PDA

View Full Version : 10rd Magazines, Law of the Land.


Pages : [1] 2

USMCM16A2
07-26-2012, 9:15 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

jonzer77
07-26-2012, 9:20 PM
Not one inch!

joe_gman
07-26-2012, 9:21 PM
I personally could care less if all I was able to purchase were 10 rounders. It would save me a fortune in ammo when I plink. In saying that, I disagree with a general ban on magazines above 10 rounds.

Changalang
07-26-2012, 9:21 PM
if you want to ban 30 rnd mags you should ban all guns. why can person a's opinion overrule person b's opinion in any way for a right they both deem desirable? IMO shall not be infringed interprets to no restriction, no prior restriant. and ive yet to come by a study regarding mag capacity and violent crime rates

phdo
07-26-2012, 9:22 PM
I seriously don't see a legitimate reason for owning a 100rd drum. In my opinion, it's purely for recreational purposes. I don't own any and I don't think I ever will. It just brings unwanted attention. I think 30rd is more than enough. But, we the people should have the option. I can't speak for everyone. I will be truly sad when what you speak of happens. I would like to preserve our 2A rights as much as possible, not give them up.

Dreaded Claymore
07-26-2012, 9:23 PM
I think that USMCM16A2's account has been hacked. :troll:

babe
07-26-2012, 9:24 PM
I responded to someone in another thread about this same issue. I don't think anyone on the streets today 'Needs" a 100 round magazine. But who am I to tell anyone? Who is our government to be making this decision? Do you think we 'need' 50 round magazines? What about 30 round magazines? It seems like you feel no.

How do you reach the decision that 10 rounds is ideal? Wouldn't 5 round magazines be just as good? I think it is arbitrary, and to take our rights away arbitrarily is scary.

gunnerstuff
07-26-2012, 9:26 PM
I don't like yellow cars, they need to be banned!

Albino
07-26-2012, 9:27 PM
So who determines "need"???

You? (OP) The Government? A talk show host?



People keep getting sucked into this "need" crap, that the leftists dish out...


When they ban it to 10 rounds, then it will go to, "why do you need 10... what's wrong with 5"?



Don't people get the fact that liberals will keep going until they ban
slingshots and rocks???



They don't care about hunting either... It will then turn into, "you don't need an 8mm Mauser to hunt deer with..."




Who decides when it stops???

Intimid8tor
07-26-2012, 9:27 PM
Not one inch!


That has to be our focus. Give up this and it will be something else.

gunsandrockets
07-26-2012, 9:28 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

The primary purpose put forward by anti-gunners for a ban on magazines greater than 10 round capacity, is to inhibit the ability of mass murderers who use guns. Well the theory doesn't work.

The reality is 1999 Columbine. Where a Hi-Point 9mm carbine, and a supply of 10 round magazines was more than sufficient to slaughter the victims.

Armed vs unarmed people is all it takes for a massacre. Not 20 round or 30 or 100 or whatever sized magazines!

hornswaggled
07-26-2012, 9:31 PM
I have the same conflict honestly. The need for 100 drum magazines (although they clearly suck) is a difficult stance to defend. But the issue is the slippery slope concept of will gun control advocates stop there if magazines are legally capped at 10 rounds. The answer is of course no. Can one bargain with the devil, or get a little bit pregnant? I don't know, but perhaps being completely rigid ala GOA might not earn us as many friends among the fence riders. Would banning drum magazines be an acceptable sacrifice to improve the NRA's image in mainstream media, or is that just a pipe dream?

esnyderr
07-26-2012, 9:31 PM
It may just become the law of the land...

http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure

William The Patriot
07-26-2012, 9:32 PM
The shooter's 100 round drum is said to have JAMMED during the incident.

If he had a bunch of 10 rounders instead - it's possible MORE people would have died.

Lone_Gunman
07-26-2012, 9:33 PM
Why is the response to tragedy to immediately try to ban something? The problem with these ban happy liberals is that they cannot come to terms with the fact that people die. People are fragile beings and sometimes the die before they are old and ready to go.
They are afraid of their own mortality, and they want to live in a world that can never exist. They pass laws on every subject imaginable from the food you eat to the bed you sleep in, because they cannont come to terms with the fact that the universe is unpredictable. I sincerely think that the most outspoken of them have a problem accepting reality.

Now, to answer your question, I WANT 30 round magazines. I didn't F-ing kill anyone so leave me the F alone.

Ubermcoupe
07-26-2012, 9:35 PM
... I WANT 30 round magazines. I didn't F-ing kill anyone so leave me the F alone.

Hear, Hear.:iagree:

glock21fan
07-26-2012, 9:35 PM
Look up the FBI report on the guy that got in a shoot out with agents he had one mag and was reloading from a box of ammo. I think if your allowed to own the weapon you should be able to have any mag you want. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with a crime personally if I lived out of state I'd have a few dozen 30 rd mags maybe a drum or two. Why? Cause I could. And it would save my thumb a bunch of grief. Lol

USMCM16A2
07-26-2012, 9:36 PM
Claymore,



My account has not been hacked, I am not advocating on giving an inch, but I have listened to both sides. I am for people having "standard capacity mags" but a 100rd magazine? Something has changed in me, I understand the slippery slope argument. Maybe I am just an old shooter that has settled comfortably into having a 10rd BB AR15 rifle.
I was talking with my Uncle this evening, he owns firearms, he just happens to be a Democrat, and questions why anyone needs a "military pattern firearm" aka assault rifle. He, like many buy into the lefts rants, and I spent an hour correcting him on his misconceptions. Maybe I am tired, be that 100rd drum is stuck in my craw. A2

Jsapata
07-26-2012, 9:42 PM
Why is the response to tragedy to immediately try to ban something?.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I often hear more liberals talking about this than conservatives or libertarian types and I have a theory...

If you can blame it on the tool being used then you don't have to deal with the people/society that is creating the mass murderer. And that, to me, is all connected to the "everyone gets a trophy" and "victim mentality" and maybe even the "you didn't build that" (if you think that's what he really meant) ways of thinking.

Jsapata
07-26-2012, 9:46 PM
Oh yeah, a lot of talk shows have picked up this topic. The best argument for why thy shouldn't be banned that I heard on the radio was one word...

Syria

EM2
07-26-2012, 9:46 PM
We should not have to defend the "need" for standard capacity magazines.
The is (was) a free country and as such it is no one else's buisness why we want/need something.
Is there a need for fast cars, private airplanes, yachts, large trucks, etc.?
Would there be any limit to the extend we would be restricted?


Most important question:
At what point do we resist? I don't mean politically, I mean just not comply.
That point is getting closer every day.

Rattlehead
07-26-2012, 9:46 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?

A terrible, idiotic, senseless thing.

Basing it off of the beaten to death "10 rounds is enough" argument made by complete idiots, perhaps we should ban cars that go over 70 mph. Why would anyone in California need a car that is able to go over 70 mph when the maximum speed limit in California is 70 mph.

It's a slippery slope that would cause an avalanche of justifications for other laws on things that we don't "need".

Ubermcoupe
07-26-2012, 9:51 PM
I think my favorite is still “because we all know the 11th round is more dangerous” :rolleyes:

Same can be said for a ban on 30+ round magazines...

And let’s be honest, 100rd drums aren’t that reliable and are heavy as heck when fully loaded.

EM2
07-26-2012, 9:54 PM
Claymore,



My account has not been hacked, I am not advocating on giving an inch, but I have listened to both sides. I am for people having "standard capacity mags" but a 100rd magazine? Something has changed in me, I understand the slippery slope argument. Maybe I am just an old shooter that has settled comfortably into having a 10rd BB AR15 rifle.
I was talking with my Uncle this evening, he owns firearms, he just happens to be a Democrat, and questions why anyone needs a "military pattern firearm" aka assault rifle. He, like many buy into the lefts rants, and I spent an hour correcting him on his misconceptions. Maybe I am tired, be that 100rd drum is stuck in my craw. A2



We (some of yo’all at least) are arguing the wrong point which is to defend the “need” for high cap mags.
The argument should be WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT OWN.



Perhaps you should try to listen to your own counsel.
It sounds like you may have made logic points in your discussion with your uncle, SO HEAD YOUR OWN WORDS.
You mention that he ” questions why anyone needs a "military pattern firearm" “ which sounds an awful lot like the “why does anyone need a 100 round mag” argument.

Rattlehead
07-26-2012, 9:57 PM
Maybe I am just an old shooter that has settled comfortably into having a 10rd BB AR15 rifle.

That was painful to read.
It sounds like you've been oppressed into submission.

EM2
07-26-2012, 9:58 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I often hear more liberals talking about this than conservatives or libertarian types and I have a theory...

If you can blame it on the tool being used then you don't have to deal with the people/society that is creating the mass murderer. And that, to me, is all connected to the "everyone gets a trophy" and "victim mentality" and maybe even the "you didn't build that" (if you think that's what he really meant) ways of thinking.



This is very insightful.
You are now getting to a root of the problem and we may now be able to move on a solution based on deeper truths instead of what we see on the surface.

It sounds like what we are seeing could be a mental disorder? No?

guitar-nut
07-26-2012, 10:11 PM
As others have said, who are you to decide what anyone else "needs"? You don't "need" a fast car or a big TV, but you'd probably throw a fit if someone decided it's illegal for you to have them.

Let them ban everything but 10rd mags, then watch as it goes down to 5rd mags, then only fixed mags, then only single shot... It's a slippery slope and one we need to beware of.

USMCM16A2
07-26-2012, 10:13 PM
Rattlehead,



I have not been pummeled into submission, not at all. I was young when you could buy all the 30 rounders you could stuff away, AR15 rifles pick it out, pay your money leave with it the same day. I have seen our State Government, take a GIANT **** on our rights. All I am trying to say is that I am happy to target shoot and match shoot with my 10rd magazines. I do not think that we should give one inch in this fight, but I have found myself having a difficult time justifying the utility, practicality, the necessity of a 100 round Beta C mag. Maybe I will feel different in the morning. A2

CitaDeL
07-26-2012, 10:14 PM
I am disgusted with gunowners who entertain the acceptance of another firearm regulation, even if it is symbolic, or only affects the 2nd peripherally.

It is these compromises that subject the right to keep and bear arms to abolition through attrition. It is far worse here in California than any other.

We only get the government we allow... and this applies to gun regulations like magazine restrictions. If you think it is okay to ban beta mags, for whatever justification you might imagine- even if it is to assuage the tender emotions of those who were victimized by a murderer- you have fallen for the creeping incrementalism that will permit banning everything, one feature at a time.

Standing against this is our duty not only to each other, but those who come after us. Our posterity should have the right to choose whether or not a beta mag is something they will use in their rifle. Who are you, that you would deny your descendants that right to choose? Our forefathers made every effort to bequeath us a right that shall not be infringed... And you would dole it away- not only for your self, but your children as well? :mad:

Hank Stamper
07-26-2012, 10:15 PM
The argument should be WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT OWN.


.

The same ones who tell you what intoxicants you can use.

dustoff31
07-26-2012, 10:19 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I often hear more liberals talking about this than conservatives or libertarian types and I have a theory...

If you can blame it on the tool being used then you don't have to deal with the people/society that is creating the mass murderer. And that, to me, is all connected to the "everyone gets a trophy" and "victim mentality" and maybe even the "you didn't build that" (if you think that's what he really meant) ways of thinking.

Bingo.

If something needs to be banned to prevent mass murders, then shouldn't we ban the people most likely to commit them?

So, I propose we ban high school and college students. The record clearly shows that they have been the shooters in the majority of mass shootings for some time.

But they never seem to want to talk about that. They just want to blame guns.

C.W.M.V.
07-26-2012, 10:19 PM
No one really needs the right to free speech, we should limit that (more).
Hell blacks dont need to use the front door of an establishment, the back works just fine right?
No one needs to be openly out if the closet, we should really fix these things!

Mrbroom
07-26-2012, 10:19 PM
I am disgusted with gunowners who entertain the acceptance of another firearm regulation, even if it is symbolic, or only affects the 2nd peripherally.

It is these compromises that subject the right to keep and bear arms to abolition through attrition. It is far worse here in California than any other.

We only get the government we allow... and this applies to gun regulations like magazine restrictions. If you think it is okay to ban beta mags, for whatever justification you might imagine- even if it is to assuage the tender emotions of those who were victimized by a murderer- you have fallen for the creeping incrementalism that will permit banning everything, one feature at a time.

Standing against this is our duty not only to each other, but those who come after us. Our posterity should have the right to choose whether or not a beta mag is something they will use in their rifle. Who are you, that you would deny your descendants that right to choose? Our forefathers made every effort to bequeath us a right that shall not be infringed... And you would dole it away- not only for your self, but your children as well? :mad:

Seconds this...

SilverTauron
07-26-2012, 10:20 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.

Does anyone really *need* 300 hp in their cars? Since most of urban America drives at a whopping 10 mph during the morning commute, perhaps we should limit HP to 200 for all cars and trucks. After all the fastest speed limit in the nation is 80 MPH.


I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

The question of need is irrelevant to the legal regulation of the right.

Does a government bureaucrat have the right to decide which girl you date?You clearly don't need to date a woman with DDs to have a family.

Should you submit to a MB restriction on your cell phone? Ya don't need 1gig of mobile RAM to call 911 after all.

Speaking of RAM, why don't we cap civilians to 512mb memory with only 100Gig hard drive storage on their laptops. Quite frankly only government agencies have the training and jugement to use that storage space and computing power wisely. :rolleyes:


A 10 round magazine ban , much like the old 55 MPH national speed limit, enforces a social and arbitrary standard of need which is devoid of foundation in logic or purpose.

Rattlehead
07-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Rattlehead,



I have not been pummeled into submission, not at all. I was young when you could buy all the 30 rounders you could stuff away, AR15 rifles pick it out, pay your money leave with it the same day. I have seen our State Government, take a GIANT **** on our rights. All I am trying to say is that I am happy to target shoot and match shoot with my 10rd magazines. I do not think that we should give one inch in this fight, but I have found myself having a difficult time justifying the utility, practicality, the necessity of a 100 round Beta C mag. Maybe I will feel different in the morning. A2

I understand.

I think what people need to realize is that we shouldn't have to justify to anyone why we need them. Do I need them? No, I do not need them. Would it be fun to mess around with if I had a lot of money, was out of state, and had an auto sear? Yes.

It's not the need, it's the principal of the situation. You shouldn't have to justify it to any politician that bases their decisions on emotions rather than logic and reason.

I like traveling out of state because it gives me a reality check; not every state is as screwed up as California, and 99% of what California considers an "issue" is not an issue elsewhere...magazine capacity being one of those things.

Bangzoom
07-26-2012, 10:26 PM
The biggest thing that gets me is this "Shall not be infringed" and they have already done that wayyyyyyy tooooooo many times

Howard Roark
07-26-2012, 10:26 PM
10? These go to 11. It's better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY

EM2
07-26-2012, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by EM2
The argument should be WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT OWN.


The same ones who tell you what intoxicants you can use.



I know exactly WHO they are and they are my enemy.

I was asking "WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE".

They are not kings.
They are not dictators.
They are not superior.

They wipe their *****e$ the same as I do. (well maybe not as well)

Surfdog
07-26-2012, 10:28 PM
Shall not be infringed....

Librarian
07-26-2012, 10:29 PM
Related thread - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=600437

EM2
07-26-2012, 10:29 PM
10? These go to 11. It's better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY



One of the funniest scenes ever.

TRICKSTER
07-26-2012, 10:30 PM
Do people really need free speech, very few people really use it, and many people abuse it by spreading lies. Free speech should be restricted to people who really have something important to say like the politicians and media. Why does everyone really need free speech?

wireless
07-26-2012, 10:30 PM
The anti-gun people say meet us half way. The largest magazine is 100 rounds. 10 rounds is not half way. If they want to ban 50 and 100 I'd meet them half way for my 30rd mags.


But where does it stop? The issue is we aren't met half way based on anything logical.

Bangzoom
07-26-2012, 10:31 PM
The shooter's 100 round drum is said to have JAMMED during the incident.

If he had a bunch of 10 rounders instead - it's possible MORE people would have died.

its possible alot more people would have died if he couldnt buy those guns...he knew how to make and did make bombs

Bangzoom
07-26-2012, 10:32 PM
The anti-gun people say meet us half way. The largest magazine is 100 rounds. 10 rounds is not half way. If they want to ban 50 and 100 I'd meet them half way for my 30rd mags.
I say show them what it feels like and spearhead a movement to ban all cars that can go over 70mph..they dont need a car like that...its too dangerous and cars kill people

Anchors
07-26-2012, 10:36 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with recreational or sport shooting.
Make 11 round magazines illegal and you and I won't have them. But criminals, tyrants, and invaders will.

Read my signature.

radioman
07-26-2012, 10:44 PM
I'm going back to AZ next week and the first thing on my to do list is buy a 15 round mag for my Sig!

Don29palms
07-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Let's ban the all religions except christianity in the name of public safety and reasonable restrictiuons.
The first time you go to church you must pay a fee and have a backround check to verify you are a christian.
If you switch to a new church you must pay another fee for another backround check.

We should ban all speech that is derogatory towards the government or law enforcement. These are reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety.
When you have a child you must pay a fee and get a permit before the child starts talking.
If you learn a second language another fee needs to be paid.

The news agencies should be banned from reporting anything that is banned from speech. These are reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety.
All stories should have to be verified and a fee paid before releasing to the public.


Automobiles should be banned in the name of public safety. You don't need an automobile anyway. No more television or any other item you don't need. Everybody will wear the same clothes. Everybody can only have what they need. That will be determined by the government.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 10:49 PM
If anyone has ever wondered what "tooth and nail" meant = the time is now. This is the core requisite of disarmament of the populace and worse yet, only those of use with 'law of the land' dignity will abide.

A gutting of our 'blade of grass' willingly

Please don't be so willing. Refer to my post here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9009863&postcount=108


Shepherd good work. Accept those that you might not initially understand but hold common interests; Solidify a positive stance locally.

