Why I am in favor of a ban on high capacity gun magazines

Not open for further replies.
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings.

Which is precisely where they matter the least. Think about it for a second. Someone who has a bunch of helpless unarmed people at bay is the LEAST likely to need a high cap magazine. The victims are by definition helpless. He can shoot them at his leisure. He can shoot some, kick some to death, set some on fire. He can wander around using a variety of methods just like the Columbine killers. Who, BTW, didn't use high caps.

You're supporting a massive and costly ban which will be all but impossible to enforce for a benefit that isn't even theoretically valid. And in practical terms represents only a tiny fraction of a percent of the murders in the nation. It's the worst conceivable public policy. Without even getting into Constitutional issues.

Arguing to authority by listing the groups that support this ban does nothing to make the ban more logical or effective.

The purpose of the high cap ban is to attack gun owners. That's its only purpose.
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings. Mass shootings are statistically very rare, but when they occur they are deadly. Whatever we can do to make them less deadly, I believe we should.

Oh, I understand! Well, that makes it very simple - just pass a law that forbids the mass murderers to use any high-capacity magazines. Once it is against the law, they won't use them anymore! Wait, you want to forbid the rest of us to use them in order to set a good example for the mass murderer? That is like saying we should all be neutered so that mass rapists will be ok with that procedure also. If that is the case, then YOU go first and set a good example for me. :barf:
No, its just starts the process

I've talked to folks who don't shoot . Conclusion we came up with is, it is a slippery slope to start banning this and that, 2nd amendment is there for a reason, not so those in power or the non informed can make laws that they THINK is right, Law abiding people will respect life. Non issue, though I believe my thoughts is Schools as other public places that already have security like Hospitals,public events,Malls and contrary to liberal thinking allot of schools have metal detectors and armed security. So no don't start the slippery slope of loosing rights.
Ya know Timmy, if these guys had used machetes, they wouldn't have had to change mags at all. That would also have been quiet enough to not attract the attention a gunshot would. Then even more people would be dead. Also, a mag restriction isn't going to end the argument. Just look at England. There they are now restricting pocket knives and citizens are punished for using force to defend themselves against criminals. We can't afford to go down that road.
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.


I am glade to see you are up on what a fallacy is. Look up non sequitur fallacy and consider your whole argement as to wheather or not it meets the criteria as one.

Reguardless of how happy it makes you feel, your conclusions do not follow from the premises. Stay on topic this time now Timmy; what will banning high cap mags do?


P.S. Stop giving this kids other places to take his argument, or he'll keep running in circles; make this kid land in one spot and exspose him and his arguments for what they are.
You make some very interesting points here, and I want to reiterate that I am no politician. Their motives are not mine, and frankly in many ways I am just as suspicious of their motives as you are. Specifically, I don't like the way this issue is being used by Obama to pound away against the Republican party. That's not what I had in mind.

Now your getting warmer. There are some serious longer term ramifications to all of this gun control debate, that hides under the surface. The Republican party is already trying to recover and reorganize and is considered "wounded" by many on the left. If the leftys can somehow capitalize on the "moment" with gun control issues, they can drive yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican party in general. Its a chess game not checkers.
Good morning. My previous thread is temporarily closed, and since it is devoted to an overall discussion of the 2nd Amendment, I thought I would devote another thread to this specific issue, and why I am in favor of it. First let me make a number of points:

1. I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. My reasoning is this: the previous AWB existed for 10 years, and it included this limitation. Several states currently have this restriction, including my own state of California. None of these laws have been challenged to the Supreme Court, as trigger locks were. The SC could have referred to these limitations in the Heller restriction, but they did not. Thus, I am pretty confident that this sort of restriction on magazines is legal, and not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. If I believed that it WAS an infringement, I would never be in favor of it.

The SC did not refer to magazine capacity in Heller because it was not at issue in that case. The SC addresses the issues at hand and does not rule on random side issues. Jumping to the conclusion that because no case made it to the SC that one side or the other is true is ridiculous.

2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general. My reason for limiting them is specific to mass shootings........

2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.

For all the publicity mass shootings generate, they are still rare. If you nevertheless feel that a change in the law is needed to deal with them, I would suggest that universal concealed carry permits and scrapping gun-free school zones would be much more effective. You can wait for the shooter to reload if you want. I'd rather be able to fire back.
It's even unrealistic to believe that lower capacity magazines would prevent mass shootings or reduce numbers of wounded/killed.

Mass shootings are not crimes of passion. They are not spur of the moment.

They are well planned out, and they strategize around security and locks and guards. They carefully prepare for weeks if not months. Some blog about it. Most expect to die.

