Magazine Capacity Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's hard to state whether the AZ shooter would kill fewer people with 10 round magazines. There are many other factors that could have changed the outcome and 10 round magazines is just one.

It's like making a blanket statement that if someone there was armed they could have stopped him before he emptied his magazine. Perhaps they could or perhaps not.

The AWB was an attempt to prevent crime but like other laws only limited law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about laws and never will.
 
Last edited:
gbw said:
It is extremely rare for any civilian to fire, or wish they could have fired, more than 10 rounds in any SD event. It just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Rare? Yes. It just doesn't happen? Usually not, but it has happened.

Other than that, great post. I just had to pick on the one thing that wasn't quite right.:neener:


I think magazine capacity laws are dumb, and don't like them. But I mostly don't like them because they are inconvenient. So my convenience isn't really an arguing point against them.

However, a nation wide 10 round (or however many) restriction makes more since than individual state restrictions....well, it would if the country wasn't already full of high cap mags. You ban them in MA, somebody who wants one anyways there, they go to NH to do so. Illegal to have in MA? Yes. Illegal and hard to acquire? Not at all. Criminals don't care about following some laws while break others (especially when the ones they are breaking are worse!)
 
Wrong. They were designed to kill, and to do it at long range. Propelling small hunks of metal at high speeds is just the overall best way to go about it for individuals.
Click to expand...

You're confusing design with use. For example - a baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, but it can be used to break a knee cap. A chef's knife was designed to slice food, but it can be used to hurt someone.

The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things. What an object is used for is based on the intent of the user.
 
I am sorry, but the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to arm citizens to prevent goverment tyranny. Not to hunt not to protect your family from an intruder but to be able to overthrow the goverment.

We are already outgunned due to numerous compromises over the last few centuries, why give up magazines with over 10 round capacities now?

We started out in the beginning some 200 plus years ago with the same firepower as our national armies now when the army progresses the citizens do not.
 
A reason for not having a high capacity magazine ban? The 2nd amendment. It was designed to protect the right of american citizens to possess, carry, and utilize military weapons. An honest look at the way the 2nd amendment was written and what the founders wrote about the subject of an armed citizenry makes that quite clear. The primary purpose is to keep the government respectfully scared of the people. A secondary benefit is the self defense advantages it gives us.
 
The fact it is being debated at all shows the antis are not going to quit trying to regulate our freedoms.

Look how much debate is in the MSM and on forum boards.
 
The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things. What an object is used for is based on the intent of the user.
Click to expand...

Your argument is one of the silliest I have read in a long time.

Guns were designed to make it easier to kill things. They weren't invented just to throw lead for fun or competition. The founding fathers didnt constitutionally protect slingshots.

But I guess it doesnt really matter, since guns are used frequently to kill people and animals. Everyone knows what they are used for, regardless of the reason they were invented.
 
kingpin008 said:
You're confusing design with use. For example - a baseball bat was designed to hit a ball, but it can be used to break a knee cap. A chef's knife was designed to slice food, but it can be used to hurt someone.

The same is true of firearms. It was designed to propel small bits of metal very quickly, but it has more uses than simply killing things.
Click to expand...

No no no.

A baseball bat was designed to hit a baseball. Exactly. It does that but being a blunt instrument. Sure you can do other things, but that not what it was designed for. So you got that right, kind of.

A bread knife was designed to cut bread. You can cut other things with it, but they are not what it was designed for. It is sharp, and you can do other things with it to. You also got this right, sort of.

The firearm was designed to kill things. It does so by propelling small bits of metal quickly. You can shoot non-living things with it, because it does shoot, but that is also not what the firearm was designed for. This you keep getting wrong.

A hunting rifle is designed to kill animals.
A battle rifle is designed to kill people.
Pistols are designed to kill things.
A target rifle is designed to shoot targets. This specific firearm is not designed to kill. But for firearms in general, they were specifically invented to kill. You don't just design things without an intended use for them. How they operate to their intended use is not without reason.

A firearm has a mechanical operation to do what it was intended. A baseball bat does not. In order for your comparison to work, you would have had to say that a bat was designed to be blunt, and a knife was designed to be sharp. Because in stating a firearm is designed to propel metal, you are stating a trait of the object, not what it's designed for!
 
Why doesn't the anti-gun-rights crowd just introduce legislation that limits how much ammo you can put in a mag regardless of the mag's capacity? It makes about as much sense as passing a law that says if you are a felon, you can't have a gun.

Woody
 
You said: I argue till I'm Blue in the face with my current Father in Law. He told me that the 2nd ammendment only covers single shot sporter rifles and not to current military grade rifles.