You can only do such and if you do you build a bastion of ideals. Nothing is more important.

kf6tac
07-26-2012, 11:05 PM
I personally don't have a day to day need for a 100 round magazine, but the day may come when we will need one, and if/when that day comes, I'd rather not face that day without having one.

It's like my martial arts instructor always said about martial arts: we train hours a day for every day of our lives, all in preparation for a self-defense situation that may never come, and even when it does, it might only last 3 to 5 seconds. But that doesn't mean we stop training.

Maestro Pistolero
07-26-2012, 11:07 PM
Read my sig.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:10 PM
I personally don't have a day to day need for a 100 round magazine, but the day may come when we will need one



Unlikely because 100rd magazines are fraught with malfunction - now 8x 30rders...

May it never be a necessity but should it: thats a crutch acceptable to lean upon.

curtisfong
07-26-2012, 11:11 PM
You're missing the big picture.

If a 10 round limit law is ruled constitutional, we have much bigger problems than not being able to own >10 round magazines.

I don't get why this thread is so highly rated. Its silly.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:23 PM
You're missing the big picture.

If a 10 round limit law is ruled constitutional, we have much bigger problems than not being able to own >10 round magazines.

I don't get why this thread is so highly rated. Its silly.

the 2nd amendment is continually sold to the populace as "hunting and sporting only and ok maybe some snubbys for the ladies "


Read it. Its about allowing the populace to arm itself so significantly ( not specifically individually, but cumulatively) as to offer the governing chaste a serious reason NOT to entirely subjugate the aforementioned "lesser" populace.


Has anyone seen the movie "Bruce Almighty?" What happened when accountability was revoked? Arms revoked from the hands of the populace is just that : government gone wild.


Hold dear that which you've fostered : Self reliance, personal stability, personal choice, and simply the ability to engage fully in the actions that ensure the aforementioned.

All of that : Stripped.

"How can i prevent that?" you ask ---- this is how :

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9009863&postcount=108

and once you've finished with the Customer Testimonial - reach out to your neighbors and start a positive, smiling, fist full of brass.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=183

Reach out, connect, spend some time Preserving Your Rights and make some friends or just meet some people you mostly dont agree with EXCEPT that we should be free to bear arms.

You'd be surprised how much we all have in common. :chris:

DJ Skillz
07-26-2012, 11:34 PM
So many tough guys who berate the OP in such a nasty way...what a bunch of wanna be tough guys. Does it make you feel good to be so belligerent with your reponses? Do you get a woody piling on like a bunch of red neck frat boys??


Coming to a gun forum and telling people that guns or certain gun parts/accessories should be banned might just piss a few people off. :shrug:

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:40 PM
Coming to a gun forum and telling people that guns or certain gun parts/accessories should be banned might just piss a few people off. :shrug:

arguably the statement you quoted is so vague that only the easy fish would bite.... that being said...

Clarity is something to aspire to. If we all could relate our position without emotion inundating and muddling our words, then we would truly have reached the pinnacle of internet forum discourse

in the absence of such - let use afford one another some leeway and civility :)

:chris:

Legasat
07-26-2012, 11:41 PM
If they passed 10 rnd mags for all, then only the Gov't and bad guys would 30 rnd mags.

Gee, that would make me feel REAL SAFE :facepalm:

jwkincal
07-26-2012, 11:58 PM
Some really smart guys designed my weapons platform.

They were/are experts in the fields of weapons design and machining and mechanical engineering. Their collective experience and wisdom bestowed upon them the ability to make well-founded and reasoned decisions about things like magazine capacity vis a vis reliability, performance, and other similar objective and practical considerations.

Do you really think it makes sense to allow some arbitrary, media-fueled, irrationally motivated legislators to countermand that kind of expertise? For reasons which have no forensically demonstrable purpose?

Deadbolt
07-27-2012, 12:00 AM
Some really smart guys designed my weapons platform.

They were/are experts in the fields of weapons design and machining and mechanical engineering. Their collective experience and wisdom bestowed upon them the ability to make well-founded and reasoned decisions about things like magazine capacity vis a vis reliability, performance, and other similar objective and practical considerations.

Do you really think it makes sense to allow some arbitrary, media-fueled, irrationally motivated legislators to countermand that kind of expertise? For reasons which have no forensically demonstrable purpose?

the Aerospace industry knows that feel :(

email
07-27-2012, 12:24 AM
The progressive ratchet of the left knows no finish line.

Not one inch

MudCamper
07-27-2012, 12:32 AM
Firearms are Constitutionally protected for the purpose of self defense. The larger the capacity of the magazine, the better the firearm is at that purpose. Period.

And from a practical standpoint, you are better off with large capacity magazines. Let's take a typical home invasion. Three to four armed thugs burst into your home. Shooting under stress is extremely difficult, so you are going to miss a lot. Typically it takes multiple hits to take down an attacker. Do the math there. 30 rounds may not even be enough.

I can't believe anyone who calls themselves pro-gun would even consider giving up the fight for large capacity magazines. For me, after carry, it's the most important issue.

Deadbolt
07-27-2012, 12:35 AM
Firearms are Constitutionally protected for the purpose of self defense

wrong well, kinda misappropriated within your comment.

the explicit purpose of the 2nd amendment is to harbor such a threat among the civility as to give the "governing class" pause / reason not to invoke a situation that constitutes slavery

Get it wrong again and you're in the gulag. :(

GOEX FFF
07-27-2012, 12:37 AM
Simply put, ONE deranged scumbag used a 100rnd mag (which jammed) to kill people, while the other thousands of people in the country who own them, especially NFA guys use them to shoot recreational just like people who use 10rnd, 20rnd, 30rnd mags, didn't kill anyone.

People abusing alcohol kills far more people every day and annually in this country than people abusing firearms to kill mass innocent people.
Should the ones who don't abuse it, need to be limited on buying more than a 6 pack of beer, percentage or kinds of alcohol?

Hate to say it A2, but you're being sucked into the mind set that taking things away or questioning the vast majority of people who use them everyday legally and responsibly is the answer to rainbows and unicorns.

doctor_vals
07-27-2012, 12:39 AM
I don't like yellow cars, they need to be banned!

A terrible, idiotic, senseless thing.

... perhaps we should ban cars that go over 70 mph. Why would anyone in California need a car that is able to go over 70 mph when the maximum speed limit in California is 70 mph.

It's a slippery slope that would cause an avalanche of justifications for other laws on things that we don't "need".

My point exactly. I do not like cars with more than 6 cylinders, in California 4 or 6 cylinders more than enough; so ban other cars.
Than tell people - we have hybrids and electric cars - so ban all vehicles on gasoline. And forced people to buy what government wants. And they want to regulate ANYthing in your life.

MudCamper
07-27-2012, 12:39 AM
wrong well, kinda misappropriated within your comment.

I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about the reality of Constitutional Law, right now. Post Heller/McDonald, the 2A is now an "individual right to self defense". That is indisputable at this point, legally.

Deadbolt
07-27-2012, 12:47 AM
I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about the reality of Constitutional Law, right now. Post Heller/McDonald, the 2A is now an "individual right to self defense". That is indisputable at this point, legally.

while that may be what you accept, its a crippling view point and only does you disservice ultimately. I have no real argument beyond the simple complaint that the resolution (absolution :( ) is a convenient and safe place to "end conversation"

"Personal Defense" is an extensible concept.

edit: similar to the concept of the atomic bomb : It may be once used to dissuade to deter or otherwise suggest "something" - ultimately its purpose is splitting atoms

wrap that candy cane in whatever you like.

stix213
07-27-2012, 12:47 AM
Dude's 100 round beta C mag jammed, probably saving lives over if he had a more reliable magazine system. Hand these out to criminals for free rather than banning them.

doctor_vals
07-27-2012, 12:49 AM
Firearms are Constitutionally protected for the purpose of self defense. The larger the capacity of the magazine, the better the firearm is at that purpose. Period.

And from a practical standpoint, you are better off with large capacity magazines. Let's take a typical home invasion. Three to four armed thugs burst into your home. Shooting under stress is extremely difficult, so you are going to miss a lot. Typically it takes multiple hits to take down an attacker. Do the math there. 30 rounds may not even be enough.
I don't think so.
"Three to four armed thugs burst into your home." - Why they want to do so? Because they assume no resistance will be at that house.
So, as soon as you shoot - they will try to escape. So good shotgun and handy handgun will resolve problem.


I can't believe anyone who calls themselves pro-gun would even consider giving up the fight for large capacity magazines. For me, after carry, it's the most important issue. AGREED!

nicki
07-27-2012, 12:49 AM
The real question is not why do I need a 100 round drum, rather the real question should be by what justification does the government have to impose a prior constraint on me by limiting the functionality of common arms I choose to keep and bear for self defense.

The 100 round magazine jammed because that is the inherent problem with beta mag drums and because the shooter went for a max capacity mag rather than say 4 30 rounders, it slowed him down.

Too bad there wasn't someone with a CCW in that theater, that would have been a perfect time to shoot him when his gun jammed.

There is nothing magic about 10 rounds, it is the anti gunners way to cut functionality of our arms.

Military and Police guns would not have above 10 round mags if 10 rounds did the job.

Nicki

doctor_vals
07-27-2012, 12:51 AM
Dude's 100 round beta C mag jammed, probably saving lives over if he had a more reliable magazine system. Hand these out to criminals for free rather than banning them.

It is what administration is doing - sending arms for free across border to Mexico...

Deadbolt
07-27-2012, 12:51 AM
@ Nicki - where was the Bearcat ? Im curious how these implements of force that cost so much money didnt prevent this from happening.

MudCamper
07-27-2012, 12:55 AM
while that may be what you accept, its a crippling view point and only does you disservice ultimately. I have no real argument beyond the simple complaint that the resolution (absolution :( ) is a convenient and safe place to "end conversation"

"Personal Defense" is an extensible concept.

edit: similar to the concept of the atomic bomb : It may be once used to dissuade to deter or otherwise suggest "something" - ultimately its purpose is splitting atoms

wrap that candy cane in whatever you like.

Why are you arguing with me? Honestly, I don't know what you are saying. Since you are disagreeing with me, I have to assume that you are saying that large capacity magazines are not constitutionally protected? Or that you think that they should not be? :confused:

Deadbolt
07-27-2012, 12:59 AM
Why are you arguing with me? Honestly, I don't know what you are saying. Since you are disagreeing with me, I have to assume that you are saying that large capacity magazines are not constitutionally protected? Or that you think that they should not be? :confused:

enthusiastic persistence :p

RRangel
07-27-2012, 1:00 AM
The Democrats are attempting to add such an amendment (http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure) to the already approved cybersecurity bill. Schumer and his anti-Second Amendment buddies can shove it. Not to mention that arbitrary 10 round limitations would stop NO crime. This is all an attempt to further their agenda when they have the chance to exploit recent victims.

rexblaine
07-27-2012, 1:14 AM
What these Feds don't understand is that if you want something that bad no law is going to change anything, and if its illegal and you have and hide it possession is only a non issue and once you are using that 30 round magazine, the law against it may as well not be there - unless of course you're at a range in which case laws against hicaps make no safety sense whatsoever. In any case Schumer et al are just throwing chaff in our faces while they rip us off in some other meaningful way.

The federal genie needs to get back in the bottle.

arsilva32
07-27-2012, 1:44 AM
A terrible, idiotic, senseless thing.

Basing it off of the beaten to death "10 rounds is enough" argument made by complete idiots, perhaps we should ban cars that go over 70 mph. Why would anyone in California need a car that is able to go over 70 mph when the maximum speed limit in California is 70 mph.

It's a slippery slope that would cause an avalanche of justifications for other laws on things that we don't "need".


thank you, well said!


who ever says i don't see the need for more than 10 rounds is a complete fool.if you don't see the need then don't have mags with more than 10, but do not dictate what i need. its not for you or anyone to decide. if you want to bend over for them thats on you.

p.s. have you ever asked why law enforcement needs more than ten rounds per mag?

TripleT
07-27-2012, 2:22 AM
I'm not sure why this shooting would serve as the basis for a change in perspective relative to mag capacity ?

Primary weapons system = Remington 870 Tactical Shotgun

Shooter transitions to AR-15 style weapon with 100 round mag that jams at appx 30 rounds, then transitions to Glock .40 and expends 1 mag before exiting.

How does a 10 round mag limit significantly change the outcome of this crime ?

Are we to assume the shooter would have complied with a 10 round mag capacity limit, when it appears he broke the law to even be in the theater with a firearm or are we going to play the "limit the availability" game ?

I agree, it is silly and dangerous to assume mag capacity is any kind of an answer to a whack job's crime.

littlejake
07-27-2012, 2:53 AM
Choice is the essence of Liberty. Allow government to take away your choice, and you are not Free.

YubaRiver
07-27-2012, 6:44 AM
You don't "need" to eat meat. Look at all the deaths from heart disease.

You don't "need" to drink alcohol or smoke pot.

You don't "need" a car that goes faster than 60 or 80 mph.

You don't "need" more than one gun or one pair of skis or one bicycle or one
house.

Edit-
Whoops,someone beat me to it.

EM2
07-27-2012, 7:03 AM
Choice is the essence of Liberty. Allow government to take away your choice, and you are not Free.



Short & sweet, I like it.

OK guys sounds like we got this wrapped up.

There my friends is the answer.

Bangzoom
07-27-2012, 7:04 AM
The USA is arguably the biggest consumer of "Wants" on the planet.We all go and buy things we want over need in the "Pursuit of happiness"

J.O.
07-27-2012, 7:30 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-crash-13-dead-20120723,0,2632784.story

Guess they better start banning high-occupancy vehicles. Allot of people could die at one time.

MakeYaBootyBurn
07-27-2012, 7:40 AM
So who determines "need"???

You? (OP) The Government? A talk show host?



People keep getting sucked into this "need" crap, that the leftists dish out...


When they ban it to 10 rounds, then it will go to, "why do you need 10... what's wrong with 5"?



Don't people get the fact that liberals will keep going until they ban
slingshots and rocks???



They don't care about hunting either... It will then turn into, "you don't need an 8mm Mauser to hunt deer with..."




Who decides when it stops???
This!!!!

lugee
07-27-2012, 7:57 AM
legitimate use for anything above 10 rounds? 3gun competitions.

selfshrevident
07-27-2012, 8:07 AM
It's really strange to see so many gun owners on this forum starting to drink some of that progressive gun control kool-aide. "-yeah you know I guess they're right... maybe I don't really need a 100 round magazine-30 round-10 round-red dot-bipod-etc etc!!" I'm sure there were some gun owners in Canada that thought that giving up handguns wouldn't be so bad...

Not one inch. If you give a mouse a cookie, especially a liberal mouse, it's going to want some milk to go with it.

USMCM16A2
07-27-2012, 8:08 AM
Folks,


Glad to see my inquiry stirred discussion. But now that things have had time to simmer in the old cerebral crock pot, I agree "NOT ONE INCH" of ground must be given. I do not need,want, or ever wish to have a 100 round magazine. But the right of another person to have these should not pissed on by some azzhole like Fineswine, Boxlicker, or Shmucker. A2

putput
07-27-2012, 8:19 AM
Do you know who “Needs” a 100 round drum magazine? Who needs a 100 round drum magazine is not the guy on the front line defending his liberty from a murderous and tyrannical government as part of a well-regulated militia. It’s the guy who stays behind to guard the school age children while the others defend liberty from a murderous and tyrannical government. Hey, they asked.

SilverTauron
07-27-2012, 8:28 AM
Ive contacted my Senator regarding this disturbing amendment. Everyone who's responded in this 3 page thread is advised to do the same.

If you have time to post up a snarky comment, you definitely have time to send a letter to your elected representatives. Even if your rep is Boxer or Feinstein, we still demand their explanation for attaching this law to a bill on cyber security.

compulsivegunbuyer
07-27-2012, 8:33 AM
Car plows through market, killing 9. Old story, but anything can be a weapon of mass murder.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-07-16/us/farmers.market.crash_1_russell-weller-accident-pedestrians?_s=PM:US

Jack L
07-27-2012, 8:34 AM
I think 30 round mags would be fine. Maybe they will allow 30 rounders' if you register or something in the future but the cry from antis is 10 rounders' only.

The 100 round mags have issues for reliability if you ask me and they are heavy and I personally only use three round bursts or I get creeping up off target. What I really like is one shot, one kill. The automatic thing never excited me much.

The AR is an excellent varmint rifle. The feel of AR is perfect for me. I own a ranch and the AR is my go to rifle for predation.

Back to new guns laws. If there are any;

Most the laws should reflect crime in my opinion. Get guns away from
gangsters, mental cases and criminals as they are doing most the killing.

SilverTauron
07-27-2012, 8:42 AM
I think 30 round mags would be fine. Maybe they will allow 30 rounders' if you register or something in the future but the cry from antis is 10 rounders' only.

The only acceptable magazine to the Anti's is 0 round capacity.



The 100 round mags have issues for reliability if you ask me and they are heavy and I personally only use three round bursts or I get creeping up off target. What I really like is one shot, one kill. The automatic thing never excited me much.

Glad to know you don't see the need.As a free state resident, I can see a whole lot of practical uses for a 100 round magazine. Take it from me, a 30 round magazine takes awhile to load after each round of shooting. Putting 100 rounds in 1 mag , sticking it in the trunk, and hitting the range keeps all your ammo organized in one place without the need to reload 4 times.




Back to new guns laws. If there are any;

Most the laws should reflect crime in my opinion. Get guns away from
gangsters, mental cases and criminals as they are doing most the killing.

