I have a question for the Hunters and the gun owners of DU. I really want to know

[jillan]

do you need a magazine that holds as many bullets as the one that Loughner had?

I do not know the first thing about guns. I was not raised around them, and am one of these people that stay as far away from guns as possible...
and my question is sincere. I respect the constitution and your right to own a gun. I'm very ignorant in this area.

The reason I ask is because of the discussion that is going on in the news. Rep McCarthy and others are saying that the only people that need a magazine are the ones that are going to kill people. Is that true? If you went hunting, would you have a magazine with you - such as the one that Loughner had?

Thanks for educating me.

[madokie]

1. not a hunter but I'm chime in

No they don't need those types of clips

[Xenotime]

99. Exactly.

Something like this should not be legal.

[RSillsbee]

101. Why not?

how often are they actually used in crime? Did you even know such magazines existed last week?

[DrDan]

2. I am neither - but I don't think this is the type gun one uses while hunting

this is for "self-defense"

just a novice's comment

[Deep13]

20. Or a "race gun" for timed combat simulation sports. nt

[cleanhippie]

3. It all comes down to "who will determine what a persons NEEDS are?"

Maybe I don't "need" a high capacity magazine, but I do not know if MY "need" is the same as someone elses "need".

Putting emotion aside for just a minute, remember that this is a Constitutional Right we are talking about here. Trying to apply a "need" on a Constitutional Right is a slippery slope indeed.

[Gamow]

6. Do you need an ICBM? How about 10 lbs of C4? The right to bear arms HAS to have some limits...

So there ultimately must to be someone to determine personal needs.

[James48]

9. You mean

I can't own an ICBM?

Where is that written?

[thereismore]

10. Or an RPG. I could be convinced that I need one. nt

[cleanhippie]

11. Nice strawman.

Always with the apples to oranges comparisons.

[Gamow]

14. "Strawman" is not a "get out of any argument" card. Weapons of war are EXACTLY the debate. nt

[cleanhippie]

29. When one is ready to have the debate without disingenuous misrepresentation

then I am also ready for the debate. Until then, strawman arguments like that deserve no response.

[Gamow]

30. Okay then Mr. "Deserve my argument" where is the line between personal arms and weapons or war? nt

[Statistical]

35. Automatic weapons.

Which are regulated under the 1938 National Firearm Act.

[cleanhippie]

36. Not sure, you tell me.

Not sure there is one that can be defined.

You may be surprised to know that you CAN own many military grade items.

[slackmaster]

60. National Firearms Act of 1934

Look it up.

[Atypical Liberal]

168. Weapons of war.

First of all, the second amendment is ABOUT weapons of war.

But it is generally accepted that it protects small arms appropriate for infantry use.

It is not generally accepted that is protects explosives, crew-served weapons, or other non-discriminatory weapons.

[RSillsbee]

93. A glock pistol is not a "weapon of war"

do you need a magazine that holds as many bullets as the one that Loughner had?

Do I need one? No I wouldn't have any use for one and I wouldn't pay that price.

Having said that I don't care if you own one. I don't see that they are especially deadly certainly not any more than a standard (15-17 round) capacity magazine.

Look, please, please believe me when I tell you you are being sold a bill of goods. people are already snapping up high capacity magazines behind this shooting. I expect that manufacturers are taking note and gearing up for a run and I expect that the near term result will be that millions of the little buggers will end up on the street Again, if you want to spend that much money on something that makes your pistol damn near impossible to conceal knock your self out.

And in the end we'll have one more gun law, Dems will take yet another hit in the next election and nothing will change because people don't use these magazines to kill a bunch of people anyway

Why don't you just go vote for Sarah Palin now?

[Tsiyu]

110. ...

:rofl:

fear Fear FEAR FEAR!!!!!




:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

112. Does it mattter why the magazines end up in cirulation?

google the great toilet paper shortage

[hedgehog]

49. It's not a straw man when a lot of Americans believe that owning an automatic

weapon is in the same category as owning some C4.

[Statistical]

55. Automatic weapons are regulated under the 1938 National Firearms Act.

They are almost non existent in civilian world, new ones can't be purchased by civilians, and no automatic weapon has been used in a mass shooting in the last 30 years.

[Xenotime]

84. You are WRONG!

North Hollywood shootout happened February 28, 1997 and they were using full auto weapons.

[Statistical]

91. The only people who died in North Hollywood shootout were the criminals. n/t

[Jenoch]

102. Those were illegal weapons

used in that shooting. The point is, is that crimes committed using automatic weapons is extremely rare. The only other incident of automatic weapon use by criminals that I can think of is the SLA shootout and fire in 1974. There too only the bad guys were killed. The SLA had converted M1 carbines.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. That's 1934, not 1938. N/T

[slackmaster]

61. It is in the same category

National Firearms Act.

[RSillsbee]

94. C4 Has industrial uses

And can be purchased (for those purposes) by civilian licensed to own it

[ZombieHorde]

92. A strawman argument is an argument against an altered or invented claim.

For example: (I will use a new subject)

Claim - People should eat more bran.

Strawman counterargument - If people replace all of their carbs with bran, they will miss out on some really important nutrients.

The counterargument misrepresents the original claim.

Gamow's introduction of new weapons was to demonstrate already existing limitations on which weapons citizens can own. I don't think Gamow was misrepresenting anyone's argument.

[Bigmack]

15. There are limits on "free speech"...

why not limits on weapons?

We all agree nobody needs an ICBM, right? Some think nobody needs a weapon.

Everything from there is just negotiation.

I draw the line at a mag that doesn't extend beyond the end of the grip.

[cleanhippie]

33. What limits?

As far as I know, the only limit is making a direct threat to someone (and that is called assault). So unless the excercise of a right infringes on anothers rights, there is no reason to limit that right.
How does a person owning a high capacity magazine affect you in any way?

[Bigmack]

45. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is the court...

language, but the general guide is inflammatory speech. You may not directly incite a riot or encourage an angry mob to injure someone. You may not directly provoke someone into a fight, and you may face penalties for spreading falsehoods about someone or for distributing literature that the courts have declared to be "obscene."

Lots of other restrictions, too:

We do not necessarily have a right to hold a large rally at midnight outside a hospital. While we may have the right to march in a parade or on a city street, we may not have the right to decide the exact time or route. The government has the authority to make reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of certain speech activities if there is a compelling reason to do so. In general school administrators do not allow nonstudents to distribute literature, hold rallies, or engage in any other form of expressive activity on school grounds. Under federal law, private landowners historically have had the right to prevent anyone from speaking or demonstrating on their property. A person refusing to leave after being asked to do so could be prosecuted for trespassing.

Let's also not forget the "free speech" zones established far away from public figures to keep them from having to see unpleasant "free speech". I hate them, but they're legal.

Long mags don't hurt me personally - I only need a couple of rounds to hit what I aim at - but then government has to protect the society in general, not just me.

[RSillsbee]

96. I only need a couple of rounds to hit what I aim at

What if you have a bunch of things that need aiming at?

[Bigmack]

139. Then you're in Afghanistan, and you need ...

more mags. Lots more.

[RSillsbee]

163. Or you're in South Chicago

And you just won the home invasion lottery

[Oilwellian]

58. Perhaps you should ask those who were recently mowed down by one

A high capacity magazine is used strictly for killing people. There is no other "need" for it. Ask any cop. The words "well regulated" were put in the Second Amendment for very good reason. I'm a gun owner who's educated enough to understand why our founding fathers included those words.

[Statistical]

59. Cops use magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Police Departments specifically went to semi-auto from revolvers because of the protection provided by carrying more rounds.

The bill would ban all magazines >10 rounds not just 30 round super mags. It also would except Police.

So why should a cop who has backup and other weapons (shotguns, assault rifles, etc) have access to 15, 18, 20 round magazines while a homeowner facing multiple intruders and no backup be limited to 10 rounds?

[DonP]

68. Well regulated does not mean what you think it does

In 18th century common usage, "Well Regulated" meant well trained and well practiced, not controlled the way many people mistakenly believe today. There are numerous examples of this usage in other documents from the period.

[shadowrider]

83. Ok, What does "well regulated" mean? You appear to know n/t

[Jenoch]

105. "Well regulated"

means disciplined or well trained. It doesn't mean what you think it means. In the Federalist Papers Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training.

[Riftaxe]

124. Predicated on the assumption

that every bullet leaving the barrel is for killing people. Which an outright falsehood.

[Statistical]

137. Actually you are not. Try reading some historical references, or cheat and read Heller v. DC. n/t

[beevul]

141. But do you know what they mean?

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Do you read them in line with the preamble, as a restriction on GOVERNMENT, or do you read them as "authorizing a "well regulated militia" or some other similar nonsense?

[donquijoterocket]

69. I'm

generally amused at the fine distinction gunners try to draw with their definitions of different weapons.To be sure Civilians have little opportunity to own or access fully automatic weapons which makes no difference to the victim of a semiauto with a cyclic rate of fire almost identical to the full auto only the trigger mechanism is different, and the assault rifles personal infantry weapons of most of the worlds militaries are semiautomatic as was this gunners handgun.Granted his weapon was no assault weapon unless you don't consider shooting another human- the only real purpose to which this handgun in this configuration could be put- to be an assault.The gunners will do their usual duck, dodge and dance with things like "definitions" mostly to avoid any realistic debate about realistic regulations for weapons of any sort especially with an eye toward keeping them out of the hands of the unstable.Now to sending positive energy to Rep. Giffords and her family.

[Statistical]

70. cyclic rate is a useless stat.

controlled rate of fire is what matters.

the controlled rate of fire for fully automatic or select fire weapons is much higher than that of civilian semi-autos.

