High capacity magazines

[Avec]

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but am looking at this from a different point of view. I have always found that if you can understand all points of an argument, you can usually come out much farther ahead than someone that refuses to look at all angles.

 

[kawtech87]

Amendment II

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

It wouldnt be such a well regulated militia if we had a distinct disadvantage to our enemys (foreign or domestic) now would it?

 

[KW730]

30% of rounds fired from a trained officer hit their target. So, out of a 10 round magazine you get three hits. Let's say it takes two hits to stop your attacker. You now have 1 more hit, yet there are two more of his buddies approaching you.

As well, criminals don't follow laws, so chances are if you are in a situation where you are being fired on, you will most likely run out of ammunition far before your attacker does seeing as you would have a low capacity magazine.

 

[Slapstick]

I....... Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.......

.

Just on that one point, most thugs travel in packs so if there are three or so guys breaking into your house you'll wish you had more than 10 rounds. If your lucky, under the stress of the moment you'll hit your intended target center mass maybe 1 out of 5 times and multiple hits may be need to stop the threat. Do the math and tell me if 10 rounds are going to be enough in a home invasion robbery with multiple bad guys. Oh, and it's just plain fun at the range.

 

[Rookie]

Look at it this way, speed limit is 65, so why would anyone ever need a ferrari?

 

[t1545jh]

Less loading and more shooting! Who wants to pay for range time and spend half of it loading 10 round magazines?

 

[BroodXI]

30% of rounds fired from a trained officer hit their target.

unless you're a NYC cop
2 dead, 9 wounded in Empire State Building shootings, police say - CNN.com

 

[chezuki]

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

Wow..

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but am looking at this from a different point of view. I have always found that if you can understand all points of an argument, you can usually come out much farther ahead than someone that refuses to look at all angles.

One more time...a right by its nature is not subject to conditions or limitations and exists above the authority of legislation. A privilege, by contrast is established legislatively subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations established by the government and is subject to change or revocation at any time.

For practical purposes, self-defense against common thugs has already been sufficiently addressed. Now, the historical purpose for the Second Amendment is defense against government-sponsored thugs. Since they have high capacity automatic weapons, we are already at a disadvantage that the Second Amendment was intended to prevent. The last thing in the universe we need is to allow that gap to get any worse.

If you have trouble with this, you may want to study the relationship between disarmament of the population and subsequent totalitarianism and/or mass murder in the USSR, Turkey (the Armenian genocide), Nazi Germany, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Eastern Europe (post-World War II), and these are just the examples that come to me from memory.

If you want a real eye-opener, read the Mexican constitution. I am not all the way through it, but every right enumerated is subject to the terms chosen by the authorities. We see what a bastion of freedom Mexico is. Why would we wish to do likewise?

Just in case anyone missed it, a right, by definition, does not require any justification for its exercise, nor should it. If you insist on accepting the notion that rights can be treated as conditional privileges, you are part of the problem precipitating the alarming erosion of our rights.

 

[Rookie]

After reading the OP again, four words come to mind.

Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

 

[The Bubba Effect]

By and large, I think that it should be up to the individual to determine what items they should own.

Trying to explain why a person "needs" a 30 round magazine for an AR is in my opinion like trying to explain why a person "needs" a blue car over a red car or the New International Version of The Bible rather than the Good News version of The Bible.

A big part of my resistance to magazine limits is that I have a natural resistance to being told what I can and cannot do. I simply do not care to be told what things I may and may not own. I do not like it one bit.

Please forgive me if I come off as dodging the question, but it is my sincere belief that if I consent to being limited in my magazine choices, I am opening the door for more limitations to be imposed upon me.

I do not see the mag limit issue as a stand alone issue, but rather a point on the scale between freedom and tyranny. I fight to move the mark closer to freedom when I can and I welcome no move to tyranny.



Comprenez-vous?

 

[chris46131]

Occasionally someone will ask me "What do you need a gun for?" and my answer is always the same: "I don't have any idea...and that's the whole point."

Same answer applies for me here. I don't know when or under what circumstances I may need one of my firearms and I certainly don't know how many rounds I might need but when the time comes I would rather deal with having a few unused rounds in the magazine as opposed to being a couple rounds short of saving my life or the life of a loved one.

