Magazine Restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a question- what, if any, compromises would we as a community be willing to accept in terms of magazine restrictions?
Click to expand...

None whatsoever. Compromise here, compromise there, and before you know it your rights are gone completely.
 
There is a fine line between the laws that protect us and those that enslave us. I understand that a growing majorityof people have no use for firearms. You cannot blame firearms or their magazine capacities for crimes. That is like blaming the cheeseburger for someone dying of heart failure. If they bugde us, when will they quit pushing?
 
Do you need a car that can go 100mph? No. Same thing with ultra high capacity magazines. But there is nothing in the 2nd about magazine restrictions for the public. Plus if you start magazine size restrictions it is a very slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
My previous post was not intended to demean anyone else's opinion or position on this. The references to Dumb A or what ever accurately represent what I have heard 1st hand from fellow shooters. Unfortunately, the Zombie killers among us do exist, and have a constitutional right to exist. My point is that they can still build Zombie killer guns but without the restrictions currently placed on civilian ownership of Full Auto weapons, they would be FA instead of SA. Everyone can have their fun and for the most part almost all are doing it without full auto. My feeling is that drum mags aren't necessary either. As for 15 or 30 rd mags for the G22, I'm ok with the 15 double stack because it fits no differently than a 10 rd mag. The 30 round extension like the drum on the AR [have even seen a drum adapted to a Glock] doesn't.
 
You cannot give the "anti-gun" community anything as they are never appeased. They won't be happy until all private ownership of guns is banned and we live in a police state.

I am very dissapointed in the NRA who has refused to encourage a challenge to the 1986 gun law outlawing new fully auto guns....
 
I fully understand the need for firepower, and even downrange, we generally run 30-50 round belts, at the most.
Click to expand...

If you ask your guys about this, I believe they will tell you those are "starter" belts, and are only meant to provide an instantaneous response to enemy contact. Your M249 and M240B gunners are carrying far more than this, I absolutely guarantee it. Furthermore, I'm sure at least half of the other guys in the squad are carrying either a spare box for the SAW or a spare belt for the 240. There should also be a third man on each MG team who is responsible for carrying ammo.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised the OP proposes this, given the profession. Do you really want to set yourself up for a felony possession of an NFA item charge upon ETS for that P-Mag you forgot you had?

But hey, I'm willing to compromise. Let's remove the suppressor and SBR silliness from the NFA plus declare all Title I firearms curious and I'll register my home address with the BATFE. Oh wait, I already did. I'll just sit here and wait on the Brady Bunch/VPC/Joyce to fullfil their part ...
 
"It's hard to defend the 100rd magazine to the general public."
Click to expand...

Actually it's not.....next time you grab yourself a beer, think to yourself what if I went up to you and slapped the beer out of your hands. My justification is that you don't need it, a sip is more then enough, so do I have the right to take that beer away from you?.....I definitely don't have that right, and odds are your going to get pissed off at what I just did.

So why should a 100 round magazine be any different? I don't have the right to go take someones 100 round magazine and tell him that a 10 rounder will suffice perfectly fine, now do I?
 
The guy in Colorado built explosives and booby traps. That is illegal. I'm sure if a magazine had a block/plug in it, he would take it out. If he could have figured out how to convert a semi auto rifle to full auto, he would have done it given time. He concealed his weapons without a license, again illegal. He murdered and hurt, again illegal.

I would not be willing to compromise on magazines based on the actions of nuts and criminals who belong in prison or death row.
 
You guys do realize he was wearing full body armor, right? I have doubts that any CCW holder would have stopped him.
Click to expand...

I'll assume by your comment that you've never been shot while wearing body armor.
 
Rocketmedic, to answer your question, no. I will not support any restrictions on my core fundamental rights due to the actions of criminals. Period.
I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted. It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future, and in all honesty, I really think that high-capacity magazines are not a legitimate sporting tool when compared with the potential harm from their misuse
Click to expand...
Please cite how many BetaMag owners have committed mass murder? Also, my rifle doesn't have magazines less than 30 rounds available, and whaddya know, Joe, it' ain't killed anybody yet! BTW, standard capacity mags ARE legitimate sporting tools in Arizona, come August 3rd, when our magazine restriction goes away, so hunters by the border/near the federally sanctioned "drug corridor" aren't outgunned by the cartel members with those US taxpayer provided firearms, coming through my state to run their drugs and human cargoes.
 
You guys do realize he was wearing full body armor, right? I have doubts that any CCW holder would have stopped him.
Click to expand...

I have heard the media reference "ballistic clothing". Now this is the same media that calls an AR15 an assault rifle, and a magazine a clip. It seems like small details, but the media has no idea if he was wearing bullet resistant clothing or not. Only time (and police reports) will tell.

As has been said earlier. Just because a vest will stop a bullet, does not mean the round was ineffective. It is very much felt by the wearer.
 