They pathetically are living for that final event and their gratification comes from the planning. Just thinking about getting back at (???? you tell me, they are messed up individuals).

They will just plan around things like magazine capacity...they'll just carry more. Or choose another weapon. Or....?

You have to fix 'people.' Not inanimate objects.
OP you are "exactly" the type of gun owner that scares the crap right out of me. "I don't need a 30 round magazine therefore no-one else should need one either". I don't see a point to it....blah blah blah. (Assumes you are a gun owner and not a troll)

"Shall not be infringed". Enough said....You give them an inch and they will be coming back for more. The line is HERE.

The SCOTUS is just a political as the rest of the crew we have leading the Country, perhaps even more so. Their biased interpretations of the constitution leaves a LOT to be desired.

Seat belt laws are a great example. I don't need, nor should it be a function of Government to protect stupid people from stupidity. That is one of the costs of freedom.
You fully acknowledge that a ban will not have an effect on crime. Please leave and come back with an idea that will actually hurt criminals and will leave law abiding citizens alone.

I love how all of the experts on the left do not have any working knowledge of firearms and firearm parts except what the equally disinformed media has told them. That would be the equivalent of a person who doesn't know anything about cars and doesn't drive taking a postion on gas task capacity.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
Dear Timmy4:

In all your logic, and all those "associations" that you have listed, you do not recognize that there is an underlying idea, that seems to escape you.

"Duh, gee, SF, what d'at?"


Decl. of Indep., Para. 2, Sentence 2:
" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just poweres from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We, the People, have NOT consented to this idea of a gun ban. The politicians, in their myopic belief, that it is THEY who have the power, by right of ascension to post, that are consenting to this gun ban.

To argue the good/evil of a manufactured item, that is used in the operation of a firearm, is a distraction, and a lie, foisted upon us, by the politicians, and their croneys, at all levels, be it federal, state, municipal, or from some Obama-supporting cleric, afraid of losing church money.

The Browning Hi Power, produced in 1935, was so named, because it was the first pistol, to have more than 8 rounds in a detachable magazine! Now, how many years is it? 78 years and still going.

The Colt AR-15/M16/M16A1 came into being in 1962. 51 years and going. We all know the history of the M-1 Garand, as well as the fact that The Washington Times in Sept., 2010, reported that Obama feared this WW2 rifle!

All of these have been used to defend and secure Freedom. Therefore, like those of us who cherish Freedom, it is a bad thing, and must be labeled as such.

Now, who am I, to sit here, and pontificate such things?

I am a senior citizen. I have seen more than some of you. I am a disabled military veteran, Class of U-Tapao, '71 - '74; Cold War veteran '70 - '80. I know what an M-16, and an AK-47, and all Chinese versions, can do.

It is my firm belief, that those who are born, as of and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in this Nation, outside of present-day veterans, do not know what it is that has been laid in their hands, by those like me, that paid the price of Freedom, unless they were taught by those that have never let that idea, slip from their hearts.

Any time those that have been elected to represent us, turn around and tell us, "No, you can't." It is time to remove those folks from office, because they no longer represent us, but think they lord over us.
The issue of high cap mags has already being exhaustively discussed on your other thread and you have blatantly ignored all pro arguments there.

Making a second thread about this is ridiculous and the mods should lock it or merge it like they have done with threads made by longstanding, worthwhile members of this forum.

I see this thread as nothing more than attention seeking.
Address the cause that is present in almost every mass killing, not miscellaneous factors that are in some but not in others.
Ban assault zones. Almost every mass killing has occurred in a "gun-free" assault zone. Why are we even discussing any other action?
I disagree one hundred percent on everything you said. This is not a matter of mass shootings, it is a matter of freedom. If you do not believe in high capacity magazines, do not buy them. However, do not propose to take away my rights because of your fear.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Let's face it Timmy, you are an anti. Here it is, plain and simple, it is not the government's right, or place to tell us what we can and cannot own. Even if it did prevent crimes, which you said yourself it doesn't. The purpose of the 2A is to allow the citizens (not the army, not the LEO's, the civilians) to protect themselves from threats, including the government.

If you don't understand that, then either:

1. You are not intelligent enough to get it (which I find unlikely based on your writing.)
2. You are uneducated in the facts about firearms and their effects on society (possible)
3. You hate freedom like all anti's do.

Which is it?
Timmy4: said:
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments.

This is a tactic used by the anti-gun mob because they prefer to rely on emotion, not logic and fact, to argue their position.

If you simply reject a valid argumentative premise out of hand, then you also reject the right to engage in a reasonable debate.

