proposed federal high cap. mag ban

[Deanimator]

I'm just saying, 33 rounds for a handgun? Really?

A handgun? Really?

Just PRETEND that the police will protect you and you won't need a gun AT ALL.

 

[Fastcast]

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

Self Defense is an UNALIENABLE right from the creator. Did you forget that part, like your masters?

On another thought......Why these days does it always seem to be a woman is the first to the rescue, in these despicable events.

What exactly does that say about MEN these days?

 

[Jamie B]

I do not own any handgun mags larger that 16 rounds. This is sufficient for me.

If one of my fellow shooters wants to buy 30 round mags, that is perfectly acceptable, and should remain so.

I am sure that the security details for these feds are carrying hicap mags to protect them.

My family, and the families of my shooting brethern, deserve the same level of protection.

 

[Waywatcher]

Welcome to THR tlatoani.

I would buy whatever I was interested in, regardless of Saturdays events. Despite the Chicken Littles, nothing is likely to change in regards to gun laws. Keep things in perspective, here.

As regards to this strange outburst:

Self Defense is an UNALIENABLE right from the creator. Did you forget that part, like your masters?

Chill out, lay off the vitriol. Not everyone thinks the same way you do, and that is okay.

 

[heeler]

I didnt take the time to read everyone of these threads,perhaps later I will.
Guys flat out this is bad.
I would not be one bit surprised if they get a high magazine capacity ban out of this carnage this worthless loser inflicted upon society.
Listening around the lunch room yesterday to people, most of whom dont own guns and some that do,the general consesus was why a person would need a firearm for civilian use that had such a capacity.
I did remind one person that back in the mid 1960's a guy named Charles Whitman did more damage with a five shot Remington 700 bolt action rifle in 6mm caliber than this guy did with his high capacity Glock.
But that was then and this is now and we all know there has been way to much of these types of slaughters in recent years.
I truely fear a torrent of laws coming and it will take a lot of steely resolve to beat back a lot of these.
Others have been mentioning mental health.
What scares me is there are people out there that believe any hostility shown by individual should automatically ban them from gun ownership.
I went to junior high and high school thru the mid 60's and early 70's and I can tell you straight up I had plenty of fist fights as well as most guys did back then.
Today they come at you for this like your some sort of mental defective in need of a mental health professional.
I truely fear a bad wind blowing.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

Why wasn't the suspect shot by the cops or another citizen?

 

[wishin]

I guess the real answer is to ban all magazines and clips - only single shot RKBA!

 

[Fastcast]

Chill out, lay off the vitriol. Not everyone thinks the same way you do, and that is okay.

That's fine as long as you're not trying to deny a man his unalienable rights to defend his family and property, the way he sees fit.

If so with words like these "No rights are absolute" you're are displaying as much vitriol as anyone.....Those words criticize my intelligence!

The word of the week:....Vitriol

 

[Whiskey11]

Why wasn't the suspect shot by the cops or another citizen?

Because shooting into crowds of people is generally worse than trying to tackle the guy during a reload? None of us were there to assess the situation for ourselves. At best we can speculate and I speculate that the reason for no shots being fired is a.) By the time police arrived, the shooter had been disarmed b.) the only person (whom I've read anyway) that was there and armed tackled the guy whom wrestled the gun from the person thinking that it was that person who was the shooter. B.) is interesting because had the person who was armed shot said person, Concealed Carry would be worse off, the person failed to correctly recognize the shooter.

As for the need for high capacity mags, the media may see no need, but every gun owner has been at the range wishing he had a bit bigger magazine so he spent more time shooting and less time reloading. I could also think of several of the "tactical" shooting events with pistols in which a higher capacity magazine would be handy if it was allowed by the rules. This of course also ignores the fact that higher capacity mags allow the fun to continue longer, and allows instructors to teach people for longer while they are shooting.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Just wondering what others think about the mags.

I think that between common supplies in my garage and my kitchen, I could make something far more dangerous than a gun... if I was so inclined. To heck with petty mag bans... murder is already banned... I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.