Then it is high time we start deleting ineffective laws from the books. The typical gun used by crooks is a cheap .380 or .25 hidden in a pocket-not full auto weapons, long arms, semi auto rifles, or handguns with 30 round aftermarket magazines. As such we need to send the NFA, all national registration and assault weapons bans', and discretionary-issue CCW into the wastebasket of history where they belong.

goodlookin1
07-27-2012, 8:44 AM
Once again, someone doesnt understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What the 2A is NOT solely intended for:
- Recreation
- Sport
- Hunting
- Self-defense

The 2A was indended for:
- Mitigation against a tyrannical and oppressive gov't


Now tell me, in a fight against a rogue, brutal, and oppressive gov't, do you want to be limited to 10 rounds? Do you want to be limited to semi-auto/bolt-action/single shot rifles? Do you want to be unarmed? Because the gov't goal is to disarm you as much as possible so that this will never happen. Public safety is and has always been a ruse....it's really about taking away the ability of citizens to fight back against the gov't. Look, they know that some day, our society will break down and collapse. And it wont take much: One large bank going down, an oil supply/price crisis hampering our critical Just-In-Time delivery system (And for any naysayers, I give this: What gov't hasn't gone down over time?). The last thing they want is a bunch of well armed citizens who have the ability to take the govt's power away from the power elites who will institute marshall law and control every bit of our lives, making parts of 1984 a practical reality.

And just so you understand, the 2A was never put in place to GIVE/GRANT us the right, but rather GUARANTEE and AFFIRM that the right pre-existed the advent of the constitution.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-27-2012, 8:54 AM
All these gun control laws do is set up the gov't to run every aspect, every little facet, of our lives. That, my friends, is communism to a "T". Who is anyone to tell me what I can or can't do? If I want to drink alcohol till I pass out every night I'm the one that is going to suffer, not you (unless I drive, which is why drunk driving is illegal and guess what, people STILL do it!). Maybe I have no real purpose for a 100 round magazine but I sure would enjoy the freedom to buy one if I ever found a need. If I can get drunk on a 6 pack then why do they sell 12 packs? Limiting anything that doesn't have a negative effect on anyone else is just plain stupid. If people want to sit around their house and get high all day, who I am I to tell them that's wrong? (Well realistically it is because its been proven that a majority of the profits from drug sales fund terrorists, criminal enterprises and general bad people but that may be a product of the drugs being illegal themselves.) The point I'm trying to make is who is the gov't to tell me how to live my life? If I'm doing nothing wrong they should not be interfering with how I live. Let me be.

RuskieShooter
07-27-2012, 8:55 AM
The second amendment is written in the Bill of Rights; not the Bill of Needs.

/thread

-Ruskie

boamedt
07-27-2012, 8:56 AM
Since when did a law stop thing from happening, or stop people from getting what they want? Answer: NEVER. Criminals are just that, criminals..their job description is to break the law so what does it matter. It just turns normal law abiding citizens into crimmals.....and phdo said he doesnt know a legitimate reason to own a 100rnd drum. Except for recreational purposes...well isnt recreational purposes a legitimate reason? "I want to own this because its fun to use" since when cant we own things that r not practicle but fun to use? Hell thats the american way " buy s**t u dont need" right?

HiveDR.
07-27-2012, 9:46 AM
A 100rd drum is not anymore dangerous then a 10rd mag. Does it matter that 5 people are killed with a 100rd drum or 10rd mag. they are still dead. God forbid criminal shooters do not learn that at the ranges these killings happen, a shotgun loaded with 7 rds of 00 buck would be far more deadly. Each shot form the shotgun is throwing 8-9 roughly 9mm rds out in an ever expanding pattern at up to magnum velocities. Doing the math that is 60+ projectiles in, how fast? Faster than a semi auto rifle.

Ctwo
07-27-2012, 11:39 AM
I am for people having "standard capacity mags" but a 100rd magazine? Something has changed in me...questions why anyone needs a "military pattern firearm" aka assault rifle.


You'd need to justify why you need more than one round capacity...then 6, then 10, etc.

What's the practical difference between 100 rounds in 10 mags vs. in just one mag?

Just because I'm fat and lazy, I think it would be cool to set up my pattern rifle on the rest with a thousand round hopper and spend an afternoon refining my skills.

I got a similar argument about how many rounds you should be allowed to possess at any given time. Who needs more than a hundred rounds anyway? That ought to be enough for some practice, certainly enough for SD.

Then lets start looking at the power and range of each round...

Where are you going to reasonably draw the lines?

Full Clip
07-27-2012, 11:46 AM
I seriously don't see a legitimate reason for owning a 100rd drum.

I completely agree.
But only because they always seem to jam.

Zachs300zx
07-27-2012, 11:54 AM
7 rounds of #1 Buck = 112 projectiles of .30 cal
Who "needs" this kind of firepower... That will be the next on their list to ban. Shotguns and buckshot if you give them an inch!

Jack L
07-27-2012, 12:15 PM
All this political talk about internet sales of thousands of rounds is bunk. These guys that go nuts usually don't shoot over 100 rounds if that. So I see no correlation between buying 6,000K rounds and creating danger for the general public. One could keep buying 20 round boxes from gun shops and Wal-Mart and build a huge stash if they want. You can’t always fix ‘crazy’ with a law.

God forbid if a well trained firearms enthusiast goes crazy. They could hit their targets with precision. Like someone pointed out, a shotgun with 9 rounds of #00 and slugs could no doubt take out 9 to 18 humans for good. A 30 round mag could take out 10 - 20 humans and that’s just a start until LE arrives. Lucky so far it has been mostly wankers with little shooting skill. Once a trained individual goes off the deep end no telling what politicians might want to ban.

Masada86
07-27-2012, 12:24 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

You know this is a really hard question to answer when posed like this and often the anti gun movement likes to use emotions to get the answers they want.

I'm not saying you are anti gun BTW, just the question is very similar to the ones asked before by that group.

So rather than ask the same question that carries an obvious no. Let's talk about rights and the reason for the 2nd amendment.

First off, no one needs an AR, AK, G3, MAK10 ect or to be able to shoot 30 rounds per magazine or 100 for that matter. But in turn no one needs to own a Mercedes, Lexus or own more than one bedroom apartment to sustain their life. Humans only need food and water, that is the basics of what we need to live.

So no we don't need guns or high capacity magazines as defined by the anti gun group. But rather it's about the right we are granted under the constitution. We have the right to bear arms, any arm with out limit or constraint. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting, it's about the ability to protect the rest of the rights guaranteed to us by our forefathers. Our founders understood that if the people (you and I) could not hold back the tyranny of governments foreign and domestic then we could and would lose our freedoms (not just the guns). I'm not going down the road of the government is taking over everything speech, but it's important to know that between the Gov't and the rest of your rights is the ability to defend them. Without that ability, then we have no way of securing our freedoms.

The rifle of their time was the same as the military's guns and ammo. And so it is today, we have the same types of guns that the military has and are afforded the similar training to keep up with that of the government. So we have a well regulated militia that could protect the rights of our nation if needed. What certain parties of the government want to do is limit our ability to secure a free state. That doesn't mean from invasion of foreign countries, but from the government that at the time in history tried to forcibly and violently take back the colonies. Well the same holds true today we need to be able to secure our states.

lastly a magazine ban anywhere (any state or city) should be looked at as infringing on the rights of the people. We as a nation have already lost large portions of our rights to firearms (gun bans of 1934 and 1986) that we may never get back. So to give an inch more, would be wrong plain and simple. Where in the constitution and specifically the 2 amendment does is allow congress to enact gun laws and restriction?

We could go down the road of magazine and gun restriction don't work, but that's just a rabbit trail designed to distract from the main point. Guns and anything related to them are guaranteed by the constitution.

Do we have the right to bear arms without infringement? The answer is a clear and solid YES.

2nd amendment to the constitution (Ratified 12/15/1791)
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.

IVC
07-27-2012, 12:58 PM
I do not need,want, or ever wish to have a 100 round magazine. But the right of another person to have these should not pissed on by some azzhole like Fineswine, Boxlicker, or Shmucker. A2

What's completely missed in this thread is what Nicki says:

The real question is not why do I need a 100 round drum, rather the real question should be by what justification does the government have to impose a prior constraint on me by limiting the functionality of common arms I choose to keep and bear for self defense.

Everybody is too conditioned to pose the discussion in the terms it has always been: "Person A wants to ban something, person B wants to justify it." The justification typically involves right vs. need, not limiting others, etc. No matter how you justify it, it's the wrong approach. The ban has to be justified.

After Heller and McDonald, the burden is on the antis. The real question is "can you justify introducing a ban on 100 rounders that will pass the constitutional muster."

At the minimum, to introduce such a ban there has to be a claim that it will save lives, reduce crime or serve some other well defined social purpose, then there has to be a proof that it works. Again, there has to be a proof that the measure works and that it actually achieves anything. If a ban is introduced and the purpose is not served, the ban is an infringement. That's why we don't have ban in Chicago and DC any more.

DonFerrando
07-27-2012, 1:11 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

Either we have the right do self defense and are allowed to use firearms the way they were intended to be used or we don't have a right to self defense. Otherwise it would be like having the right to a littlebit of self defense which to me is kind of like being a littlebit pregnant.

And besides low cap mags do nothing in lowering the number of gun deaths. Not even in an amok situation (e.g. the Aurora perpetrator's drum mag jammed, likely resulting in a lower number of casualties). This whole discussion is just more helpless, useless politicking that completely misses the point.

So as someone else here said: not one inch!

Oneaudiopro
07-27-2012, 1:15 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

Dumbass question

POLICESTATE
07-27-2012, 1:15 PM
I say no compromise on gun control. You can keep them out of the hands of lunatics and violent felons but other than that the sky is the limit as far as I'm concerned. I see no problem with full auto, high cap mags, suppressors, SBS, SBR's whatever, being owned by law-abiding citizens.

Vlad 11
07-27-2012, 1:16 PM
The ten round limit is just a arbitrarily made up number by politicians who want to be seen as 'doing something'. Banning them will have no effect other than criminalizing law abiders.

The genie is out of the bottle - if a criminal wants hi-caps he'll get them, plus nothing will stop them from using multiple weapons.

It sucks that there are nut jobs but it is the price of freedom.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

This whole thing is so blown out of proportion and rabidly hijacked for a preexisting hypocritical agenda its sickening.

Mana4real
07-27-2012, 1:17 PM
The problem is that the few always screw it up for the masses. It's the story of my life. Something goes wrong, so the people/person in power create a law/rule that they believe will keep the idiots from doing what they have done in the past. Events cause this. That's how/when most laws are created. If you follow history and look at retarded laws (I mean really screwed off laws), that's what you're going to find.

The problem is that the people of power don't understand that if there is a will, there is a way and people are going to do good or bad regardless of what laws/rules are broken. Bad things are going to happen. "Bad" things will always be available.

Bruceisontarget
07-27-2012, 1:47 PM
April 19, 1943 the German Army began the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto. The Jews, understanding their fate, fought back. They were poorly armed with old revolvers and old rifles that were illegal to have. The revolt was short lived as the Nazis had modern weaponry, like MG42s with high capacity magazines. Now, it's debateable whether the Jews would have stood a chance if they had equal arms without the same training... but then again, they all died anyways.

leitung
07-27-2012, 4:41 PM
Yeah, I don't have any 100 round mags either.
Yeah, I don't open carry.
Yeah, I don't always CCW.

But do I want the right to? HELL YEAH!

RobG
07-27-2012, 4:44 PM
Anyone that thinks giving up something like a 100 round drum will somehow appease the antis is F'n delusional.

One lunatic goes on a rampage and suddenly now even gun owners are succumbing to the anti gun kooks. I don't recall any, "Who needs a 100 round drum mag" threads on July 19th. No wonder why Commiefornia is so F'd up.

leitung
07-27-2012, 4:49 PM
Anyone that thinks giving up something like a 100 round drum will somehow appease the antis is F'n delusional.

One lunatic goes on a rampage and suddenly now even gun owners are succumbing to the anti gun kooks. I don't recall any, "Who needs a 100 round drum mag" threads on July 19th. No wonder why Commiefornia is so F'd up.

Thank you, don't give em one inch or they will take a mile.

It's important that us gun owners don't take one step backward, anywhere.

CBruce
07-27-2012, 4:50 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

My understanding is the 100rd magazines are novelty junk, more prone to jam and misfeed than work properly. Despite rumors, the Auroro shooter did not use a 100rd drum magazine. Photos of the crime scene very clearly show a standard 30 round magazine.

There's some logic to wanting to restrict ammo capacity. It just make sense. If criminal shooter has fewer rounds available, that's more time spent switching magazines and potentially less death happening. But it only makes a tiny bit of sense because in a situation where someone is firing murderously at another person, the number of shots being fired is largely moot. Might save a life here and there, but it's stastically meaningless. Not worth the infringement of personal liberties and cost to legistlate. Better, more cost effective ways to tackle the problem directly.

Does it make sense for recreational/target shoting? No, not really. But sport shooting, sure. SD/HD defense, absolutely. SHTF situation, definitely.

AAShooter
07-27-2012, 4:58 PM
I guess police officers don't need all that excess capacity either. An armed encounter is an armed encounter.

Dragunov
07-27-2012, 5:04 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2Bad thing. It's an "infringement". Not one step backwards!

ap3572001
07-27-2012, 5:29 PM
Its an interesting question....

Here are few things I noticed.

MOST officers I work with who carry off duty , DO NOT carry full size duty style pistols with HiCap mags.

Single stack 9mm/40/45 or a 2-3" barrel revolver are a norm.

When I travel to SHALL ISSUE states, MOST people who ACTUALLY CARRY handguns (not just talk about it) carry mid size single stack pistols and DA revolvers in 38/357.

There are MANY people (men and women) with med/small hands who CAN NOT effectively use pistols with a wide grip. And they don't.

On duty I carry a G22 GEN4 with 15 and 22rd magazines.

I would feel just fine with an HK45 or SIG P220.

As a home owner armed with a good pump action shotgun and a 1911 or .357 magnum revolver I would not feel unsafe . Not at all.

I know MANY gun owners who only own 1911 pistols and Smith and Wesson revolvers. They seem not to be interested in anything else.


On the other hand I see no reason why people should not have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition if they want to .

Is STD CAP magazine ban bad? YES.

Does having a ten round limit make anyone helpless? NO.

hatidua
07-27-2012, 6:49 PM
I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.

Why do you need that 10rd magazine, why not make it a single-shot, just think how much you'd save in terms of ammo costs!

Why, if you are content with 10rd mags do you think that limit needs to be imposed on the rest of us? A 10rd magazine in an NFA FA lower is rather frustrating to say the least.

I don't own a Beta-C mag, likely never will. But my not owning one or wanting one doesn't reflect what my neighbor may want.

sandman21
07-27-2012, 8:37 PM
On duty I carry a G22 GEN4 with 15 and 22rd magazines. ....

......
Does having a ten round limit make anyone helpless? NO.

Swap mags in your duty weapon to 10 rounders.

dfletcher
07-27-2012, 8:40 PM
I am disgusted with gunowners who entertain the acceptance of another firearm regulation, even if it is symbolic, or only affects the 2nd peripherally.

It is these compromises that subject the right to keep and bear arms to abolition through attrition. It is far worse here in California than any other.

We only get the government we allow... and this applies to gun regulations like magazine restrictions. If you think it is okay to ban beta mags, for whatever justification you might imagine- even if it is to assuage the tender emotions of those who were victimized by a murderer- you have fallen for the creeping incrementalism that will permit banning everything, one feature at a time.

Standing against this is our duty not only to each other, but those who come after us. Our posterity should have the right to choose whether or not a beta mag is something they will use in their rifle. Who are you, that you would deny your descendants that right to choose? Our forefathers made every effort to bequeath us a right that shall not be infringed... And you would dole it away- not only for your self, but your children as well? :mad:

You know, I used to read all these threads and every post but honestly - I give up. The willingness of some gun owners to toss in the towel, not just on this forum but others, astounds me. I think you've said it well. I'll only add a line or two.

We're our own worst enemy. This is a political issue and folks doing the "what's the harm?" routine just kill us. I've posted the remark elsewhere but what some gun owners do on this issue is the equivalent of an NAACP member publicly saying "well, maybe some racial discrimination is acceptable". :(

And no thought goes into these positions. Once gun owners agree "X sized mags are bad" on what basis will they object to a law that restricts the number of mags a person can own or possess?

Are we so unsure of our position that we give in so readily - do we seek some sort of acceptance from society or assuage a guilty conscience? Why do some we just sometimes beg to be handed the sh*t end of the stick?

oddball
07-27-2012, 8:55 PM
Maybe I am just an old shooter that has settled comfortably into having a 10rd BB AR15 rifle.

This is what I can stand about some California gun owners; frogs that went into the simmering water, slowly losing consciousness. Just don't know any better. To me, the bullet button and limited capacity magazines represent anti-liberty, slavery to laws contrary to freedom, being one of the few states to be publicly spanked for our interest in firearms.

I loath the bullet button and limited capacity magazines. It's insulting to my intelligence. Absolutely loath its existence.

By the way, "NEED" HAS SQUAT TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

Jack L
07-27-2012, 9:07 PM
I rather carry a vest loaded with a number of 30 round mags myself.

CA has already outlawed high cap magazines, constitutional or not other states could do the same. Seems more like a state issue at this point unless there is a Supreme Court ruing that overrides state law on this subject. So far that isn't the case.

What other states have 10 round limits?

scoot64
07-27-2012, 9:21 PM
Not cool with 10 rounds being the law of the land

ap3572001
07-27-2012, 9:23 PM
Swap mags in your duty weapon to 10 rounders.

I can. Or can carry ( and do sometimes) My HK45 with total of 5 mags. I am off duty as wespeak. I am packing a Smith and Wesson 3914 with 2 8rd mags. I feel ok. I think....

gbp
07-27-2012, 9:58 PM
reading this thread is kind of like looking at a squirrel on a fence post and taking bets on which side he'll fall when you shoot him

entertaining at best, heartbreaking at worst

no wonder they they will always have us pitted against eachother

carry on

Kappy
07-27-2012, 10:05 PM
I'm relatively new to the whole 2nd Amendment thing. I didn't start shooting until 5 years ago. I've never been able to purchase something with more than 10 rounds.

I've had an AR for two months now. I've only loaded 10 rounds in the magazine... maybe twice? I'm just shooting 5 round groups.

