1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Paincakesx, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. Throwingdown

    Throwingdown Well-Known Member

    The same argument that you don't need that many rounds for hunting..I don't recall seeing anything about hunting in the second.
  2. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    Not to get off topic but does yours? As much fun as a shoot house would be i'd personally be terrified going to a range where they let any average joe shoot in one.

    On a side note what makes you believe the average gun owner needs to practice quick mag changes. The vast majority of home and self defense shootings require a couple of shots at most, much less 11 or more. I suppose its good to practice in case of malfunctions but based on the accounts i've read these things happen so fast that if you're delayed a couple of seconds you better have a plan B.
  3. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    I had a similar conversation with my very pro-gun, retired military, semi-retired LE, uncle. He owns all kinds of firearms including those which would be banned (AR15, blah blah blah) and my very VERY pro-gun brother-in-law who's collection of guns dwarfs most I've seen. He too has guns that would be banned.

    My uncle, who's been involved in multiple personal defense situations with his gun and had to shoot someone said very clearly: in a personal defense situation you are most likely to fire fewer than 10 shots, and if they are well-placed you need only fire one. His premise is that it's not good to have people rely on capacity at the expense of accuracy in a personal defense situation.

    He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40). And while guns are generally just about utility for me - and their utility FOR ME isn't diminished by a smaller capacity magazine - the argument isn't just about utility for everyone else who owns guns.

    And that's where the question gets interesting. Because when we take "utility" out of the equation, the question of "who NEEDS a high-cap magazine?" becomes irrelevant.

    It turns into a question of rights. And rights are about law. And the law leads us to this question:

    Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

    Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.

    Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.

    Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

    The argument that an acceptable restriction to a right can be employed when the greater good is in jeopardy has been accepted by the SCOTUS, legislatures and society at large. We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals at the cemetery next to my house, thereby limiting their first-amendment rights on the grounds that those rights cannot trump the families's right to grieve.

    There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

    We agree that WBC doesn't have a "need" to protest that funeral which is of greater social good than the right of the family to grieve.

    We agree that the shouter doesn't have a need to yell "fire" greater than the right of safety of theater goers.

    So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

    The SCOTUS has interpreted the law such that the right to use speech can be limited on the grounds it may infringe on privacy and grief, how can they argue that the right to utilize a gun in a certain high-capacity way cannot be limited just because it may infringe on the right of life and safety?

    I read commentary about "a killer can swap out 10-round mags in just 3 seconds." My answer, "great, if they're that easy to swap out then you won't miss the larger ones."

    I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."

    I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served. (2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."

    I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."

    I read that the "root cause is mental illness." My answer: "People without a trace of mental illness act out gun violence every single day in this country. They do it with hi-cap magazines and low-cap magazines."

    I'm playing Devil's Advocate and finding very few good arguments from either side for their staked out positions.

    I guess my point is, many of the arguments from both sides are moot because this is ultimately a question of law. We are a Republic. A nation of law. The question is, how do those laws permit us a right to a certain degree of utility while they curtail the utility of other, equally sacrosanct rights?
  4. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    Except misuse of those items also directly impacts other citizens. I agree they aren't perfect comparisons but you can't exempt them on the claim that they too don't affect others.

    That comparison irks me. The first amendment is about protecting the expression of ideas and the sharing of information. Yelling "fire" in a theater is no more a first amendment right than is pulling a fire alarm.

    I agree with your argument against absolutes. You certainly make great points. However, the question is will banning 30 rounders actually save the lives of children?
  5. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    Why does anyone need 30 rounders? To take care of the 4 armed intruders hiding just out of view, while their female accomplice rings the doorbell and tells your wife she is doing a marketing survey with her employer, may clean your carpets, and her crew may begin immediately, with nothing charged for the complimentary cleaning.

    This happened several weeks ago, and the only part I added was the 4 armed robbers crouched out of view on either side of the doorway, instead of inside the beat up van parked in our driveway.

    I had my carry weapon with me, while my wife told the degenerate we just had them cleaned last week.

    It was then I realized just how vulnerable we could have been from multiple armed intruders. It happens, and home intrusions in daylight are at an all time high here, confirmed by a neighbor's call to the police about suspicious vehicles stopping in front of homes in our village.