 

[Deanimator]

Chill out, lay off the vitriol. Not everyone thinks the same way you do, and that is okay.

"Vitriol"... hmmm, a VERY interesting and timely choice of words.

I don't mind people thinking differently. I mind people trying to MAKE me think the way they do at gunpoint.

9 out of 10 people who think I shouldn't have 30 round magazines, don't think I should have 20 or 15 round magazines either. And they want to send people with 30 round magazines around to take MY 30 round magazines AT GUNPOINT.

But as always, it's not about guns. It's about control, and the desire to punish those who don't conform, even without doing harm. Gun and magazine bans are to the far left what anti-sodomy laws and de jure racial discrimination are to the far right: A way to inflict harm on others with the imprimatur of government as cover. A way to suppress others without actually ennobling oneself.

 

[Panzercat]

And once again, prices on guns, ammunition and accessories double because of the panic caused by these weenies and their agenda.

/sigh

 

[KBintheSLC]

We also could argue that the anti's had a full decade to prove that mag restrictions worked in reducing crime... they could not prove this. All of the data from '94-'04 indicates that the mag restrictions did nothing to reduce the severity or the number of violent attacks.

 

[Elmer]

In reading several different threads on this subject, on various gun boards, it appears there is some sort of prize being offered, for those who have no concern over any further restrictions being passed.

I wonder what everyone who was sure previous laws wouldn't pass won?

 

[Waywatcher]

If you look at the events in AZ, and you worry about your access to commerical material goods, I think you have some misplaced priorities... and unrealistic fears.

 

[Gouranga]

I have no 33 round magazines. I have no need for them, they would make CCW difficult for me. In terms of CCW I see no need for them at all. I can carry an extra mag (my carry weapon holds 15 in the magazine (still more than used to be allowed) and I can swap out a spent one, load a new one, and get back going pretty darned quick. I would bet, much faster than the shooter in Arizona.

That being said, my not needing them would not and should not be a reason to deny the right to own them to others. I do not get this mentality that because "I" don't need them that nobody else should have them. It is the perfect example of how self centered we have become as a nation.

I also do not think we should sit lightly and ignore this woman. I think we should rally our forces and shut her bill down so hard that her head spins. I think taking nutjobs like this lightly led us to the assault weapons ban, the previous high cap mag ban, and many other losses of freedoms that have occurred in the last 50-60 years. The thing is SHE does not take this as a joke. She will keep releasing it year after year. She only needs to get lucky 1 year.

We should take her to task, let's see her supposed rationale. Allow her bill to the floor and have our senator ambush her on the actual facts. Embarrass the crap out of her so badly that she will never put this steaming pile of crud on the floor again. NYS has some of the strictest laws on the nation. Let's see those crime rates. Murder, Assault, Rape, how low are they? How about how many times police showed up AFTER they could have been of use? How about how many crimes committed by criminals are done with illegal weapons? Let's hear her look at those numbers and explain to us HOW keeping law abiding citizens from protecting themselves would have prevented the crime.

Her kind is great at scare tactics but crappy at actually producing any REAL facts beyond "The sky is falling!"

 

[LawScholar]

Vertical453, not caring about case law doesn't make it go away. In some cases we are talking about literally centuries of case law, and shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't likely to change legally anytime soon. Nor is hardly any decided Constitutional law.

Heck, I agree with you. A closely literal Constitutional interpretation is the best. The Second Amendment should be truly unabridged. However, that argument doesn't help us immediately stave off this magazine ban. If politicians have shown us anything, it is that the will of the people often doesn't matter to them. The stronger an argument can be made, including within the framework of existing case law, the better the immediate rejection of this absurd, illogical ban. Broad, sweeping ideological statements, while often admirable, do not often produce changes of mind.

 

[Rshooter]

On political rhetoric, extended magazines, and mental health.
This tragedy should never be about limiting the freedom of speech – nor the current climate of elevated political rhetoric. Compromise on the First Amendment will not solve the problem.

