then?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

How then does a reasonless or unreasonable piece of legislation get that majority of votes then?

Legislation passes because it makes good sound bites for politicians, opposing it would make politicians look bad, or it fits in with politicians' world views which tend to be over-simplified and elitist.

[jm951 0]

Quote

Quote

All "assault" type of weapons now must have non-removable mags and be limited to 10 rounds. Who wants an AR or AK where you can't remove the mags...

How do you load an AR-15 if the magazine is non-removable?
How do you clear a jam in the magazine?

Non removeable mag rifles are loaded one round at a time through the top. DSA makes a CA only AR as do others. The idea is to limit firepower by restricting the option to use 30rd mags that can be easily changed out when empty. As for clearing it, well that can get rather interesting.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How then does a reasonless or unreasonable piece of legislation get that majority of votes then?

Legislation passes because it makes good sound bites for politicians, opposing it would make politicians look bad, or it fits in with politicians' world views which tend to be over-simplified and elitist.

Throw in vote trading (illegal, but common) and threat of sanctions from the party whips. Committee membership and chairs are a big element of campaigning and financing.

Right now Pelosi's command will get quite a few bills passed regardless of merit. It's not total power - the Democratic Party isn't as cohesive as the GOP - but unless the Member has a reason to oppose he will vote to her wishes.

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

How then does a reasonless or unreasonable piece of legislation get that majority of votes then?

Legislation passes because it makes good sound bites for politicians, opposing it would make politicians look bad, or it fits in with politicians' world views which tend to be over-simplified and elitist.

That to me looks like a problem with the politicians, rather than the legislation. Isn't the US a democracy?