Given your behavior (starting another thread of the same topic after the first was locked) and your refusal to accept valid premises counter to your point, I suspect that you are here simply to engage in trolling.
The limitation on gun magazines is SPECIFICALLY for mass shootings.

So let's just make mass shootings illegal...''

THIS is the best comment I've read so far. Thanks, 'Zoom.
1. In the 22 high profile mass shootings since the AWB was lifted, 20 of them used 30 round magazines or higher.
2. The easiest time to take down the shooter is when he is trying to reload. This was most notable in the case of Jared Loughner. Loughner was tackled while trying to reload his rifle. If he had less bullets in the original magazine, lives would have been saved on that occasion. Lives might have been saved in the Aurora shooting as well. And there are more examples.
This is inaccurate. Loughner was tackled when the pistol jammed At that point he was tackled.
Not to nit pick, but that being your prime example, the fact that it is inaccurate brings the whole thing into question. Fact is your talking about people who did a lot of planning. I would assume that quick magazine swaps would be part of that preparation. The issue of magazine limits is far too divisive and would have very little effect on a situation of mass shooting. If we are to do something about it, we need to have a better plan than," keep the killing to ten". Magazine swaps can take place in as less than 1.5 seconds with practice. If we are going top have a course of action then we need a plan to shut a shooter down at the immediate point of occurrence,and prevention of such occurrence to begin with.
Last edited:
2. I fully acknowledge that limiting gun magazines will not have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes in general.

Hence, a magazine ban would have ZERO effect on future "mass shootings". Anyone with any sense can get 30 round magazines. You think they are just going to "dissappear" because of some law?

You might consider eliminating "gun free zones" or as one poster early in this thead suggested... maybe the manufacturer should just put a disclaimer that their magazines should not be used for "mass shootings". That will have just about as much impact as a law banning 10 round or higher magazines.

If only 10-round magazines existed, I would just carry more loaded magazines. After all, you can carry a backpack or other method to carry into these places and nobody would even take much notice.

I see no sense in such a ban. It would be a feel good law that only impacts honest people. Laws intended to fight crime should not inflict such hardships onto honest law abiding gun owners. I consider it an infringement on my rights as an honest citizen. I don't hold to the argument that some give that "if only one life is saved..."

I don't see much reason to debate this topic. You are not going to convince most people here. Your name Bloomberg? But I do think that views that are contrary to the majority of THR members should be welcome. But you will get the kind of response you get and those should be anticipated.
Timmy said:

I do not believe that limiting these magazines would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But it clearly would be a violation.

The intent behind the 2nd Amendment was...and is...that we be on equal footing with a standing army, which the founders were not in favor of, by the way. They knew the dangers of such.

"Well Regulated" is not to be taken to mean government regulated. It means self-regulated, by the members of the militia...a militia that we all belong to.

"Regulated" meaning that the militia should conduct regular meetings...drill...practice...appoint leaders and officers...and develop strategies for senarios in which the militia may have to mobilize. Google "Minutemen."

To believe that the wording means government regulated defies logic. The framers of the Constitution had just fought a costly war against an over-reaching, tyrannical government...one that strove to regulate everything. Why would they...in their mistrust of a centralized government with a standing army...turn around and hand control of the only means to resist back to the government? It doesn't make sense.

Lastly, the 2nd Amendment is the only one that insures that all other articles addressed in the Bill of Rights will stand. Without the means to effectively resist the usurpation of the rights that the Constitution guarantees...there is nothing to prevent them being trampled. Nothing. Thus, the 2nd Amendment is the last line of defense. We can't afford to allow any of its teeth to be pulled.

Ultimately, the police chiefs and mayors and the media shills and the politicians can speak any way that they choose, but to work toward violating the constitution is not only a violation of their sworn oaths...it's treason.

Whenever I hear one of them state out loud something on the lines of "We have to disarm the citizens of this country!" I'm tempted to ask them just who the hell they think they are to propose to do anything to the citizens of this country.

"By the consent of the governed" is another term you should research. The politician's job is to serve the people...as he is sworn to...not the other way around. It's time for we the people to remind them of that little reality.

And, no...we can only occasionally stop the man bent on mass murder before the fact. We can only stop him in the act, as soon as possible...and the only reliable way to do that is to shoot him down the instant that he starts...and the only way to do that is to be armed. While it may indeed be my day to die at his hands, he'll have to prove it to me. Given a choice between dying on my feet, fighting for my life...and on my knees, begging for my life...the choice is pretty clear. At least, mine is.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well,
but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters
. . . . . but they mean to be masters."

--Daniel Webster--
Not open for further replies.