Connecticut bill proposes single shot
 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/201...122-R00-SB.htm

This is how insane it's getting

That has to be the stupid thing I have ever seen.

When will are cars be limited to 5mph?

Chances of this passing are the same as me winning the lottery. Am I the only one not buying into all the paranoia?

I... I don't... even... Connecticut... single... what the fuck?

I've given up on it. I've purchased what I need to and will just see how the chips fall when they do. I'd like to imagine that, much like other bills and legislation in government, this will be a lengthier process than people are imaging.

Pmags are getting up to $70 a piece on gunbroker :tsk: Sure wish I'd but up 1000 of them before this sh!t hit the fan, nice little profit to be made by individuals that's for sure. As long as my two brownells 10pk 30rd get sent out I'll be more than content.

This is where I'm at. I am very involved in politics. I do a lot.
That said... I've just about given up on my elected leaders. I'll do everything I can so they will be voted
out the first chance we get. What's going to happen is going to happen. I will not turn in any firearm I have nor will I register any of them.

I have plenty of everything I need

:facepalm:

And those yelling to pass this bill are likely walking around with tshirts printed with scenes from Columbine and Newtown...

Interesting.

So, the discussion has turned to how many rounds is sufficient for gun owners and the legislators. Obviously, they'll settle somewhere between 120 and 1.

Would any of you object if you could only have a magazine that holds 15 rounds or less? Any of you that aren't, you know, end-of-the-world types?

I would object to ANY round limitations.

I'll throw you a line.... Even if we DID make all magazines over 5 rounds illegal.... there are MILLIONS on MILLIONS of magazines in circulation presently that hold 10/15/50 rounds. Making it illegal ONLY forces law abiding citizens from owning carrying them. Criminals that intend to cause harm will not follow that law.
Once again, law abiding people are put at a disadvantage
You want to force citizens to face off against heavily armed criminals and only give them 1 bullet?

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

It is a highly emotional situation. What else is to be expected.

I would object. Kneejerk reactions to magazine capacity, weapon attachments, and gun registration (fingerprinting and photograph) will not accomplish anything.

Why is it that when the right argues emotionally regarding taxation or pro-life matters, they are extremists and "crazed" and yet when the left does it, it's completely normal?

Piers Morgan has had a gun debate on his show almost every night this week... in EVERY one of the debates, he brings up Newton, Aurora, and vivid images on screen of people crying and dead bodies being wheeled out on stretchers... He does this because it pulls at emotions and gives him a virtually automatic win... Even the most sound of points will fall flat when Piers yells "look at the bodies!". And that is PRECISELY what is wrong with this gun debate. Politicians are taking advantage of these situations and looking to push ridiculous legislation through.

Badfast, I think it will do something. First, Newtown affected us all, and no one needs an assault rifle with 50 rounds.

How many times in your life have you have a gun fight with large magazine toting criminals? If a criminal has 50 rounds and you want to help, I'm sure you could shoot him with one of your 5,10, or 15 bullets...unless you're a really bad shot! (sorry!)

It's the discussion we're having that will lead to some accomplishment...not just with guns or ammo (which evidently may be infringed), but a whole host of other things.

Haven't you guys noticed more single wacko types using assault weapons to kill many people? I'm sure none of you are involved in any of that, but come on...

If you're living off the land, alone in Alaska and want an assault weapon, I understand, but to protect yourself at the local mall...isn't a handgun enough?

Are some of you guys getting shot at a lot? If so, I'll back off...kind of peaceful here in NJ!

Sorry buddy but this is WRONG. 3% of gun murders in the USA are the result of 223 or 556 rounds fired from AR15s. Did it just so happen that they were used in the school shootings? Yes BUT SO WERE PISTOLS. Don't forget that both of the recent mass shootings were with rifles and pistols as their side arms.. Remember the arsenal that the folks at Columbine had?

Removing assault rifles just goes to show the ignorance of this argument and that it has nothing to do with logic

According to who? You? Feinstein? Cuomo? Why do you or anyone else get to determine the "need" of someone else?? "Need" is in the eye of the individual, not the collective.

Gun violence is a different from taxation, pro-life matters, and how many boxes of Sudafed one can buy. Why do you give the emotionally charged arguments any legitimacy? Piers has had a gun debate everyday this week and I have watched every single one. And bringing Auroa and Newtown up is relevant to the theme and focus of his debate. There is alot wrong with this debate and it doesn't just rest on Pier's shoulders. There are a number of members that have been ill-representatives to the gun community aswell.

Chase, stop with the statistics. Both sides are equipped incredibly well with statistics. You will believe the ones that support your way of thinking and dismiss or find fault with the ones that don't support your views (don't worry, the other side is doing it also). And who cares if the guy had side arms? Did he use them?

I don't think any kneejerk reactions will solve anything. American's tend to believe that there is a solution to every problem. And the solution is always touted immediately without any proper thought, study, or analysis.

I don't think anyone here heads down to the mall with an AR. But why should a guy from AK be allowed a rifle because he chooses to live off the land, but I can't have one in my home? Should the guy that lives off the land have magazine capacity restrictions? If not, why?

It is not fair to say you only 5 or 10 rounds to stop a criminal that outguns you and needing more is an indication of a bad shot. A gunfight is a very traumatic ordeal and hitting a moving fighting target isn't as simple as point and shoot.

Magazine capacity has been one of the issues out front, but I don't think that is the issue that needs to be addressed.

I need 50 rounds for many competitions.

Can someone provide a statistical argument that banning law abiding citizens from having guns will reduce gun violence in this nation? Can ANYONE do that?

No, now move on.

you are expecting anti gun people to use facts? i mean other than "but guns kill people". lolz

and there is no finite amount of bullets that will eliminate a threat. pulling a story from the news, that woman who was protecting herself from a home invader emptied her revolver into his face and throat and he was able to get up and drive away. what if there were two? what if she missed?(dmax, people miss, adrenaline is a bitch) what if she hit lower and he was wearing some sort of armor? a law abiding citizen should be able to efficiently use as many rounds as it takes to eliminate the threat, whether its 1 shot or 100. if i want a belt fed machine gun to protect my property i should be able to get one without a hassle. i cant however due to unlawful gun legislation, so yea im done compromising.

and as far as the thought that "isnt a handgun enough"? if he has a stick? maybe. if he has an ak? no. why would someone want to put themself in a position to be at a disadvantage?