The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?

[badkarmamib]

I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.

No weapon is an "assault" weapon until it is used in an assault. Therefore, the purpose of the weapon is determined by the user, not the weapon. Furthermore, so-called "assault weapons" make up a VERY tiny percentage of weapons used for assault. "Assault weapon" is a term made up to instill fear in the ignorant. There are weapons that are not considered "assault weapons" that operate exactly like an "assault weapon", but are not considered "assault weapons", simply because they look different. There are weapons that are more powerful than "assault weapons", that aren't considered "assault weapons", for the same reasons. "Assault weapon" was designed to instill fear in the masses, and divide gun owners, to make them easier to conquer.

And where did you come up with the number "8"? I am guessing it is because it is the highest capacity of your personal collection. When you do the math on how many perps go to one house to rob it, figure on the statistical probability of the homeowner landing good hits, factor in adrenaline, fear, and possible injury, 8 may be enough for some circumstances, but not all. Who are you to determine how many rounds I need?

Finally, you are still missing the point of the Second Amendment. It was never about hunting, target shooting, or "needs". It was to insure that the common folk had the ability to resist all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Just because the media, anti-gunners, and uninformed have decided to demonize a class of weapons based on nothing more than physical appearance, does not prove the weapons to be less useful for lawful practices for different statured shooters, tinkerers, hobbyists, recreational shooters, and competitors. If we allowed everything that was misused by some deranged psychopath to be outlawed, because some people didn't see a use for it, we wouldn't have much, and we wouldn't have freedom.

 

[The Liberal]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

 

[jmorris]

History shows that they will not stop with "one more step", they WILL keep coming, until they finally get to something that you do care about.

That’s it, in a nutshell. Divide and conquer.

It’s a proven tactic. Sell out all your buddies until your the last one there with no help.

Watch the National Geographic TV sometime and you will see a much more powerful group ditch a single weak one for slaughter by a much smaller group.

I guess gun folks are the same way....

 

[badkarmamib]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

So, if we limit firearms to 8 rounds, and ban pistol grips and shoulder things that go up, you believe crime will noticeably decrease? We tried that in the 90's. Guess what; it didn't work. Here's a new tactic to try: quit blaming the inanimate object, and start making people take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[The Liberal]

So, if we limit firearms to 8 rounds, and ban pistol grips and shoulder things that go up, you believe crime will noticeably decrease? We tried that in the 90's. Guess what; it didn't work. Here's a new tactic to try: quit blaming the inanimate object, and start making people take responsibility for their own actions.

I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

 

[badkarmamib]

frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Wait, so the only reason these people aren't law-abiding is because they killed others with 30-round magazines instead of 8-round magazines? They would have been law-abiding if they killed using fewer rounds per reload? Or are you saying that they were perfectly content behaving, until the evil 30-round magazine jumped into the gun, and forced the law-abiding citizen to pull the trigger?

 

[badkarmamib]

I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

And who will determine which citizens are allowed to own these single-shot muzzleloaders? The same officials that can't even figure out what makes one type of firearm or accessory different from another? And I am not even going to get started on your use of the word "force". And, barring the fact that criminals won't line up to turn in their weapons, what will keep the government in check from taking everything else? Do you truly believe that those in government have your personal best interests in mind?

 

[danez71]

So, if we limit firearms to 8 rounds, and ban pistol grips and shoulder things that go up, you believe crime will noticeably decrease? We tried that in the 90's. Guess what; it didn't work. Here's a new tactic to try: quit blaming the inanimate object, and start making people take responsibility for their own actions.

Clearly, it didn't work only because the 10 round limit was 2 rounds too many to reduce the violence caused by assaulting guns with no mag limit.

 

[silicosys4]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

I read your arguments and none of them are supported in fact at face glance. If you would like to elaborate on your stance i'm sure we would all welcome the clarification, but as stated all of your desired measures are cosmetic in nature, have for the most part been implemented in various places with none of the desired effect, and have no practical utility other than to remove the ability of honest citizens to exercise their rights. You will find opposition, most likely heated, to your suggestions because, to put it simply and with no disrespect, they are all feel-good nonsense that has only one purpose, and crime reduction isn't it.

So lets start at the top.

Why are these bans bad things?

I'll have to assume that when you say "Assault rifles" you mean all semiautomatic rifles, which is how my state has decided to define an assault rifle. If you'd like to clarify, I'd welcome that.