A lot of anti-gunners use this argument and claim that the only guns that existed when the 2nd Amendment was written were single shot rifles and a few double barrel shot guns. They claim that founding fathers never envisioned a rapid fire gun or any gun containing more than one shot and that therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to autoloading guns, "assault weapons" etc etc.. But if you go back and look there were actually a large number of guns that had multiple barrels and even multiple shots per barrel going back to even before the founding of this country. One of the most common was a gun called a "Nock Volley Gun". As it's names implies it was intended to fire a volley of shots. These guns contained up to twelve barrels welded together and fired by a single flintlock mechanism. There was a small channel between each chamber that allowed the fire to first first one barrel , then the next and then next, etc after a very short delay. The most common use of this gun was to issue it to sailors or marines stationed in the top sails of ships. They would use it to rake the decks of enemy ships before boarding. Make no mistake, this was not a shotgun, each barrel was full size (~.68 in) bore and fired a full size musket shot at standard musket velocity instead of a few ~.3in shot as used in buckshot and fired at a much lower velocity. It truely was the "assault weapon" of it's day! Even today it would not be surprising if the ATF didn't classify these as "machine guns" since they do "fire more than one shot for each manipulation of the trigger"!

What's more, the Continental Congress was well aware of the NVG even before the signing of the Constitution. There ARE historical records showing that the Continental Congress ordered a number of Nock Volley Guns, specificly and by name, to arm ships in the fledgling US Navy in about 1780.

In short, there were rapid firing guns that would certainly fit the description of TRUE assault weapons even in colonial times AND the pre-US Congress was well aware of them and even bought a number of them! These are THE SAME PEOPLE that wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment!

So much for the arguments that single shot guns being the "only" guns that the 2nd Amendment applies too or that "assault weapons" aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment!
 
If I was in a gunfight, I would rather my opponent have to reload after every 10 rounds, rather than every 33.
 
If I was in a gunfight, I would rather my opponent have to reload after every 10 rounds, rather than every 33.

I would prefer he be armed with a single shot.
 
Most of those arguments revolve around "need". Why does anyone "need" a high capacity magazine? Why does anyone "need" expanding bullets? Why does anyone "need" a gun? Why does anyone "need" a car? Why does anyone "need" freedom of speech? Why does anyone "need" to vote?

Well, a slave has everything he needs - basic food, clothing and shelter. A free man should be able to have what he wants and be able to work to afford it. Note that the leftist-elitist gun control gang are the kind of people who would limit the rest of us to what we "need" - just like the slaves they want us to become.

Jim
 
A firearm is designed to do ONE thing, and ONE thing only - expel a soft metal slug down a metal tube by the action of expanding gases. That is the only thing they are designed to do, period. Where that soft metal slug goes is entirely up to the operator. Those here disputing that, and many others like them are deliberately confusing two words, design and purpose.
But enough trolling for trolls, the FACT is, the Glock 18 33 round magazines have been in this country for OVER 20 YEARS, thousands upon thousands of them in civilian hands, most for the grins and giggle factor. ONE time they are MISUSED in multiple ILLEGAL actions by ONE possibly mentally unblanaced suspect in ONE headline grabbing high profile incident, and now everyone is a suspect. I reject that argument completely. You wish to punish ME before I have done anything on the mere suspicion that the possession of a piece of folded metal containing a spring will somehow be harmful to those around me. Are you the Department of Pre Crime? Do you slap tape over a person's mouth when they go into a theater on the odd possabilty that they might yell "FIRE"?
Sorry, once again, I reject that argument alone, as our legal system is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, EVEN Representative Giffords twisted assailant, and your reasoning is 108 degress off, making me the criminal becuase you think I might do something, someday, somewhere, with not one shred of evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence against it.

Want to ban a high capacity feeding device with a PROVEN track record of causing death and mayhem, (not the clever commercials), destroy lives and wreck millions of dollars worth of private property?















largecapacityfeedingdevice.jpg


Wait, we tried that once, didn't we, and that one didn't work, either...
 
A firearm is designed to do ONE thing, and ONE thing only - expel a soft metal slug down a metal tube by the action of expanding gases.
Click to expand...

Talk about splitting hairs with design and purpose...
 
This blame the magazine is absurd.

Loughner in Tuscon with 33 round magazines killed 6.
Cho at Virginia Tech with 10 and 15 round magazines killed 33.
Obviously the smaller magazines are deadlier than the larger ones.

In my home town, three of the eight murders reported in 2004-2006 were committed by one man, in one incident killing a woman with a knife and in another killing a man and a woman with a baseball bat. The problem with murder is murderers not magazines.
 
Oh jeez..... over rationalizing again......


They designed/invented things for purposes. The purpose is apparent.

They invented/designed the gun for a reason.

The reason was not "I wonder if we can make something expel a soft hunk of metal down a tube."