Nobody is dancing. Banning large capacity magazines didn't reduce crime the last time we tried. It isn't going to change it now. Banning for the sake of banning is useless.


"the assault rifles personal infantry weapons of most of the worlds militaries are semiautomatic"
Maybe in the 1920s. Seriously the term assault rifle refers to automatic weapon. Specifically assault rifles are a class of service rifles using a lower powered cartridge than the battle rifles of WWII. No army in the world, not even the poorest on the planet fields semi-auto rifles for their military.

As an example. The M1 was last semi-auto service rifle used by US armed forces.


The AK-47 was one of the first assault rifles, and it is the most common one today. What do you think the "47" means. Hint: development began in 1947.

[Euromutt]

135. "Assault rifle," by definition, entails selective fire

<...> and the assault rifles personal infantry weapons of most of the worlds militaries are semiautomatic <...>

I doubt there's every been a point where the bulk of infantry rifles were semi-automatic. Maybe 50 or 60 years ago, maybe. But the most commonly used rifles for the last three decades of the Cold War were variants of the AK and the FAL, both of which are basically selective fire weapons, barring semi-auto-only variants of the FAL like the British L1A1 and Canadian C1. And those few countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, all of which used to issue semi-auto-only FALs, have since converted to selective fire assault rifles like the L85 (UK), Steyr AUG (Australia) and Diemaco C7 (Canada and the Netherlands).

Granted his weapon was no assault weapon unless you don't consider shooting another human- the only real purpose to which this handgun in this configuration could be put- to be an assault.

Speaking from my own experience in the Dutch armed forces, during my service period the Glock 17 replaced the Browning Hi-Power as the standard-issue sidearm. The 19 is the "compact" version of the 17; both are mechanically identical and both chambered for 9x19mm. The doctrine in most armed forces where handguns are concerned is that handguns are defensive weapons, and last-ditch ones at that. If you're reduced to firing a handgun in anger, its primary use is for suppressive fire: you fire off enough shots at the enemy to make him take cover, and then you run and try to find some friendlies who have a machine gun.

And shooting another human is not by definition assault, if the other human is attempting to inflict physical harm on you or a third party.

The gunners will do their usual duck, dodge and dance with things like "definitions" <...>

Given your previous sentence with its ad hoc redefinition of "assault weapon," you're hardly in a position to accuse others of playing semantics.

[beevul]

142. Uh no. Thats flat out false.

"the assault rifles personal infantry weapons of most of the worlds militaries are semiautomatic"

No sir, I'm afraid you are flat out wrong.

Most are fully automatic.

Cite where you got this information, and I'll be happy to cite mine.

[Atypical Liberal]

170. Of course.

why not limits on weapons?

We all agree nobody needs an ICBM, right? Some think nobody needs a weapon.

Everything from there is just negotiation.

I draw the line at a mag that doesn't extend beyond the end of the grip.

And in fact there areb limits on weapons.

But before you can get into any discussion about what sorts of limits and regulations are appropriate, you first have to agree on what the purpose of the second amendment is. If you can't agree on what the second amendment is supposed to do, how can you decide what weapons are appropriate for civilian ownership?

[Tippy]

28. Big difference between Needs and Wants....

The gun industry needs to sell lots of guns to make money. High capacity clips were banned under Federal Law until Bush did not renew the bann...

[cleanhippie]

37. And who determines that difference?

You? Me? Yes, thats the correct answer. We BOTH determine that difference for ourselves.

[hedgehog]

52. Tippy - I think your statement about the role of the gun industry

deserves its own OP.

[DonP]

57. No they weren't

First, only the manufacture of new magazines (not clips - that's something else entirely) was banned and there were always plenty of standard 20 and 30 round magazines available that were manufactured prior to the law.

Second, Bush had nothing to do with the ban lapsing. It was not up for renewal since it had a 10 year sunset clause. In fact Bush said he'd sign it if it reached his desk. Congress couldn't come close to getting enough votes to re-enact the law, even on a short term basis.

Third, people like you do a great job of selling guns for the industry. Keep demanding bans on the most popular rifles in America today and watch the sales soar. In the meantime watch the Dems in congress get even smaller and smaller. Great strategy!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. False as to fact

1) Its magazines, not clips
2) New manufacture/importation was banned. Ones in inventory and private hands were quite legal

[GreenStormCloud]

87. Congress did not renew the ban.

A bill to renew the ban never was placed on Bush's desk. A President can't rule by edict and declare a ban. BTW - The AWB died a quiet bipartisan death in congress.

[RSillsbee]

98. High capacity clips were banned under Federal Law

No they weren't I bought dozens of them

[beevul]

143. "High capacity clips were banned under Federal Law "

The sales of NEWLY manufactured (that means manufactured AFTER the ban was enacted) was unlawful.

Possession, sale etc of previously existing mags was completely legal.


So not exactly banned like people would think when they see the word "banned".

[Whisp]

54. Justice Scalia recently said

something to the effect that law, or a certain one (sorry I do not have a link and hoping someone recognizes this and remembers with more detail) should apply as to the times the Constitution was written. It had something to do with civil rights, women's rights, ack, sorry. I laughed at his idiotcy tho thinking he shouldn't have indoor plumbing or a phone in that case.

so if there ever was a reason to use this excuse in a way that makes sense, yes the right to bear arms available at the time that it was written in the Constitution which would not include high powered auto multiple shooters as they were not invented at the time.

[RSillsbee]

100. Yes free speech was protected at the time

but that doesn't include cell phones,television, or the internet. So , you need to go ahead and log off

[Whisp]

104. haha. I guess I didn't make myself clear.

I wasn't agreeing with Scalia.

I am more inclined to stand on this automatic military type guns that people claim a right to have - that it sounds foolish to me to use that as a talking point about bearing arms and free speech and all that. Like a poor excuse.

In a healthy minded society it could be acceptable, but the climate in America these days is poisonous with a lot of crazy people and crazy ideas so I believe keeping this stuff out of the populations hands isnt a bad idea. For as free as some Americans claim they are, they are really jailed into some pretty odd thinking about what freedom is.

Do you feel it's your constitutional right to be able to purchase Anthrax as well?
or are you willing to give up those kinds of rights at certain boundaries?

[RSillsbee]

115. Arms

Do you feel it's your constitutional right to be able to purchase Anthrax as well?

As I understand it "Arms" applies to man portable, point effect weapons. Anthrax doesn't fit that definition

[Whisp]

116. you might be right. but figure me this:

ar·ma·ment   
Show IPA
–noun
1.
the arms and equipment with which a military unit or military apparatus is supplied.

==
as Arms is short for armaments, do you think it is your constitutional right to buy whatever the military can?

[RSillsbee]

117. I can buy most of what the Army can

Figuratively speaking I can't afford a million dollar tank

To answer your question specifically I think I should be able to own any thing an 11B ( Infantry ) is issued. M4, M249, M26(grenade) M7 AT4 M9 and those ugly ass pixelated BDUs.

[beevul]

144. Where does this come from?

"I am more inclined to stand on this automatic military type guns that people claim a right to have"

Automatic millitary type guns have been very tightly controlled since 1934.

Where are you getting any idea that they are an issue?

[safeinOhio]

67. A Constitution is a flexible document

according to Jefferson.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[beevul]

145. So flexible in fact...

So flexible in fact that they added a process to amend it.

[safeinOhio]

164. They also added

a legislature to pass new laws. Also, for over 200 years there was no individual right to bear arms until this court changed that. Even so, they have only given that right to you in your home. The court makes it pretty flexible too.
So, if events dictate a big change in public opinion and they vote to amend the 2nd and tighten it up, you'll be fine with that too.

[X_Digger]

165. No, the court doesn't 'give' anything..

But that's an interesting insight into your thinking.

As for your 'only in your home'? I'd refer you to this post- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331739

quoting that in part,

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Again with the 'such as'- what follows being one example of a traditionally lawful purpose. Not the extent, not the 'only' traditionally lawful purpose. In this, the SCOTUS is giving guidance to lower courts as to how they should interpret the decision and apply it henceforth. No, they didn't set a standard of review, and they made sure to mention that this decision "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." At face value, they are likely to also hold unconstitutional other restrictions that severely burden (or outright ban) other 'traditionally lawful uses'.

[beevul]

166. Funny thing , that...

"They also added a legislature to pass new laws. Also, for over 200 years there was no individual right to bear arms until this court changed that. Even so, they have only given that right to you in your home. The court makes it pretty flexible too."

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. The bill of rights at the time it was written, was a restriction on government, just as it is now. I'll refer you to the first amendment that says "congress shall make no law...". The second amendment was, at the time it was written, a restriction upon government, just as it is now. That it took however long for a court to acknowledge as much really signifies nothing. It IS what it IS. Theres no running away from the truth for you, I'm afraid.

And if your still in the dark, you could read the preamble to the bill of rights. Though theres no running away from that iether.


"So, if events dictate a big change in public opinion and they vote to amend the 2nd and tighten it up, you'll be fine with that too."

Attempting to amend the second amendment would be a welcome change, from the dishonesty of saying something which is clearly written and has context provided with which to interpret it...doesnt mean what it actually says.

On edit: Just so I'm clear here...legislature passes laws which we the people are supposed to follow, but the bill of rights is a list of rules which they must follow in doing so.

Period.