Quiet simply, the bans you are referring to do nothing more than remove legally owned property from honest citizens, or impede the ability of people to exercise their rights. A ban on semi auto rifles does not improve the quality of life, crime rate, or result in any net positive for our society, but rather, impact a great many people in a negative way both legally and financially, often making criminals out of formerly law abiding citizens.

You are asking us to give up something we paid a lot of money for, that we enjoy safely and legally, something that has a great deal of utility for us..... for nothing in return...for less than nothing, for criminal charges and financial distress.

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

Ok...and I do not think that they are too big for reasonable civilian use. Change my mind.
In fact, I find the suggestion disturbing, to be quiet honest. Who gets to decide "reasonable"? Name one other right in the Constitution that is subject to limits by an arbitrary judgement about what is "reasonable". How many HP in a car is "reasonable"? How many books in a month is it "reasonable' for me to purchase? How many news articles is it "reasonable" for me to read before I hit my limit?

What will one 20rd magazine do that two 10rd magazines won't? I challenge you to make a good argument that reducing magazine capacity reduces mass shootings, deaths during mass shootings, or murders by firearms. I can prove otherwise statistically, so i'll admit you are going to have to carry a lot of water here.

You are going to have to make a mighty good argument for my surrender of a substantial amount of moneys worth of magazines for the greater good. I quiet honestly don't think there is one.

Here is some further reading on the subject that you might find interesting
https://www.cato.org/publications/l...case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions#full

I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.

You really like guns, you think they should be more available, but you don't think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board. Logically, this is untenable. I think you mean to say that you like certain types of guns, and think certain types of guns should retain the current level of restrictions while other types, such as assault rifles, are further restricted from their current status. If you mean to say that you would like to see less restrictions on certain types of guns, by all means, elaborate...what guns, and how would you like to see the restrictions loosened?

Anyways, I've already addressed the assault rifle thing, (no positive impact from a ban) and the magazine capacity thing (no positive impact from ban)

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

Absolutely demonstrably false, as proven by insurgent tactics in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, just to mention a few instances. Besides, how do you expect "effective weapons to become available" if people have no access to effective firearms with which to take them? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it doesn't sound like you are taking current world affairs into consideration.

My list of armed citizens effectively rebelling against government tyranny is a lot longer than your list of unarmed citizens effectively rebelling against government tyranny.

I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

Ahh, I see. You do realize this is a more extreme position than any realistic and serious proposal yet floored by any U.S. politician, don't you, mr. "iloveguns"?

There are millions of semiautomatic firearms here in the U.S. so the discontinuation of new sales is hardly going to make a difference. The cat is out of the bag at this point.

Now, why should we add semiautomatic firearms to the NFA roster? What purpose would that serve, other than to effectively outlaw all law abiding citizens from MOST common and available firearms?
This is extremely unlikely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, would be immediately struck down by the courts, and if actually forcibly implemented, would end very badly for this nation indeed. You are talking very nonchalantly about the very likely beginning of a major and violent civil war.
This statement alone makes your motives here suspect, as this is a far more oppressive regulatory suggestion than any current law on the book in any state in this nation.

After reading your comments about how you "really like" guns and "think they should be more available", then stating that all semiautomatic firearms should be placed on the NFA....well, that really sounds like you are being dishonest with us here.
You said this in another thread:

Liberals can like guns too. A lot of us do- the extremists don’t speak for us any more than Ted Nugent speaks for y’all. A lot of us aren’t even gun control advocates.

Do you see how the statements you have made in this thread contradict your prior statements? Your idea about the NFA list is about as extremist as it comes. Don't kid yourself. Your extreme views about further restrictions like 8 round magazine limits and the NFA listing of semiauto firearms means you are a gun control advocate

As far as your idea of "forcing" people to submit to onerous requirements...this forces me to keep my tone civil here. You won't get very far in this board with suggestions of how to "force" people to submit to government control over the free exercise of their rights. I have always said that encouraging people to take safety and handling courses, to know their local self defense laws, and to be proficient with their gun handling if they are going to carry is a good thing, but buddy, if you are going to try to "force" me to do anything simply because you feel its for the greater good absent of any data, you've got a task on your hands.

Then you have statements like this:

Most of us see the 2A and RKBA as absolutes, a right explicitly identified by the Founders to allow us to own, carry and use anything.

You know, it looks like you are trying to paint a pretty picture but your colors are starting to run. I'm pretty sure at this point that you don't include yourself in "us", and you don't really have a true idea of who "us" is, and what we believe, let alone why we believe it.

