proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[nyresq]

I especially like the part about "30 round magazines are for hunting people"...

yes its much easier to hunt people with a giant extended magazine that sticks out like a broom handle instead of something with only 19 rounds that tucks under a shirt...???

If this mental patient had any skills with a gun he could have shot just as many people with a regular G17 mag with a +2 floorplate.
But I shouldnt say that out loud cause they want to ban all those also...

 

[Heavies]

Don't do it! Don't let them fool you into banning high cap mags!
Next will be the handguns!

Here in Hawaii we are not allowed any of the things that many places in the CONUS have. No hi-cap mags No CCW No way to protect oneself and ones family in public.

...you don't know what you've got till its gone..

 

[Prince Yamato]

A magazine is a tube with a spring and a piece of metal at each end to hold the spring and bullet in place, respectively. Capacity is a condition of the length of the tube and size of the bullet that goes in the tube. Given the difference in size in ammunition choices and the large number of choices at that, setting a arbitrary number at which to ban a certain magazine is ridiculous. One would be basing their premise on the idea that all bullets were the same size- which is not the case- or that all tubes (magazines) that held these objects of the same size were in fact the same dimensions themselves. Wouldn't that make the whole argument for banning a magazine based on "capacity" a logical fallacy? It would be both a syntax and a logic error.

 

[Davek1977]

Just wondering what others think about the mags.

I think its less range time lost to loading mags. IMO, not having to stop to reload is valueable, especially if you are "buying time" at the range

Bubba Said:

But that won't prevent the NRA and GOA from blasting it to all their members to goose contributions.

And what state of affairs would we have if groups like the NRA and GOA WERE NOT vigilent about protecting our rights? Yeah, I get annoyed at the relentless fundraising, but not nearly as upset as I'd be to wake up tomorrow, and realize my AKs and Ars were gone, that I no longer had the right to carry a handgun, etc. Because of what they ultimately stand for, accomplish and protect, I can deal with a certain level of annoyance. Its no secret there ARE forces out there that want us disarmed. Do you honestly believe that WIHTOUT the NRA, we'd still have the same rights concerning firearms as we currently enjoy, or that there isn't a gun control agenda out there?

 

[SpaceFrank]

What is the purpose of a 33 round magazine?

What is the purpose of a Cadillac Escalade? This is one of the most ridiculous vehicles I've ever seen, and I personally don't think anyone has the need for it and should ever buy one.

"Why" doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to justify my reasoning for buying a particular product. In a free country, you don't restrict people's rights to own a given item based on the possibility of criminal behavior involving that item. That line of thinking is the surest way to a police state.



And if you must know, it's because firing 33 rounds at a time at the range is FUN! Is any other reason necessary?

 

[online2mch]

An earlier thread (now closed) tried to get responses to anticipated actions by anti gun politicians. People who generally support gun ownership but are not active gun owners might be swayed by scare words like semi automatic, extended mags, Glock, cop killer bullets etc to support limitations on freedom. Those of us who know some of these people need rhetorical "ammunition" to convince them otherwise. My old standby of "You don't fight evil by limiting the freedoms of law abiding, loyal responsible citizens." may not work in all cases.

 

[coloradokevin]

Aw geez, not this <profanity removed, moderator> again.
McCarthy introduces this same bill every session. Every session it becomes news only on gun boards where guys declare the end of the world is at hand. In truth it goes nowhere because there is no support nationally for gun control.

With all due respect, I think it is VERY important that we take this kind of potential legislation seriously. We didn't take it seriously enough in the early 1990's, and we ended up with decade-long "assault" weapons ban, and a ban on STANDARD capacity magazines. This ban could have easily been renewed indefinitely if it wasn't for the fact that we had a pro-gun president at the time of its expiration. We know this to be true, and so does the other side of this very politial equation.

I feared that there would be a knee-jerk reaction screaming for gun control in the wake of this shooting. Obviously this was a terrible tragedy, and I hate to see it turn into a political debate. Unfortunately the political arguments must arise on our end, since the anti-gun movement is already trying to capitalize on the incident.

Unfortunately the sad truth is that the anti-gun legislators already know the same things that we know. That is, of course, that it is much easier to implement an agenda when a scared public is looking to you for answers. When a federal judge is killed and a U.S. representative is shot, many people seem to lose their illusion of safety. Some of them then cry out and ask what can be done to prevent such things. These legislators have found an answer by requesting more gun control laws.