[justiceischeap]

4. Well, the majority of law enforcement personnel only carry clips that hold 12 bullets

+1 in the chamber for a total of 13. Really, anything more is excessive. IMO, anything more that a 6 shooter (6 bullets) is excessive unless you are actively participating in combat. If you're a good shot, it doesn't take more than one bullet. PS... I'm not a hunter or a gun owner. I'm not allowed to own a gun. :)

[jillan]

5. I can totally understand a cop having a clip like that....altho cops have misused them as well.

And that's what I thought about hunting - that most people use a rifle, but wasn't sure if they were shooting birds if they would need a large clip.

[justiceischeap]

8. From what I've seen and read, people who purchase guns with high capacity rounds

Are a little dangerous because they're slightly delusional. There are so many people who really do believe that there will be another revolution and they need these high capacity firearms to go against the US military.

[cleanhippie]

13. Where, exactly, have you "seen and read" that?

Please substantiate that absurd claim.

[thereismore]

17. Those magazines were banned until the law was allowed to expire under Bush.

Being a strict constitutionalist (no not really), what were the "arms" that the founding fathers were talking about? Were any of them semi-automatic?

[Statistical]

27. Is the internet a protected method of free speech?

Do you have a Constitutional protection from warrantless search of your computer?
Can the government ban/control all forms of press except manual printing press and town criers?
Are you only protected from cruel and unusual punishment that existed circa 1776?

[DonP]

31. No, actually they weren't

You could still but 20 and 30 round magazines during the so called "assault weapons ban". It just precluded new standard capacity magazine being mad. For the entire 10 years you cold go into any gun store and buy standard size 30 round magazines for an AR-15 made before the law went into effect. They were more expensive, but readily available.

With 10 years to prove their case, no one was able to show any impact on crime from the ban and no one that wants to have a political future is serious about trying to revive it 7 years after it lapsed with violent crime at a 35 year low, according to the FBI.

[thereismore]

42. OK, I was misinformed then, but your post is not clear to me either. Maybe the fact that

no new ones were made during the 10 years and the old ones were more expensive contributed to lower violent crime today? I don't know. Do you have proof that it wasn't the case?

[Statistical]

47. Here is a couple of sources ...

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_The_1994_assault_weapons_ban_did_not_decrease_crime

Another point is to look at FBI stats:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Violent crime was falling prior to the ban (peaked in 1991) and continued to fall after the ban. There is no peer reviewed study that shows the ban contributed to any meaningful reduction in crime.

2003 (last year of ban)
Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 persons
Homicide Rate: 5.7 per 100,000 persons

2009
Violent Crime Rate: 429 per 100,000 persons (10% decline)
Homicide Rate: 5.0 per 100,000 persons (12% decline)

Numbers are even lower for 2010 (roughly 7% decline YOY for both stats) however FBI classifies 2010 as preliminary. In June we should have the final apples to apples numbers.

I am not saying the ban expiring made violent crime & homicides go down but rather there is no correlation between this ban (or any other ban) and homicide/violent crime rate.

[thereismore]

64. Thank you, I am convinced by the data. nt

[DonP]

62. Quite the opposite

The crime rate has dropped dramatically for the last three years in a row. It's now at a 35 year low according to the recent FBI Uniform Crime Report. The ban lapsed in September of 2004.

There was no effect whatsoever on crime from the so called assault weapons ban. It was "feel good" legislation entirely.

I refer to it as "so called", because there actually is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in the first place. That term was made up by Josh Sugarmann and the Brady Campaign to purposely confuse people by making them think they were referring to true "assault rifles" (select fire, or machine guns) and then using that confusion to mislead pubic opinion and push legislation.

The result was they made the AR-15 (which looks externally like the military M-16 version) the most popular and best selling rifle in America for the last 20 years. It's now the number one target rifle used in national competitions and has been adapted, with a more powerful cartridge, for hunting as well.

The other result was it cost us the House and Senate and cost Gore Tennessee and Arkansas in 2000. Either of which would have made Florida a mott point.

But now some folks want to repeat that stupidity it seems.

[thereismore]

66. Thank you, I am convinced by the data. nt

[DonP]

71. No problem, thanks for asking

Unless you follow this stuff closely, the way some of us do, it's almost impossible to stay up to speed on what's happening in the area of gun rights and gun laws.

Most folks don't really want to learn, they just hang on to the misinformation that supports their existing set of beliefs. You're to be congratulated on being open to new information and ideas.

[spin]

95. Bullshit. They were NEVER banned ...

You got taken as a fool by the Brady Campaign and the anti-RKBA politicians.

The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices." Depending on the locality, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Provisions_of_the_ban

Manufacturers of hi-cap magazines ran their production lines 24/7 until the cut off date and sold these magazines for an exorbitant price during the ban. Shooters paid the big price and they sold like hotcakes.

As far as the muzzle loader argument -- if that was a fair argument civilians would have never been able to own a firearm that used the centerfire cartridge developed during and after the Civil War. They would have been reserved for the military.


"The Gun that Won the West"


Teddy Roosevelt with his engraved Model 1876

[DissedByBush]

106. The "arms" that a foot soldier would use in combat

Whatever is needed to fight the enemy on equal terms.

So that would mean fully-automatic assault rifles, automatic shotguns, etc.

What's funny is that the gun banners have instituted caliber limits, usually set at .50 cal, but pretty much all the rifles used in the Revolutionary War were well over .50 cal.

[beevul]

147. No they really werent. N/T

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

32. That's a wide brush if you're calling someone who buys guns with high capacity rounds delusional.

I always carry multiple clips to the shooting range because I want to spend time shooting then re-loading.

[DonP]

21. Gun owner here

Only about one in five gun owners actually hunts, FWIW.

The extended length magazines like this idiot had are typically used for target shooting, not for carry by cops or anybody else. They are almost impossible to conceal for carry purposes and tend to be cumbersome and really throw the balance of a firearm off. Having one or two of the higher capacity magazines saves reloading time at the range, where you pay by the hour. I have several 20 and 30 round magazines that I use for a day of target shooting. It lets me spend more time concentrating on sight alignment, trigger control and the other factors that contribute to accuracy. The 20+ round magazines come standard with a lot of the more modern semi-auto pistols used today. They aren't really "high capacity" as everyone seems to refer to them, just standard.

I'm not sure this is a real issue. Cho at V-Tech had normal 10 round magazines IIRC and wound up doing a lot more damage in terms of the number injured and killed.

[Gaedel]

34. When hunting birds, you use a shotgun

Most states have hunting laws which limit shotguns to three rounds capacity when duck hunting. I guess that would apply o other birds as well. If you have a pump action shotgun with a tubular magazine which holds six rounds, you must use a magazine plug while hunting to limit your weapon to three rounds.

[Shrek]

56. Bird hunters wouldn't need a clip

We use shotguns to hunt birds, the magazines for which are quite limited (4 or 5 rounds at most).

A lot of hunters even use shotguns with no magazine at all (single-shot or double-barrel). In these cases you're limited to one or two shots before manually reloading.

[Deep13]

26. multiple assailants, magazines failures, bad shot understress.

There are many reasons why someone might need more than six rounds. I'm not suggesting one is likely to need 33 shots without reloading.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. Not true

Try 15 or more, plus one in the chamber.

[RamboLiberal]

88. Most cops carry more than 13 especially uniformed cops

They are usually in the 15-18 round range.

First popular Glock for instance for police was 17 in 9MM with capacity of 17 in mag + 1 chamber.

Many cops moved up to 40 caliber Glock 22 with 15 in mag + 1 in chamber.

And most other manufacturers are similar capacity.

[RamboLiberal]

89. Sports shooters in USPSA have been using high caps

for years now. And they don't go out and shoot anyone.

Yep let's bring back another useless stupid feel good law because of 1 incident and insure another decade + more out of power.

Amazing how the same people who scream about TSA body scanners & pat downs are so damn quick to want to ban guns, magazines & ammo.

[Euromutt]

136. The most popular handgun with police in the U.S. is the Glock 22, which holds 15+1

According to Glock's publicity materials, over 11,000 American law enforcement agencies use it. The Glock 22, moreover, is chambered in .40 S&W, a more powerful round than the 9x19mm for which the G19 (like the one Loughner used, and the NYPD uses) is chambered.
The G19 is the "compact" size Glock chambered in 9x19mm; the "compact" size in .40 is the G23, and that holds 13+1 rounds.

So what I'm saying, in so many words, is that you're wrong.

[James48]

7. Since you asked.....

the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't matter what hunters think, as the whole gun rights issue isn't about hunting. Never has been.

And the number of rounds the clip holds has little or nothing to do with a anything. Whether a clip holds 10 rounds, or 30 rounds, it's bad in the hands of someone who has bad intentions.

Even if you were to ban new manufactured 30 round clips- there are already millions of them in America, and you'll never be able to make them disappear.


This was a horrible attack, but to blame the gun, or the magazine, misses the whole point.

I heard one person say that the guy used a Glock, so we should ban glocks. And then someone else said- but the Police have glocks, and that's good. It's not the fact that it's a Glock. It's the fact that somebody who was mentally unstable used it in a crime. THAT's what we have to figure out how to stop.

[beardown]

23. How big of a gas tank does your car need.

I can get by with only a two gallon tank because I use public transport whenever possible and combine trips. Any tank bigger than that is encouraging driving and being wasteful and contributing to global warming.

Not trying to make your question seem stupid as I didn't think it was. Just giving you a different way to view it that may be closer to home.

And as james48 said, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[littlewolf]

44. Thank you .....

[Statistical]

12. Personally no. However banning them would be ineffective so I won't support it.

I don't need 30 round pistol mags, I don't own any 30 round magazines (for pistols, rifles are another story), I likely will never buy a 30 rnd pistol magazine. Honestly I think 30 round magazines for pistols to be stupid. 30 rnd magazines also tend to jam and fail at much higher rate. It is difficult for a spring which needs to move that much distance to keep even tension on the rounds.