 

[Pat Riot]

Why are these bans bad things?

I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

Anyone else notice the progression?
Kind of what happens in politics, the PC media and our rights.

 

[badkarmamib]

I really like guns. I think they should be more available

force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

So, which is it?

 

[jmorris]

Liberals can like guns too.

The difference is Liberals want Government to control every aspect of our lives.

Where we live, what we eat, our health care, protection from bad people, how big of a soda we can buy, the list goes on and on.

Sometimes it requires force to get people to abide by these laws and that force is where they like the guns. So sayin Liberals like guns too is intellectually dishonest unless you add who it is that you would like to have them or who you don’t want to have them.

Having regular peons any access to tools of defense much less offense is in direct conflict with their end goal.

So it becomes a “how to eat an elephant” problem and the answer is one bite at a time. Erode the right bit by bit, until it’s gone.

Freedom is the enemy of the Liberal.

 

[Tommygunn]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

In 1994, when the AWB was going into effect, the F. B. I. issued a uniform crime report that said (among many other things) that the assault weapons listed were used in one half of one percent of murders. Even today handguns are the majority weapon used in murders with guns.

What does "frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill ... a lot of people really quickly" mean? "Law abiding" people don't kill a lot of people quickly .... or a lot of people slowly ... or few people, either quickly or slowly. Such a person may have no criminal record, but the moment he kills he is a criminal. Nuts happen, but 300 million people DID NOT shoot anyone at the same time.

So far as rebeling is concerned, only peasants ought to be dependent upon battlefield pick-ups. One central purpose of the Second Amendment was that "The People" be as well armed as the military that might be used to oppress them. I know this principle has been violated ---- in 1933, 1938, 1968, and other times. I do not accept that as a valid excuse to violate it again.
Neither should you.

There are plenty of weapons that would serve well in a mass-shooting. A 12 gauge pump shotgun would do well, especially in the close quarters of a school shooting. The magazine could be easily topped off as the shooting continued, and shotguns cause horrific injuries.
Some months ago, a disturbed person tried to do just that in a Texas school ------- fortunatly, his tactics sucked and he was interdicted prior to opening fire.

You really ought to re-think your philosophies.

 

[P5 Guy]

The Liberal wants to keep his Garand, that's where the 8 round limit comes into play?

This person should know that his fellows would not stop at that.

 

[Hasaf]

I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.

I am probably (certainly) to the left of centre in this group. That being said, eight is a silly number to pull out of the air. Then, almost any number is silly. I know that lowering magazine capacity is bandied about as a cure to mass shootings.

Firstly, the good news, mass shootings are very infrequent. Secondly, the lowered magazine capacity would only slow the mass shooter, to any significant degree, if someone were shooting back; which is, of course, forbidden. Finally, mass shooters do not seem particularly concerned with the legal niceties of their kit.


Edited to add:
A Garand, I didn't think of that, I was thinking 1911.

 

[Texas10mm]

In 1994, when the AWB was going into effect, the F. B. I. issued a uniform crime report that said (among many other things) that the assault weapons listed were used in one half of one percent of murders. That's .005%. Even today handguns are the majority weapon used in murders with guns.

What does "frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill ... a lot of people really quickly" mean? "Law abiding" people don't kill a lot of people quickly .... or a lot of people slowly ... or few people, either quickly or slowly. Such a person may have no criminal record, but the moment he kills he is a criminal. Nuts happen, but 300 million people DID NOT shoot anyone at the same time.

So far as rebeling is concerned, only peasants ought to be dependent upon battlefield pick-ups. One central purpose of the Second Amendment was that "The People" be as well armed as the military that might be used to oppress them. I know this principle has been violated ---- in 1933, 1938, 1968, and other times. I do not accept that as a valid excuse to violate it again.
Neither should you.

There are plenty of weapons that would serve well in a mass-shooting. A 12 gauge pump shotgun would do well, especially in the close quarters of a school shooting. The magazine could be easily topped off as the shooting continued, and shotguns cause horrific injuries.
Some months ago, a disturbed person tried to do just that in a Texas school ------- fortunatly, his tactics sucked and he was interdicted prior to opening fire.

You really ought to re-think your philosophies.

one half of one percent is not .005%

1% = .01 half of that is .005 or 1 in 200.

.005% would be .00005 or 1 in 20,000

Ya gotta be real careful when mixing that decimal point and the % sign.

 

[Tommygunn]

one half of one percent is not .005%

1% = .01 half of that is .005 or 1 in 200.