Now... that all being said, YES, I WANT 30 ROUND MAGS! OR 20! The fact that I cannot have one goes against the entire purpose of the 2A.

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.

Implicit within this statement is the idea that I should be able to stand for the security of a FREE STATE. How can I do that if I'm up against a fighting force which is not only better trained than I am (I have no training) and better armed (come on... my rifle is $1,000), but now I have smaller magazines? That's a no-go.

And I suppose the really important thing here is that I don't believe that I will ever have to fight for the security of a free state... because as long as we have arms, our government will know that there is a line it cannot cross.

Corbin Dallas
07-27-2012, 10:14 PM
Why stop at 10?

Isn't 5 enough? How about two rounds. That's all you need to stop a threat, two bullets.

The question isn't why do I need to buy these items, but why do think banning them will do anything?

Maestro Pistolero
07-27-2012, 10:25 PM
If we wish to see the drug cartels, which have infiltrated every major US city, be emboldened to begin their terroristic shenanigans on our soil, we should absolutely enact a magazine capacity limit. The evil that's perpetrated on the Mexican people should end any debate on the subject of gun control. Mexico would have us adopt their failed gun control laws, I suppose, well, maybe they'll work somewhere.

Anchors
07-27-2012, 11:02 PM
Unlikely because 100rd magazines are fraught with malfunction - now 8x 30rders...

May it never be a necessity but should it: thats a crutch acceptable to lean upon.

Maybe not for AR15s, but belt feds work pretty well with 100+ round links.

SureFire 60 and 100 round mags are also pretty damn reliable.

Anchors
07-27-2012, 11:05 PM
Why stop at 10?

Isn't 5 enough? How about two rounds. That's all you need to stop a threat, two bullets.

The question isn't why do I need to buy these items, but why do think banning them will do anything?

EXACTLY.

The question isn't "why do you need to be able to buy beer?", it is "how is banning it going to reduce crime and have an overall positive impact on society?"

The answer being that it doesn't, as we already tried it. It failed AND we got terrible things like the mafia, moonshiners, smugglers, the Kennedy family, etc.

Peashooter
07-27-2012, 11:21 PM
Didnt they try to ban single shots ?










Back in 1776

FalconLair
07-28-2012, 12:09 AM
USMC, I dont think the real issue with most of the posters on this forum is 100 round mags, "yes" or "no", but rather, the right that comes with it...its like we give, give, give and they keep wanting to take more, more, more...so once they take away the 100 round mags their next mission will be limiting the amount of magazines you can own the minute some unstable mind stumbles into some other establishment and does the same thing, only this time using several magazines for reloading...the point is they are just never satisfied, no matter what and after one small victory, they'll wait for some other tragedy to start limiting something else...the 10 round magazine limit is ridiculous, probably just a number they came up with by counting their fingers and thumbs, and they actually counted correctly

I feel to believe that gun owners could find some middle ground on all of this if they truely believed it would be over after that, but the fact of the matter is, most of the pro-gunners here are smart enough to know that wont be the way it turns out...for every inch they get, they'll want a mile and thats the MAIN reason, in my honest opinion, why you cant even give them that inch

Fellblade
07-28-2012, 1:02 AM
The ONLY good this law could do is for the lawsuits to be kicked up to the SCOTUS. they in turn rule magazine limits to be unconstitutional and got CA's ban lifted.

That said, it had better NEVER come to that nor see the light of day.

Ryan in SD
07-28-2012, 3:03 AM
Lets just ban freedom while we're at it.

/sarcasm

Kharn
07-28-2012, 4:05 AM
The US tried a 10-round limit for ten entire years.
It changed nothing.

We're not going back.

The War Wagon
07-28-2012, 5:49 AM
CA can KEEP them. I likes my 30, 40, and hundred rounders over here in America! :D

cmichini
07-28-2012, 5:58 AM
I have the same conflict honestly. The need for 100 drum magazines (although they clearly suck) is a difficult stance to defend. But the issue is the slippery slope concept of will gun control advocates stop there if magazines are legally capped at 10 rounds. The answer is of course no. Can one bargain with the devil, or get a little bit pregnant? I don't know, but perhaps being completely rigid ala GOA might not earn us as many friends among the fence riders. Would banning drum magazines be an acceptable sacrifice to improve the NRA's image in mainstream media, or is that just a pipe dream?

If mags greater than 10 rounds are banned, that'd better include LEO's and the military while on US soil.

Remember, the 2nd amendment is to provide the populace to create militia to defend the country from tyranny. In my opinion, that means that citizenry is to be on par with the government with respect to arms.

That would be the equal protection clause in its truest sense.

If the government won't stand for that limitation, we shouldn't either.

southernsnowshoe
07-28-2012, 7:47 AM
Ban it all. Ban 30 rounders, 100 rounders, ban auto shotguns, hell ban my old 45-70 while you are at it.



Then send around the gestapo, whoops sorry I meant the ATF to make sure all of that hardware gets seized. Sure it will get bloody for a few weeks, but after things have calmed down, and all of the politicians who passed those bans have been hung for treason, then we can have a restoration of our freedom and can spend our time doing something other than having to have the need for a forum such as this.

ap3572001
07-28-2012, 8:46 AM
I am very confused about the question ......

Will the 10+ capcity magazine ban prevent mass shootings and help with crime in general? The answer is a big NO.

Will 10+ capacity magazine ban make legally armed population helpless ?

Also a a big NO.

Is it better not to have any magazine laws and let people use magazines they want ?

Answer is YES.

Dutch3
07-28-2012, 9:30 AM
I understand "Shall not be infringed" and "Not one more inch"...but...

Let's look at this from a different angle. From a marketing perspective. Why can't we use the same "feel good" buzzwords and emotional triggers the antis use against us?

Magazines for charity. Yep, pass a law to add a nominal dollar amount to every 11+ cap mag sold in California. Its not a tax, its a donation.

Buy a pink 30-round Pmag, and $10 goes to breast cancer research. Maybe a green one could help fund a reforestation project, a blue one to save the dolphins, a special edition one for kittens and little children...get my drift?

We would be heroes! California gun owners would put those charities in the black and the antis would be standing there with their jaws on the floor. How could anyone oppose a measure to save the whales and the children?

Could work?

Dave Frost
07-28-2012, 9:35 AM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2


The Second Amendment is NOT about sporting uses or recreation. The right to keep and bear arms is about the ability to fight tyranny.

ap3572001
07-28-2012, 9:51 AM
The Second Amendment is NOT about sporting uses or recreation. The right to keep and bear arms is about the ability to fight tyranny.

Thats interesting . I guess I always thought the Second Amendment was about people being armed so they would not become a helpless victim of a crime. Most people I know think of that FIRST.

Silverback
07-28-2012, 10:11 AM
We (some of yo’all at least) are arguing the wrong point which is to defend the “need” for high cap mags.
The argument should be WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT OWN.

Exactly - I have no desire to own anything over 10 rounds but I also have no desire to tell a law abiding citizen he can't.

Unfortunately we keep sending people to Sac and Washington who are incompetent at handling crime issues and their only solution is to bastardize the rights of those who haven't done anything.

Our problem is that we have to many highly educated people making laws and not enough intelligence.:mad:

I keep looking for politicians who work to make us freer tomorrow that we were yesterday. I haven't found any!

victor1echo
07-28-2012, 11:01 AM
The only reason we have the second amendment is fight a tyrannical government--so we need what ever the government has to fight them.

USMCM16A2
07-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Folks,



I like many of us here, have ideas that sort of temporarily pass through ones mind. And if they are important enough, get considered, their merits weighed and then you move on. I weighed my thoughts, evaluated them, looked at the responses of many of you, and said to myself WTF was I thinking.
This subject I knew ahead of time was going to be a tough one. I knew I was going to be called a dumbass, what are you thinking, are you nuts!!!!!!!!. But unlike the anti-gun zombies, I can propose ideas, and have them looked at from different perspectives. And aid me in my conclusions. In this forum relevant issues can be brought up, and judgement passed, amongst your peers. Flame on, A2

donw
07-28-2012, 11:31 AM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

i personally, do not feel the "Need" for more than 10 rounds at a time...i, in fact, have and use, 5 round mags in my AR...but i have no objections to more than that...and i agree NO BAN ON AK/AR platformed firearms OR limit the number of rounds a magazine is capable of holding. i hope that is plain and understandable.

i'd say from your userid you're former/active USMC...you have used removable box magazine and belt fed weapons...i have too.

no...the "standard capacity magazine" is NOT protected by the 2A. it does not say "To keep and bear arms capable of using a 10, or more, round magazine."...that seems to be a stumbling block for some. states have, by court rulings, the right to exercise a "reasonable" control on firearms. now...the debate should focus on what is "REASONABLE"

sport shooting? in 3 gun competition, yes, they could be "Needed". law could be enacted to allow 100 rd magazines for competitive shooting

hunting? most states have a limit on semi-auto capacity in hunting of big game. do you really wanna, or are you able to, carry that 100 rd mag, in a 12 lb (you know, the 24", stainless steel, bull barrel, bipod, laser and huge scope) AR while chasing whitetail deer or wild pigs?

SD/HD/combat (IN A WAR)/LE...in war...YES...the rest are highly debatable due to conditions of each individual scenario. and, what current laws dictate.

in the end...we will have no say about what is, or isn't, passed into law...we just have to accept it and work hard to change it if we disagree with it.

keep in mind, legislators are more inclined to act on EMOTION more than fact when firearms are involved. if you don't agree with that just think about the big EMOTIONAL pleas about Teflon bullets being "Cop killers"...how many police are killed using Teflon bullets yearly? or how about the "The streets will run red with the blood of good cops" plea when the AWB sun-setted?

Bruceisontarget
07-28-2012, 11:38 AM
Folks,



I like many of us here, have ideas that sort of temporarily pass through ones mind. And if they are important enough, get considered, their merits weighed and then you move on. I weighed my thoughts, evaluated them, looked at the responses of many of you, and said to myself WTF was I thinking.
This subject I knew ahead of time was going to be a tough one. I knew I was going to be called a dumbass, what are you thinking, are you nuts!!!!!!!!. But unlike the anti-gun zombies, I can propose ideas, and have them looked at from different perspectives. And aid me in my conclusions. In this forum relevant issues can be brought up, and judgement passed, amongst your peers. Flame on, A2

Actually A2, I think posts like this serve a useful purpose. It gets the passion up. We law abiding gun owners need to remain passionate, proactive, and not become complacient with our minor victories.
I'm a non PC kinda guy. I'm not shy in saying there may actually be a "need" for high capacity magazines, someday, God forbid. That is why I referenced the Warsaw Ghetto Jewish uprising in April of 1943. It is a perfect example of the "need" for superior firepower in the face of a better trained foe. The people should always have more firepower than the Government authority. If not you lose liberty and in the case of the Jews of Poland... your very life.

rp55
07-28-2012, 11:50 AM
I'd be delighted to be restricted to 10 round magazines ...

... as soon as the military and law enforcement are as well.

[/sarcasm]

SilverTauron
07-28-2012, 12:08 PM
i personally, do not feel the "Need" for more than 10 rounds at a time...i, in fact, have and use, 5 round mags in my AR...but i have no objections to more than that...and i agree NO BAN ON AK/AR platformed firearms OR limit the number of rounds a magazine is capable of holding. i hope that is plain and understandable.

i'd say from your userid you're former/active USMC...you have used removable box magazine and belt fed weapons...i have too.

no...the "standard capacity magazine" is NOT protected by the 2A. it does not say "To keep and bear arms capable of using a 10, or more, round magazine."...that seems to be a stumbling block for some. states have, by court rulings, the right to exercise a "reasonable" control on firearms. now...the debate should focus on what is "REASONABLE"

We come to a difference of topics.

Here's the facts of things;from a practical , purely need based logical evaluation of shooting incidents with all political influence removed , no civil shooter including police need more than 10 rounds in one magazine. The odds of a citizen being involved in a self defense incident of any kind are thankfully low, and so it is also with Law Enforcement. In the event of the remote chance of lead actually flying, studies of the Illinois State Police when they adopted S&W 8 shot 9mms determined that on the outside the highest number of rounds fired were 8 rounds before the bad guy bit the dust. The average of the study was about 3-6 rounds fired.After the department went to the double stack Model 59s, the hit ratio in fact decreased compared to the 'low cap' 9mms they had before!

Note that this is a study of Law Enforcement, where crooks have an interest in armed combat. For self defense by citizens, just showing the gun is enough to deter most criminal attacks. For the rest, again, within 6 shots the situation is likely to be resolved, and certainly within 10. Ive yet to read a case of a citizen outside of a business robbery even exhausting their magazine.

From a logical standpoint, most of us would be served just fine by a single stack pistol with an 8 round capacity. As far as rifles go, massed fire is for armies and police units with the logistical and personnel support to use such tactics. One guy shooting full auto or rapid fire simply depletes his finite ammo supply faster.Again, for home defense a bad guy isn't breaking in to play Die Hard, he's coming in to get something. Whatever that something is, it won't be worth the scumbag taking a bullet for.

Now that we've established the logical merits of so called high capacity magazines comes down to "just for kicks", we can now look at the legislative perspective.

The government should only concern itself with enacting laws which are effective. Regulations which do nothing clog up the legal system for no purpose except ensuring employment for the officers of the court. If high capacity magazines serve little practical purpose for the civil shooter, a law against their possession serves even less purpose being enacted. All a magazine ban does is create a two-tiered market where pre-ban equipment becomes inflated in value, resulting in a situation where for the wealthier gun owners a magazine ban really has no effect and everyone else is limited to 10 rounds for no reason.

It would have the same logical merit as passing a law banning cars over 200 HP after the year 2012;Everything made before that date with more power becomes a commodity with inflated value, while normal people are limited to driving gutless 200 HP Corvettes for no logical reason. Considering even a 200HP car can kill someone, such a law has the same merit as a magazine capacity rule-none.

Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't come into it. Its about common sense.Whether you believe or don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, I would hope all of us understand basic logic and reason.

Liberty1
07-28-2012, 2:33 PM
What was needed in that theater was a 5.7 pistol or a SBR with as many rounds in a functional magazine as needed to stop the threat. Prohibiting good people from possession of any size magazine will just shift the balance of firepower to criminals who acquire through the black market; "you want a mag with your meth?".

ZombieTactics
07-28-2012, 3:57 PM
Two things which should not figure into any discussion of the 2A, or any other human rights, as the basis for any legislation: "feelings" and "needs".

Those two words are rife with ambiguity and can be construed to mean almost anything, and almost nothing. As such, they are so construed regularly in the creation and execution of the law(s).

ZombieTactics
07-28-2012, 4:15 PM
...
Here's the facts of things;from a practical , purely need based logical evaluation of shooting incidents with all political influence removed , no civil shooter including police need more than 10 rounds in one magazine. ... There have been plenty of incidents where civilians or LE have been involved, where 10+ capacity magazines granted a decided advantage.

The rest of your logic regarding mag capacities seems to be predicated on "averages", which is - at best - faulty reasoning and innumerate thinking. Averages by their nature are based upon a distribution of measurements above and below the mean. That means quite factually that there are plenty of incidents above the average. Whether "most" incidents occur within a given range is almost an immaterial point, as long as there are significant numbers of incidents which do not.

... For self defense by citizens, just showing the gun is enough to deter most criminal attacks. Most people won't die in a car accident. Most people won't be attacked in a movie theater by a red-haired lunatic wearing body armor. Most people will never have an armed encounter at all. What's your point?

...I've yet to read a case of a citizen outside of a business robbery even exhausting their magazine. ... Hmmm ... "outside a business robbery" ... interesting way to sidestep cases which don't fit your argument. I guess those people with businesses don't count or something.


... Now that we've established the logical merits of so called high capacity magazines comes down to "just for kicks" ... You've done no such thing.

... The government should only concern itself with enacting laws which are effective. and within the enumerated powers granted to them, and nothing more.

... Regulations which do nothing clog up the legal system for no purpose except ensuring employment for the officers of the court. If high capacity magazines serve little practical purpose for the civil shooter, a law against their possession serves even less purpose being enacted. All a magazine ban does is create a two-tiered market where pre-ban equipment becomes inflated in value, resulting in a situation where for the wealthier gun owners a magazine ban really has no effect and everyone else is limited to 10 rounds for no reason. No quarrel here.

...Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't come into it. Actually it does, as it's purpose is partly to prevent the type of useless regulation you decry above.

Its about common sense.Whether you believe or don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, I would hope all of us understand basic logic and reason. Hopefully better than the kind you've demonstrated in this thread. Further, The 2A is not a matter of "belief", or having only an effect based upon our faith in it. It's the law, part of the supreme law of the land. It counts and matters and "comes into it" regardless of whether you want it to or not.

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:16 PM
Betty...my M1A...really wants standard capacity magazines.

I've tried to console her with double the amount of 10 rounders but it's just not working. She sits broken-hearted and forlorn in my gun safe waiting for the days when she can properly "rock & roll" like her parents, the M14's.

Can you please help?

Give what you can to the "Betty needs 20 rounders fund"!

Suvorov
07-28-2012, 4:30 PM
I am dismayed by the number of California gun owners here who are so quick to "compromise" their rights away in the wake of a tragedy such as the Aurora shooting. Frankly YOU ARE THE REASON why we in Kalifornia are in the state, gun law wise, we are in. I can understand many of you guys who just got into shooting in the last few years believing the anti's "compromise" lie, but the OP is a self admitted old shooter - shame on you! Don't any of you realize that we have been "compromising" since at least 1934 and yet the number of such tragedies has not gone down. The reason why I am quoting "compromise" is that in reality there has been no compromise, we have simply been giving up our rights in exchange for nothing. The fine man at lawdogfiles.com says it much better than I do so read and learn. NOT ONE MORE INCH!

"I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Are you guys really willing to give up the last few crumbs we have left because it will make you feel good and because you don't think it will cross your perceived "line in the sand"? If so, then don't pretend to believe in the Second Amendment.

Nodda Duma
07-28-2012, 6:39 PM
You know why I should be able to buy a 100-round drum magazine?