Still I wouldn't support a ban. Why?
1) McCarthy wants to limit it to 10 rounds, of course Police are exempt. Why are Police exempt oh yeah because extra rounds can be useful when dealing with multiple attackers. I don't need 30 but I might need 12 or 15 or 18. Even Police land less than one in twelve shots. It can take multiple shots to stop a threat. Now imagine multiple intruders. 10 rounds starts to come up short.

2) Banning the mags would do no good. Cho changed magazines 4 times and killed 3x as many people. The only thing that prevented more deaths here is the suspect wasn't methodical. He blasted off rounds as quickly as possible without any sort of plan. Had he conserved ammo and shot closest person, and did mag change when he had distance from his victims he could have killed a lot more people. Banning mags isn't going to change that.

3) The ban would be useless. Nearly a billion magazines already exist in the US. They aren't going away. Even if your force people to turn them in, most won't. Criminal certainly won't.

4) It won't end there. Many "gun control" advocates want to ban all guns. Even many on DU say they would ban all guns in all instances everywhere. It is just incremental death. Slowly chipping away at the 2nd amendment.

5) We shouldn't pass laws based on emotion and snap judgement. That is how we got the TSA and Patriot Act (neither of which are likely to EVER go away). The BATFE and DOJ concluded the last time we banned standard cap magazines (AWB 1994 to 2004) that it a) had no effect on violent crime, b) no effect on homicide rate c) no effect on mass shootings, d) no effect on the number of victims per attack, e) no effect on number of shots fired per attack. Banning standard capacity mags (which is what McCarthy wants to do it isn't limited to 30 rnd magazines) is a feel good, do nothing law.

6) Mass shootings are very rare. We live in a country with 300 million people and 24/7 news cycle. Statistics is what matters and homicide is at 40+ year low. The last year with lower homicide rate was 1964. Think about that 1964. We have a lower homicide rate than the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

[KansasVoter]

18. Wow, I at times do not know if you are joking.

[cleanhippie]

24. Is the best reply you could come up with to a well thought and reasoned argumment

"Wow, I at times do not know if you are joking"?

Seriously?

[tammywammy]

65. Do you have any thing specific to say about the post? n/t

[Pancho Sanza]

80. For what it's worth, I believe you completely.

:eyes:

[jillan]

22. That is so true about how the criminals would get them whether they were banned or not.

We live in a free society and there is always someone that will sell people like Loughner what he wants, even if he could no longer purchase it at the local store.

[GreenStormCloud]

90. Extended mags can be home-made in a home workshop. N/T

[Last_Stand]

77. Excellent...

Also, it has been mentioned elsewhere that pursuit of such legislation will result in more losses for the Democratic party in future elections.

I keep telling my friends and loved ones who are so emotional about getting rid of all guns that a more realistic and positive course of action is to work on the many societal ills that cause sick individuals to use guns to murder (ie. poverty, drug abuse, lack of education or mental health care, etc.)

Candidates who work towards this instead of knee-jerk reactions against guns will have better success in the long run.

[Deep13]

16. Well, I shoot paper targets at the range.

One of my rifles is an AR15 that uses 30-rd. magazines. I use those pretty much because they are the standard size for that rifle. Obviously, such a gun is not easily concealable. My highest capacity pistol magazine is a 20 rounder and I actually use it in a short rifle that can use it. Seems like a 33-rd. Glock magazine might be helpful in a carbine (short rifle), but in a handgun it is just awkward. Usually for personal defense, compact size wins out. My concealable pistol has 8-rd. 9mm magazines (although I never actually carry it since I never got around to getting my CCW permit.) If I ever anticipated needing a 33-rd. pistol, I would just stay home. If the dangerous situtation were unavoidable, and I can't think of a realistic example, I'd bring a long gun.

[Fla_Democrat]

19. I have em

but it is up to me to determine if I need them.

You can't hunt in Florida with a rifle with over a 5 shot mag. http://myfwc.com/docs/RecreationActivities/2010-11_HuntingRegulations.pdf page 8

Fwiw: Half a dozen of so 30 round clips for my 10-22's, a 50 round drum for it. Extended mag for my 1911 clone (think it's 12 rounds), 10, 40 round mags for my AK, a 30 shot extended well for my SKS, 5 high capacity mags for my Beretta. Yet, I have never gone on a murderous rampage. (some people here would say it's a mater of time, cause dem evil guns will posses me)



:smoke:

[Deep13]

39. It debatable if 40-rds. is high capacity for an AK.

That's arguably a normal-capacity mag. for that rifle. I don't know what you are calling high-capacity for the Beretta, but they come with 17s from the factory.

[Fla_Democrat]

51. Sold with a 5 round

So upped it to a 40. Again, 5 rounds are max for hunting (actually, it came with 3 5 round clips).

[daa]

25. Here in Atlanta there are home invasions with

4 or 5 thugs. Unless you are a perfect marksman you could need that many.

Look, I will say it again. Al Gore lost WV, and his home state because of gun control. If you want to cede the South and Midwest and try to win the e elections in the rest of the country, good luck with that strategy.

[littlewolf]

38. Ok I will chime in here ..

1. This "person" was using a semi-auto 9mm handgun .. this is typically used for self-defense ...

2. the 33 round magazine that he was using is designed for another Glock weapon the Glock 18
(he was using the Glock 19) ... The Glock 18 is a full automatic weapon .. that means you pull and hold
the trigger and it will keep shooting ... it is typically used by the military and by police ... in order for a
regular person to have a Glock 18 they have to undergo special lic. called a Federal Firearms Lic. (FFL)
which is more involved ...

3. the Glock 19 that this "person" was using typically uses a 10 or 17 round Magazine ...

4. Most hunters use either a shotgun or a rifle depending on what they are hunting ...
1. shotguns come in 4 types
a. single shot (self explanatory)
b. Double Barrel ( 2 barrels either side by side - ie next to each other - or overunder on top of each other)
c. Pump one barrel with a tube under it that 3-6 shells can fit into .. as you shoot you work a "pump" that pushes the next round into the bbl.
d. semi-auto - basically the same as a pump but you don't work a pump, the weapon automatically ejects the spent shell and
brings the next one up.

shotguns have a shorter range then rifles do and are used for all small game as well as game birds as well as deer...

rifles get their name from the "rifling" in the bbl .. grooves cut into the metal of the bbl ... this causes the bullet to spin
giving it much more accuracy ... a rifle has has longer range ... if you would like more info .. please PM me
I will be happy to help ..
Hopefully this didn't muddy things up more for you.

[JoDog]

40. As a target shooter,

no, absolutely not. Their only peaceful purposes are for hunting or for people who want to spend less time at the range reloading clips. I think the risks of having them on the market outweight the convenience, so I do not own one.

[kudzu22]

41. Not for hunting, to be sure

In fact in my state it's illegal to hunt with more that 5 rounds in your rifle. But this isn't about hunting. Is there a legitimate sporting purpose for 30 rounds? Absolutely. There are shooting sports such as IPSC where extended magazines are allowed and can make a difference in your scores. Many people compete in rifle classes and 30 rounds is the minimum you'd want to run with.

As a self-defense matter, a 30 round mag in your handgun is impractical at best. They're impossible to conceal and make the gun imbalanced and heavy. They're prone to jamming because the spring is so long. That's why we practice fast reloads with regular-sized magazines (15-20 rounds).

[Celeborn Skywalker]

43. It's not necessary but

I don't think we have anything to gain politically or in practical terms by going after guns, magazines, bullets, etc.. The right has won on that issue and, frankly, I'd rather not have it be a top priority of the left or Democrats. Plus, I'm not convinced that we'd see a reduction in homicide or mass shootings. Personally, I'm for reasonable restrictions such as a mental health evaluation before purchasing firearms, magazine limits, and child safety locks but I'm not gonna spend any energy on trying to get congress to pass those types of laws.

[EstimatedProphet]

46. Suggestion: "need" is the wrong way to view this

If you are going to make the argument based on what people "need", you are going to fail. We need food, clothing, shelter, and emotional attachment of some sort, and that's it. If you are going to argue that no one needs an extended clip, we also don't need any number of things that are commonplace in our society.

[DURHAM D]

48. No.

[aikoaiko]

50. Please remember, that there untold millions and millions of so call hi-cap magazines

out there right now in the hands of people who use them for competitive, recreational and self-defense reasons. She is wrong about why the vast majority of people own these magazines.

I own them and I want them for the same reason the local civilian police force wants them -- to use them in case they found themselves a terrible situation. You may say that police are a special group, but remember that criminals who commit violence are usually attacking civilians and not the police directly.

Rep McCarthy would have you believe her new legislation would have prevented the violence in Tucson, but she fails to remind people that the Columbine shooters used hi-cap magazines and so called banned weapons while the now expired Assault Weapons Ban was in place.

[B Calm]

53. No I don't need a big magazine.

[slackmaster]

63. Need is not the issue, but to answer your question simply the answer is no, I don't need one.

I happen to own one of the 31-round Glock pistol magazines. I bought it for my gun collection because it's interesting, kind of bizarre, not very common, and is likely to hold a high monetary value over time.

I have no practical use for such a magazine.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

74. What about a magazine that holds 12? n/t

[PavePusher]

97. Ad hominem, much? n/t

[Tsiyu]

108. Nope

just what i've observed.

IN MY OPINION, if you obsess over your weapons, how many you've got, how many more you can get - and you live in abject fear over not being able to purchase as many weapons as you want YOU ARE A LOSER.