I'm not arguing that restrictions are right, or even necessary. What I am saying is that certain objects (grenades, belt-fed fully-automatic weapons, missiles, etc) are far more efficient weapons than, say, a 15-round semiautomatic handgun, and far more devastating when misused, and are far more difficult to defend. To me, that 100-round magazine (although morally and legally permissable) is far more difficult to defend than a 20 or 30-round P-mag or a handgun in the court of public opinion. A concealed handgun is a lifesaver. A 100-round drum magazine isn't going to be pictured in a target match, it's going to be pictured in the hand of a lunatic mowing down people. Attempts to claim it should be protected because "that's what the military uses, and we're entitled to the same things because of TEH SECOND AMENDMENT!" are going to fall flat on their face because the military doesn't use them on most weapons legally permitted to citizens and because there is already a legal basis for selective restrictions on weaponry.

Yes, training can replicate the affects of a 100-round drum with 20 and 30-round stacks. No, weapon restrictions won't stop mass shootings, and mass murders are the price of living in a free society. However, the answer is not the patently absurd "mandatory carry" some of our more extreme members propose, nor is it the abolition of firearms rights as we know them, nor is it the wholesale banning of firearms.

The only real answer to the problem of mass shootings is a real mental-health treatment system combined with a return to values that don't endorse murder as acceptable and the acceptance and authorization for people to responsibly carry firearms and weapons with an acceptable level of capacity and effectiveness nationwide in all contexts, with Consitutionally-enshrined legal authorization and mandatory real firearms training in schools. I'm totally OK with a man sitting in Tinseltown with a 25-round 45ACP in a holster. I'm not totally OK with that same man lugging a flamethrower for "protection", nor a Stinger "in case the government comes", nor a 100-round drum magazine he bought online without the added NFA hurdles, because those are not the weapons of defense, but weapons optimized to slaughter people quickly.

If James Holmes had wanted to, he could have built an IED or bought a SAW or something to mow down even more people. He instead chose to legally purchase commonly-available weapons that millions of us own and commit an atrocity. The responsibility for these crimes is his and his alone- not Gander Mountain, not Academy, not the vendor who sold him the ammunition or who shipped it to him, nor the vendor who sold tactical kit to him. It is not the fault of anyone who "should have noticed" altered mentation, for a society where we are policed based on thoughts is not free. However, some of the tools he was apparently able to obtain turned that rifle into something capable of killing quite a few more people without reloading, and that's not something I think we should be defending as responsible gun owners.

To the member who asked if I would follow orders to confiscate civilian firearms if ordered, no. That would violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and would be considered an illegal order.
 
I'm not arguing that restrictions are right, or even necessary.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you're arguing in favor of UNnecessary restrictions?

To what end?

To mollify people who will ONLY be mollified by a TOTAL government monopoly on the means of armed force?

I simply REFUSE to engage in an empty gesture GUARANTEED to be seen ONLY as weakness.

They're losing across the board in the courts, and in most of the legislatures so your plan is to... SURRENDER?

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
 
"A 100-round drum magazine isn't going to be pictured in a target match, it's going to be pictured in the hand of a lunatic mowing down people."

That's your opinion and of course the medias, I picture a lunatic wearing a hockey mask and carrying a machete. Just because you picture something a certain way, doesn't mean it's correct and if the media does picture a "lunatic mowing down people" you realize their the media, right? They need ratings, and what gets good ratings is controversy, stirring up emotions, and of course death.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I really can't think of a reason to have more than 20 rounds.
Click to expand...

I don't care one iota about what you think.

There are literally MILLIONS of magazines that hold more than 30 rds in circulation that have never been used to kill a thing, but ONE deranged guy acts out and you're eager to open the flood gates to give up your hard won rights. And you're on our side?

I'd start by treating magazines with capacities over 20 rounds as NFA items like silencers- legal, but taxed and restricted.
Click to expand...

Let's start by registering the magazines....then the guns.....what could possibly go wrong???

It's a sacrifice, yes, but it may well prevent far more drastic measures in the future
Click to expand...

Except, Virginia, there really isn't a Santa Claus. They will NOT be satisfied. They will call it a "good start," but add, "it just doesn't go far enough."

They'll say no one "needs" that much ammo, those kinds of guns or that many guns, as they demand more and more "sacrifice for the common good" from law abiding gunowners.

Then eager beavers like you will gladly heap more of our rights on their anti-gun inferno, naïvely thinking you're putting out the fire, not realizing you're actually feeding it.
 
Rocketmedic,

Do you really understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Do you really believe that it is there for sporting purposes or for even just for personal defense in a good-guy -vs- bad-guy situation?

I've been on this forum for a few years. This is the first time I have ever told this on THR.

My parents came from a country where they had lots of money and property. All of that was taken away from them by force and my grandparents and uncles were tortured, made to confess to crimes that they did not commit, and then executed. Do you know what the first thing the new, up and coming regime did? They confiscated all guns - Revolvers, bolt action rifles, and even things like swords - not mortars, cannons, missiles, or machine guns.