 

[rbhargan]

Why is "slippery slope" *not* a good answer?

Historically, the erosion of individual rights and liberties has been slow and incremental, creeping in on little cat feet. The more I think about it, the slippery slope argument is perhaps the most pertinent argument one can make.

 

[Sylvain]

You need them not for hunting, not for home defense but to protect yourself against tyranny.
Do you want to fight armed forces that use 30 rounds mags with a 10 rounds mag?

Same reason why civilians need full automatic weapons, because the military has those.
That's why we have the second amendment, to fight the US government (military, police, etc) if it ever becomes a tyrannical government.
That's why the the founding fathers wanted each citizen to be equiped witht he same stuff the military was using at this time.
Of course most politicians will tell you that you dont need military style rifles and that full auto guns are evil.But as long as the government has those you NEED them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why is "slippery slope" *not* a good answer?

Historically, the erosion of individual rights and liberties has been slow and incremental, creeping in on little cat feet. The more I think about it, the slippery slope argument is perhaps the most pertinent argument one can make.

The only viable purpose for starting the discussion with the premise that the slippery slope is not an acceptable argument is stacking the deck by prohibiting use of valid arguments to the contrary of one's preferred outcome. I am not suggesting that this is the OP's motive, since he may well by buying into propaganda, but this is the only reasonable foundation for preemptively excluding this, or any other pertinent argument.

 

[draftyranger]

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor. I have hunted quiet a bit and have never had the need to throw that much down range at once. If there were simple legislation pending right now that would ban the sale of high capacity magazines, or limit their sale through addition to NFA, what is the non-emotional argument against that?

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but am looking at this from a different point of view. I have always found that if you can understand all points of an argument, you can usually come out much farther ahead than someone that refuses to look at all angles.

I want 30 rnd mags, I even want 75 and 100 rnd drums for my AK. Do I need 30+ rnds for target shooting, plinking, home defense, etc? NO, not really. But the reason I want those types of magazines is probably the same reason why I bought a truck with a 390 horse 5.7 Hemi with 407 ftlbs of tourque. "Because" I WANTED IT!!! I work for a living, pay my bills, follow the rules, and even do the speed limit! I am not an evil person! Why does it hurt if I have 30+ rounds in a gun? It dosn't! That and the second amendment secures the right for me to own it. If I ever am forced to have to go to war with my guns, I want as much ammo as they can carry!

 

[leftsock]

... I have hunted quiet a bit ...

Hunted? The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about our ability as responsible citizens to be able to protect ourselves and our country. Even if that means protecting ourselves from our government.

 

[Avec]

Amendment II

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

It wouldnt be such a well regulated militia if we had a distinct disadvantage to our enemys (foreign or domestic) now would it?

Well. . .
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
except where it has, such as human or animal sacrifice for instance
or abridging the freedom of speech,
except where it has, such as libel and slander or the standard "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater

or of the press;
see 'Speech', above

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
except to fight gang activity, for instance

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
recent case is student of New Town sought to sue the state of CT, state law specifies state must allow itself to be sued. They said 'Nope, no thank you

The rights set forth in the bill of rights are not absolute. They have not been, not even the 2nd. So, what you are saying is that no body here has a reasonable argument?

How has the slippery slope argument applicable in this case specifically moreso than any other? I agree that rights have been eroded, particularly with the patriot act, but legal history has actually shown that gun legislation has actually gone in the opposite direction. Two stalwarts in banning guns: Chicago and DC have both had their laws thrown out. I believe Chicago twice. It would seem that the slippery slope is going in reverse. Compared to other diminishing rights, quite quickly in reverse.

 

[Avec]

Hunted? The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about our ability as responsible citizens to be able to protect ourselves and our country. Even if that means protecting ourselves from our government.

What "well regulated Militia" are you a member of then?

 

[GTM]

I have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

I admit, looking at the rifles, and thinking that 15 rounds is not enough. But I would like to hear why that is the case, other than the cool factor.

Because sometimes even 17 rounds of 40 caliber isn't enough to put the not-drugged-up bad guy down.

Officer Down: The Peter Soulis Incident - Below 100 - LawOfficer.com