There is a whole world out here full of people and problems and issues. if guns are a person's only outlet, their only means of expression and their biggest crutch, THEY ARE LOSERS

Nobody needs those magazines and they put law enforcement at huge risk. Do i want them outlawed? hell no, i never said that.

The OP asked if anyone really needed them, and in MY OPINION, no they don't, but for a lot of people those magazines make them feel mighty powerful - like gods. So maybe that is a need.

if i struck a nerve with any they might like to take a look at themselves..

maybe, just maybe their obsession over weapons is not such a good thing.

[PavePusher]

113. "put law enforcement at huge risk"

Really? How so?

[Tsiyu]

119. Ask them PP

The purposefully obtuse are not really my cup of tea.

[PavePusher]

122. No, you made the assertion, own it and support it with evidence.

Have many officers been injured or killed by criminals using 30-round pistol magazines?

[Tsiyu]

126. See there's a problem with that post

are you ORDERING me sir?

Fuck that. Who the hell do you think you are Big Man?.

You people have had this argument no doubt thousands of times in this forum. It appears to be what many of you live for, IN MY OPINION.

You can no doubt find a thread about the subject, repost all the arguments, even playing both sides since this sort of thing appears to thrill your type IN MY OPINION.

It's like masturbation. I'm sure you'll do just fine on your own.

[PavePusher]

128. Avoidance. Classic. I'll take that as an "Usupportable for $100, Alex". n/t

[Tsiyu]

133. "Obsessive. Classic. I'll take that as a "Has No Life for $1000, Alex" n/t

:rofl:

[beevul]

148. Therein lies the problem.

"It appears to be what many of you live for, IN MY OPINION."

Therein lies the problem.


You are possibly unaware, that we as gun owners have been under attack one way or another for decades.

And we react as such.

It would be wise to remember that we - the gun owners - did not and generally do not start this shit.

The anti-gun contingent does.

[Tsiyu]

157. Ok I lied ...one more thing

Lots of people have been "under attack." Women, gays, anti-war protesters, the homeless, abortion providers, Veterans, the list goes on.


As they say, Cry me a river.

In nearly seven years on this board IN MY OPINION I have never seen so much paranoia, knee-jerk reacting, authoritarian assholishness and general control freak behavior as I have seen in this forum today. ON ANY OTHER ISSUE.

You have your guns, but gays still don't have marriage, women still don't have equal access to reproductive freedom, we're still at war, the homeless still don't have homes and veterans are still treated like shit. Yet in conversations with any LGBTers, women, homeless, anti-war portesters or pro-choice advocates, I have never experienced what I have seen here today on these boards.

BUT YOU HAVE YOUR GUNS!! And yet you claim some victim status?

Give me a big goddamned break.

[Straw Man]

160. YOUR OPINION

In nearly seven years on this board IN MY OPINION I have never seen so much paranoia, knee-jerk reacting, authoritarian assholishness and general control freak behavior as I have seen in this forum today. ON ANY OTHER ISSUE.

You have your guns, but gays still don't have marriage, women still don't have equal access to reproductive freedom, we're still at war, the homeless still don't have homes and veterans are still treated like shit. Yet in conversations with any LGBTers, women, homeless, anti-war portesters or pro-choice advocates, I have never experienced what I have seen here today on these boards.

Try going on one of those other forums and posting something like this about the users of that forum:

IN MY OPINION, if you obsess over your weapons, how many you've got, how many more you can get - and you live in abject fear over not being able to purchase as many weapons as you want YOU ARE A LOSER.

There is a whole world out here full of people and problems and issues. if guns are a person's only outlet, their only means of expression and their biggest crutch, THEY ARE LOSERS

See what kind of reaction you get.

[beevul]

161. Your not the only one thats been here 7-ish years buddy.

"Lots of people have been "under attack." Women, gays, anti-war protesters, the homeless, abortion providers, Veterans, the list goes on."

Yeah? Which of those you mentioned, are a bunch of antis trying to wrestly a constitutionally protected right from, permanently?

"In nearly seven years on this board IN MY OPINION I have never seen so much paranoia, knee-jerk reacting, authoritarian assholishness and general control freak behavior as I have seen in this forum today. ON ANY OTHER ISSUE."

Well, I believe thats your interpretation of things, but thats what your going to get when you make claims and don't back them up. The people on the other end might come off as control freaks or authoritarians when you aren't doing your part and citing facts after you make claims.

"You have your guns, but gays still don't have marriage, women still don't have equal access to reproductive freedom, we're still at war, the homeless still don't have homes and veterans are still treated like shit. Yet in conversations with any LGBTers, women, homeless, anti-war portesters or pro-choice advocates, I have never experienced what I have seen here today on these boards."

I see, so in your view gun owners have not been under attack for decades. Got it.

[mvccd1000]

151. IN MY OPINION...

... potheads are responsible for more crime and violence than legal gun owners. Therefore, THEY ARE LOSERS.

What was the reason for the Tucson shooter's only interaction with law enforcement? Oh, yeah... marijuana. I guess if they would have executed him when he was caught possessing drugs the first time, all of those innocent people would still be alive.

See? Everyone can have an opinion. I'm not entirely sure you'll like mine as much as you like yours, though. :)

[Tsiyu]

158. Uh... if you think I haven't read this elsewhere, you really are quite

self-involved.

I am not hurt, discouraged, angry, defensive or angry at you. Shocking, no?

See, some of us are adult enough to allow others to express their opinions without taking it personally. It's called "adult conversation."




And my friends in law enforcement would beg to differ with you, but that's another thread on another day.

have a nice evening and thanks for your input. :hi:

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

That's a pretty broad brush- then again you are talking about millions of people.

Or maybe you should associate with a better class of gun owners...

[Tsiyu]

107. Well it appears my opinion was removed...so much for that

I stand by what I said.

Yes, i've fired semi-automatics. there's a thrill there. But I don't believe anyone needs them and i also believe they make law enforcement much more dangerous.

And I stand by my feelings about the heavily ammo,d types. They've got issues IN MY OPINION.

For some IN MY OPINION it's a goddamned religion; the only faith they have is in their firearms.

And i don't associate with those type of people. The people I know with weapons don't obsess over them and would be fine if they couldn't have semi-autos. I don't need a semi-auto to feel safe and secure. My 12 gauge and my other firearms are enough.

My friends use their firearms responsibly and they don't have orgasms over their magazines. They don't spend every waking minute thinking about, fantasizing about or drooling over weapons. THEY have lives, what a concept!

If you need 33 shots to kill something, you need help. And if you think the world is coming to an end and you won't survive without your semi-auto, you may be on the wrong board...just sayin'

[PavePusher]

114. "heavily ammo'd types"

What do you mean by that? I frequently buy ammo by the 1000-round case because it's cheaper in bulk. If I find a ggod deal, I'll grab some. Sometimes I'll have 3-4 thousand rounds of .45 ACP or .223/5.56 or 7.62x54R. Do I fit the monniker of "heavily ammo'd"? DO I have "issues" and if so, what are they?

Oh, look, I've got 4000 rounds of .22 rim-fire ammo! Quick, What's my profile?

[Tsiyu]

118. I'm not a shrink. so it's all conjecture

I'm talking about folks with arsenals, rooms full of the shit and yes I know - but do not associate with - a few of them. If they think they will ever need that many guns and ammo in their lifetimes, they have serious issues.

Are you one of those people with an entire room stockpiled with ammo? To me, that means you need a life. MY OPINION ONLY.



If you're happy with your stockpile for economic reasons, what does my opinion matter to you anyway?

And my question for you: Why do so many of the "anything goes" gun advocates on this site seem to get so defensive if you think their seeming worship of firearms is over the top? What the hell does it matter to any of you if i think people who worship the gun culture are nutso?

I'm not a legislator or a judge or law enforcement, so why does anyone here care so much about my opinion? I will never get this aspect of the gun lovers here.

I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF YOU. Get over it...you can't shoot me lol

[PavePusher]

121. It's probably because we have a distaste for bigotry in any form.

YMMV.

[Tsiyu]

125. Oh yes, I'm SURE that's it

but you're bigoted against anyone who doesn't think an arsenal fit for a small battalion is necessary for home defense? Just asking.


You're bigoted against anyone who thinks worshipping guns is a sad way to live? Just asking.......And so many on this forum, in my opinion, are bigoted against anyone who makes any comment that does not express absolute adoration and lust for firearms.


other than that, bigotry is no good....right? Oy vey

[PavePusher]

127. No, I'm not. I object (quite strenuously) to someone restricting my liberty...

when I haven't done anything wrong.

I don't even care if you don't want to have any firearms yourself. I would never dream of infringing on your freedom to chose for yourself.

You are the one that has been dropping inuendo, insinuation, accusations, name-calling, projections and unfounded, unsupportable assertions, stereotypes and hate all over the thread.

[Tsiyu]

129. and how is it wrong to have an opinion?

how is my opinion restricting your liberty?

I'm sorry, but the control freak aspect of gunwackos just amuses the hell out of me.


No where on this thread did i attempt to restrict your freedom. No where. But you feel "restricted" because i express an opinion? Okie dokie.

[PavePusher]

132. I have no problem with opinions.

But you can't get away with coming here and announcing your "opinion" as if it were fact, and not get challanged to support it with evidence. And then you really don't get to cry "Foul!" when you dodge the challenges and are called on it. To bad, so sad.

Come back when you are here to debate, not cast aspersions.

P.S. That's not "restricting your freedom" either.

[Tsiyu]

134. Are you the moderator of this forum?

"Come back when you are here to debate, not cast aspersions."

You seem to have some control issues.