Obviously these politicians are the same ones who draft these failed laws each year. Many times the public doesn't support such restrictions, and I'm glad to know that the public is generally on our side. But, these restrictions have been put in place in the past (1994-2004), and they can easily show up again, particularly when people are scared, and especially when the media is drumming up all the fear that they can squeeze from a story!

 

[TexasBill]

This silly bill gets presented on the House floor as a sop to the talking heads, the Brady bunch and the VPC. Bill is referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which is currently chaired by Republican Lamar Smith (the new Committee assignments haven't been made yet but the majority should be Republican and McCarthy won't be on it). The HCJ refers it to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security where it can join the Blair Holt bill, which I am sure Bobby Rush will submit again. By the time all this happens, the furor will have died down, Loughner will have either been found competent to stand trial or he will be adjudged to be a couple of tacos short of a combination plate and packed off to an appropriate facility. In any event, you've got a fairly conservative Republican majority in Congress so the bill spends the next two years going nowhere.

Everybody in this game tries to make whatever hay they can while the sun shines. Look at Pima Couty Sheriff Dupnick. I am a bit surprised no one has dusted off some of those old media "exposes" of the Glock. After all, a Glock 19 was used in the Tucson shooting and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The one factor I am concerned about is Rep. Giffords herself. She's a gun owner and a moderate Democrat but Jim and Sarah Brady were conservative Republicans before Brady got shot and now we have the Brady nuisance. She will hopefully make a good recovery and I hope she stays true to her current convictions. Unlike the Brady campaign, the VPC or Rep McCarthy, her words will carry some weight.

 

[LAK]

Flashback: North Hollywood and two wackos with automatic rifles. Police were unprepared and these two nuts were not adequately dealt with for a significant period of time. But how many died?

---------------------------------------------

Je Suis Prest

 

[TexasBill]

While I harbor no illusions about my chances in a situation when I might need a high-capacity magazine (they're not real good-you're much better off with a second gun and someone else to shoot it), I do have a couple of 20-round magazines for my Beretta PX4 Storm. I actually bought them for the CX4 carbine, but they do fit the pistol.

This whole magazine thing is pretty dumb. Jerry Miculek can fire six rounds of .45 ACP, reload and fire six more rounds, all in less than three seconds. And he's using a revolver. Jerry's exceptional, but there are lots of people out there who can even get a wheelgun reloaded quickly. Used to be part of the training. Seung-Hui Cho, who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech, used a Glock 19 and a Walther P22 and he was using 15-round magazines for the Glock and 10-round magazines for the Walther.

 

[TexasBill]

Flashback: North Hollywood and two wackos with automatic rifles. Police were unprepared and these two nuts were not adequately dealt with for a significant period of time. But how many died?

Two: the wackos. One committed suicide and other died of blood loss from multiple gunshot wounds to his legs. Eleven police officers and seven civilians were wounded.

 

[jcwit]

Other than for sport, the purpose of a 30 (or 33, or whatever) round magazine is to be able to fire 30 rounds without reloading. This is likely to be either for suppressive fire or to engage multiple targets.

This is true without regard to the moral/legal context of the encounter.

A 30 round mag can be a powerful tool in the hand of a good person. And it can be an equally powerful tool in the hand of a bad person.

Some people can't imagine owning a gun. Some people can't imagine owning a gun and using it for self-defense. Some people can't imagine using a gun for self-defense against more than one assailant, or outside of their bedroom/home. Some people can't imagine not carrying two guns, or three. Some people can't imagine walking around without one or two guns AND and an edged weapon AND pepper spray AND one or two spare magazines.

We all fall somewhere in that spectrum - if you ask the people in one direction about your choice, they think you're a paranoid loon because you're more concerned about firearms and security than they are. If you ask the people in the other direction, they think you're a carefree idiot who obviously has no regard for your own safety or that of your loved ones, or you'd be as prepared as they are.

This is true no matter who you are - there's always going to be some guy who's less "tactical", and some guy who's more "tactical", and they'll probably both have arguments for why your choice is wrong, just coming from different directions.

So I'm not going to criticize some other guy's belief that a 33 round Glock magazine is important to his security. As it happens, I don't currently have a place in my plans and preparations for any magazines like that; but maybe the tactical scenarios I consider when thinking about defense are inadequate, or at least inadequate to describe risks that the other guy faces.

It's taken us awhile to dig out of the hole that was dug in 1986 with the assault weapons ban, where we ended up designating some guns as "too scary" which effectively meant that large-capacity magazines got really expensive. I paid close to $100 each for high-cap Glock mags in the weeks prior to California's 1/1/2000 cutoff. Let's try not to do that again - I'm not going to agree, literally or symbolically, with taking away guns or components that others find helpful, even if they're not personally interesting or relevant to me. I hope that I can expect the same level of cooperation and discretion from other gun owners.