"Because it's none of your Goddamned business!"


THAT'S the 2A applied to modern times. THAT'S true liberty.

SilverTauron
07-28-2012, 9:57 PM
There have been plenty of incidents where civilians or LE have been involved, where 10+ capacity magazines granted a decided advantage.

The rest of your logic regarding mag capacities seems to be predicated on "averages", which is - at best - faulty reasoning and innumerate thinking. Averages by their nature are based upon a distribution of measurements above and below the mean. That means quite factually that there are plenty of incidents above the average. Whether "most" incidents occur within a given range is almost an immaterial point, as long as there are significant numbers of incidents which do not.



Lance Thomas expended 32 rounds in one gunfight against 3 armed crooks using different firearms. A different gunfight involving an Air Force SP versus a crazed spree shooter with a MAK 90 ended with 4 rounds fired and one dead perp. One incident in 1986 had several FBI agents exhausting their magazines several times over. Another case of a citizen with an M&P9 versus a bad guy with a 1911 ended with the bad guy being shot 6 times out of 8 rounds fired. For each one of these violent incidents, there is an unknown but high number of times happen where a citizen or cop draws a gun ...and that's the end of it. No shots are fired and the crook surrenders or flees. I say unknown because in such avoided attacks police agencies don't like to file reports, since technically speaking a crime never was committed.

Bottom line, you may question my methods and stats. What can't be argued against is the fact-again, setting politics aside-that 10+ round capacity firearms are not essential for civil use. Extra capability isn't a bad thing to be sure;but there's plenty of injured and dead bad guys who got taken out by folks armed single stack pistols and 6 shot revolvers. For most of us in most situations, that's plenty of firepower. Beyond that we can debate "capability" until we reach absurd proportions. If 10 rounds isn't enough, then why stop at 15? Hell, we should carry 30 rounders for concealed carry since reloading in a gunfight should be avoided at all costs.





Most people won't die in a car accident. Most people won't be attacked in a movie theater by a red-haired lunatic wearing body armor. Most people will never have an armed encounter at all. What's your point?

That there is a fine line between intelligent preparation and rationalized fantasy. The typical citizen on the street is in greater danger of death visiting Taco Bell than walking down the city street. As such, ordering a large Chalupa meal with 4 spare magazines on your belt constitutes a failure to prioritize your threats.

As some incidents prove, 6 rounds and the skill to use it is enough against even multiple attackers armed to the teeth. How is it that the Illinois State Police in the 1960s and 70s beat the NYPD's hit ratio last year with single stack pistols?




Hmmm ... "outside a business robbery" ... interesting way to sidestep cases which don't fit your argument. I guess those people with businesses don't count or something.



I exempted business owners for a reason.Their mission profile is different than the citizen who encounters multiple armed crooks in a street. A street hood is interested in on the spot assault and compliance, not a gunfight. A team of professional crooks who hit a business is a different threat. They'll have done their homework, sized up the security of the business, and will come in armed and ready to duke it out if the payoff's worth it. A team of bad guys holding up a business may be prepared for a drawn out gun battle, and as such the preparations for that situation are inherently different than an old lady walking down main street.








Hopefully better than the kind you've demonstrated in this thread. Further, The 2A is not a matter of "belief", or having only an effect based upon our faith in it. It's the law, part of the supreme law of the land. It counts and matters and "comes into it" regardless of whether you want it to or not.

I wish this were true. The historical record disagrees with your statement.

Looking at the facts of things, it must be stated that the US Constitution while law of the land, has always meant whatever the social mores and wishes of American society wanted it to mean. The Constitution guaranteed equal rights for all people, yet slavery as an institution continued despite being against the "law of the land".

Gun laws for most of America's history have always contradicted the phrase "shall not be infringed", all the way back to the 1700's. During the militia period, private weapons had to be kept on a public roster for accountability and inspection by the state governments. In the event of a call-up, said weapons had to be relinquished without compensation for use by those governments in conflict. I would say losing your firearm to public custody would constitute a very blatant violation of "shall not be infringed", yet it was law.

We must remember that the enforcement of the 2nd Amendment as "protecting" the individual right to keep and bear arms is VERY recent;for most of our nation's history concealed carry was illegal, and public support for gun control was constant. Law of the Land though it may be, it is not absolute. As such we should do well to not treat it as such.

This , by the way, is why anti's and neutral people shake their heads whenever we cite the 2nd Amendment as cause to oppose gun laws. Its like the Catholic Pope citing the Bible to oppose war in the Middle East, when centuries past that same text was used to incite the Wars of the Crusades.

For what its worth I don't disagree with your statement, but there is a reason I omitted citing the 2nd Amendment as cause to oppose gun laws. People who own firearms understand that reasoning, and people who do not and support gun control consider the USC to be like the Muslim Koran-an alien document belonging to a different faith. As such, we will accomplish nothing by citing it.

An anti gunner may not believe in the Constitution's modern protection of the RKBA or in gun rights, but they cannot argue against common sense and basic logic, which is the appeals I use in my posts.

ZombieTactics
07-28-2012, 11:27 PM
Lance Thomas expended 32 rounds in one gunfight against 3 armed crooks using different firearms. A different gunfight involving an Air Force SP versus a crazed spree shooter with a MAK 90 ended with 4 rounds fired and one dead perp. One incident in 1986 had several FBI agents exhausting their magazines several times over. Another case of a citizen with an M&P9 versus a bad guy with a 1911 ended with the bad guy being shot 6 times out of 8 rounds fired. For each one of these violent incidents, there is an unknown but high number of times happen where a citizen or cop draws a gun ...and that's the end of it. No shots are fired and the crook surrenders or flees. I say unknown because in such avoided attacks police agencies don't like to file reports, since technically speaking a crime never was committed.

None of which contradicts the logic of my previous statements regarding the use of "averages" or "most cases".

Bottom line, you may question my methods and stats. Yes, because they represent innumerate thinking.

What can't be argued against is the fact-again, setting politics aside-that 10+ round capacity firearms are not essential for civil use. Why do you deliberately use the word "fact" in the same phrase as "essential". A "fact" is not open to argument or interpretation, "essential" is in the mind of the beholder. The question is not one of essential vs. non-essential, but rather whether something has utility or not. The simple fact that the firearms in question are designed to use magazines with capacities of 10+ rounds is all the reasoning needed, unless some counter purpose can be shown rational or necessary.

Extra capability isn't a bad thing to be sure;but there's plenty of injured and dead bad guys who got taken out by folks armed single stack pistols and 6 shot revolvers.
And quite a few soak up plenty of rounds without going down. Your point is moot.

For most of us in most situations, that's plenty of firepower. And for others it isn't. Another moot point.

Beyond that we can debate "capability" until we reach absurd proportions. If 10 rounds isn't enough, then why stop at 15? Why stop at 10? Why not limit it to 6, since that follows your previous assertions? Since you offered earlier that most incidents are ended with no rounds being fired, why not 1 or 2 ... or none? It works both ways. I like freedom better than arbitrary limits based upon innumerate, illogical statements.

Hell, we should carry 30 rounders for concealed carry since reloading in a gunfight should be avoided at all costs. If they don't commit crimes, why would this be a problem?

As some incidents prove, 6 rounds and the skill to use it is enough against even multiple attackers armed to the teeth. ... You've interspersed "most", "average" and "some" so often that I think you really don't even understand the implications of this kind of fuzzy thinking. Should people only have the right to defend themselves against the average threat, or most threats or only just some?

Again, why do you have a problem with otherwise law-abiding citizens doing what ever they please?

I exempted business owners for a reason.Their mission profile is different than the citizen who encounters multiple armed crooks in a street. A street hood is interested in on the spot assault and compliance, not a gunfight. A team of professional crooks who hit a business is a different threat. They'll have done their homework, sized up the security of the business, and will come in armed and ready to duke it out if the payoff's worth it. A team of bad guys holding up a business may be prepared for a drawn out gun battle, and as such the preparations for that situation are inherently different than an old lady walking down main street. Since business owners are no more or less people, and have no more or less right to their lives, or the right to defend themselves, your exemptions makes no sense. I also think you really have no idea what street crime looks like.
...

An anti gunner may not believe in the Constitution's modern protection of the RKBA or in gun rights ... A moron may not know what a stop sign is either, but the 2A is the law of the land. There is established case law now that it protects an individual right to own firearms in common use. I care not that some lunatics think the law does not or should not apply.

repubconserv
07-29-2012, 12:25 AM
The bill of rights... not the bill of needs.

That is all

jonzer77
07-29-2012, 12:32 AM
The bill of rights... not the bill of needs.

That is all

Some people just don't understand.

mjukis
07-29-2012, 12:36 AM
I am not a very good shot, so I need more than 10 rounds.

I think 100 round mags are silly, and I don't have nor want any. But I'll be damned if MY opinion, MY needs or MY wants should dictate the opinions, needs or wants of someone else. IMHO, I'll stick to 30s and you stick to whatever you want. Your ammo capacity is none of my, and should be none of the governments, business.

repubconserv
07-29-2012, 12:53 AM
A moron may not know what a stop sign is either, but the 2A is the law of the land. There is established case law now that it protects an individual right to own firearms in common use. I care not that some lunatics think the law does not or should not apply.

Welcome to my sig line. I like your logic in just about every thread you post in. This logic is just a little more funny than most...

Arondos
07-29-2012, 1:01 AM
No way and CA should let us have what we want to.

Why do we need cars that can exceed the speed limit? My car can do 155 MPH I don't know of anywhere I can legally do that other than on a track.

So if I want to use a 100 round magazine at the range. Why not?

labillyboy
07-29-2012, 1:02 AM
There should be no limit on magazine capacity. At some point added capacity actually renders the weapon less reliable, adds weight and can cause overheating. Anyone that practices can make mag changes fast enough the capacity becomes irrelevant anyway. I'm also pretty sure criminals will disable their "bullet button" on the way to the crime.

Heck, I could have a bag full of .357 revolvers and put out more firepower than a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine, they wouldn't jam and I could have one in each hand... six shots Right, drop it pull out another start shooting Left... Watch a video of JERRY MICULEK sometime, he doesn't need an assault rifle...

At the end of the day, if citizens were allowed to carry revolvers or pistols unbeknownst to the criminal shooter it evens the playing field... how many shots are you going to get in a gunfight anyway?

shotcaller6
07-29-2012, 1:27 AM
This thread has run it's course...time to shut it down.

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 6:16 AM
Again, why do you have a problem with otherwise law-abiding citizens doing what ever they please?


At no point did I state that I did. My point with regard to examples is that in MOST cases, a large capacity magazine isn't strictly necessary.Note that I didn't say this requires REGULATION. You don't need 500 Hp in a car to get to work either, yet people can freely buy those without a background check or tax stamp.


Since business owners are no more or less people, and have no more or less right to their lives, or the right to defend themselves, your exemptions makes no sense. I also think you really have no idea what street crime looks like.


I used to live in Chicago, a city where more people die annually due to "street crime" than we lose in war casualties overseas.Walking around unarmed in that town will teach you more than you'd ever want to know about reading criminal intent.

The odds of any of us getting into a gunfight in America are minuscule, unless you live in one of those "gun free zones" like the Windy City , NYC, and other urban monuments to Progressivism -and in those places this argument is moot since carry is illegal anyway.For the rest of us, we stand better odds of dying by heart attack or vehicle accident.

...

A moron may not know what a stop sign is either, but the 2A is the law of the land. There is established case law now that it protects an individual right to own firearms in common use. I care not that some lunatics think the law does not or should not apply.

Yet you need a drivers license to legally drive a car. You do NOT need a license to use a ballot box.The problem we face as gun owners nationwide is that in certain cities and states in America,these "lunatics" as you put it outnumber the logical residents of the state while still having a say in who runs the government.

Keep thinking your anti-gun neighbors are illogical fools unworthy of persuasion, and one day you'll be packing up your gun collection for shipment out of state. You will not convince your neighbors to respect the RKBA by citing case law and saying the USC is the absolute law of the land. You may win the battle of being correct, but come Election Day you'll lose the war when your lunatic neighbors vote the next Brady Shill into office.

Jack L
07-29-2012, 6:44 AM
[QUOTE=labillyboy;9022550]
Heck, I could have a bag full of .357 revolvers and put out more firepower than a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine, they wouldn't jam and I could have one in each hand... six shots Right, drop it pull out another start shooting Left... Watch a video of JERRY MICULEK sometime, he doesn't need an assault rifle...

QUOTE]



That is how a number of so-called outlaws used their revolvers after the Civil War when in many areas the 'robin hood' scenario was still taking place. They tied them to their waists or saddles and had as many as six revolvers each. It worked really well.

ZombieTactics
07-29-2012, 7:45 AM
... Keep thinking your anti-gun neighbors are illogical fools unworthy of persuasion, and one day you'll be packing up your gun collection for shipment out of state. I don't believe all anti-gunners fall into this category, and nowhere did I state that I did. Some people are just plain ignorant and others intractable ideologues. Some teachable, some not. You have an unusual propensity for leaping to conclusions on the basis of little data.

...You will not convince your neighbors to respect the RKBA by citing case law and saying the USC is the absolute law of the land.
As long as it is the law of the land, I don't need to convince them of anything, anymore than I need to convince them of the speed limit.

...You may win the battle of being correct, but come Election Day you'll lose the war when your lunatic neighbors vote the next Brady Shill into office. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but we have a SCOTUS decision in place. Absent a Constitutional amendment (good luck with that one), that's not going to just go away just because some "shill" gets into some office. The tide is generally going in the direction presently, with a majority of the population nominally favorable to the 2A. Even the recent event in Colorado seems to have solidified that position, as people seem to understand more than ever that the guns aren't the problem.

Making my enemies "happy" with my arguments is the last thing I am concerned about.

It's an open question why you engaged this thread with all sorts of rationalizations for limiting our rights. What good did you hope to do?

Marthor
07-29-2012, 7:58 AM
[QUOTE=labillyboy;9022550]
Heck, I could have a bag full of .357 revolvers and put out more firepower than a .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine, they wouldn't jam and I could have one in each hand... six shots Right, drop it pull out another start shooting Left... Watch a video of JERRY MICULEK sometime, he doesn't need an assault rifle.

Jerry Miculek video fast shooting revolver and fast reload...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 8:27 AM
I don't believe all anti-gunners fall into this category, and nowhere did I state that I did. Some people are just plain ignorant and others intractable ideologues. Some teachable, some not. You have an unusual propensity for leaping to conclusions on the basis of little data.


As long as it is the law of the land, I don't need to convince them of anything, anymore than I need to convince them of the speed limit.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but we have a SCOTUS decision in place. Absent a Constitutional amendment (good luck with that one), that's not going to just go away just because some "shill" gets into some office. The tide is generally going in the direction presently, with a majority of the population nominally favorable to the 2A. Even the recent event in Colorado seems to have solidified that position, as people seem to understand more than ever that the guns aren't the problem.

Making my enemies "happy" with my arguments is the last thing I am concerned about.

It's an open question why you engaged this thread with all sorts of rationalizations for limiting our rights. What good did you hope to do?

Your habit of putting words in my mouth is as tiresome as it is irrelevant.At NO time have I advocated restricting the rights of anyone,as such your suggestion that I support that position is factually wrong.

You seem to believe that only gun owners go to the polls.Were this true we would not need SCOTUS clarification of anything.Your so called "enemies" are not some politicians in a remote capitol office,but millions of very misguided voters who never read the Constitution and think Heller is a charachter on Jersey Shore.Arguing case law to such people is like speaking Latin to a praying mantis.Unfortunately for you and I,these 'Praying Mantis'' vote. As such we cannot afford sit back and take the hubristic position of 'Its national law so I need not justify myself',since enough of these people voting will assuredly invalidate the RKBA. California is a great example of the damage a clueless electorate can do despite national law specifically outlawing such local rules.

Unless we want our perishable freedoms to go the way of the UK,we must remain vigiliant and reach new shooters by any effective means.Our goal should be conversion of anti gun people,not antagonism.We will not win new people to the cause of supporting the RKBA by quoting legal history they know nothing of and a centuries old document they've never read.

Jack L
07-29-2012, 9:09 AM
Your habit of putting words in my mouth is as tiresome as it is irrelevant.At NO time have I advocated restricting the rights of anyone,as such your suggestion that I support that position is factually wrong.

You seem to believe that only gun owners go to the polls.Were this true we would not need SCOTUS clarification of anything.Your so called "enemies" are not some politicians in a remote capitol office,but millions of very misguided voters who never read the Constitution and think Heller is a charachter on Jersey Shore.Arguing case law to such people is like speaking Latin to a praying mantis.Unfortunately for you and I,these 'Praying Mantis'' vote. As such we cannot afford sit back and take the hubristic position of 'Its national law so I need not justify myself',since enough of these people voting will assuredly invalidate the RKBA. California is a great example of the damage a clueless electorate can do despite national law specifically outlawing such local rules.

Unless we want our perishable freedoms to go the way of the UK,we must remain vigiliant and reach new shooters by any effective means.Our goal should be conversion of anti gun people,not antagonism.We will not win new people to the cause of supporting the RKBA by quoting legal history they know nothing of and a centuries old document they've never read.

Correct, many anti firearms voters are low information voters as are many of the journalists and talking heads. Getting into case law and history is way over their heads for the most part. The 2A needs to be defended with actions and language these people can comprehend....if that's possible. Gene did a great job with his article.

ZombieTactics
07-29-2012, 10:59 AM
Your habit of putting words in my mouth is as tiresome as it is irrelevant.At NO time have I advocated restricting the rights of anyone,as such your suggestion that I support that position is factually wrong.

Pardon me for noting that you spent 3 paragraphs in one post making a case as to why no one "needed" magazines with greater capacity, only to then offer a half-hearted "but hey I don't think it's a good idea,'cuz it won't work" summation.

You're also on record as admitting that you sound like a "Brady shill" in another thread. I agree wholeheartedly with your self-description.

... if it walks like a duck ...


You seem to believe that only gun owners go to the polls. Never said, implied or intimated any such thing, and I defy you to show otherwise. Stop making up things.

