The Rude Pundit: Adam Lanza Fired Over 150 of These in Less Than Five Minutes
If you think that's okay and should remain legal, then there is something deeply, disturbingly fucked-up about you. And if you think it's okay and should remain legal and you're spending time today remembering the crucifixion of your god, then you are an ignorant piece of shit. Have a good Good Friday, you prick.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/03/adam-lanza-fired-over-150-of-these-in.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
...if it was relevant to anything.............................
...it's legal now, you need to get out more. 
The two on the right are the most common hunting rounds used for deer and elk.
brandish an assault weapon which can fire more rounds per minute than American machine guns could during WWII. Moreover, it's aok to add a magazine that holds 100 rounds of ammunition. When I was buying 24 Zertec D tablets yesterday after having provided my driver's license, I had to speak to a pharmacist who asked why I took these pills. Can one imagine what kind of answer might be given by a prospective buyer of an AR-15-type assault weapon if asked why he wanted an assault weapon? Why are you buying this assault weapon Mr X. Answer: I'm angry and depressed and egged on daily by a stochastic terrorist on the radio and I might want to act out my anger and just go into some theater and shoot up the place. O.K., no problem, here's your assault weapon. Ludicrous. Yes, hopefully this simile is indicative of just how ludicrous these entire scenarios are imo. 
and flame-throwers, not to mention 155mm howitzers? Could be wrong, but my recollection is the 30- and 50-caliber U.S. machine guns in WWII had a rate of fire in the 600-rounds per minute range whereas a German machine-gun could fire in the 1,500-rounds per minute range. But, what to hell: after 70 years, maybe I misremember. And the Newtown shooter reportedly fired only about +/- 150 rounds in that some five minutes.
militia? 
Amendment.
Response to meegbear (Original post)
Just imagine how many baskets she could make if she could toss one or two balls per second and could hold 30 basket balls at once.
Yes you have to be able to hit a target first. But a real shooting situation is nothing like that. For shooting up a school before the cops arrive, high rate of fire and large capacity. These "Quick clip change" claims based in You Tube Videos at shooting ranges have no relevance to mass shooting situations.
And finally:
http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/tag/high-capacity-magazines/
You really that target shooting at a range is in any way comparable to real world shootings? I'm not sure which is more appropriate:
Weak? 33 of 37.
"A seven-year-long study of gunshot victims observed an increasing incidence of gunshot victims who had been shot multiple times. The proportion of gunshot victims with two or more gunshot wounds grew from 26% in the early 80s to 43% by 1990[1]. Over the same span of years, semiautomatic handguns like the Beretta 92 and Glock 17 were replacing the .38 and .357 caliber revolvers that had been the most popular handguns in the United States in the preceding decade. The ammunition capacity in a fully-loaded handgun rose from typically six rounds to typically 15 rounds, and shooters exploited that advantage, shooting their victims multiple times and increasing the likelihood of fatal injury.
Parents Against Gun Violence researchers have identified 37 mass shooting incidents (excluding robberies and armed confrontations) involving more than 6 victims in the United States since 1945. In 35 of 37, the perpetrators carried semiautomatic weapons. In 33 of 37, the perpetrators carried magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. In the recent mass shootings in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown, the perpetrators sought out inordinately large magazines, including the 100-round drum magazine James Holmes used to shoot 70 people in a movie theater. These mass murderers clearly believe that a higher-capacity magazine will equate to more fatalities.
Opponents of the high-capacity magazine ban will point out that smaller capacity magazines can be rapidly exchanged, and will argue that such a ban will not slow or hinder a mass shooter. Online videos show expert shooters removing an empty magazine and replacing it with a fully loaded magazine with dazzling speed. Let’s remember, though, that these videos are impressive precisely because the reloading skills depicted are remarkably rare—it takes years of practice to achieve such proficiency, and the perpetrators of most mass shootings are young men with limited experience. There are cowboy trick shooters who can operate a single-action revolver or lever-action rifle with astonishing speed—but Annie Oakley doesn’t fit the profile of a mass shooter. We’re not seeking laws to stop Wild Bill; we’re seeking laws to stop Jared Loughner."
Case closed.
Shorthand? - but God help me on a gun thread if I post an image of the wrong bullet of used the term "Clip" when I meant "Magazine".
This reminds me of tobacco lobbyists from the 70's who would - with a carefully trained straight face would say "Correlation?, but that doesn't prove causation". Guess what - we know bullets fired from guns kill and we don't even need lab rats to figure that out.
More bullets fired.
More people hit.
More people hit with multiple bullets.
High capacity magazines preferred by mass killing shooters 33 to 4. Why? They work.
Why do I even bother?
And more cars with AC are involved in accidents now than in the past.
Quick, ban AC! Or is it automatic transmissions?!? Ban 'em!
That can easily be done with a single-shot rifle or shotgun. Never mind a bolt-action rifle.
And a load of buckshot would be as devastating as several shots from an AR-15.
That sick fucker. 
If only he could get the kids to sit still while he shot them.
You guys ARE sick.
This is being pushed by Democrats that have failed as a group to reign in the big banks, big oil, big pharma, the wealthy and their political influence, the Patriot Act, torture, war crimes, etc.
And passing a ban on "assault weapons" gives them the pretense of doing something when they are really doing nothing. trust me, they will be begging you and I for money and waving this piece of useless legislation as proof of how tough they are.
It's a farce. If semi automatic rifles that feed from detachable magazine are the problem, then ban semiautomatic rifles! No exceptions.
But are any of the politicians that are thinking the podium about gun control actually addressing the problem? NO!
The anti gun politicians that your side has been holding up as being serious about creating down on gun violence have been feeding you pablum fur a couple of decades now.
Not a one of them had dared to propose banning all semiautomatic rifles as a class. It's not even on the table. The entire political scene since Newtown has been theater feeding from moral outrage to buttress their own failures in pretty much all other political issues.
As to your other point, you are still talking about making massive changes to try to limit what is, statistically, a very minor problem.
Maximum political effort for minimal return. Yay.
are
You also seem to be trying to imply there is something inherently bad about that particular caliber, but you don't go into specifics.
I have "thousands of rounds of ammunition" in some 8 different calibers. It's usually much cheaper to buy in bulk, often cases of 1000 rounds. I probably have nearly 12,000 rounds on hand, ranging from .22LR to 8mm Mauser. What's the problem?
And the Rude Pundit is exactly what it says on the tin. So whaddya expect?
Thus the failure of ban on "assault weapons". Semiautomatic rifles that feed from detachable magazines would still be perfectly legal to buy and sell, new and used, under Feinstein's proposed 2013 legislation.
This is an objective fact that is not debatable.
Replacing an AR-15 with a Mini-14 would not have saved a single soul.
Cumstain killed 26 people in 5 minutes. 5 per minute. Helpless, trapped children with no place to run, no place to hide, no protection, and unable to fight back. Could he have done that if he had "only" 77 rounds? Instead of 154?
Of course he could have.
How about 38 rounds?
Of course he could have.
How about 10-round magazines?
Of course he could have.
He also could have done that with anything that shoots a self-contained cartridge. Anything. Revolver. Pistol. Shotgun. Bolt-action rifle. Lever-action rifle.
Nothing in proposed legislation would have prevented him from firing 5 rounds a minute into a crowd of helpless children, dammit. He picked his location well, damn him.
Fucker. Cowardly, brutal, fucker.
