Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You can read about the SAFE act here.

You may wish to do prior to watching the video.

-----------------

Also, TIL we went to Iraq to fight for the second amendment in the US. Who knew?

So just another regular person complaining about something he doesn't like.

This is really old. SAFE's really horrendous. What more do you want?

Why does the fact that he is a vet lend more weight to what he thinks? I think people try to throw around "Someone in the military said this, so we must follow what they say" idea school of thought to much and dot really try to hear. I mean this a to no offense to the men in the military, but to often to i hear that school of thought. If someone else said "My right is more important the your dead" they would be flogged in the street.

I can't see the video because I'm at work, is he Iraqi, or is he a veteran of Iraq?

He is a veteran of iraq.

The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.

I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.

 Fafnir wrote:
The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.

I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.

The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.

If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?

Why do you even need a rifle for self-defense?

That is what im thinking.

 d-usa wrote:
So just another regular person complaining about something he doesn't like.

Well, first he wrapped himself up in the flag real good, but yeah.

I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?

Because the ammo's useless without the gun, and tacking the $25 - $50 background check fee (down here; it's probably higher in New York) onto every single ammo purchase (which may not be more than $25 in the first place) is remarkably dumb and unnecessary.

As for the round limit? Most modern pistols aren't designed around a 7-round mag. You artificially shorten mags, you most often run into feed problems. So if you ever do need to use the gun in a self-defense scenario, there's a better chance you run into legislation-induced feedway stoppages (jams). It is also not at all difficult to locate any number of cases in which it takes far more than seven shots to incapacitate a threat. And I'm talking about seven actual hits, not the expected number of misses that will occur.

But getting back to the "most guns aren't designed around..." point, it's also an artificial limit on what's available to the consumer, because most manufacturers aren't going to adjust their production solely to ensure legality in one state, and a state that's rather harsh on gun purchasers in the first place (meaning that there won't be as much demand, and hence fewer sales, already). The Glock 19's an immensely popular CCW weapon, for example, and it runs a 15 round magazine.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?

I get the point of high capacity bans to a point, but laws for smaller magazines do seem a bit dumb to me. 7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me. But magazines can be dirt cheap, and somebody going on a spree with ten 7 round mags is not doing a lot less carnage than someone with ten 9 round mags.

The whole "why does him being a vet matter" question stands though.

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.

I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.

The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.

Canada has both of these, except our mag limit is 4 or 5 in semi auto's and we have a whole separate license for purchasing ammo. Ammo Requisition license, aw yeah.

Why does the fact that he is a vet lend more weight to what he thinks? I think people try to throw around "Someone in the military said this, so we must follow what they say" idea school of thought to much and dot really try to hear. I mean this a to no offense to the men in the military, but to often to i hear that school of thought. If someone else said "My right is more important the your dead" they would be flogged in the street.

Being a vet shows that the person puts the whole above the part, and has accepted the moral responsibility that comes with the power of having one's franchise, to butcher Heinlein.

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you need a backround check for guns, why not ammo?
I will admit, I do not know much about guns, but for self defense, why is a seven round limit bad?

I get the point of high capacity bans to a point, but laws for smaller magazines do seem a bit dumb to me. 7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me. But magazines can be dirt cheap, and somebody going on a spree with ten 7 round mags is not doing a lot less carnage than someone with ten 9 round mags.

The whole "why does him being a vet matter" question stands though.

The whole reason? Because he is a vet, americans like to put to much emphasis on military service, to the point where so much criticizing a vet(even for something non-military related stuff, like hitting on your GF) is considered wrong. I remember the saying "they fought for your right to criticize them, so stop criticizing them"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:


Being a vet shows that the person puts the whole above the part, and has accepted the moral responsibility that comes with the power of having one's franchise, to butcher Heinlein.

In a public forum, his opinion should matter just as much as anyone elses, he has one vote, like the rest of us, try for an articulate argument, not "Im a vet, so my opinion means more"

Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.

Ammo's useless without a gun? What about guns that are illegally purchased or hand built? Sure you could buy the ammo illegally too, but why do that when its so much simpler to just go to the shop and buy some?

 Jihadin wrote:
I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider

I thought camel spiders were harmless?

 Jihadin wrote:
I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider

The proper use for a Beretta, long range bug swatter. Though frankly as big as camel spiders get, no shame from shooting those nightmarish monsters.

