One More Massacre

I have alot of bears.

Science Chic wrote: (I'd even argue that our Founding Fathers were radically liberal)

The "conservatives" of the time supported the status quo and England. It was liberals who wanted to start over and try a better government.

Science Chic wrote: But once you remove those you consider "liberal" now, then those who didn't seem so liberal will all of a sudden become the far end of the spectrum, and they will need to be removed, etc etc etc. It's all relative, and "conservative" and "liberal" tendencies have always existed in human history (I'd even argue that our Founding Fathers were radically liberal) and conservative machinations need to be balanced with liberal ones.

What is a shame is how we've divorced ourselves from nature.

Humans would not exsist if they didn't work together, civilised society wouldn't exsist if people didn't work together...Working together is how we got here

The willingless to cooperate with eachother is an adavanced human trait..."liberal" just means a more evolved human

Arlen wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Magazines that hold more than 11 rounds should be outlawed. If the SOB has to pause to reload, then at least someone has a chance to knock him down or take him out.

What is the logic to the magic number 11? All of the tactical shooters with whom I associate reload their weapon in less than 2 seconds. (That is no exaggeration.) They never take their eyes off the target and always have the weapon near the line of sight. A magazine capacity of 11 would not slow them down in the least.
These gentlemen are all young, clean-cut engineers (mechanical, physicists, and electrical). They all study the skills of urban tactical warfare, the same as LE.

So if it so easy and fast to reload an 11 round magazine, why is there a necessity for 100 round magazines?

I guess if you're into mass murder it's a necessity.

It appears from what I have heard that no competent firearm owner would need such a large magazine and that is detrimental to actual marksmanship.

The Nut was neither a marksman or competent.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Arlen wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Magazines that hold more than 11 rounds should be outlawed. If the SOB has to pause to reload, then at least someone has a chance to knock him down or take him out.

What is the logic to the magic number 11? All of the tactical shooters with whom I associate reload their weapon in less than 2 seconds. (That is no exaggeration.) They never take their eyes off the target and always have the weapon near the line of sight. A magazine capacity of 11 would not slow them down in the least.
These gentlemen are all young, clean-cut engineers (mechanical, physicists, and electrical). They all study the skills of urban tactical warfare, the same as LE.

So if it so easy and fast to reload an 11 round magazine, why is there a necessity for 100 round magazines?

If a person wants to wrestle with a huge magazine, then let him. 30 round mags are just about right. They are easily carried.
This mass murderer's firearms jammed most probably because he had a huge capacity mag (I have not heard of his mag capacity) and over heated a firearm of questionable quality.

If a liberal wants a small capacity magazine for his AR-15, then by all means conservatives are not going to dictate that magazines must not be less than 30 rounds. No, a conservative will say "Go ahead and use a 10 round mag, if it tickles your fancy."
But liberals want to control others. They are control freaks because of conceit or some other trait of a small mind.

Liberals want to get large capacity magazines off the market because there is no use for them other than mass-murder.