    Qualify banning 30 round or whatever round magazines by whatever floats-your-boat.

    Members of our degenerate subculture would love to have everything banned.

    Oh, forgot, the left would like everything banned as well.
  6. parsimonious_instead

    parsimonious_instead Well-Known Member

    I'm against a legal limit on magazine capacity not because I particularly want a 20-30+ round magazine, but because I don't want to become a criminal for having one.
    NYS law states that it's a felony to possess or dispose of a "high capacity" magazine. Great... so let's say my local FFL receives an out of state firearm with a detachable mag. He doesn't check it for a "hi-cap" mag, and sends me on my way.
    I get it home and look inside... oops! There's a 15-round and a ten-round mag - I'm now a felon! Horray! Now I'm stuck with it - as the law is written, there doesn't seem to be a way to legally get rid of it without breaking the law, too.
    Gov Cuomo wants to limit mags to SEVEN rounds now - ridiculous!
  7. Warp

    Warp Well-Known Member

    I don't think making up scenarios without a real world basis does anything but make you look paranoid (yes, I used that word...paranoid)
  8. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy


    The impact of these types of laws are profound on law abiding citizens.

    To give you an example, Illinois recently tried to pass an assault weapons ban that would have made possession of certain ammunition, firearms, and "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" felony charges. (Keep in mind, Feinstein's upcoming proposed plan is even harsher than the worst thing Governor Quinn and the Chicago anti-gunners have ever dreamed up.)

    I recounted this in another thread earlier this year (Post #10);


    Now, think about this for a minute.

    You argue there is no compelling NEED for these devices; a point which could be refuted if you're willing to debate at length and discuss topics which are frowned upon at THR (such as the need to defend one's homeland from governments which turn on their citizens).

    But the main point we need to reach here, is enacting a law such as this will turn everyday, honest, hard working Americans in to criminals. Counting recent acquisitions, it's possible that in the very near future, depending on the language in the federal bills that are submitted and whether they pass, I could be guilty of upwards of 400 felony charges for what I own. Or upwards of 12,000 felonies, depending on what ammunition is classified as.

    Henry David Thoreau puts it more eloquently in his essay On Civil Disobedience, than I can:

    Now, in the United States of America, I was born a free man.

    I obey all laws, I pay my taxes (and penalties and fines, when I screw up), I raise my children with a set of moral and ethical codes, I contribute to society through generous donations to our educational system, women's rights organizations, and other organizations that I feel deserving. I pay my debts, I honor my deals, and I treat others with fairness, kindness, and respect; even if I do not agree with their politics or opinions.

    I'm a good man, a fair man, and a peaceful man.


    If my government makes me a felon through NO cause or action of mine, I will fight.

    If my government threatens my children and subsequent generations their heritage, and right to be raised in a free society, I will fight.

    If my government removes the sole fail-safe protection we as a free people have to remain a free people, I will fight.

    I may fight only with words. Or not.

    Either way, it's a road we, as a nation, do NOT need to travel down.

    You may cry "for the children" until you are blue in the face. But the harsh reality is the targets were kinder-gardeners, frail little things, and that tragically unstable young man could have just as easily done what he did with a knife, hammer, chainsaw, or other instrument.

    You can only stop force with force. Period. Until society solves the underlying problems that make things like this happen in the first place, evolves in to a more enlightened civilization, solves murder, hunger, rape, armed robbery, genocide, wars of religion, resource, and revenge, eliminates theft of innocence once and for all....

    I'm keeping my damn guns.
  9. MistWolf

    MistWolf Well-Known Member

    The Bill of Rights was also written with the understanding that it does not grant us rights, that we have these rights because we exist as sentient beings and with the understanding that the Bill of Rights does not define all of our inalienable rights.

    Many of our rights are liberties. That is, we are at liberty to exercise our rights and are held responsible for consequences of our choices.