[PavePusher]

138. And now the projections, right on schedule. Good night and a pleasent repose to you. n/t

[beevul]

150. Because...

"I'm not a legislator or a judge or law enforcement, so why does anyone here care so much about my opinion?"

Because it does not appear to be based on fact.

/shrug

[beevul]

149. it needs to be said.

"i also believe they make law enforcement much more dangerous."

Enforcing the law where people have freedom and liberties is dangerous work.

Liberty comes first however.

LEOs are entirely capable of judging for themselves whether its too dangerous because of those liberties and finding another line of work.


Those liberties - called civil rights - don't simply disappear because they make a cops job harder or more dangerous. Nor should they.

If you disagree, maybe you think the 4th and 5th amendments need changing too.

[Tsiyu]

155. Why are you jumping all over the place here?

.....the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, Holy Jesus on a rifle scope....

Can you point to one place in this thread where I have indicated a desire to "disappear" your civil liberties?

Can you? Anywhere? Does my expressing my opinion on this board mean you believe I'm all suited up to draft the next gun ban bill? Are you guys that kneejerk?

If so, please point to where it is that I did this heinous thing. Can you?

If I haven't advocated such, why would you accuse me of such or even bring up that line of questioning?


Really, people. I am embarrassed for you right now.

My opinion is based on conversations i have had with members of law enforcement. I take their opinions as expert on law enforcement, not the opinions of a bunch of anonymous posters on a message board.

To be completely honest, I have never advocated on this board - or anywhere else - any sort of ban. I appreciate my right to own a firearm, even if I'm not consumed by it.

However, after today I am re-thinking that stance.

Seriously. I am now questioning the sanity of many gun advocates. Something of which I was once very sure , I now question because of the people I have encountered here today. So I have this forum to thank for forcing me to face some ugly truths. :hi:


Here is my final word in this thread, from another thread in which I posted today:

"It just dawned on me, noodling on my guitar, that some people view their guns as a "lifestyle," a symbol of autonomy, security and freedom. These are the ones who get all up in arms if others aren't completely enamored of guns in every location known to man - in the same manner that some Christians get up in arms if you say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Obsessed in my book, but for them that's normal.


My guns, to me, are merely tools. Like shovels.

If I saw someone with a roomful of shovels, hoarding them, I would consider them nutty. If they had to take their shovel everywhere they go or they couldn't feel safe (not counting during a Zombie outbreak, of course) or couldn't feel like they had rights without taking their shovel any and everywhere, I would call them a wacko.

Now who's to say who is right or wrong? It's all opinion. My wacko might be your normal."


Thanks for opening my eyes to reality, all of you. Sincerely. It's rather frightening, but i'd rather know...perhaps I do believe in gun control after all!


OMG My friends are gonna freak! I'm always the one who argues against any gun control! :rofl:

[beevul]

156. Because I can.

"Can you point to one place in this thread where I have indicated a desire to "disappear" your civil liberties?"

Can you point to one place where I said you did any of the above?

"Seriously. I am now questioning the sanity of many gun advocates. Something of which I was once very sure , I now question because of the people I have encountered here today. So I have this forum to thank for forcing me to face some ugly truths."

The people you have encountered here today are a battle weary bunch. Question the sanity of whomever you wish. For whatever reasons you wish. Just don't pretent it wasn't explained to you.

""It just dawned on me, noodling on my guitar, that some people view their guns as a "lifestyle," a symbol of autonomy, security and freedom. These are the ones who get all up in arms if others aren't completely enamored of guns in every location known to man - in the same manner that some Christians get up in arms if you say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Obsessed in my book, but for them that's normal.
My guns, to me, are merely tools. Like shovels"

I'll let you in on something here. I own a handgun and small caliber rimfire rifles. Nothing exotic extravagant or uncommon. They are tools to me as well. Most posters here are the same way.

"OMG My friends are gonna freak! I'm always the one who argues against any gun control!"

I'm sure. :eyes:



"If I saw someone with a roomful of shovels, hoarding them, I would consider them nutty. If they had to take their shovel everywhere they go or they couldn't feel safe (not counting during a Zombie outbreak, of course) or couldn't feel like they had rights without taking their shovel any and everywhere, I would call them a wacko."

Whether you know it or not, thats an anti-gun meme. Forsome people carrying concealed firearms is a choice. Im not one of them, and I have no desire to be, but I don't look down my nose at those people iether.

[Tsiyu]

159. Again with the immaturity and the eyesroll

"I'm sure."

You're sure? Is this why someone should trust YOU with a weapon? Because you can make these snap decisions about other anonymous posters on message boards? What a talent! What judgment!


No, I didn't know that was an anti-gun meme. But then, I don't get all rabid and defensive if someone is anti-gun. I explain to them why i have firearms but I do not force my opinions on them.

I have many liberal freinds who hate guns and do not like the fact that I have several.

But they have never been as kneejerk or prissy or whiney about their opinions as the people i see here today.

[beevul]

162. Its not immaturity, its insight.

Its not immaturity, its insight.

Insight gleaned from fighting this fight for years, and from using the search feature.

"You're sure? Is this why someone should trust YOU with a weapon? Because you can make these snap decisions about other anonymous posters on message boards? What a talent! What judgment!"


Until I give someone reason not to trust me, I am trusted by default. Thats how it works in America.

And as far as those snap decisions, and the rolled eyes, theres a reason for that. You see, I've been around the block hereabouts a few times, and I notice things. Fighting this fight for over a decade now, its fairly easy to sniff out someone whos not being forthright in a discussion. And you aren't.

You said:

"Seriously. I am now questioning the sanity of many gun advocates. Something of which I was once very sure , I now question because of the people I have encountered here today. So I have this forum to thank for forcing me to face some ugly truths."

Changing your mind because of what you encountered today , you say. Forcing you to face some ugly truths you say.

To which I replied:

I'm sure. :eyes:

See, the human brain is a wonderful thing - it remembers. Remembers things YOU said elsewhere before today. And the search function provides the proof. The :eyes: is for this:

"If you want to sell the story that gun owners are responsible and non-violent, you gun worshippers are sure doing a shitty job of it."

http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x167071#167071

You had your mind made up well before yesterday. You know it, I know it, and everyone that bothers reading will know it. And the link proves it.

One does not form an opinion of gun owners as "gun worshipers" overnight. One does not even use the term unless one is anti-gun, basically.


So in closing, thanks for playing. Maybe if you get up earlier in the morning you'll have better luck, but I doubt it.

Dunno what more there is to say, really.

[Tsiyu]

167. This post totally crack me up...just found this and you made my day!

You are so full of yourself and your "victimhood, you must float!

i mean, damn, is the air cold way up there and is it messing with your head?

Your search revealed a post I made a day or so before this thread. because I am sick of seeing all the guns aimed when I was taught never to point a weapon unless I intended to shoot it. I am very angry at people who use their weapons like toys or intimidating sumbols, with no proper training. I am sick of the adoration of guns. they're guns and no more.

I own a Mossberg pump action 12 gauge and a pistol and an old 6 shooter revolver. i use bird shot and some high velocity shells in the Mossberg, and I actually have a shell filled with dimes a crazy friend gave me for any emergencies. I rarely fire the handguns. One is for defense and one is a collector's piece.

i plan on purchasing a higher powered rifle this year, since I would like to have something less messy than a shotgun for hunting purposes.

You think I'm making it up? Come try to break into my house....

I'll bet you couldn't find any other posts could you? And I stand by what I said in that post. The worship of guns, and their irresponsible handling by the Teabaggers and such is getting under my skin. They do nothing to make gun ownership seem safe or sane.


"Until I give someone reason not to trust me, I am trusted by default. Thats how it works in America"


And we should all trust you, but I can't be trusted? Double standard much?

Last night, my cousin in NY and I were talking about bow hunting. I started out as a small kid hunting quail in Upstate Ny with bow and arrow, then hunted with BB guns and pellet guns. I was telling my cuz - who also hunts with a rifle - that I wanted to learn to use his compound bows. he has a nice one that can be dialed back to 25 lbs. As i get older I cannot draw so great.

And he brought this up to me:

"You know, one of the first things I learned was never to point a gun at a person. And i go out hunting with these idiots and they've got their guns pointed all over the place, in my face, whatever. People are idiots with guns anymore. You really have to watch yourself around them."

He and I are from the same Italian, hunting, fishing, gun-owning family and we were both taught the rule about the barrel of a gun. So if it pisses him off, i know I'm not alone in my disgust.

That's what pisses meoff. there is no respect anymore for the rules of firearm safety. As I said with that other post you referenced - spurred on for my anger over the shooting Saturday - I am sick of seeing gun owners who wave their guns around like sparklers.

They are not toys, penis substitutes or political tools.

AAI don't really care what you believe or do not believe concerning me, but I can nver trust someone with such a lack of judgment as you.

And no, I probably won't ever advocate for gun control. I think we liberals need all the guns and high capacity magazines we can get these days.

And thinking back, I do admit that high capacity magazines do have a benefit at the range for those who cannot reload easily.


But the holier-than-thou attitude, the rush to demonize me and your victim bullshit makes me sick even as I laughed my head off.

i'm sending your post to my cuz. he is gonna laugh harder than i did....

[beevul]

171. Glad it made your day.

"You are so full of yourself and your "victimhood, you must float!"

Well, Its not ME really, I assure you. You see, the high capacity mags that theres talk of banning, and the assault weapons that are so frequently...well, I neither own not have any interest in owning them.

Its a PRINCIPLE, that has been under attack. Is that really lost on you?

"I am sick of the adoration of guns. they're guns and no more."