The reason was "I want to stop that thing over there from over here... lets make something that can do that"

Obviously I wasnt there but I think its pretty much common sense that they did not invent the gun purely for self satisfaction that they could invent something thats intended purpose would be to 'shoot a soft hunk of metal down a tube'. They could have used a blow gun for that.

Self preservation was (and still is) key; hunting and defense.

And no, its not a hammer either. The 2a doesnt protect hammers nor does it protect things that expel soft metal objects. It protects arms (guns).
 
The purpose is apparent...really. ALL guns were made to KILL!!!!

To use the same "argument" that I have seen here already, I'll just reply,
wrong. There, make ya happier?

zerokilled.jpg

Project11.jpg

posterproject1-1.jpg
 
I liked something that DoubleTapDrew mentioned in post # 6.

It doesn't matter what a magizine's capacity is, or what type of weapon is used, or anything else.

What does matter is that the anti-gunners are stirring up FEAR. People are afraid of guns, that irrational fear is going to be stirred by "high capacity magizines" "assault rifles" "gun show loopholes" and so on.

Fear is what allowed the anti-gunners to pass the AWB. Fear is what allowed the states and communities to pass so much legislation decades ago to restrict peoples' rights. For generations, there has been groups dedicated to spreading fear that allows the liberal/progressive movement. People are afraid of sticking up for themselves, to defend themselves or their homes and property. Generations of "call the police" when you see someone loitering in your pasture, rather than to confront them and boot them off your land yourself. Generations of calling for help rather than to be self-reliant breeds a submissive poplulace that can be dictated to.

Ever open carry and had people look afraid when they saw a gun? Ever get a question about why you're wearing that? People are shocked when I tell them it is lawful to do, without a license. They put "gun" and "lawbreaking" together.

Teach gun safety and handling in high schools, some range time, and the basics of the legal system. You'll have whole generations of gun carriers rather than the society which pressures citizens not to arm themselves now.

To get to the original question, spreading fear is the purpose for the magazine capacity rulings.
 
On this "re-run" tis better to have two 10rd mags than a 20 just in case the single mag screws up. Better yet, two 20s if it works. A single stack will be a little easier to conceal than a double stack otherwise look at it as another ban means a foot in the door for not only firearms bans but another chance to take away the freedom lots of us fought for while the old draft dodgers of the 50s & 60s minus the long hair, beards and grubby looks now run this country.
 
What does matter is that the anti-gunners are stirring up FEAR. People are afraid of guns, that irrational fear...
Click to expand...

The ‘fear of guns’ is not irrational. And it isn’t fear of guns, most people aren’t that dumb. It's important we get this right. There is too much sloganeering, misdirection, smoke blowing, and over simplification on our side.

Since we now seem intent on parsing every word to logical absurdity, think of it this way: fearing a maniac, whose power to kill is far greater with a gun than anything else available to him, is not irrational. People fear that mix, and justifiably so. It may not bother me or you, but it happens often enough for folks to fear it.

[OT, but it's come up here: This is also why open carry puts people off and is a bad idea. People don’t know the carrier – they do know there are many many flakes out there, and now some Wyatt Earp wannabe is now figuratively waving a gun in their face to no apparent purpose, they do know guns make it efficient to kill (they are designed that way), and they do know if he goes nuts he has the means to kill easily, quickly, and often. Sure it makes them uncomfortable.

So if you want to lose your right to carry, keep it up by open carrying in people’s face. Sure you have the right, and if they don’t like it’s their problem.

But they aren’t gun people, guns and gun rights aren’t important to them, and they don’t care overmuch about your right to flaunt a gun around. When they get uncomfortable enough, and they will, they’ll have the votes to solve their problem by removing your right. Bet on it.]

Anyhow. Banning magazines is not done to spread fear. The fear exists. The politicians know as well as we that a ban won't change anything. But it is a visible way to show “we’re DOING something about this problem!” Politicians love high visibility. That what they do makes little sense is unimportant.
 
Mag limitations be damned. Jerry Miculek can fire a revolver and reload faster than most can fire a semi auto. IIRC if he had enough speed loader his rate of fire is equal to some full auto weapons. Can't remember the name but a mentaly disturbed man went on a shooteing spree on a train in NY state and IIRC he had several 10 round magazines for his pistol. And I believe it was not long after the AWB passed. And the widow of one man who was killed became a US senator or represenative from NY,McCarthy I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Questions: California Law on High-Capacity Magazines
Replies
15
Views
5K
guntodd
G
J
  • Locked
New York State Laws
Replies
4
Views
540
Redneck07
R
L
  • Locked
Magazine Capacity
Replies
10
Views
3K
Extremely Pro Gun
E
Q
  • Locked
High capacity magazine legality question.
Replies
20
Views
2K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
C
  • Locked
California law enforcement notified Re. magazine capacity.
Replies
0
Views
741
Cali-Reloader
C
Back
Top