This tragedy should never be about limiting the right to bear arms – nor the capacity of any extended magazine. Compromise on the Second Amendment will not solve the problem.

This should be about health. Mental health. Compromise will not solve the problem here, either.

Is it truly a controversial issue to identify the mentally ill and get them treatment? I don’t know why it should be controversial. This is a matter of humanity and caring. If someone is ill, I care enough to help them get treatment. Mental illness is no different than any other illness. It is only made politically controversial by those who strive to make everything controversial. Clearly people who do that have no intent to compromise, nor need to compromise.

This tragedy is about health, and having the humanity to identify those with mental illness and get them help.

So who draws the line on who is mentally ill and what illness needs "treatment". Funny thing that the V.A. once was looking at identifying "mentally ill" veterans to the BATF. Who is next, people with 33 round magazines? Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Onward Allusion]

http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=54626

jcwit

Quote:
They are a tool, nothing more !

Not a good answer at all. So is a vehicle but who drives a tank!

A better analogy would be, why does the average soccer mom need a giant SUV? How about because she feels safer in one and it can carry more stuff?

It's also not about the 33 round mag per se. It is about the slippery slope that comes from such legislation. Look at the UK at the early 1900's and then look at them now. It took 'em 100+ years to get to that point. I want my great grand kids to be able to protect themselves.

 

[Konstantin835]

If I am not mistaken congresswoman Gifford is a pro-gun Democrat. The best thing to kill this bill would be for her to come out against it after she recovers. I would just love to see that although I don't know the specifics about her stance on guns other than that she is pro-gun in general. I hope she makes a full and quick recovery.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Maybe, probably...but

Hatterasguy


Quote:
They didn't have our backs when 1986 rolled around.
Yeah well times are different, this is a minority bill that's going to burn out in a couple of weeks.

Better safe than sorry, start writing your congressman and senator!

 

[RimfireChris]

If you look at events in AZ, and you worry about your access to commercial material goods, I think you have some misplaced priorities...

Sorry, but for those of us outside the immediate circle of the horrible tragedy, this is what could directly effect us.

...and unrealistic fears.

Sure, because wounded politicians are never cause for new gun control laws to be out into effect.

 

[Ben86]

In truth it goes nowhere because there is no support nationally for gun control.

I sure hope so. With the new bunch of conservatives that were recently elected I expect they want to prove themselves and throw bills like this out. Even so, lets make sure our congressmen know how we feel.

 

[Panzercat]

If you look at the events in AZ, and you worry about your access to commerical material goods, I think you have some misplaced priorities... and unrealistic fears

Because nobody would ever restrict your second amendment right to bare arms, thus limiting your access to commerical goods amiright? Or creating a media panic that would hike the price of said goods? I mean since we're being snarky and/or taking a comment entirely out of context?

Merely bringing up another aspect of this entire circus does not make for callous insensitivity. Such 'apples equal oranges' comparisons are, by the way, common agenda tactics of certain other organizations. Like a shooter having a gun, therefor he must be conservative gun nut and not a satanic crazy pothead? Sound familiar?

Yes. I mentioned prices are going to bump like they did the last time there was an arms panic. It was an observation, nothing more. It shouldn't be nessisary for everybody here to preface each and every post with, "It was a tragedy..." just to preempt and defend themselves from commentary like yours. Likewise, I'm in AZ. The local media has run this into the ground, let alone what you're seeing on CNN and FOX, and everybody here knows it was horrible without your righteous piety.

It doesn't, however, make a person insensitive, calleous and evil for making valid incidental observations.

 

[xfyrfiter]

As far as high cap mags go, Google Lee Enfield mad minute, 15 rounds, aimed, 300 yds.,under one minute. Often exceeded, sometimes by as many as 25 rounds. 40 rounds aimed fire in a minute. This is with a bolt action rifle, so hi cap mags make not a bit of difference.