Thats nice, but for some people, those that are part of the gun culture, they're sick of the HATRED of guns. Why is that any different that they way YOU feel?

"I own a Mossberg pump action 12 gauge and a pistol and an old 6 shooter revolver. i use bird shot and some high velocity shells in the Mossberg, and I actually have a shell filled with dimes a crazy friend gave me for any emergencies. I rarely fire the handguns. One is for defense and one is a collector's piece."

Cool. I don't own any more than you do, and I likely wont. Do I adore guns? Do I worship guns?

"The worship of guns, and their irresponsible handling by the Teabaggers and such is getting under my skin. They do nothing to make gun ownership seem safe or sane."

And? They're not required to. Its a constutionally protected right. As much as I detest speech by the KKK, I'll fight against any restrictions on speech, including thiers. Just like the aclu does.

"And we should all trust you, but I can't be trusted? Double standard much?"

I could really give three shit whether you or any other individual trust me. The GOVERNMENT is required to, until I give a reason not to be trusted. I guess you didn't understand that that is what I meant originally.

"He and I are from the same Italian, hunting, fishing, gun-owning family and we were both taught the rule about the barrel of a gun. So if it pisses him off, i know I'm not alone in my disgust. That's what pisses meoff. there is no respect anymore for the rules of firearm safety. As I said with that other post you referenced - spurred on for my anger over the shooting Saturday - I am sick of seeing gun owners who wave their guns around like sparklers."

It may surprise you to know that it pisses me off when I see someone not following gun safety rules too. As far as gun owners that "wave their guns around like sparklers" , if thats done in public, its called brandishing, and its punishable by law. If done in the privacy of ones own home, not so much.

"They are not toys, penis substitutes or political tools."

Nobody says they ARE toys. The penis substitute line, is an anti-gun slur, and quite common in fact. Really doesnt help your credibility. The founding fathers might disagree with the idea that theyre not "political tools", too, being that they used them to effect political change that guarantees your freedom to speak freely, amongst other things.

"I don't really care what you believe or do not believe concerning me, but I can nver trust someone with such a lack of judgment as you."

Now your making this personal. I have not demonstrated a lack of judgement what so ever. I have come to some conclusions, based on evidence. That is all. And fwiw, whether you trust me or not, changes nothing.

"And no, I probably won't ever advocate for gun control. I think we liberals need all the guns and high capacity magazines we can get these days."

Good. I agree with you.

"And thinking back, I do admit that high capacity magazines do have a benefit at the range for those who cannot reload easily."

I would tend to agree, and while I have no desire to own one, I have even less desire to see legislation enacted on them from which the anti-gun politicians can build on.

"But the holier-than-thou attitude, the rush to demonize me and your victim bullshit makes me sick even as I laughed my head off."

Perhaps you read me wrong. Perhaps I'm a little gruff, I don't deny that I get that way from time to time. If thats the case, I chave no problem taking the high ground and apologizing for it. I apologize if I came off as gruff. But it can not be denied that the second amendment, and gun ownership have been under attack. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been paying attention.

And FWIW, there was no RUSH to demonize you. You repeated anti gun talking points. Even in the post I'm replying to. One simply can not do that in a gun debate and get a pass. Doesn't happen. Particularly when those are talking points that have been said a thousand times here in this very forum.

Do a site search for "penis substitute" and see what comes back, if you don't believe or trust me. Then ask yourself why anyone would have reason to believe you're any different than the others that repeat such tripe.


I admit, I may have misjudged you. However, you didn't make it difficult, using the language you used, and the talking points you repeated. Ask anyone here what it makes a person look like when they use those.

[Scout]

73. only if you are a really, really bad shot n/t

[Upton]

75. I used to own an AR-7

had a 15 and 30 round magazine for it. First, because it's a survival rifle, but mostly because it was fun shooting...and to be quite honest with you, I don't need any other reason.

Oh, and I didn't get the sudden urge to go and murder a bunch of individuals either.

[Katya Mullethov]

131. I will admit to Dum dududuh dum dumming the James Bond theme with mine once

Finicky eater , sold it .

[Bonhomme Richard]

76. No. n/t

[Dappleganger]

78. A 15 round, yes--that's pretty standard.

The only time I use an extended magazine is at the range, and I have several of them. Loading bullets by hand is difficult for me (nerve damage in my fingers) so after a few loads I pass it to my husband to finish it up. Most of the people I know who have high-capacity mags do it for convenience. We bought a huge extended mag for our Ruger .22, it makes target practice far more fun (some of us actually enjoy shooting at targets, LOL).

[L0oniX]

79. My S&W Millitary Police 9mm ...magazine holds 17 rounds.

A larger magazine does mean less reload time at the practice range. The MP9 is used by police as well as the more popular Glock 9, both use 17 round magazines. Most personal CWP weapons don't need that large of a magazine as you would want something light and thin which means the gun should have a single inline magazine. My Kel-Tec PF9 holds 7 rounds and is 7/8" thick so I use it for my carry weapon. I am a security guard.

[X_Digger]

85. I'm not a hunter (4/5ths of gun owners aren't), but..

I'll explain why I have a few extended magazines for some of the guns I own.

Mostly it's for target practice. I get to spend more time maintaining competence, rather than loading magazines.

I also have an extended magazine for the gun that stays in a safe by my bed. It also has a light attached, so that I can keep one hand free for dialing the cops if I ever have to use it.

[ileus]

109. I use 20's in my AR's while hunting with them.

I also carry a 30 round of fmj's while hunting in case I get bored.

Normally I use my 30's for the 4 firearms I own that will accept 30's for plinking.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

111. Yes I do need a magazine that big.

[Xela]

120. Do you feel the urge to kill just because you hold a knife?

Of course not.

Currently, I don't own a high capacity firearm, but I've held firearms that use high capacity magazines, and I have never felt the need to hurt anyone just because I picked it up.

McCarthy is ignorant in this regards.

Xela

[benEzra]

123. That's a standard capacity for a small-caliber rifle; the reason it's unusual for a pistol

is that a centerfire pistol is very difficult to conceal or holster with a 30-round magazine inserted, and they don't balance all that well, so most full-size 9mm's only hold 16 to 21 rounds (using flush-fit magazines) rather than 30+. I know people who keep a 30 in the safe for in-home standby, but they're not commonly carried out and about.

I don't currently own a 30-round pistol magazine, though I may purchase a couple as an act of protest if the prohibitionists look like they're actually going to ban them. My rifles use 20- and 30-round magazines, though.

You ask about hunting, but for most gun owners hunting is irrelevant; very few gun owners are hunters (less than 1 in 5). Hunting guns trade very low capacity for a combination of high power and portability; a hunting rifle might be 2 or 3 times as powerful as an AR-15 or civilian AK (and 7 to 12 times as powerful as a 9mm), but weigh less than an AR-15 or civilian AK and have a much slimmer profile.

As to why rifle capacities are what they are, I posted this answer in the other thread, but it is relevant here.

With any gun, there is always a power-vs.-capacity-vs.-size/weight tradeoff.

For hunting guns, the preference is often for a few very powerful rounds, for extreme lethality in a light-enough-to-carry package. For long-range target guns (and police/military precision rifles), the compromise is similar--a few, powerful rounds for momentum and energy at extreme range. For most target shooting (and most target competition), the tradeoff goes the other way; more small-caliber rounds are preferred rather than fewer rounds of a more powerful caliber, because smaller rounds recoil less and you have better capacity.

Since recreational target shooting (practical, not benchrest) and defensive utility are the primary reasons for gun ownership in this country, the most popular civilian centerfire rifles (both target and defensive) are at the extreme low end of the power spectrum (.223 Remington, 7.62x39mm) and the higher end of the capacity spectrum. That's why 30-round rifles are pretty much the norm, regardless of manufacturer, because 30 rounds of .223 (the most popular caliber) is a nice compromise between capacity and size/weight.

...

As far as the "why", for recreational shooting the answer should be pretty obvious (more time spent shooting and less hassle). For defensive use, non-LEO civilians use 15's and 30's for the same reason civilian police do, i.e. reserve capacity. If a typical defensive use involves eight rounds fired, you want much more than eight rounds in the gun, even if you are a LEO with spare mags on the belt and backup right behind you. For a non-LEO at home, the rounds in the gun are generally the only rounds you will have, since civilians don't sleep in duty belts or chest rigs, so capacity is more important.

I personally don't have much "need" for magazines over 30 rounds (my only >30 rounder is a relatively rare Romanian 40-round RPK magazine), but in the HD role 20's and 30's are much preferable to itty bitty 10-rounders. For concealed carry, 15-20 is about the limit for concealment reasons.

The thing is, McCarthy et al aren't trying to ban over-30-round magazines; they are trying to ban over-10-round magazines, and the Brady Campaign has previously called for a 6-round limit. A 10-round limit turns the clock back prior to pre-1860's for repeating rifles and pre-1930's for 9mm pistols; no thanks.

FWIW, there are already probably 100 or 200 million >10-round magazines in private hands, and there are going to be a whole lot more sold in the next few months until it becomes obvious that the AWB zombie isn't going to be resurrected. Until then, expect another run on them a la 2008. And if the bill is passed (unlikely), expect a renaissance of more powerful handguns; if you are stuck with only 10 rounds in new-production handguns, they might as well be 10 powerful rounds, not 9mm.

Looking back to the 1994 "ban" (which raised prices on full-capacity pistol magazines and a few rifle magazines), it is hard to say which was hated more, the ridiculously low capacity limit or the petty restrictions on adjustable rifle stocks and protruding handgrips. But they were both greatly hated by mainstream gun owners, and any new ban would be even less accepted since smaller-caliber, higher-capacity rifles are far more common now than in '94.