    What that means, if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or start shooting in a crowded theater, we must be held responsible. It does not mean a rash of people yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater justifies banning the word "fire" any more than a murder justifies banning a type of firearm or accessory
  10. Ole Coot

    Ole Coot Well-Known Member

    Forget the 2nd Amendment! I will use whatever I chose to exercise my God given right to defend myself and family.
  11. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Well-Known Member

    If everything is nice and calm I don't need a 30 round magazine. Might not even need a firearm. But then when things go south then we need all help we can get to defend our families and ourselves.
    So, limiting by men's made laws the capability for the humans to be able to defend themselves by any means they consider necessary is not just irrational but against natural law.
    We all know that a mother bear will use anything in her arsenal to defend her cubs and we accept that because it is natural law. We do not hold her guilty of praying w/o reason. So what kind of entitlement can anyone have to deny such a fundamental right given by the laws of God and nature to any sentient being ?

    What I have been doing the last few days is to write all senators, post online with my limited knowledge of the media circus, and donate all my Christmas money to the NRA, Scope and other organizations fighting for liberty.

    Read and share this I got in the WSJ...


  12. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    That is NOT what I argued. I argued that various needs (and rights) have been found to be curtail-able by the SCOTUS and our society on the grounds that those needs are trumped by other, "greater" societal goods. So I do not advocate using the "need" argument on those grounds.

    The argument that the magazine limitation would criminalize otherwise law abiding people is a strong one. But our country has dealt with this before.

    I'm still not sure we've formulated a sufficiently strong argument in favor of hi-cap magazines. I think for it to work these arguments have to be rooted in law because that is where they will ultimately be challenged. That's why the strongest one may be "I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen with no kind of gun fetish, and you propose criminalizing me."
  13. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Our country has never dealt with a firearms ban of this particular magnitude, or with these particular repercussions. The original AWB was grandfathered without registration, did not prohibit the transfer or sale of weapons or magazines in existence prior to the enactment. You, as well as anyone else, knows that a ban lacking these provisions is ineffective; I was able to buy high-capacity magazines at whim, a full 10 years in to the 10 year ban.

    As magazines do NOT have serial numbers or other uniquely identifiable characteristics, it is impossible to tell WHEN they were manufactured, or to register or track WHO owns them. The ONLY way the magazine ban will work, in the end, is to make possession of them outright illegal. Which, constitutionally, should not be possible.

    Illinois attempted to side step this by requiring photographs of every high capacity feeding device and/or original sales receipts. (The latter being impossible to provide, since I've paid cash for most everything over the years). Their logic is "at the onset of the ban, you had "X" magazines, if we catch you with "X+1" you're a felon.

    I will not now, or ever, catalog my personal possessions for the benefit of the Government. We've recently seen an example of exactly what everyone fears in the release of all those concealed carry permit holders in New York. Literally - a roadmap right to gun owner's homes.

    The risk that I *forgot* to include a magazine that has been sitting in a box somewhere is very, very real. I was recently cleaning the garage and found a box containing 4 fully loaded AK-47 30-round magazines and two 100 round German 30 cal belts, which I had MISSED when calculating the total numbers I quoted earlier this year. They'd been sitting in that box for at least 5 years, the box hadn't been opened since we bought our new house and moved!

    Boom. I just became a felon, if that law had passed in Illinois. A law enforcement search would no doubt be exhaustive. What if I double-count, miss-count, or forget to photograph a particular magazine to prove I owned it prior to the ban... I'm screwed.

    Do I then become a felon due to bad math, or getting distracted by one of my five children's theatrics, or the phone ringing, or whatever?

    This isn't theoretical, not at all. A law was presented THIS YEAR in my state to do this very thing. Feinstein just presented something far worse.

    I will not now, not ever, either willingly or compelled by force, give up or catalog my personal belongings for the benefit of a government which is hell bent on denying me the right to those items.