.005% would be .00005 or 1 in 20,000

Ya gotta be real careful when mixing that decimal point and the % sign.

In my defense I'd like to point out that when I posted that, I had not had my morning coffee.
I found it simpler to simply delete the numeric figures from the original post because I properly stated what I meant in the preceding sentence.
Getting too involved in numbers is overly picky, 99.88,0001/2% of the time.

 

[Sebastian]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.

In the context of firearms: what exactly is an, "assault weapon"? Why specifically 8 rounds? Is that number arbitrary? What does, "on board" mean? How is an, "assault weapon" any different than a, "defensive weapon"? You say, "generally too big for reasonable civil use" in regards to standard magazine size...what does that actually mean? Generally? Reasonable? Civil use? So even in your mind there are situations where current available capacity (standard or otherwise) is actually preferred and justified? And what should be done with the magazines that are already in circulation and easily accessible to those least likely to follow the law? Should law abiding people be directly handicapped when protecting themselves against those who will ignore the law because they choose to be criminals? If there is to be an arms race between the legal and illegal users, who should win that race? What negative consequences could see fruition if standard capacity was criminalized/banned? What negative consequences could see fruition if semi-automatics were criminalized/banned? What negative consequences could see fruition if firearms in their entirety were criminalized/banned?

What is of primary importance: The manner in which people die or the number of deaths? Is all killing bad? Is some killing justified? In society, is some death expected and even accepted? How many times in a year in the USA are firearms used to save lives? How does that number coincide with those that are killed in an unjustified manner? Should policy be primarily emotion driven or fact driven?

Aren't most of these questions a foregone conclusion?

I would like to better understand your viewpoint. I don't claim to have all the answers and readily admit my ignorance in a great many things. I'm just a guy asking questions. Please help me understand.

 

[Garandimal]

I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use...

I was thinking the same thing about automobile gas tanks.

Five gallons is plenty. That's over a hundred miles with reserve - and just think how much lighter and safer that would make the #1 killer in America.

​

GR

 

[tarosean]

In 1994, when the AWB was going into effect, the F. B. I. issued a uniform crime report that said (among many other things) that the assault weapons listed were used in one half of one percent of murders. Even today handguns are the majority weapon used in murders with guns.

Current FBI-UCR stats. The FBI does not separate out Semi-auto vs. Bolt vs. Lever vs. Single in the Rifles category.

Going by these facts you're still more likely to be beaten to death with fists or clubs and far more likely to be stabbed to death.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017

 

[Deus Machina]

I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.

Okay, I'll point out I'm liberal for around here so this won't just get blown off, but that right there should be where that line of thinking breaks down.
If someone is going to kill or injure a lot of people, they are not 'otherwise law-abiding' no matter how few rounds they can fit in a little metal box.
I may be socially liberal, but I still have to apply logic to things. And further limiting what actually law-abiding people can buy and use, and by definition cannot be confiscated from people that are not law-abiding, has been historically proven to have no benefit.

 

[danez71]

Current FBI-UCR stats. The FBI does not separate out Semi-auto vs. Bolt vs. Lever vs. Single in the Rifles category.

Going by these facts you're still more likely to be beaten to death with fists or clubs and far more likely to be stabbed to death.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017

View attachment 824822

I cite that FBI quite a bit.

Besides the fact that death caused by fists and feet is a bigger #, as well as fists and feet, you have other info that should be eye opening as well.

You're 4x more likely to be killed by a knife/cutting instrument than by a rifle.... any type of rifle.... all types of rifles combined.... that's including so called 'assault rifles'.


These are facts compiled by the FBI.

But the politicians (and media) portray the issue in an opposite fashion.

 

[The Liberal]

If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. Some still may be- the Vegas shooter had money and a clear record and outwardly looked and acted just like some members of this forum- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

 

[danez71]

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

Should we place limits on religion in order to attempt to reduce those preyed upon by cults?

 

[badkarmamib]

If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. Some still may be- the Vegas shooter had money and a clear record and outwardly looked and acted just like some members of this forum- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

I would rather worry about the shooter than the weapon he used. Look at Columbine. These teenagers used guns that were banned during the last (active at the time) AWB. And, look at the other side. Assuming you believe we have the right to self-defense, rather than the right to whimper and cry to the shooter, would you rather have a manual action or semi-auto to return fire with? Because, I can assure you, the guy shooting at you won't care what is legal, he is already breaking the laws. CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. If we can't agree on this, there is no way we can debate this issue.