For perspective, the Henry carbine from the American Civil War (and basis of the later Winchester Model 1886 and 1894, IIRC) had a capacity of up to 15 rounds plus 1 in the chamber and IIRC was set up for speedloaders, and the Evans carbine of 1873 could be purchased in 28- and 34-round models. Over-10-round rifles are not new by any means.

[Travis_0004]

130. I own the exact magazine used in the shooting. (Maybe 2, I'm not sure)

I'll be honest with you, I think its not all that useful. I can shoot more accurate with a standard 17 round magazine. If I was shooting 30 shots on a timed event, I would take the 17 round magazine, and do a reload. I could accomplish that faster than the 33 round (since the smaller mag allows me to get a better grip).

Even with that said, I am against a high capacity magazine ban. Even with 10 rounds a lot of damage can be done, and there is nothing stopping somebody from bringing a second gun. In the shooting a few days ago, it wasn't a reload that stopped the shooter, it was the magazine jamming. In columbine, 10 round magazines were used, and that was a very tragic event.

I also shoot an AR-15. I own several 30 round magazines. They are convenient for shooting, and competition. I have never shot a single animal in my life, so I am not a hunter, but there are other sporting uses of guns. And the bottom line is, I don't truely believe that a high capicaty magazine ban will solve anything.

[Euromutt]

140. Honestly posed questions deserve a comprehensive answer

Generally, there aren't many handguns that are particularly suited to hunting, and none chambered in 9x19mm (like Loughner's Glock 19). For small stuff like squirrels and rabbits, a .22 LR will suffice, while if you're talking deer or anything heavier, you really need to be using .44 Magnum or heavier.

Most states put restrictions on the number of rounds a firearm can contain when hunting (presumably to prevent hunters from blazing away wildly), so you wouldn't need an extended mag in any form for that either.

Personally, the only application I can think of in which they might be really useful would be in a home defense handgun. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, it helps to not have to scrabble around in the dark for more than your cell phone and your handgun, so it's good if your handgun is kitted out with a light and as much ammunition as it will hold in one magazine. I've kitted my own "nightstand gun" (a Smith & Wesson M&P40 pistol) out with a magazine with an extended baseplate, increasing the capacity from 15 to 20 rounds, but I don't have any use for a really elongated magazine like Loughner's because it wouldn't fit into the quick-access lock box in which I actually keep the weapon (hence my use of quote marks on "nightstand gun").

Personally, I'm leery of any statement to the effect that the only reason someone would have a particular item or substance is "to kill people," certainly when it's said with the implication that killing is, by definition, morally wrong. It's generally considered morally acceptable to use lethal force to prevent permanent injury or death to innocents, even if it results in the assailant being killed, and extended magazines can be useful for that.

[beevul]

146. Need? No.

Need? No.

Want? No.

Willing to stand by while the gun haters get a foothold with a thirty round ban, and come back next year with a 20 round ban, then the next year they start chipping away by a round or two?

NO.

And lets not pretend here, that is EXACTLY what they'd do, given the chance.

[Maine_Nurse]

152. It is to kill and I have one

Now I'm a nurse, I volunteer at a hospice agency, and I vote predominantly democratic. So I really don't consider myself a right wing nut or any such thing. That being said, I own a handgun and high capacity magazines. They are to kill and that is why I own them.

I live in rural Maine in a county that is 3556 square miles in size. My town has no police force, neither do the towns near me. We rely on the sheriffs department for protection. On weekdays after the day shift, there are 5 police officers or less to cover our entire county. Even in a dire emergency, we are typically over 1 hour from the fastest police response as the deputies tend to stay in the larger communities which are quite a ways away from us. While overall Maine has a fairly low crime rate, we do have one of the highest rates of prescription drug addiction in the country and home invasions have become part of the rural life. Last month, we had an incident where a pair of armed addicts went to a man's rural home with the intention of robbery. They lured him to the door, then assaulted him. He managed to get his hands on his firearm and killed one of his attackers. Good for him! Come to find out, this pair had already committed numerous burglaries and a few home invasions (burglary while the residents are home) in the area of this town of 600. I am trained, qualified, experienced, and of good moral character. I have the right to protect my family in my home and would certainly do so. If I stand the chance of facing multiple armed intruders with no police response possible, I am going to do everything I can to maximize my chances of survival. Thus I own what I do.

[Francis Marion]

153. Jilan, the Framers were not hunters or sportsmen.

They had just fought the British Empire for eight years, with little hope of victory for much of that time. And every expectation that they might well be hanged for treason if they lost.

Pick a fight with the British Empire? You had better first count the cost...

The Founders were very serious people, and willing to die for their freedom- AND ours. They often wrote that they were fighting for Posterity.

Our right to keep and bear arms- the right of the People, not the right of the militia- is the right to protect our homes, families, nation, and Liberty. It is not the right to hunt, compete, or have fun.

Until recently, that has meant that Americans were able to buy and own the same rifles and pistols which are standard issue in US service. Machine guns have been excluded from private ownership due to cost or outright prohibition, however.

Semiautomatic firearms (semiauto = 1 shot per trigger pull), fed by magazines usually (not clips), are perfectly suitable for Second Amendment purposes because they are similar to or identical to military pattern firearms.

Bill Clinton's 'assault weapon' ban prevented Americans from buying military pattern semiautomatic firearms- it suspended our Second Amendment for ten years. Strange- I would have thought that Bill Clinton supported the Bill of Rights.

The fact is, despite its plain syntax, many people claim to not understand the Second Amendment, or else they do understand it but reject its necessity.

Although legislators take oaths to protect and defend the Bill of Rights, their actions often disrespect the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment particularly, as a grudgingly indulged/willingly cancelled privilege. Second Amendment opponents, from what I have noticed, usually want the People disarmed, the police properly armed, and themselves secretly armed.

To get back to your questions-
Why do I need a 30 round magazine?
Because that is the capacity of a standard M16 magazine.
30 rounds is STANDARD capacity for an M16.

I do not hunt, but hunting laws vary state by state, and it's not unusual for a state to impose a magazine capacity limit, such as 3 or 5 rounds. I would be surprised to see a hunter with a 30 round magazine, and it might be just plain illegal to hunt that way most places.

It is very common for competitive shooters to use 20 or 30 round magazines.

But then again, the Second Amendment's martial context and 'shall not be infringed' diction say to me that The American People should be able to own small arms AND magazines suitable for US service.

Suppose a legislature can tell you what arms you may or may not have, arbitrarily, and in any way they choose to define the terms. Do you still have a right to own guns?

Suppose they can jail you indefinitely without trial, without charges. Do you still have a right to trial by jury?

Suppose they can have your door kicked in and search your house whenever they feel like it, and for no reason. Do you still have the right to be secure in your papers and in your effects?

Our Freedom is to be jealously guarded by us, all the time, from legislative marauders. Because
'nature knows rightly how to price her gifts,' as Paine noted- because patriots had to die to win formal recognition of our Rights.

It's more dangerous to have no rights than to have the right to keep and bear arms, even if a lunatic uses a gun to commit a crime. People who don't have rights tend to get killed by the millions.

Thanks for your civil request for information. Please write any time.

[krispos42]

154. If, god forbid, you actually needed to perform armed self-defense...

...the you need a certain number of bullets to accomplish that fact. Somewhere between 0 and 1,000. (Most guns used in self defense are never fired, just aimed or shown).

It's likely you'll only need a couple of rounds on the off chance you'll actually have to shoot.

It's reasonably unlikely you'll need more than a half-dozen.

It's pretty unlikely you'll need more than 10.


But... you've already beaten the odds by actually confronting an attacker. You've beaten them again by having to shoot at the attacker(s). That makes the odds of needing more than ten rounds far less remote.

:shrug:

Having to kill people is not inherently bad... it's also what you're trying to do when you're defending yourself.

Most shots fired, miss. As a general rule, once a person has a two or three solid hits to the chest, they're out of action and probably going to die... but it might take 8 or 10 shots to get the hits. Handguns are hard to shoot accurately, especially in times of stress, the lighting situation is probably poor, and the person you're shooting at is probably running or dodging like hell.

A person high on drugs, and/or a person filled with anger might take more rounds to stop, too, as their condition diminishes felt pain and their fear of their own mortality. Rapper "50 Cent", remember, was shot 9 times and survived.


Me, personally, I don't think I would want such a critical component of my gun to be floating around outside the protection of the hand grip. Snags might be a problem, as could making the gun awkward to handle. It seems to me that having the magazine protrude from the gun might leave it vulnerable to jam-inducing dings, debris, and dents.

They've been readily available for decades. The Germans in World War I were issuing 32-round magazines for their artillery troops to put in their Luger pistols in case their positions were in danger of being over-run. They're just not really popular. If you carry concealed, they are way too long to keep in a concealed handgun; your shirt will bulge like Ron Jeremy's skivvies. They're also generally too long to carry as an extra. Notice that not even the cops use them, and they carry about 50 rounds on them at a time.

Hunters are generally limited by law to 6 rounds in their guns for big game like deer. There is also typically some sort of minimum for bullet energy... and a 9mm Glock doesn't make it. A .357 Magnum would, but not a 9mm or .45 Auto.

[jeepnstein]

169. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

It has nothing at all with taking game. I don't know where you even get that.

A thirty round magazine is quite useful in a fighting weapon. That's why our military adopted them almost universally. In the hands of a lawful citizen a firearm with a thirty round magazine is no more harmful than a sledge hammer or a laptop computer. When you hand such a firearm to a person with a mental health issue it can be a real problem. It's been that way since men discovered the pointy stick.