TexasCHLforum.com

glocklvr wrote:I hope someone reminds these liberal idiots about what happened during the election following the origional assault weapons ban

Wouldn't matter. They got their ban, didn't they? We're lucky it wasn't made permanent.

Dear Congressperson:

I'm physically handicapped, elderly and disabled, when my home is invaded by 5 home invaders, how many bullets do I need in a magazine to survive against 5 home invaders, keeping in mind I can't reload fast with only one hand which is arthritic? Especially at a time adrenaline takes control of me during the invasion causing my hand to shake, and I'm trying to "bob and weave and duck for cover", as fast as an old man can, (I guess I'll hit the floor, hope I don't break a hip)

Also, which are those "magic bullets" that are always one-shot-stops?

Also, where can I get some of those "Smart Bullets" the army has, those with the "built-in guidance system"so each of the bullets in reduced capacity magazine finds the exact spot on each attacker regardless of my hand shaking and them moving?

Isn't reducing elderly disabled people's magazine capacity a violation of "equal protection under the law" in favor of 4 or 5 home invaders, to the detriment of the elderly disabled person?

Also, who do I contact to file an Americans with Disabilities complaint against legislators trying to assure my death in my own home by causing me to call a "time out" for 5 minutes while I reload ... do robber respect "time outs" .. do I have to make that "T" sign with my hands like they do in sports? I hope not, I only have 1 hand, it's arthritic and I can't do the T-sign ...
=================================================================================================

Idiots ...

I'm buying a freezer and filling it with ice cream, before they pass a law because THEY DECIDE I don't "need" it.

Edited to add +( I just sent a version of this to the ACLU )

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to defend oneself against a lot of people very quickly."

There. I de-Lautenberged the quote.

My "shot" at it:

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to reload less often."

AndyC wrote:

lkd wrote:Everybody said that about the original AWB.

SecedeTX wrote:Never under estimate the anti-gun crowd. I lived through the first round and owned an "evil" assualt rifle at the time. It was a weird time in the US, and I don't want to repeat it.

No compromise on this issue - NONE

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Lautenberg said in a written statement announcing his plans.

It's a cartridge, not a bullet - dummy.
It's a magazine, not a clip - dummy.

If you can't get the terms right, how can we trust you to make good law? Oh, wait; that's right, you never have - dummy!

I agree with you; however, the dummies who elect and re-elect these other dummies could care less about terminology.

I'm trying to find hi cap PEZ dispensers ...before they are banned, the only purpose is to rot teeth faster, no one "needs" them

They hold more PEZ than standard capacity ones.



If I can't find some, I might need more dispensers so I don't need to reload, I mean recharge each magazine, I mean dispenser as often ...

AndyC wrote:It's a cartridge, not a bullet - dummy.
It's a magazine, not a clip - dummy.

If you can't get the terms right, how can we trust you to make good law? Oh, wait; that's right, you never have - dummy!

Maybe they'll use the term "clips" in their bill. Then we can continue to use high-capacity magazines legally.

RPB wrote:I'm trying to find hi cap PEZ dispensers ...before they are banned, the only purpose is to rot teeth faster, no one "needs" them

They hold more PEZ than standard capacity ones.



If I can't find some, I might need more dispensers so I don't need to reload, I mean recharge each magazine, I mean dispenser as often ...

Remember what happened to "Super Size?"

If this bill ever passed, all the mental midgets who commit
these crimes would simply charge a dozen of the 10 round magazines,
perfect their reloading times, and still kill a bunch of innocents.

Sheesh.

SIA

I'll have to carry four Glock 26s, instead of just two.
Holster sales to law abiding citizens might increase ..
I'll need bigger pants, and a longer belt ...
I'll probably lose weight walking with the extra ounces under my belt I'll need to carry

Yeah, I've been thinking of another hi-cap magazine. Less reloading at the range. Maybe I should hurry.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:If this bill ever passed, all the mental midgets who commit
these crimes would simply charge a dozen of the 10 round magazines,
perfect their reloading times, and still kill a bunch of innocents.

Sheesh.

SIA

Or use a 10 rds 12gage magazine with 00 buck shots!

Beiruty wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:If this bill ever passed, all the mental midgets who commit
these crimes would simply charge a dozen of the 10 round magazines,
perfect their reloading times, and still kill a bunch of innocents.

Sheesh.

SIA

Or use a 10 rds 12gage magazine with 00 buck shots!

There you go!
A reasonable gun owner

TxLobo wrote:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/0 ... ces_m.html

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said he would introduce the measure to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on clips that feed more than 10 rounds at a time.

"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Lautenberg said in a written statement announcing his plans. He said he would file the bill when the Senate returns to session later this month.

Lautenberg is an idiot. The NYPD reports about a 28% hit rate in deadly force incidents. That means that, on average, a 33 round magazine would allow you to hit 8 bad guys once each or 4 bad guys twice or 2 bad guys four times each. What Lautenberg doesn't understand is that, if you are indiscriminately firing into a crowd without concern for where your bullets go, you have a much higher hit rate than someone who is specifically trying to target one or two individuals in a high stress life-or-death situation.

even if the whole world banned all weapons ever made, humans are able to fashion weapons for their defense. Criminals are capae of inventing theirs even in Max jails. Terrorists are building theirs too. Get the point?