Were this true we would not need SCOTUS clarification of anything. It's not true, and and we need the SCOTUS to clarify things anyway. They have - decidedly.

Your so called "enemies" are not some politicians in a remote capitol office,but millions of very misguided voters who never read the Constitution and think Heller is a charachter on Jersey Shore. And your point is what exactly? Unless there enough of them to force a constitutional convention, what is your rational concern? Those same idiots voted for people who passed the most draconian anti-gun laws in the nation, and they were smacked down by the SCOTUS. Unless you suggest their numbers are growing (they aren't, BTW), you aren't even making a case.

Arguing case law to such people is like speaking Latin to a praying mantis.Unfortunately for you and I,these 'Praying Mantis'' vote. There is no need to argue case law with them over something they don't like and won't understand. This is why all of the winning pro-2A strategy has been centered on the courts.

As such we cannot afford sit back and take the hubristic position of 'Its national law so I need not justify myself',since enough of these people voting will assuredly invalidate the RKBA. California is a great example of the damage a clueless electorate can do despite national law specifically outlawing such local rules. California, arguably the next domino to fall. You can buy a gun anytime you like, albeit with stupid, pointless minor restrictions. This is your example of how bad things could get?

Unless we want our perishable freedoms to go the way of the UK,we must remain vigiliant and reach new shooters by any effective means.Our goal should be conversion of anti gun people,not antagonism.We will not win new people to the cause of supporting the RKBA by quoting legal history they know nothing of and a centuries old document they've never read. In case you hadn't noticed ... we're winning. Rather than wring our hands over people who will never get it, and who have insufficient numbers to do anything meaningful, why is it not better to concentrate our efforts on what has proven a winning strategy? Or should I worry that Alan Gura isn't "winning over the right people?"

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Pardon me for noting that you spent 3 paragraphs in one post making a case as to why no one "needed" magazines with greater capacity, only to then offer a half-hearted "but hey I don't think it's a good idea,'cuz it won't work" summation.

You're also on record as admitting that you sound like a "Brady shill" in another thread. I agree wholeheartedly with your self-description.

... if it walks like a duck ...
"

Veiled insults achieve nothing.




Never said, implied or intimated any such thing, and I defy you to show otherwise. Stop making up things."

Challenge accepted. Read below:



A moron may not know what a stop sign is either, but the 2A is the law of the land. There is established case law now that it protects an individual right to own firearms in common use. I care not that some lunatics think the law does not or should not apply.


The bold statement means you have just implied a majority of your state's electorate along with those of IL, NJ, and NY among others are insane.

jonzer77
07-29-2012, 12:57 PM
Veiled insults achieve nothing.




Challenge accepted. Read below:





The bold statement means you have just implied a majority of your state's electorate along with those of IL, NJ, and NY among others are insane.

I would agree with that statement.

phdo
07-29-2012, 1:45 PM
This thread is so unnecessary. Let's move on.

ap3572001
07-29-2012, 1:54 PM
This thread is so unnecessary. Let's move on.

I agree with You .

There is no point in this.

I said this before:
10+ magazine ban is BAD. PLAIN BAD. and will NOT help with crime.

10+ magazine ban WILL NOT make people who carry guns for duty or protection feel helpless.

PS.

Many Special Ops are ordering 1911's they are not 10+

Many of my off duty handguns are not 10+ and some are revolvers.

My (sometimes) duty HK45 is a ten shot. My Sig 220 is 7 or 8.

I can buy all the BETA magazines I want , but I am just not interested.

tpc13
07-29-2012, 2:21 PM
Everyone has stupid ideas on gun control and this in is really STUPID. Ca is already communistic enough we don't need a high cap law in this nation or any state !!!

ZombieTactics
07-29-2012, 2:55 PM
Veiled insults achieve nothing. ...
You suggested that you sound like a Brady shill in another thread. I agree with that self-description, and somehow that's a "veiled insult"?

...Challenge accepted. ... The challenge was to show that I had implied or stated that ONLY gun owners go to the polls.

The bold statement means you have just implied a majority of your state's electorate along with those of IL, NJ, and NY among others are insane.
The statement of mine which you bolded: "I care not that some lunatics think the law does not or should not apply" says nothing to the effect of "ONLY gun owners go to the polls". You failed to meet the challenge or even understand it. It also says nothing about what I think abot a majority of the electorate, only that subset who fail to grasp that SCOTUS decisions do indeed apply to them. The difference between "some" and "majority of" isn't at all subtle, so it's difficult to see how you missed it.

If you have evidence that the majority of the electorate of those states believes that SCOTUS decisions don't apply to them, please enlighten us all. Otherwise please stop trying to muddy the waters with rhetorical nonsense. Just for clarity, that means evidence, that a majority, of the electorate, of those states. Some fuzzy-headed "average", "most" or "some" doesn't cut it, especially if it's unsupported by anything but your assertion that it is so.

I'd (still) like to know how anything you've suggested is better than what Alan Gura has already accomplished towards the end of securring our rights. It seems as though every time you post you make a big show of saying how pro-2A you are, right before you start arguing about how nobody needs a 10+ rounds magazine or we'll have to accept all sorts of (presumably new) regulations if we are reasonable. Pardon me for noting that this is precisely the type of rhetoric used by most of the smarter anti-2A types, i.e. "I support the right to bear arms, but ..."

The appearance may be counter to your actual sentiments, but I submit that it is nobody's responsibility to correct this perception but your own.

KJH
07-29-2012, 3:13 PM
I responded to someone in another thread about this same issue. I don't think anyone on the streets today 'Needs" a 100 round magazine. But who am I to tell anyone? Who is our government to be making this decision? Do you think we 'need' 50 round magazines? What about 30 round magazines? It seems like you feel no.

How do you reach the decision that 10 rounds is ideal? Wouldn't 5 round magazines be just as good? I think it is arbitrary, and to take our rights away arbitrarily is scary.
A little history on the 10 round limit.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html

sharxbyte
07-29-2012, 3:34 PM
This is stupid. Would you support adding restricter plates to cars preventing them from going over 65 MPH?

tpc13
07-29-2012, 6:50 PM
Just build more prisons and keep people in prison/ jail longer. People these days have no accountability. You need to instill fear so they won't commit crimes not create more fruitless laws.

jonzer77
07-29-2012, 6:54 PM
Just build more prisons and keep people in prison/ jail longer. People these days have no accountability. You need to instill fear so they won't commit crimes not create more fruitless laws.

Bring back the chain gang and not make prison a fun place to go.

watsonville
07-29-2012, 7:32 PM
i hate that my friend drives a lifted truck lets ban them

GettoPhilosopher
07-29-2012, 8:00 PM
I have the same conflict honestly. The need for 100 drum magazines (although they clearly suck) is a difficult stance to defend. But the issue is the slippery slope concept of will gun control advocates stop there if magazines are legally capped at 10 rounds. The answer is of course no. Can one bargain with the devil, or get a little bit pregnant? I don't know, but perhaps being completely rigid ala GOA might not earn us as many friends among the fence riders. Would banning drum magazines be an acceptable sacrifice to improve the NRA's image in mainstream media, or is that just a pipe dream?

Hornswaggled, I've been in a similar boat. I've been thinking about along the same lines as you've said. But here's where I've gotten hung up.

1: I wouldn't settle for less than 31 rounds. If they're going to cap it, cap it at the standard capacity of the most popular rifle in America (the AR).

2 (the bigger point): It's a one way street, and that's the problem. If someone who's been around longer than I wants to correct me, feel free, but I can't find a time where the gun control lobby "sacrificed" something for us or traded something to us. And that's my problem. So in 34, they said "Augh! Machineguns, silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles, and handguns are dangerous and unusual!!!!!", so we compromised and let the MG/Suppressor/SBR/SBS ban go through because we got handguns taken out. The gun control lobby still pushed for handgun bans in places like DC and Chicago. Then the NFA wasn't enough, so they added the Hughes Amendment. Now banning autos isn't enough; semi-autos with cosmetic features are "dangerous and unusual" weapons that "no law abiding citizen needs". They're saying the same thing about magazines, and some corners are already saying the same thing about semi-automatics, PERIOD.

If the gun control lobby really sat down and said "Y'know, how about this. If you guys will accept NICS background checks for private sales, then we'll get rid of the GFSZ 1000' bullcrap" or "If you support a ban of magazines over 31 rounds, we'll repeal the Hughes Amendment and modernize/digitize the NFA approval process so that you can get approved within 60 days" or something like that, I *MIGHT* consider it. But no, it's always take, take, take. You don't need autos. You don't need SBRs or SBSs. You don't need suppressors. You don't need "military style" semi autos. You don't need magazines over 20/10/5 rounds. You don't need semi-automatics at all. You don't need handguns. You don't need your guns to be assembled or loaded. You don't need.....you don't need....you don't need.

I'm not a radical, I'm not a "NOT ONE INCH"er, I'm pretty politically centrist....but unless I start seeing offers for real compromises from the other side, my answer is hell no.

scarville
07-29-2012, 8:29 PM
WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT OWN.

They are the people who think they have the wisdom to tell you what you can and cannot own or do. They also think they have the power to enforce their will on you. So far They seem to be getting away with it.

Wherryj
07-29-2012, 8:59 PM
I don't like yellow cars, they need to be banned!

I was thinking this before I saw your post. Does anyone NEED a performance car? Shouldn't the government just FORCE us to all drive whatever is "best for us"? Why should anyone even WANT to drive something that isn't "the best for everyone else"?

Burla
07-29-2012, 9:04 PM
I don't like having the 10 rd limit, I would prefer 30 like we had in the Army most of the time. Having said that, there is very little reason to have those 100rd drums in civilian life. I wouldn't ban them personally, but if they were I wouldn't care much. However, banning any type of assault weapon is just wrong. They are no more of a threat then any hand gun. The gov't pushes those bans because the gov't is the only one that benefits. They are safer to carry out missions against citizens, whether they are just or not. The biggest mistake is to presume this gov't is benign and will always be so. Even the framers of the Constitution knew the potential for the gov't to be a threat to the people, that is why the included all the checks and balances they put in there. Perhaps the biggest check and balance is amendment number two.

kcbrown
07-29-2012, 9:56 PM
I seriously don't see a legitimate reason for owning a 100rd drum. In my opinion, it's purely for recreational purposes. I don't own any and I don't think I ever will. It just brings unwanted attention. I think 30rd is more than enough. But, we the people should have the option. I can't speak for everyone. I will be truly sad when what you speak of happens. I would like to preserve our 2A rights as much as possible, not give them up.

Sigh.

You can tell the difference between someone who loves liberty and someone who does not. The first part of the above is a perfect example of what someone who does not would say. The second part redeems the speaker. :)

Look, the bottom line is that if you're asking whether or not there is a legitimate reason for owning something, you're asking the wrong question.

The right question is whether or not there is a legitimate reason for taking the option of owning something off the table!

Note that a "legitimate reason" is not merely some reason deriving from a fantasy about what could happen if the option is not taken off the table. It must be a reason deriving from what has happened and, more importantly, must not merely "relate" to what has happened but a causal relationship must be proven, and must be done so in such a way as to show that the ban in question is the only way to preserve life, liberty, and property.

In other words, it's not sufficient to merely claim that things will be "better" if ownership of something is banned, one must prove that banning ownership of said something is strictly necessary for preservation of life, liberty, and property.


Remember: if you're contemplating restricting someone's freedom, you are advocating reducing your own. It will never work any other way, so don't even try. Taking the freedom of someone else is serious business, and I'm aghast at how easily some people engage in thoughts of doing so.

451040
07-29-2012, 10:04 PM
The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?


Do you really need anything more than a flintlock musket?


However, banning any type of assault weapon is just wrong.


What's an "assault weapon"?

tryzubconsulting
07-30-2012, 11:51 AM
I seriously don't see a legitimate reason for owning a 100rd drum. In my opinion, it's purely for recreational purposes. I don't own any and I don't think I ever will. It just brings unwanted attention. I think 30rd is more than enough. But, we the people should have the option. I can't speak for everyone. I will be truly sad when what you speak of happens. I would like to preserve our 2A rights as much as possible, not give them up.

Looks like you can't figure out which side of the fence to straddle.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2012, 12:12 PM
Looks like you can't figure out which side of the fence to straddle.

I dunno, sounds like he doesn't see a reason for 'em, but doesn't think there should need to be a reason.

highpowermatch
07-30-2012, 1:27 PM
If a bad guy can have one then I want one. Hardly helpful to have the 2A for self defense against foreign and domestic enemy's if they have better tools than I do.

rayrayz
07-30-2012, 2:18 PM
wow maybe in the future they will make everyone go to a 2 round mag....... Good lord! I am sure that less rounds = less dangerous in the wrong hands! We need less stupidity in the govt. is what we need less of.
This shooting is a tragedy but to compound one tragedy with another is not going to solve anything.

OT...
On a side note, I keeping wondering what might have happened if there were trained armed (CCW permit holder) person/s in that theater. Darn " no gun zone"

ap3572001
07-30-2012, 2:32 PM
wow maybe in the future they will make everyone go to a 2 round mag....... Good lord! I am sure that less rounds = less dangerous in the wrong hands! We need less stupidity in the govt. is what we need less of.
This shooting is a tragedy but to compound one tragedy with another is not going to solve anything.

OT...
On a side note, I keeping wondering what might have happened if there were trained armed (CCW permit holder) person/s in that theater. Darn " no gun zone"

I agree with You and it is a very good point. People like that DO NOT EXPECT armed response from their intended victims. Also the shooter would have NO IDEA who is armed and who is not. I believe that even one trained person with a gun would make a difference

Glock22Fan
07-30-2012, 2:47 PM
I was thinking this before I saw your post. Does anyone NEED a performance car? Shouldn't the government just FORCE us to all drive whatever is "best for us"? Why should anyone even WANT to drive something that isn't "the best for everyone else"?

Yes, we should all be made to buy Chevvy Volts, powered by Solyndra solar cells.

(Do I even need the </sarcasm> warning?)

SilverTauron
07-30-2012, 3:02 PM
Yes, we should all be made to buy Chevvy Volts, powered by Solyndra solar cells.

(Do I even need the </sarcasm> warning?)

Wrong.

Do you not know that cars are inherently evil tools of capitalist oppression. As such only the truly enlightened progressive elite is entitled to such vehicles. The common citizen rates 1 seat on a mass-transit bus or train of their choice, subject to restrictions by responsible government authorities.:rolleyes:

donw
07-30-2012, 3:02 PM
We come to a difference of topics.

Here's the facts of things;from a practical , purely need based logical evaluation of shooting incidents with all political influence removed , no civil shooter including police need more than 10 rounds in one magazine. The odds of a citizen being involved in a self defense incident of any kind are thankfully low, and so it is also with Law Enforcement. In the event of the remote chance of lead actually flying, studies of the Illinois State Police when they adopted S&W 8 shot 9mms determined that on the outside the highest number of rounds fired were 8 rounds before the bad guy bit the dust. The average of the study was about 3-6 rounds fired.After the department went to the double stack Model 59s, the hit ratio in fact decreased compared to the 'low cap' 9mms they had before!

Note that this is a study of Law Enforcement, where crooks have an interest in armed combat. For self defense by citizens, just showing the gun is enough to deter most criminal attacks. For the rest, again, within 6 shots the situation is likely to be resolved, and certainly within 10. Ive yet to read a case of a citizen outside of a business robbery even exhausting their magazine.

From a logical standpoint, most of us would be served just fine by a single stack pistol with an 8 round capacity. As far as rifles go, massed fire is for armies and police units with the logistical and personnel support to use such tactics. One guy shooting full auto or rapid fire simply depletes his finite ammo supply faster.Again, for home defense a bad guy isn't breaking in to play Die Hard, he's coming in to get something. Whatever that something is, it won't be worth the scumbag taking a bullet for.

Now that we've established the logical merits of so called high capacity magazines comes down to "just for kicks", we can now look at the legislative perspective.

The government should only concern itself with enacting laws which are effective. Regulations which do nothing clog up the legal system for no purpose except ensuring employment for the officers of the court. If high capacity magazines serve little practical purpose for the civil shooter, a law against their possession serves even less purpose being enacted. All a magazine ban does is create a two-tiered market where pre-ban equipment becomes inflated in value, resulting in a situation where for the wealthier gun owners a magazine ban really has no effect and everyone else is limited to 10 rounds for no reason.

It would have the same logical merit as passing a law banning cars over 200 HP after the year 2012;Everything made before that date with more power becomes a commodity with inflated value, while normal people are limited to driving gutless 200 HP Corvettes for no logical reason. Considering even a 200HP car can kill someone, such a law has the same merit as a magazine capacity rule-none.

Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't come into it. Its about common sense.Whether you believe or don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, I would hope all of us understand basic logic and reason.

the bold in the above quote is my emphasis

well thought out response...however...reasoning is wasted on legislators...logic has no place in their system.

CrazyCobraManTim
07-30-2012, 3:20 PM
I seriously don't see a legitimate reason for owning a 100rd drum. In my opinion, it's purely for recreational purposes. I don't own any and I don't think I ever will. It just brings unwanted attention. I think 30rd is more than enough. But, we the people should have the option. I can't speak for everyone. I will be truly sad when what you speak of happens. I would like to preserve our 2A rights as much as possible, not give them up.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't made for plinking or recreational purposes. It was made for individuals to defend themselves from the British, Chinese, Canadian, Russian or American governments, not to mention those with less grandiose ill plans against a person or their family. Every swinging dick in this forum is part of the organized or unorganized Militia, and it's your duty to spring into action should it ever come to the point that our Armed Forces are overwhelmed.

If I'm going to the front, which could theoretically be my state, county or neighborhood, I can assure you I'm not going with a 10-round magazine.

Glock22Fan
07-30-2012, 4:10 PM
Wrong.

Do you not know that cars are inherently evil tools of capitalist oppression. As such only the truly enlightened progressive elite is entitled to such vehicles. The common citizen rates 1 seat on a mass-transit bus or train of their choice, subject to restrictions by responsible government authorities.:rolleyes:

But only if they get a permit from the local commissar or party chief.

dieselpower
07-30-2012, 4:11 PM
To paraphrase and quote the voices....