Bottom line... I am a citizen of this country and 110% loyal to this great country. However, that loyalty is not blind, and that's what the 2nd Amendment is there for - not sporting/hunting, not collecting, and not just for personal defense. If you don't get it, then I truly hope that you never have to be on the other side of that barrel, if - G*d Forbid - that time ever comes.
 
Rocketmedic said:
I'm not arguing that restrictions are right, or even necessary. What I am saying is that certain objects (grenades, belt-fed fully-automatic weapons, missiles, etc) are far more efficient weapons than, say, a 15-round semiautomatic handgun, and far more devastating when misused, and are far more difficult to defend. To me, that 100-round magazine (although morally and legally permissable) is far more difficult to defend than a 20 or 30-round P-mag or a handgun in the court of public opinion. A concealed handgun is a lifesaver. A 100-round drum magazine isn't going to be pictured in a target match, it's going to be pictured in the hand of a lunatic mowing down people. Attempts to claim it should be protected because "that's what the military uses, and we're entitled to the same things because of TEH SECOND AMENDMENT!" are going to fall flat on their face because the military doesn't use them on most weapons legally permitted to citizens and because there is already a legal basis for selective restrictions on weaponry.

Yes, training can replicate the affects of a 100-round drum with 20 and 30-round stacks. No, weapon restrictions won't stop mass shootings, and mass murders are the price of living in a free society. However, the answer is not the patently absurd "mandatory carry" some of our more extreme members propose, nor is it the abolition of firearms rights as we know them, nor is it the wholesale banning of firearms.

The only real answer to the problem of mass shootings is a real mental-health treatment system combined with a return to values that don't endorse murder as acceptable and the acceptance and authorization for people to responsibly carry firearms and weapons with an acceptable level of capacity and effectiveness nationwide in all contexts, with Consitutionally-enshrined legal authorization and mandatory real firearms training in schools. I'm totally OK with a man sitting in Tinseltown with a 25-round 45ACP in a holster. I'm not totally OK with that same man lugging a flamethrower for "protection", nor a Stinger "in case the government comes", nor a 100-round drum magazine he bought online without the added NFA hurdles, because those are not the weapons of defense, but weapons optimized to slaughter people quickly.

If James Holmes had wanted to, he could have built an IED or bought a SAW or something to mow down even more people. He instead chose to legally purchase commonly-available weapons that millions of us own and commit an atrocity. The responsibility for these crimes is his and his alone- not Gander Mountain, not Academy, not the vendor who sold him the ammunition or who shipped it to him, nor the vendor who sold tactical kit to him. It is not the fault of anyone who "should have noticed" altered mentation, for a society where we are policed based on thoughts is not free. However, some of the tools he was apparently able to obtain turned that rifle into something capable of killing quite a few more people without reloading, and that's not something I think we should be defending as responsible gun owners.

To the member who asked if I would follow orders to confiscate civilian firearms if ordered, no. That would violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and would be considered an illegal order.
Click to expand...
I guess you're just not getting the point, no! Its frankly revolting, that you would use the heinous act of a deranged individual to forward this dialogue at this time. You are coming across like an employee of the Bloomberg administration.
 
Notice that Obama celled this act of mass murder "beyond reason".
Therefore, any "action" to "prevent a recurrence" would be "reasonable" yes?
 
The 100 round Beta Mags are expensive and unusual - I've seen exactly one used, being demonstrated by an HK salesman in a full auto MP-5. That was a trip. I have no use for one, but then again, I have no use for a designer leopard print handbag or a Chevy Volt, but I wouldn't tell people they couldn't buy one, even if handbags are likely to be stolen and Chevy Volts likely to burn.
If you want to start surrendering early, get it out of your system now, but don't drag us along.
100-round drum magazine he bought online without the added NFA hurdles, because those are not the weapons of defense, but weapons optimized to slaughter people quickly.
Click to expand...
Who let Nancy Pelosi in here?
I've said it before will say it again - firearms are designed to do one thing, and one thing only - expel a soft metal slug down a metal tube by the action of expanding gases. WHERE that slug or slugs go is ENTIRELY up to the operator. And this particular "operator" I hope will get his fair jury trial as required by the Constitution, and I further hope that if he is convicted of all suspected crimes, that the judge considers the option of the death penalty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Places that allow concealed/open carry but restrict mag capacity to 10
Replies
10
Views
992
rromeo
rromeo
J
  • Locked
Ban practice?
Replies
4
Views
722
Sam1911
S
RA40
  • Locked
High cap mags buying selling?
Replies
7
Views
1K
bountyhunter
B
P
  • Locked
NY State hi-cap mag laws... What's the real deal?
Replies
6
Views
970
steveracer
S
M
  • Locked
NY State: Limit “Assault Weapon” Ammo Sales to 20 Rounds Every 4 Months
Replies
14
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top