 |
|
That was a month ago, have you heard what they are trying to do in Illinois now?
|
|
|
|
|
No. Fill me in.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, okay. It's now unconstitutional for Illinois to prevent people from concealed carry, but it's a hollow victory considering the only thing you'll be able to carry there is a freakin' flintlock.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an online gun supply site's page dedicated to AR-15 30-round polymer magazines:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c4raTPTeThw/UOHOjfxpF_I/AAAAAAAATiQ/f343xvLCoWs/s1600/pmag-e1356912362498.jpg[^]
If Diane Feinstein and Obama get their way, it's gonna get real ugly, real fast.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Wish i could put 30 rnds in my AR ... but alas i am Canadian and we can only have 5  ... well 10 if the mag fits in a pistol 
Don't comment your code - it was hard to write, it should be hard to read!
|
|
|
|
|
Did you read the product description?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Yea i did, it was awesome but it already happened here. Hold out as long as you can because having to reload after 5 sucks.
Don't comment your code - it was hard to write, it should be hard to read!
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't take someone down after five shots you should try running away instead!
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Canadian man, we dont shoot a whole lot of people up here.
I was talking about while at the range however your response did make me lol.
Don't comment your code - it was hard to write, it should be hard to read!
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Here's an online gun supply site's page dedicated to AR-15 30-round polymer
magazines:
Obviously demented.
Currently the only problem for most US citizens in acquiring those is due to...wait for it...capitalism.
Many people want them, many people bought them and now they are out of stock. Pure and simple.
Moreover the limitations that some US citizens face to acquiring those are based on local ordinances and not federal ones. Democratically established ones which can be, democractically, rescinded or even legally challenged if somone wants to.
So claiming that socialism or communism is the cause, as that link does, either suggests stupidity or fear mongering.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed the point entirely. The rant in the description is about the possibility of these magazines being banned, not about the cost of the mags. Notice their price - that's about what the mags should go for, so THEY didn't raise their prices.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I think you missed the point entirely.
No you did. From that...
"...ARE BEING PUNISHED..." Present tense.
"IF YOU ARE HERE LOOKING FOR A MAGAZINE THAT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE..." present tense and without any qualification at all this statement is implicitly ties to the rest of the article. It completely ignores that capitalism is the sole cause for the availability problem.
The muddle piece does further mention future laws but it is not exclusively about what might happen.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you miss the point, any time demand out paces supply, the said good is no longer available, whether it be capitalist, or communist, scarcity from driven up demand is the problem. So you blaming capitalism is nice little trick.
|
|
|
|
|
Guy sure tells it like it is, good for him.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: If Diane Feinstein and Obama get their way, it's gonna get real ugly, real fast.
If? I think we both know it's inevitable!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still hoping it doesn't.
Some university professors are now calling for the complete abolishment of the Constitution. It's not looking good at all.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Some university professors are now calling for the complete abolishment of the Constitution
I am rather certain that you will find that people have been calling for a Constitutional Congress for a very, very long time.
Probably easier to list when someone wasn't insisting it was necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
I stopped taking it seriously about the time it said "Marxist" and started taking it with a heavy pinch of salt. Most people who use that word seem to use it to mean anything they dislike. Regulation of mining near an native American reservation due to their waste water? Socialist government regulations against capitalist industry! And not those pesky treaties we have with the native Americans
The constitution guarantees you the right to bare arms, it does not promise you any magazine capacity you want. There are limits on what you can own and with good reason. We cannot own anti-tank and anti-air rockets. Which is what you really need, since the second amendment is for protection against a tyrannical government and that government would use tanks, jets, and helicopters. I don't want my neighbor owning a cannon just in case he and I have a heated dispute and he decides he doesn't like my car anymore.
The second amendment is also just that, an amendment to the constitution. And like the 18th it can be repealed. Not saying it should be, but it can be. Any politician who suggests it would likely be committing political suicide.
Besides, one single well placed round puts more terror in a group of people than 30 in rapid succession. Just ask anyone who lived in the DC/Baltimore area during the month of October, 2002. I was terrified just to pump my own gas. The police even said that if the shooter ever stopped, they would likely never catch him.
|
|
|
|
|
RJOberg wrote: The constitution guarantees you the right to bare arms, it does not promise you any magazine capacity you want.
