^this
"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...
- Thread starter Paincakesx
- Start date
- Status
Why do you need an 20 gallon gas tank? Wouldn't 12 be enough? The magazine capacity issue is a ruse; just another way for the anti's to "eat the elephant" one bite at a time. The original Clinton AWB was just a way to get the American public to accept that a certain "type" of firearm, could be legitimately banned. It had nothing to do with reducing crime and everything to do with changing the way that citizens think about their rights. They want the American public to accept the notion that rights can be negotiated away. The citizenry needs to stand firm that civil rights are never negotiable.
hershmeister
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 11
Here is rhe rejoinder:
"what business is it of yours to tell me what I need?"
"what business is it of yours to tell me what I need?"
JFtheGR8
Member
I hope I never "need" thirty round mags. Having them "in case" is my constitutional right.
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
JohnBiltz
Member
We probably don't need 30 round magazines. We do need more capacity than 10 though.
Seriously, if you are a owner of a gun or guns that are capable of of holding mags of 10, 20, or 30 rounds then proficiency in swapping out expended mags should be part of your training regime.
Does your gun club have a shoot house?
Somewhere where you can practice these techniques?
Sonny, regardless of what you think of him, shows how quickly you can change magazines using his techniques of magazine non-retention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3XCMNYMHFM&list=UUjDIujJ9JPZTtWuPv6LKuXQ
I'm also a huge fan of his cradle carry. In case you are interested.
Cheers,
~Ms Dragon.
Does your gun club have a shoot house?
Somewhere where you can practice these techniques?
Sonny, regardless of what you think of him, shows how quickly you can change magazines using his techniques of magazine non-retention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3XCMNYMHFM&list=UUjDIujJ9JPZTtWuPv6LKuXQ
I'm also a huge fan of his cradle carry. In case you are interested.
Cheers,
~Ms Dragon.
MudPuppy
Member
How about this--walk through a fictional scenario with whatever limits or compromised offered. During the simulation of kindergarten shooting, does the kill count drop with 10 round magazines? 7 rounds? Revolvers?
It's morbid to consider, but the truth is, an adult or two taken down allows the babies to be massacred. Imagine an adult in front of the door, what can a tiny child do?
To even come close to what is being desired by the antis requires all, ALL guns to be eliminated (not banned).
And at this point, the mentally deranged start looking at other, easily available options to murder.
The simple truth is, a magazine and assault weapons ban won't achieve the goal. Another simple truth is, that's not even what they're after. It's a step. Read history, this story has been played out before and that's what would unfold here if we allow it.
It's morbid to consider, but the truth is, an adult or two taken down allows the babies to be massacred. Imagine an adult in front of the door, what can a tiny child do?
To even come close to what is being desired by the antis requires all, ALL guns to be eliminated (not banned).
And at this point, the mentally deranged start looking at other, easily available options to murder.
The simple truth is, a magazine and assault weapons ban won't achieve the goal. Another simple truth is, that's not even what they're after. It's a step. Read history, this story has been played out before and that's what would unfold here if we allow it.
xsquidgator
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 835
When liberals talk about how evil 30 round "assault clips" are, I like to say "sounds like you've made a good argument for taking them away from the police and the .gov"!
BigBoreFan
Member
Why do I need 30 round magazines? Because I can't afford a belt fed. Leading to the conversation about "reasonable restrictions" of class III. I say let the urban folks, and east coast folks have all the restrictions they want. Move out to the rural areas and then we'll be reasonable. We'll also think hard before we feed you.
Zeke/PA
Member
As in a previous post: Banning Hi Cap Mags is a mere window dressing as we all know as a Mag change can be made in 3 or 4 seconds by someone bent on causing hurt.
To prove this point to some non-believers a few years back, I put 20 shots into the head/chest area of a silohette target at 100 yards,using an issue
'03-A3 Springfield, in 1 minute and 20 seconds.
I started with a loaded rifle and had to reload 3 times using 5 round stripper clips.
MOST politicians don't have a clue!
To prove this point to some non-believers a few years back, I put 20 shots into the head/chest area of a silohette target at 100 yards,using an issue
'03-A3 Springfield, in 1 minute and 20 seconds.
I started with a loaded rifle and had to reload 3 times using 5 round stripper clips.
MOST politicians don't have a clue!
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
No ban, or confiscation will solve the root cause.
Mental illness.
Mental illness.
Rex Kramer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4
Because 50, 75 & 100 round drums are expensive and heavy
Throwingdown
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.
JustinJ
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.
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?
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?
JustinJ
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?
r1derbike
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.
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.
parsimonious_instead
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 791
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!
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!
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)
Gossamer;
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);
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=670624&highlight=illinois+assault+weapons+ban
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.
HOWEVER.
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.
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);
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=670624&highlight=illinois+assault+weapons+ban
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.
HOWEVER.
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.
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
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