As to using a rifle for self defense there's all sorts of reasons. Thankfully no one has to justify them to you or anybody else. Since I am a kind soul, I will however provide some examples. The most common defensive rifle in the United States is the venerable and extremely popular AR-15, it's ergonomics are comfortable for shooters of all sizes, it's easy to handle, doesn't weigh much and has extremely simple operation, good accuracy and importantly for female shooters despite what Joe "Give'em Both Barrels" Biden might tell you the recoil is extremely manageable (I would happily compare a 5.56/.223 to a .22, but I'm a large man who shoots high caliber rifles on the regular.) For the home defender the AR-15 is a cheap, effective and lethal package that provides enough gun for any given situation that might come through your door at night with ill intent towards you and yours. A standard capacity thirty round magazine means more then enough ammo to handle said nuisance and his friends. There are numerous examples of a rifle platform's use for defensive purposes. If they weren't good for defending yourself, why would the average LEO have one in his car eh?

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/ar-15-rifle-the-king-of-home-defense/#axzz2Y27ii1T8

 Ratbarf wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The law itself seems pretty reasonable from the link Ouze gave.

I'm amazed how people manage to get incredibly riled up about some sensible gun-control legislation, but are completely passive about the freaking NSA.

The seven-round mag limit's awfully absurd, as is the background check for ammo purchase requirement.

ther
Canada has both of these, except our mag limit is 4 or 5 in semi auto's and we have a whole separate license for purchasing ammo. Ammo Requisition license, aw yeah.

You also ration health care, live in igloos, think Molsons is actual beer and otherwise live in a hostile hell hole not suitable for human life. (Which explains why Quebcois live there)

Honestly I can achieve a high, accurate rate of fire with my M1 Garand, a rifle that's well over 60 years old (my individual rifle is over 60 years old, the design is older) and it only has an eight shot internal clip, I'm pretty proficient with my lever action rifles too, and they side load into a tube. Mag bans and limits are just a little goofy in my opinion. Especially for self defense, the primary effect is putting the citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal. It doesn't help or stop anything or anyone. It's an illusory feel good measure. Like most "common sense" gun control. Restricting the law abiding: Yeah that'll stop those bad guys!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I always use a rifle in self defense...mainly M4 .....used my 9mm once....it was a big freaking camel spider

I thought camel spiders were harmless?

You have an odd definition of harmless my good sir.

I live in Australia. I know what a dangerous spider is. The biggest ones we have can hunt and track wild boar, and they hunt in packs!

Camel spiders, apart from not really being spiders, are more annoying than dangerous from everything I've seen.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.

That's cute, but not really how it works. The notion that you're only going to need a couple shots to stop a threat in a self-defense situation is frequently a Hollywood myth rather than reality. You could get lucky and hit the CNS on your first shot, but that's not often how it goes. Keep in mind that Georgia woman who put six into a guy's chest and head and he still got up and drove off after invading her home.

Ammo's useless without a gun? What about guns that are illegally purchased or hand built? Sure you could buy the ammo illegally too, but why do that when its so much simpler to just go to the shop and buy some?

It's not so much simpler now, is it? Anyway, were it me, I'd just head over the border and buy some at a Jersey Walmart rather than pay an extra $50 every time I wanted to go to the range. Sucks for people living upstate, that's for sure, but that ain't where the gun crime is, anyway.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.

Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.

Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?

We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I live in Australia. I know what a dangerous spider is. The biggest ones we have can hunt and track wild boar, and they hunt in packs!

Camel spiders, apart from not really being spiders, are more annoying than dangerous from everything I've seen.

Maybe, maybe not, but any arachnid that size is getting a free bullet from me so I can skip finding out.

We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.

I can't argue that....being in Germany....Canada.....drinking there compare to here....

 Ratbarf wrote:
We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.

Join me for an Arrogant Bastard Ale Rat?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or for hunting for that matter. What's the phrase, "if you can't do it with seven then you're sure as hell won't be able to do it with ten"? If its really so much of an issue about defense then upgrade to a larger caliber or get a revolver.

Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover? They could wait till you run dry with your seven round magazine then rush you, it's not that hard. What if winging the assailant isn't good enough to stop the threat? There are cases where it's taken multiple HEAD SHOTS to incapacitate an aggressor. I blame Hollywood for this silliness really I do.

Here's another good question if seven round mags are so great, why don't cops use them?

Because police are more likely to be in a gunfight where there are multiple assailants shooting from cover than your average person who buys a gun for self-defense?

The situation you described is far more Hollywood than anything else in this thread.
How often do home invasions turn into running gunfights ala Mr. & Mrs. Smith?

I guess I'll take the criticism for this one, so fire away.

High capacity magazines are for self defense from others with 30 round + magazines. The second amendment to our Constitution is in place for the citizens to defend themselves from a corrupt and unjust government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or burglers. The founders, who had just rebelled against a tyrant, understood the need for the tools to be in place if another should come to power. The federal government is telling us, "You have no right to defend yourselves from us."

There you have it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or a bigot or whatever the hell else you want. I've heard it before, and I'm sure I'll hear it until the day I die, or am proven right.