The Second Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT;
Hunting
Sport Shooting
Target Shooting (Recreational)

The Second Amendment PROTECTS LIFE AND LIBERTY. It was written so the common man has the ability to SHOOT AND KILL Military forces, Police Forces and other armed persons who are attempting to illegally deprive them of LIFE OR LIBERTY.

I don't care what magazine you use for hunting or sport shooting...they can pass laws requiring hunters to stand on their heads and bark like a dog AND ONLY USE A 1 SHOT MAGAZINE for all I care...THAT IS 100% LEGAL.

Glock22Fan
07-30-2012, 4:16 PM
We should have the freedom to own any sized magazines. However, although I usually carry my G22, I don't feel underarmed when I carry my 1911. Of course, I do practice changing magazines and carry two spares.

All this political demand for ten rounds max is silly. Those of us with a modicum of practice can still get off thirty rounds from ten round mags nearly as fast as someone with a 30 round magazine. Especially if we are on the rampage surrounded by disarmed sheep in a gun free zone. Not that anyone here would do that, of course.

Glock22Fan
07-30-2012, 4:18 PM
To paraphrase and quote the voices....

The Second Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT;
Hunting
Sport Shooting
Target Shooting (Recreational)

The Second Amendment PROTECTS LIFE AND LIBERTY. It was written so the common man has the ability to SHOOT AND KILL Military forces, Police Forces and other armed persons who are attempting to illegally deprive them of LIFE OR LIBERTY.

I don't care what magazine you use for hunting or sport shooting...they can pass laws requiring hunters to stand on their heads and bark like a dog AND ONLY USE A 1 SHOT MAGAZINE for all I care...THAT IS 100% LEGAL.

"They banned hunters from using more than one shot, but I didn't protest because I'm not a hunter." To paraphrase somebody.

kel-tec-innovations
07-30-2012, 5:10 PM
We should ban 10 round magazines and make unlimited capacity belt fed guns muhahaha jk

Belt Fed shotty
http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/2/1312/saiga-12_belt_400.jpg
Belt Fed handguns
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8IcO1ehweFs/SN2xG8mnYjI/AAAAAAAAEFQ/KCN33eahUFs/s400/beltfed-1.jpeg
Belt Fed semi-autos
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MGI_Hydra_beltfed.jpg
Belt Fed bolt actions
http://www.shottist.com/imagesbeltfed1911/beltfed%20004.jpg

Okay fantasy aside. We live in United States of America. I came here for Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

We have every right to pursuit our happiness as long as it does not harm others.

In America we can be FAT, skinny, eat whatever we want, get drunk, drive ridiculously big or small cars, gas guzzling or hybrids, wear any clothes we want, say what we want, have social networks, vote, choose the schools we want, have rights in court etc. etc.

Majority of Americans take their freedoms for granted and know nothing who, why, when and how this country was formed that made those freedom possible.

They are so accustomed to freedom they want to restrict others, not knowing they are pissing on the constitution and fore fathers.

Those idiots need to be deported for treason, for not upholding the US constitution.

Then they can live in a country where FAT people are ridiculed and no vehicles or structures accommodate the fat a**. Cars are taxed 100%, at 60,000 miles it needs to be destroyed because its too much of a polluter, no government grants to support the LAZY EBT trash, wearing certain clothing lands you in jail, bad mouth the gov your jailed or beaten, social networks are banned etc. etc.


As far as I know we have a right to do anything as long as it does not harm others in this country. Last time I check owning a 30rds magazine did NOT harm anyone.

Also with the BS DOJ ROSTER. The saddest crap our society is so dumb, retarded, and so dependent they need the government to tell them HOW to live their life and feel they need to restrict .


Some time I wish 2012 "The Great Awakening" would come true where some epic crazy thing would happen and fall destruction on earth.
To be honest I do not wish this to happen, but its for the better to weed out the garbage and start fresh. Our society is pathetic.... rant over

vincewarde
07-30-2012, 5:47 PM
The battle for gun rights is being fought on two fronts, one political and one legal - thankfully we are winning on both fronts.

On the legal front, we have been winning the cases that count - but there still is a lot that needs to be defined in regards to the extent of the right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

On the political front, we hold most of the cards too. Does that mean we can stop this 10 round mag limit (which, I believe is a total ban - as in hand in your 10+ mags)? Probably.

Politically, if we knew what the extent of 2nd Amendment protection was, then we would know how to proceed. We don't, so to some extent we are flying blind.

My problem with the antis is they always want us to give up things without getting anything in return. This is yet another example of this. It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if we said, "OK, we will agree to a 10 round mag limit in return for 100% CCW reciprocity, 100% shall issue CCW and a ban on "phony gun free zones" (gun bans with no screening). This would open up the debate and enable us to put forth the evidence of how many of these mass shootings could be stopped by armed citizens.

I think if the NRA were to put that proposal out there, the antis would not know how to handle it. If they oppose the proposal, they look unreasonable - and the mag restriction proposal would likely be dropped. It's really hard to argue that shall issue CCW doesn't work when 82% of states now have it and lives are being saved every week if not every day. If they ultimately buy in to it, then they are giving us some things we really want. Of course, we would be giving something up too.

So, what about the 2nd Amendment? Well, that's another front. Let's suppose we make that deal - or maybe the NRA signs on to such a deal. We all know what would happen next, the mag capacity limit would be challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Assuming that we were smart and demanded a "saving provision" in the law, we would get back what we gave up and we would still have what we got in return.

Again, we don't know what the extent of the 2nd Amendments protection is. One option is definitely to not give an inch and fight whatever they may be able to pass (if anything) on 2nd Amendment grounds. This may be the best option. It is the only chance we have of winning "everything".

On the other hand, our opponents - if they are smart - are going to look for ways to get past the 2nd Amendment. Of everything that they could try, I fear this measure could have the greatest chance of being ruled constitutional.

So, what is the best strategy? Stand firm, don't give an inch and hope that we can defeat whatever the other side proposes - either politically or legally? OR - assess each battle, decide what we are likely to lose on (politically and legally) and trade these for something we really want? The last thing we should ever do is give up anything without getting something we want in return. We need to be smarter than that - because our position is stronger than that.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2012, 6:06 PM
if we said, "OK, we will agree to a 10 round mag limit in return for 100% CCW reciprocity, 100% shall issue CCW and a ban on "phony gun free zones" (gun bans with no screening)I realize you are making a theoretical point, but in my opinion, magazine capacity is not a negotiable item. It's too tied to the performance of the weapon, IMO.

HaloFire
07-30-2012, 7:06 PM
Perhaps the OP intended to offer up a hypothetical situation where taking a hit on our (already diminished) liberties is better than outright losing them all together. Sure, we are all well aware of incrementalism, but having some rights is better than NO rights, it gives us time and another day to fight and reclaim and restore those rights that were forfeited.

A few points to make as this thread is long and I have doubts anyone will even get to page 6 or 7 of this (by the time it posts). And I apologize beforehand for this post's lengthiness.

1) Come now and let us reason together. First all, this is a public forum and while we come from all walks of life, of different beliefs, abilities, experiences, trades, etc. We are all here because we're gun owners or advocates of gun ownership. Let us try to be civil towards each other, we're all on the same team. While there may be some that are more versed in Constitutional Law than others and some more adept at logic than those of less cognitive ability, we all are pro gun. I'd rather have a room temperature Forrest Gump who shares my similar values and VOTES with similar convictions than an Albert Einstein that that would usher in a tyrant. Play nice. SAME TEAM.

2) I've read quite a bit that mention the 2A and the Bill of Rights and am pleased that we have so many scholars among us. Let me briefly supplement their posts here.

When reading or interpreting the Constitution, I believe it should not be done in a vacuum. Its companion document, the Declaration of Independence should also be referred to... (as well as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers if you so happen to have the time).

excerpt: DoI

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers 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 foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

excerpt: 2A
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.

Clearly the 2A is a safeguard against tyranny, that is not to say that it does not have ancillary benefits: self defense, recreation, hunting, etc.

3) Why is the 2A second? Why is the 1A first?

excerpt: 1A
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Because historians/political scholars know that concentration of power is what always leads to despotism. Therefore they instituted a form of government with checks and balances (think us govt in HS). If you look further with deeper thought you will see:

Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches all check each other. There is a 4th check:

The Media (freedom of speech, or of the press). Even though the mainstream media is actually a hindrance to liberty these days, it was never intended as such. They (founding fathers) knew that the power of the press, that ability to convey ideas was more dangerous to tyranny than anything else. The pen is mightier than the sword.

The 5th and ultimate check is the ARMED populous. Therefore, we should have the same availability of weapons to us as the military/police have. Note, it is a normative statement "should" because it is not a factual statement.

Should the first amendment fail, the second amendment is the last and absolute failsafe against oppression.

Springer's Final Thoughts

We're all on the same team, and while we may disagree on the methods used and even on minor topics here and there, we all want more liberty (in regards to our gun rights). Stop fighting with each other, write intelligently, come together, we have a real enemy out there. They are the Boxers, the Feinsteins, the Rahms, stop wasting energy, resources and breath on ourselves.

One thing that does frighten me are those that are unwilling to fight for their rights and even more importantly those that are willing to forfeit the rights of those of future generations.

Be cool. Introduce a non shooter to shooting this coming up weekend. Ask a friend to bring a friend. Invite co workers, church folks, poker players, soccer moms, etc. Grow the shooting community... Educate them, don't alienate, relate to them. Demystify firearms, correct them on the propaganda perpetuated by Hollywood and the media.

vincewarde
07-30-2012, 7:07 PM
Hornswaggled, I've been in a similar boat. I've been thinking about along the same lines as you've said. But here's where I've gotten hung up.

1: I wouldn't settle for less than 31 rounds. If they're going to cap it, cap it at the standard capacity of the most popular rifle in America (the AR).

2 (the bigger point): It's a one way street, and that's the problem. If someone who's been around longer than I wants to correct me, feel free, but I can't find a time where the gun control lobby "sacrificed" something for us or traded something to us. And that's my problem. So in 34, they said "Augh! Machineguns, silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles, and handguns are dangerous and unusual!!!!!", so we compromised and let the MG/Suppressor/SBR/SBS ban go through because we got handguns taken out. The gun control lobby still pushed for handgun bans in places like DC and Chicago. Then the NFA wasn't enough, so they added the Hughes Amendment. Now banning autos isn't enough; semi-autos with cosmetic features are "dangerous and unusual" weapons that "no law abiding citizen needs". They're saying the same thing about magazines, and some corners are already saying the same thing about semi-automatics, PERIOD.

If the gun control lobby really sat down and said "Y'know, how about this. If you guys will accept NICS background checks for private sales, then we'll get rid of the GFSZ 1000' bullcrap" or "If you support a ban of magazines over 31 rounds, we'll repeal the Hughes Amendment and modernize/digitize the NFA approval process so that you can get approved within 60 days" or something like that, I *MIGHT* consider it. But no, it's always take, take, take. You don't need autos. You don't need SBRs or SBSs. You don't need suppressors. You don't need "military style" semi autos. You don't need magazines over 20/10/5 rounds. You don't need semi-automatics at all. You don't need handguns. You don't need your guns to be assembled or loaded. You don't need.....you don't need....you don't need.

I'm not a radical, I'm not a "NOT ONE INCH"er, I'm pretty politically centrist....but unless I start seeing offers for real compromises from the other side, my answer is hell no.

I think you have nailed the whole issue. If we offered to make a deal in exchange for something that most people see as reasonable (like CCW reciprocity) - we would see the whole debate change. The antis would likely know what to do if we offered to make such a deal. My guess is that would refuse to even consider it - which would likely convince even more people that their real agenda is ever increasing restrictions until they get rid of nearly all guns. They would then be the ones that look unreasonable.

ShooterMcFly
07-30-2012, 10:22 PM
Haven't kept up with the postings the last day or so but:

I believe that the AR platform was initially designed with 20 and 30 round box mags in mind, if I'm correct. That seems like a standard to follow. Standard capacity is not a "hi-cap" mag. 10 rounds...if anything...is a "lo-cap" mag simply because it's less than what the standard everywhere else has been at. But with this, a Beta mag is definitely a "hi-cap" which I would never see myself ever using even if I was able.

Just my $0.02

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl
07-30-2012, 10:26 PM
10 rounds will be fine as long as we wouldn't have to use a BB on our AR's and other rifles that require one.

locosway
07-31-2012, 4:39 AM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

I'm still waiting to see this 100 round magazine he had. The rifle in the pictures has a 30 round magazine in it.

Goosebrown
07-31-2012, 4:58 AM
Its for the CHILDREN!

scarville
07-31-2012, 6:44 AM
"They banned hunters from using more than one shot, but I didn't protest because I'm not a hunter." To paraphrase somebody.

Here you all go!

oP5-bUrqjt4

EM2
07-31-2012, 6:58 AM
A warning for those interested in compromise.


http://conservapedia.com/John_Galt
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
John Galt

advocatusdiaboli
07-31-2012, 7:10 AM
I'd just like to point out that while the focus here is on magazine capacity limitations, the anti-firearms groups are working on multiple fronts, so even if you think the 10-round limit is a reasonable compromise (I don't), they intend to remove your ability to fill that magazine without significant difficulty and to significantly restrict the firearms you can attach that magazine to. Compromise ends up allowing the camel to push further into the tent and he wont' stop until he's all in and we are pushed out.

donw
07-31-2012, 7:38 AM
The battle for gun rights is being fought on two fronts, one political and one legal - thankfully we are winning on both fronts.

On the legal front, we have been winning the cases that count - but there still is a lot that needs to be defined in regards to the extent of the right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

On the political front, we hold most of the cards too. Does that mean we can stop this 10 round mag limit (which, I believe is a total ban - as in hand in your 10+ mags)? Probably.

Politically, if we knew what the extent of 2nd Amendment protection was, then we would know how to proceed. We don't, so to some extent we are flying blind.

My problem with the antis is they always want us to give up things without getting anything in return. This is yet another example of this. It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if we said, "OK, we will agree to a 10 round mag limit in return for 100% CCW reciprocity, 100% shall issue CCW and a ban on "phony gun free zones" (gun bans with no screening). This would open up the debate and enable us to put forth the evidence of how many of these mass shootings could be stopped by armed citizens.

I think if the NRA were to put that proposal out there, the antis would not know how to handle it. If they oppose the proposal, they look unreasonable - and the mag restriction proposal would likely be dropped. It's really hard to argue that shall issue CCW doesn't work when 82% of states now have it and lives are being saved every week if not every day. If they ultimately buy in to it, then they are giving us some things we really want. Of course, we would be giving something up too.

So, what about the 2nd Amendment? Well, that's another front. Let's suppose we make that deal - or maybe the NRA signs on to such a deal. We all know what would happen next, the mag capacity limit would be challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Assuming that we were smart and demanded a "saving provision" in the law, we would get back what we gave up and we would still have what we got in return.

Again, we don't know what the extent of the 2nd Amendments protection is. One option is definitely to not give an inch and fight whatever they may be able to pass (if anything) on 2nd Amendment grounds. This may be the best option. It is the only chance we have of winning "everything".

On the other hand, our opponents - if they are smart - are going to look for ways to get past the 2nd Amendment. Of everything that they could try, I fear this measure could have the greatest chance of being ruled constitutional.

So, what is the best strategy? Stand firm, don't give an inch and hope that we can defeat whatever the other side proposes - either politically or legally? OR - assess each battle, decide what we are likely to lose on (politically and legally) and trade these for something we really want? The last thing we should ever do is give up anything without getting something we want in return. We need to be smarter than that - because our position is stronger than that.

well said!

dfletcher
07-31-2012, 1:02 PM
As soon as magazine capacity limitations are adopted, agreed to by some of our more "reasonable" gun owning brethren, you can count the days to when the number of 10 round magazines possessed or owned at any one time will be limited. To contemplate otherwise is intellectually incomplete.

Wherryj
07-31-2012, 1:56 PM
Look up the FBI report on the guy that got in a shoot out with agents he had one mag and was reloading from a box of ammo. I think if your allowed to own the weapon you should be able to have any mag you want. Magazine capacity has nothing to do with a crime personally if I lived out of state I'd have a few dozen 30 rd mags maybe a drum or two. Why? Cause I could. And it would save my thumb a bunch of grief. Lol

I'd take it a bit further. Laws cannot keep insane people from doing insane things. If a person cannot be trusted to be walking free amongst his fellow man without significant restrictions, is that person safe to be walking free at all?

If you're safe enough to be free, aren't you worthy of the right to self-defense? The problem is the "justice" system that has literally filled our prisons to over-flowing with non-violent "drug" offenders and then institutes a revolving door for the violent offenders because of "crowding".

Keep the predators locked away and let the rest of us alone on the bans.

Wherryj
07-31-2012, 2:04 PM
I would agree with that statement.

I disagree. The majority are uneducated AND insane.
:rolleyes:

hnoppenberger
07-31-2012, 2:38 PM
Not one inch, you communist!
Name calling aside, gun owners who think ''resonable'' laws like a 10 round mag limit are a good idea, I simply say this: The world is not resonable place, why limit your self defense to "resonable"?

wxl
08-04-2012, 11:22 AM
I only need water, air, and a slice of bread once in a while. Go ahead and ban everything else because I'm too stupid to decide for myself what is good for me or my family.

Capybara
08-04-2012, 1:37 PM
The antis believe that our fight is a one way street. We can never "give up, trade or negotiate" anything. Any ground we lose is usually permanent and they are relentless. This is a civil rights war! There is rarely more than one winner in a war.

SexualChocolate
08-04-2012, 1:51 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

You sir are the exact reason we are in the current climate of gun control in this state. A sicking example of an apathetic subject who thinks that giving away something today will afford them some luxury tomorrow. Go look in the mirror and feel shame.