    There's a stronger argument to be put forth, much stronger. But such topics are verboten on this forum. People's beliefs, when put to the test, can have undesirable outcomes.
  14. tomrkba

    tomrkba Well-Known Member

    This whole "sporting purposes" nonsense has to go away. The purpose of the Second Amendment, according to The Federalist Papers, is war. Sport shooting, hunting and personal defense are nice side effects. Thirty round and larger capacity magazines serve a military and militia purpose and therefore are protected under the Second Amendment.
  15. 1stmarine

    1stmarine Well-Known Member

    The sporting purposes refers to hunting and sports that is a privilege.
    The 2nd amendment that is the actual right doesn't imply any limitations for people to be able to defend themselves effectively and efficiently in any form of shape they might consider necessary.
    They can put anything they want in the law, that proposal is against the 2nd amendment so it should be put in the trash can.
    All we have to say all firearms owners with one single voice is we will not obey that law because of the result of that law being passed and implemented only means that the check and balances have failed to protect the supreme law of the land.
    We know the politicians taking the votes are the puppets of the sensationalist media and hidden agendas.
    The emphasis should be only in laws that help keep any guns away from criminals and assist with the keeping of legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
  16. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    I'm talking about the fact that this country has dealt with the legal concept that otherwise law-abiding people would be criminals if a new law passed. There have been exceptions, exclusions, "grandfatherings," time limitations, etc. etc. in all kinds of areas concerning restrictions on liberties and rights that have been found satisfactory and reasonable by the SCOTUS to sufficiently avoid the criminalization of non-criminals.
  17. nazshooter

    nazshooter Well-Known Member

    That's incredibly short sighted. I don't plan to publish anything very controversial, I've never had my property searched without a warrant, I'm not black etc. Does this mean I shouldn't care if we ditch the 1st, 4th, 14&15th amendments? You cannot infringe on one of our rights without weakening the protections on the others. You yourself have proven the point by using various historical infringements on the 1A in order to justify infringements on the 2A. We either hang together or we will surely hang separately.

    Which is exactly equivalent to my right to own a 10+ round magazine so long as I don't use it to commit a crime. What someone else does with theirs is irrelevant in both cases. The right to own a sports car (or even a horse) isn't anywhere in the Constitution but firearms are which means they get MORE protection.

    Alcohol is very much appropriate in that people who abuse it often cause harm to others. There is a town not far from me that has a problem with street alcoholics. It's so bad that some of these guys have more than 400 police contacts per year!

    Yes, but they are still allowed to protest and there has been no limit imposed on the content of their protest. This is equivalent to gun free zones. Many of us think they are counterproductive but few believe they are actually unconstitutional in most cases.

    Interestingly enough that line comes from the case of Schenck v. United States where the court said that the government could ban distribution of fliers opposing the draft because it threatened the governments recruitment efforts. Do you really want to tie your argument to THAT sort of thinking?

    There is NO right to be "free of fear". At a bare minimum it is up to those fearful people to show that MY 30+ round magazine is ACTUALLY putting their child in danger. Their fear is not an argument against my Constitutional right any more than my unfounded fear of women voting is an argument against allowing them to do so.

    All that shows is that "slippery slopes" tend to work both ways. You've just added evidence that we really shouldn't give in just a little because it's likely to be the start of a trend.

    More specifically, when you are talking about an individual right, such limitations need to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. Once again, it is up to the government to prove that any particular infringement meets these requirements, not up to the people to prove that it does not.

    A magazine is clearly a part of a firearm. To argue that the government cannot infringe on our ability to own or carry a firearm but can infringe on our ability to own or carry each individual sub-component would make the entire 2nd null and void.

    Unless you think being shot to death is worse than being murdered in any other way we should be talking about mass KILLINGS, not mass SHOOTINGS. Do you have ANY evidence that past magazine limits have significantly reduced the number or severity of mass killings?
  18. nazshooter

    nazshooter Well-Known Member

    How about this? Millions of Americans think 10+ round magazines are so necessary that they have given up their hard earned money in order to buy them as well as to buy guns designed to utilize them.
  19. Collector0311

    Collector0311 Well-Known Member

    We hunt hogs here in Texas, they cause tens of millions of dollars in property damage annually. Not to mention maiming and killing people.

    I once watched my uncle be charged by a hog while we were hunting, and he was reloading his revolver. My dad shot the hog 8 times before it dropped and had only 3 rounds left in a 30rd mag when it was over. He needed it. And I still have an uncle. Anyone care to counter? Didn't think so.
  20. David E

    David E Well-Known Member

    Why would the antis care?

    In addition to personal defense, the 2A is about defending the country from threats foreign and domestic. The forefathers expected the militia (citizenry) to have a current arm suitable for the task.

Share This Page