This is by far the most well thought out and sensible posts in this entire thread. To those of you who thought I was against the extended mags, think again, I was just wishing for a sensiable discourse about them and their issue with the tradgy at hand without going off the brink and giving knee jerk childish reactions either way. And now you all may go on, I've now had my say.

 

[Vonderek]

Wow. So all along you misrepresented your position in order to stir the pot and inflame passions? Very High Road. You could have accomplished sensible discourse by being upfront in the beginning.

 

[GambJoe]

The founders didn't compromise with King George.

AND I'm happy they didn't.

 

[Ole Coot]

Here we go again, same thing, different year. Hi cap mags have absolutely nothing to do with any crime, but that's an old argument. I often wonder if some "nut" hit a politician with a baseball bat if the game would be banned and if not all games would be played with foam balls and bats. Back to the muzzle loader, gonna clean mine now and check my powder supply.

 

[RX-178]

As has been said, these same two introduce the same legislation every single year. This is NOT a new development.

That said, they're able to get a lot more press coverage by disingenuously connecting this to a recent event, that happened to take place right after the 112th congress began. Just good timing for these shameless vultures.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Many people have died in car accidents in the past year. Are we going to ban cars?
Many people have died from tobacco and alcohol in the past year. Are we going to ban smokes and booze?
Many people have died from tragic house fires in the past year. Are we going to ban houses, or fires?
Many people have died from overdoses of over the counter and prescription medicines. Are we going to ban Tylenol?


Many people have died after the legal purchase of a legal product. Are we going to ban free market capitalism?

 

[Waywatcher]

Many people have died in car accidents in the past year. Are we going to ban cars?
Many people have died from tobacco and alcohol in the past year. Are we going to ban smokes and booze?
Many people have died from tragic house fires in the past year. Are we going to ban houses, or fires?
Many people have died from overdoses of over the counter and prescription medicines. Are we going to ban Tylenol?

Not ban cars, regulate them to make them safer in collisions.

Not ban smokes & booze, restrict their sales to children whose bodies can't take it.

Not ban houses, start using flame retardant materials, etc.

Not ban tylenol, standardize dosage size and publish safety guidelines.


Just sayin'.

 

[Vertical453]

Not ban cars, regulate them to make them safer in collisions.

Not ban smokes & booze, restrict their sales to children whose bodies can't take it.

Not ban houses, start using flame retardant insulation, etc.

Not ban tylenol, standardize dosage size and publish safety guidelines.


Just sayin. The whole thing ain't black or white.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It seems black and white to me.

 

[Waywatcher]

No rights are absolute, the prime example is freedom of speech.

 

[Vertical453]

No rights are absolute, the prime example is freedom of speech.

Read the words again.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[S.W.G.]

Just wondering what others think about the mags.

I think they're great fun at the range. Don't have to stop to reload as much, and some people (including me) think they look cool.

Don't forget the added bonus of scaring hippies!

 

[LawScholar]

For the record, I strongly oppose any ban on high-capacity magazines. I own many myself.

However, every rights are infringed in some way. The Freedom of Speech is a prime example. We have time, place, and content restrictions (so no one can shout fire in a crowded theater or have a parade at 2:45 A.M.). It also says "shall not be infringed"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Now, I do not think the same logic should be applied to guns. The left doesn't see this logic, but the "no infringement" argument doesn't work especially well when we consider the case history of other rights.

 

[Deanimator]

Not going to happen. Why? The votes aren't there, in the House OR Senate.

Besides few Democrats get that thoughtful look and wonder to themselves, "Hmmm, how can we lose the Senate and MORE seats in the House...?"

 

[Vertical453]

For the record, I strongly oppose any ban on high-capacity magazines. I own many myself.

However, every rights are infringed in some way. The Freedom of Speech is a prime example. We have time, place, and content restrictions (so no one can shout fire in a crowded theater or have a parade at 2:45 A.M.). It also says "shall not be infringed"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Now, I do not think the same logic should be applied to guns. The left doesn't see this logic, but the "no infringement" argument doesn't work especially well when we consider the case history of other rights.

Trust me Scholar, I am well aware that there are many unconstitutional laws in the books right now in regards to speech and guns. That doesn't make it right. The constitution says shall not be infringed, so I believe it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I am not about to start interpreting laws to the contrary of what they say just because the "case history of other rights".

We have become accustomed to seeing unconstitutional laws pass in this country, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.