Stop using your feelings and trying to rationalize the "need" for something that our founding fathers decreed to be our rights.

ap3572001
08-04-2012, 2:21 PM
I see there is a small problem here.....

It is BAD to have any magazine ban. I agree with that.

I will also agree with USMCM16A2 that no one NEEDS a 100rd drun for their AR or AK.

These are TWO separate issues.

SexualChocolate
08-04-2012, 5:22 PM
I see there is a small problem here.....

It is BAD to have any magazine ban. I agree with that.

I will also agree with USMCM16A2 that no one NEEDS a 100rd drun for their AR or AK.

These are TWO separate issues.

Hard to respond to this without name calling and probably get the thread locked and or myself banned.

But I have just decided that you no longer need to own any firearms, and I think whatever car you are driving is the wrong car and you will now be required to drive what I think is the best thing.

You are no supporter of the second amendment or what all the freedom loving people have died for to make this country great.

These are not two separate issues, only a nearsighted, apathetic, milquetoast subject would say such a thing. Its these "descision" makers who think they know better than the people who voted for them and or want complete control over their subjects.

Who are you to say what anyone needs?

Now I know why I limit my viewing of calguns to the marketplace section. I was only redirected here because of ARF.com and the similar feelings of disgust they feel for people like you and the OP of this thread.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 5:30 PM
Didn't the bill fail to pass?

HK-40
08-04-2012, 9:15 PM
Hard to respond to this without name calling and probably get the thread locked and or myself banned.

But I have just decided that you no longer need to own any firearms, and I think whatever car you are driving is the wrong car and you will now be required to drive what I think is the best thing.

You are no supporter of the second amendment or what all the freedom loving people have died for to make this country great.

These are not two separate issues, only a nearsighted, apathetic, milquetoast subject would say such a thing. Its these "descision" makers who think they know better than the people who voted for them and or want complete control over their subjects.

Who are you to say what anyone needs?

Now I know why I limit my viewing of calguns to the marketplace section. I was only redirected here because of ARF.com and the similar feelings of disgust they feel for people like you and the OP of this thread.


I dont think You understand what the man said.

He is against any magazine ban....
I will spell it out for You: He said He is AGAINST any magazine ban.

Then He said that He thinks no one NEEDS 100 round drums.

THAT IS HIS OPINION. ( Freedom of speech You know...)

Since we are on it, I also don't think anyone needs any 100rd ( or 250rd) drums.

The are cool to have , but no one needs them

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 9:23 PM
I dont think You understand what the man said.

He is against any magazine ban....
I will spell it out for You: He said He is AGAINST any magazine ban.

Then He said that He thinks no one NEEDS 100 round drums.

THAT IS HIS OPINION. ( Freedom of speech You know...)

Since we are on it, I also don't think anyone needs any 100rd ( or 250rd) drums.

The are cool to have , but no one needs them
Why not to take down enemies foreign and domestic it would be a good choice :) (if you can find a reliable one)

ap3572001
08-04-2012, 11:02 PM
Why not to take down enemies foreign and domestic it would be a good choice :) (if you can find a reliable one)

Yes , maybe for combat they have use. ( Very uncomfortable and heavy, but they might have use)

Not for me. I am sure it would be fun to blast 100 rounds really fast or even in full auto, but FOR me I dont see any use for a drum.

People should have a right to be armed the way they want to be armed.

And people should the a right to have and voice their opinion. (1A)

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 11:15 PM
Like I live in a country full of irrational idiots. All the joker would have had to do to kill a bunch of unarmed people is just buy lots of 10 rd mag.... or buy limited 30 to 10 rd mags and make them back into 30. Same goes for drums...

L84CABO
08-04-2012, 11:44 PM
Folks,

How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2


Actually I don't believe you understand one little bit the reasons that people might say they "need" them. It appears as if you may have been sleeping through your high school history and civics classes. Because if you understood the real issue here, you simply would not be asking this question.

Class is in session. PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME!

The Second Amendment is not about your right to recreational shoot or sport shoot. It's about your right to be able to defend your FREEDOM...whether threats to that freedom come from an oppressive foreign king or, god forbid, your own government.

And in a situation where you actually had to defend your freedom, you are going to want/need as much fire power as you can get.

Now go to the board and write the following 500 times...

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

Dellinger
08-04-2012, 11:57 PM
They may wipe their @$$ the same as you and me but I choose not to use the Constitution to do so.
When you believe the tool is getting the job done not the guy holding it,no reason or ammount of education will change your mind.
They are sold on a gun free society.
The 2A is for protection from any who would want to abuse us, foreign or domestic. The 2A is not so you can go to shooting competitions or for hunters. Ask the people of Norway if gun bans or mag capacities made any difference.
Not an inch!

LoneYote
08-05-2012, 2:00 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think this is a most important and oft glossed over section. This shows the true metal of the founding fathers. This shows that they were not "gun nuts" out to "destroy people". Contrary to mommy violence does solve things. The point is that it SHOULD BE the last resort. The first amendment says we have the right to tell the government they are not failing at the job tasked to them. he first amendment says we have the right to tell them they are wrong and should stop. The second amendment says that if all else fails we have the right to take the power out of the government hands.

Revolutions can be terrible bloody affairs. When these things happen there is always wrong done by both sides. It is my honest hope that I will never have to be involved in one. As a citizen of the United States I understand that some day I may have to be. If that day comes any who stand against the government will be criminals and the least of there concerns will be additional jail time for contraband.

I hate 10 round magazines. They throw off the aesthetic look of my rifle. I have no "need" whatever that is for a 100 rnd beta mag. However, if they make one in my caliber and it is not outlawed I will buy one.

I feel much safer with a 40yo firearms veteran with 20 years of experience handling a fulling automatic weapon than an 18 yo with a month of training. A purely volunteer military does not purely recruit the best of the best after all....

DannyInSoCal
08-05-2012, 3:44 AM
Banning the anti-gunners failed fantasy of "gun free safe zones" -

Will save 1000 times more innocent lives compared to placing an arbitrary restriction on how many rounds fit into a mag....

kotetu
08-17-2012, 6:07 PM
Folks,
How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2The 2nd Amendment is Constitutional recognition and protection of our Natural Right to defend ourselves from ALL threats, the most dangerous of which is an oppressive government. So yes, we need them.

Dantedamean
08-17-2012, 6:30 PM
Actually I don't believe you understand one little bit the reasons that people might say they "need" them. It appears as if you may have been sleeping through your high school history and civics classes. Because if you understood the real issue here, you simply would not be asking this question.

Class is in session. PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME!

The Second Amendment is not about your right to recreational shoot or sport shoot. It's about your right to be able to defend your FREEDOM...whether threats to that freedom come from an oppressive foreign king or, god forbid, your own government.

And in a situation where you actually had to defend your freedom, you are going to want/need as much fire power as you can get.

Now go to the board and write the following 500 times...

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

QFT
Yes! Its very easy for people to get lost in the "sporting use" issue. I hate that people feel the need to justify gun ownership this way. I own guns to keep mr Obama in line, not to shoot clays. ( although that is fun )

DeuceDeuce_22
08-17-2012, 7:22 PM
Did OP get possessed by Bill Ruger?:p

smeg
08-17-2012, 7:35 PM
That was painful to read.
It sounds like you've been oppressed into submission.

+1 on that.

Why would anyone 'need' a 100rd magazine is followed too soon by why does anyone 'need' a gun.

I don't need anti-gun libtards telling me what I need or don't need.

:mad:

supersonic
08-17-2012, 8:14 PM
Folks,
I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.


Well, why is it you "need" your NMA2? Oh, wait, you already mentioned your reasoning above:

Folks,
I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles

Many of us ENJOY our 30/40/50 & 100 round "Beta C Magazines." Geezus. You are one step further towards Anti-thinking. Next it will be "Well, who really needs 10-rounders?" Then: "Who really needs 5-rounders?" And on and on until you get too old to shoot your NMA2 and then it will be "Well, who really needs NMA2 rifles? They are no different than military-type rifles." Hey Bradys - looks like you have a very potential future member coming down the pike. He's duplicating your "Why does anyone NEED......blah blah blah....":rolleyes:

It's not about "NEED," it's about freedom and the 2nd amendment. Surprised you would even bring something like this up. True colors, it looks like.;)

LRB
08-17-2012, 8:34 PM
Hay Marine do you go to war with 10rds 2A is about the state fearing you not you fearing the state Semper Fi

hoffmang
08-17-2012, 9:37 PM
Constitutionally, 10 rounds is not an historical or categorical definition. At the founding militia muster required round counts in the 20's. At the adoption of the 14th, the Henry held 16 and was exceedingly popular as Union soldiers bought it from local gun shops.

-Gene

Shapes And Colors
08-17-2012, 9:53 PM
Wow. I read all 6 pages and the only conclusion I can come to is that there seems to be two strict groups. You can either be in the "that seems reasonable as long as we get something in return" camp, or you can be in the "forget that, over my dead body, I'll fight to the death, anybody that believes anything different than me in any way should be shot for treason!"

The simple fact is this, you cannot look at it as if this is a black and white issue. I'm sure I'll get flaming responses about how the 2A is black and white, etc., but the truth of today is nothing is fair. Nothing works the way it should, the constitution is severely twisted in every way possible, and none of this downward spiral has been reversed. I'd love to sit here and yell about the absolute nature of the 2nd amendment and how it clearly means we can own whatever we want, but I can't do it. I'm being a realist. Being on the extreme end is not going to help our cause either way.

This is a polarizing issue within the community, and understandably so. A previous post mentioned to an excellent point, that we have never received any kind of compromise in our 2A restrictions. It's all about "take, take, take". This is absolutely unreasonable, I completely agree. That said, I don't feel as though eliminating an existing restraint on our rights in trade for another restriction is a yes or no proposition either. This is another one of those "it depends" arguments. If the proposition was to limit magazines to standard capacity, i.e. 30 rounds, in trade for 100% shall issue and reciprocity, I personally would back that. Why? Because it's a step in the right direction, and it beats the hell out of playing the absolute card and losing another increment. I look at this question from a strategic standpoint, and a 50% win is better than a 100% loss, with each round played diligently and strategically.

This is my personal opinion, of course. I do not feel the need to convince others to feel the same way I do, and I certainly don't feel the need to divide our community even further by resorting to calling fellow gun owners "liberal anti-gunners" simply because my view differs from theirs.

ar15robert
08-18-2012, 4:51 PM
I own a RAW and have plenty of hi caps.Honestly i really dont load them full and fire away.I use to shoot some matches and used them there but for rec shooting i kinda like to keep my barrel life.I like to make everyshot count but on occasion will do some rapid fire.I actually prefer the 20s vs the 30s.

My mini 14 i load it up and fire away though.

Either way i think people should be able to own what they want to as far as mag capacity goes.

lilro
08-18-2012, 5:21 PM
A 10rd limit will turn into a 5rd limit, which will turn into a 1rd limit, which will turn into semi-autos being useless and then banned. If we let them keep taking our guns an accessory or feature at a time, we will end up with single shot .22s, which will lead to no guns at all.

SexualChocolate
08-18-2012, 5:25 PM
A 10rd limit will turn into a 5rd limit, which will turn into a 1rd limit, which will turn into semi-autos being useless and then banned. If we let them keep taking our guns an accessory or feature at a time, we will end up with single shot .22s, which will lead to no guns at all.


There are way too many "gun owners" on this board that don't seem to understand this fact.

And I could not agree with you more.

Harrison_Bergeron
08-18-2012, 6:10 PM
This may have been brought up already, it's a long thread.

When discussing whether or not a mag limit of (some arbitrary number) should be agreed upon by gun enthusiasts to show willingness to compromise it should be considered that in most states of the union a full auto only requires the writing of a check to be legally owned and used.

I can agree that a 100 round mag on a semi-auto doesn't seem to be remotely useful or even fun compared to most smaller alternatives, but if I just spent my future child's college tuition on a legal select fire rifle I know I sure as hell would want the option of buying a beta mag.

There's still that pesky "shall not be infringed" bit.

wjc
08-18-2012, 6:34 PM
20 round mags.

I needs my precioussss....

:43:

blazeaglory
08-18-2012, 7:44 PM
Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

Good thing considering I know a friend of a friend who has an entire cache of 30 rndrs buried somewhere secret;)

SilverTauron
08-18-2012, 8:34 PM
Wow. I read all 6 pages and the only conclusion I can come to is that there seems to be two strict groups. You can either be in the "that seems reasonable as long as we get something in return" camp, or you can be in the "forget that, over my dead body, I'll fight to the death, anybody that believes anything different than me in any way should be shot for treason!"

The simple fact is this, you cannot look at it as if this is a black and white issue. I'm sure I'll get flaming responses about how the 2A is black and white, etc., but the truth of today is nothing is fair. Nothing works the way it should, the constitution is severely twisted in every way possible, and none of this downward spiral has been reversed. I'd love to sit here and yell about the absolute nature of the 2nd amendment and how it clearly means we can own whatever we want, but I can't do it. I'm being a realist. Being on the extreme end is not going to help our cause either way.

This is a polarizing issue within the community, and understandably so. A previous post mentioned to an excellent point, that we have never received any kind of compromise in our 2A restrictions. It's all about "take, take, take". This is absolutely unreasonable, I completely agree. That said, I don't feel as though eliminating an existing restraint on our rights in trade for another restriction is a yes or no proposition either. This is another one of those "it depends" arguments. If the proposition was to limit magazines to standard capacity, i.e. 30 rounds, in trade for 100% shall issue and reciprocity, I personally would back that. Why? Because it's a step in the right direction, and it beats the hell out of playing the absolute card and losing another increment. I look at this question from a strategic standpoint, and a 50% win is better than a 100% loss, with each round played diligently and strategically.

This is my personal opinion, of course. I do not feel the need to convince others to feel the same way I do, and I certainly don't feel the need to divide our community even further by resorting to calling fellow gun owners "liberal anti-gunners" simply because my view differs from theirs.

The reality of the situation we face is that we, those who cherish the right to keep and bear arms have NO CHOICE but to be radical to the hilt, as that is the nature of our opposition.

The anti-gun side is not interested in negotiation.

The only acceptable magazine load to our opposition is ZERO. The thought of compromise doesn't exist to them-and indeed, they don't have to negotiate. All they must do do is dance in the blood of the victims and get the right people in office on their side.

For our part, we must watch the polls and ensure we match their furor with our own. The Brady's of the nation won't stop even if every gun in civil hands were destroyed, and as such we must not stop fighting for our rights, not even when we win the day against the illegal status quo in CA and other places.

Note carefully that in a glorious future where national CCW exists and the NFA statutes are of value only to historians we cannot afford to step back and cease being vigilant. Even in Vermont , a state which literally follows the "shall not be infringed" statement, the state Democrats have tried time and again to get the ball rolling on gun control. Each time the VT citizenry makes their wishes explicitly clear.

Shapes And Colors
08-19-2012, 12:40 AM
The reality of the situation we face is that we, those who cherish the right to keep and bear arms have NO CHOICE but to be radical to the hilt, as that is the nature of our opposition.

The anti-gun side is not interested in negotiation.

The only acceptable magazine load to our opposition is ZERO. The thought of compromise doesn't exist to them-and indeed, they don't have to negotiate. All they must do do is dance in the blood of the victims and get the right people in office on their side.

For our part, we must watch the polls and ensure we match their furor with our own. The Brady's of the nation won't stop even if every gun in civil hands were destroyed, and as such we must not stop fighting for our rights, not even when we win the day against the illegal status quo in CA and other places.

Note carefully that in a glorious future where national CCW exists and the NFA statutes are of value only to historians we cannot afford to step back and cease being vigilant. Even in Vermont , a state which literally follows the "shall not be infringed" statement, the state Democrats have tried time and again to get the ball rolling on gun control. Each time the VT citizenry makes their wishes explicitly clear.

That's why my scenario was hypothetical. If that scenario were to be presented, that is how I would feel. I realize it's not all that likely. The key to my hypothetical is the current political system in which our absolute unwillingness to negotiate anything is used against us. It paints us as steadfast fanatics, we appear less logical than their "sensible control", and as a result, people follow them. They play on emotions, the most primal part of people, we hold our piece of paper. An emotion is relatable, a paper is not. Is this current movement in society an abomination? Absolutely, but it is what it is. I'm aware that my hypothetical isn't realistically possible, it was just a thought.

Vermont is a great example of the meaning behind my point on a state basis. They have been extremely pro gun for a very long time, and as a result, the citizens know it is supposed to be that way. Trying to get the ball rolling is much harder than keeping it rolling, so of course they get shut down every time they introduce control measures. However, California's ball has been rolling at an alarming rate for years now, and we as 2A supporters have to convince a vast majority of the state and the representatives that they need to undo everything they already did. Vermont has a pro gun society uninterested in change, California has an anti-gun society uninterested in change. We've even had restrictions imposed on us that were, at least in part, drafted by the NRA themselves.

supersonic
08-19-2012, 10:16 AM
In my earlier post, I kinda went off the deep end (gotta keep working on those knee-jerk reactions, dammit!:mad:), and I tend to get a bit too harsh at times. Let me say that several posts following mine were saying the same thing, but with more restraint and eloquence. To the OP: sorry if you felt I was being a bit harsh. Like I stated above, "I'm a'workin' on it. Promise.":)

USM0083
08-19-2012, 11:18 AM
I say show them what it feels like and spearhead a movement to ban all cars that can go over 70mph..they dont need a car like that...its too dangerous and cars kill people

Every American shall be issued a Chevy Volt. Your only color option shall be blue.

Falstaff
08-19-2012, 10:54 PM
I don't "need" 550 horsepower in my roadster but it sure is fun. I could be irresponsible and accelerate recklessly and endanger others; perhaps we should ban Ford racing's crate motor line up or mandate restrictor plates...

This "people don't need" meme is flooding the media lately, what I'm hearing here is word for word the same talking point coming outta Michael Savage and oreilly- is it that simple? You hear a couple sell outs like that and you let them sway you?

M.A.B
08-19-2012, 10:59 PM
yes more laws for the law abiding gun purchaser, that will show the phycos and criminals