NJ moves to only allow 5 round mags ...Introducing new legislation

[Uzi]

Nobody needs 30 rounds (turns to 20 rounds). Nobody needs 20 rounds (turns to 10 rounds). Nobody needs 10 rounds (turns to 5 rounds). Nobody needs 5 rounds (turns to 2 1/2 rounds). Nobody needs 2 1/2 rounds (turns to 1 1/4 rounds). Nobody needs dangerous ammunition capable of shooting out of a rifled barrel (confiscates all guns).

 

[Cooolone]

Can't wait till Free Speech is limited to 5 words or less!

Or maybe you only get to Vote 5 times in your life, so chose wisely!

Simply amazing!

 

[Edwardteach72]

i wish people still had the balls to tar and feather these thieving politicians. they steal our rights without any repercussions. its insane to me that people allow this to happen. we almost made the leap to the next level in 2013 with the unsafe. we had numbers, we had motivation but we stopped short unfortunately.

You mean you wish other people had the balls?

 

[Celt]

You mean you wish other people had the balls?

Sorry if I've offended you to cause you to try and call out my comment, as I thought it was pretty clear.

I'll elaborate.

The reality is that if one man stands up to take action he will be quickly struck down, if 10 men stand up they will be quickly struck down, if 100 men stand up they will likely even be struck down. But if thousands of people were to stand up they have a better chance of achieving their goal.

So when I say I wish people still had the balls, that means every Patriotic person even women. The problem is, that we have been so far removed from our founding fathers, and so conditioned to never put our own asses on the line that it would take even more extreme actions of the government to wake us up from our slumber.

The government has gotten smarter, that's why they've been using incrementalism for the past 100 plus years. They know that if they keep a slow and steady pace the average citizen that has a mortgage, a job, a wife and 2.5 kids will never risk anyting for fear of what might happen to his family if he were locked up. It would take aggressive action such as mass, rapid confiscation for citizens to stand up and take action together "have the balls".

 

[Marine Cpl]

Back then the average person had nothing to lose. There grew and hunted for their own food. Today we need a job to buy food. Law enforcement wasn't the same back then too. Only capitol crimes were enforced. It's not like today where everything is illegal.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Back then the average person had nothing to lose. There grew and hunted for their own food. Today we need a job to buy food. Law enforcement wasn't the same back then too. Only capitol crimes were enforced. It's not like today where everything is illegal.

How else do you control the masses? Discon, is the most vaguely written law, so that police have a reason to arrest someone when they can't find anything else.

 

[nortatoga]

No. The argument was that coming up with the number 7 to put in a 10 rd magazine and not the magazine capacity itself was arbitrary according to the 2 corrupt judges.

If only 5 round magazines were legal, then loading only 3 would be an arbitrary number and the 5 rd magazine law would stand.

It was a bullshit decision since one can argue that under the same logic that choosing a 10 rd magazine instead of a 15 rd magazine is arbitrary under the same grounds. The refusal for SCOTUS to take the case is more proof of their corruption.

@nortatoga

The SCOTUS not taking a case proves corruption?

There are 9 justices on the Court, Four we know will rule against anything firearms related Right?

Five that MIGHT rule in favor, But One of them may not be a sure thing (Kennedy?) So not taking a case is not a bad thing til we get another seat or two!

Would you not want the odds more in our favor?

 

[Marine Cpl]

The SCOTUS not taking a case proves corruption?

There are 9 justices on the Court, Four we know will rule against anything firearms related Right?

Five that MIGHT rule in favor, But One of them may not be a sure thing (Kennedy?) So not taking a case is not a bad thing til we get another seat or two!

Would you not want the odds more in our favor?

Yes. Because they are supposed to rule as per the Constitution instead of party lines and corruption.

But we both know that isn't the case right? I think that right there proves the corruption.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes. Because they are supposed to rule as per the Constitution instead of party lines and corruption.

But we both know that isn't the case right?

In a perfect world, I agree! But what I posted is how it is today!

Do you think both sides don't abide by the Constitution? If one side rules yes Yes and the other rules No how can they both be ruling against the Constitution?

 

[Marine Cpl]

In a perfect world, I agree! But what I posted is how it is today!

Do you think both sides don't abide by the Constitution? If one side rules yes Yes and the other rules No how can they both be ruling against the Constitution?

Both sides don't or else we wouldn't have had Heller.

 

[nortatoga]

Both sides don't or else we wouldn't have had Heller.

You don't even know how the Courts work with a comment like THAT!

 

[Marine Cpl]

You don't even know how the Courts work with a comment like THAT!

I don't have the time to break it down to you since I'm at work and would have to quote some things from their decision. But they define the 2A. Define words within in. Define the word militia and then start adding their personal feelings about it not being an unlimited right, not covering concealed weapons as if concealing your weapon isn't a factor in self defense which they said it covers as well, and other things. You can't have it both ways and say that the 2A is for militia use and self defense and then say it's not unlimited in regards to self defense and it doesn't cover concealed carry. Concealed carry is one of the most important factors to self defense if self defense is indeed covered by the Constitution.

Did you actually read it? The last paragraphs are an abomination based on personal feelings and not what the Constitution says at all.

They could've stuck all of D.C's gun laws once and for all with the strike of a pen with every state having to follow suit.

 

[@thewheels]

I am down with a good old fashion trial by the people and public lynching. I still believe in due process.

And storming the castle?

 

[Phauxtoe]

the "SLIPPERY SLOPE" is a Real thing!

 

[SomeSoldier]

And storming the castle?

Written in the constitution how could I be against it.

 

[@thewheels]

In a perfect world, I agree! But what I posted is how it is today!
Has nothing to do with a perfect world - it's how the founders defined the functions and limitations of SCOTUS. The way it is today is wrong. It's corrupted and they know it. And we know it.
Do you think both sides don't abide by the Constitution? If one side rules yes Yes and the other rules No how can they both be ruling against the Constitution?
Both sides are guilty of pooch screwing historically speaking. Just because they got one right in the past that you happen to agree with doesn't absolve them of their past failures or even necessarily justify the decision du jour or make it any more constitutional

 

[eagleridge357]

It's all a matter of how this is read. You could have a single mag that holds only 5 rds or you could have 5 mags that hold more than 5 rds but are round in shape, therefore possess (5) round shaped mags that hold more than 5 rds. haha

 

[Marine Cpl]

It's all a matter of how this is read. You could have a single mag that holds only 5 rds or you could have 5 mags that hold more than 5 rds but are round in shape, therefore possess (5) round shaped mags that hold more than 5 rds. haha

Correct. These would be legal as long as you have no more than 5. I understand.