It actually has nothing to say about the magazine size. We are beyond single shot and black powder days, I think the magazines sizes should be left out of it.
RJOberg wrote: There are limits on what you can own and with good reason.
I don't think 'with good reason' is the way to phrase it at all. I don't think there should be limits on what we can own. If they can own it, we should have the option so long as we can afford it or get ahold of it.
RJOberg wrote: Which is what you really need, since the second amendment is for protection against a tyrannical government and that government would use tanks, jets, and helicopters.
Thats not all it's for, but I think I should be able to have an anti tank gun just because of that. How am I to protect myself if I'm forced to?
RJOberg wrote: I don't want my neighbor owning a cannon just in case he and I have a heated dispute and he decides he doesn't like my car anymore.
You should treat your neighbor better. No one needs a cannon to do a car bomb. It's also pretty simple to loosen up brake lines so they will fail after you take off and get going. The illusion of safety isn't the same as having safety. We are all at the mercy of one another in the end. It's up to us to live together.
Just having a certain tool is not what creates these actions. This is where the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" comes from. If you really tick your neighbor off he can turn your light bulbs into bombs while you are at the store. And there isn't any way to keep him out of the house if he knows how to take the vinyl windows apart (whic is not hard at all).
So what's to keep him from doing that? It's certainly not a gun, because it's not necessary to be dangerous or horrible. It's easy, but so is a sword if you have already made up your mind to do it.
RJOberg wrote: Besides, one single well placed round puts more terror in a group of people than 30 in rapid succession.
well said
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: I don't think there should be limits on what we can own
The US Constitution does not now and never has bestowed unlimited rights. And the authors were specifically aware of that.
Just because my neighbor can afford to put in a toxic waste dump they shouldn't be allowed to even if it is their land. Nor should a condo dweller nor a restaurant in the middle of a metropolitan area be allowed to raise pigs (plural) for slaughter. Regardless of how much they like bacon.
loctrice wrote: but I think I should be able to have an anti tank gun just because of that. How am I to protect myself if I'm forced to?
By actually learning how to effectively use the guns that you can own.
And those that created the Constitution were not idiots. There was never any consideration for one solitary individual opposing the government. It was about many people opposing them. If that wasn't the case then the point then every criminal from the inception of the US would be making that claim.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: The US Constitution does not now and never has bestowed unlimited rights. And the authors were specifically aware of that.
Great, thanks for pointing that out. We're talking about gun control.
jschell wrote: Just because my neighbor can afford to put in a toxic waste dump they shouldn't be allowed to even if it is their land.
not related to gun control.
jschell wrote: Nor should a condo dweller nor a restaurant in the middle of a metropolitan area be allowed to raise pigs (plural) for slaughter. Regardless of how much they like bacon.
not related to gun control
jschell wrote: There was never any consideration for one solitary individual opposing the government.
You're probably the only one who read that and decided that's what I meant. (One person could never shoot fast enough).
jschell wrote: By actually learning how to effectively use the guns that you can own.
And those that created the Constitution were not idiots.
Looks good without all the trimming.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: We're talking about gun control.
You however said "I don't think there should be limits on what we can own.".
Which is what I quoted.
And I was pointing out that "limits" to "own[ership]" are necessary and allowed for.
|
|
|
|
|
If the right to bear arms is "God given", please provide a biblical (or Talmudic, Quranic, Adi Granth etc....) reference.
If it is a fundamental right of Americans, why was it not in the constitution, but tacked on as an amendment some time later?
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Quinn wrote: If the right to bear arms is "God given", please provide a biblical (or Talmudic, Quranic, Adi Granth etc....) reference.
The Epic Vorpal Ring of Midget Smiting(+5) is also a god given right.
It wouldn't matter if it were in some biblical proof (or any of the other said areas), it still doesn't make it real.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
You mean you don't believe in God? That makes you a commie and therefore a legitimate target! I'd keep my head down if I were you!
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
I think what we've figured out here, more importantly, is that you don't believe in Midgets. 
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
