High capacity magazines

[Sylvain]

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

You dont have to be part of a militia to have the right to be armed.
It's about the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia.

 

[jamil]

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.

Limiting magazine capacity is only brought up because it's a powerful ruse to a political end. The premise is that reducing the capacity of the container makes it inconvenient to use sufficient quantities to cause harm. If that's true, then banning high capacity beer mugs should prevent drunk driving? Right? Yeah, no. Not really. You just fill your mug more often. Just like banning big sodas prevents obesity. Not.

If we would have prevented lawful users from having standard size magazines for AR15s, would it have saved one of those kids? I'm afraid not. Why enact liberty limiting solutions that don't solve any problems? Diane Feinstein knows this wouldn't have solved anything. The details of her bill came out so soon after the shooting it was probably written years ago, waiting for a tragedy to exploit.

 

[Wysko]

I am not a criminal, terrorist, gang member, mentally unstable, a danger to myself or a danger to others so dont treat me like I am.

 

[djl02]

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

You a Troll or Mole?

 

[Bunnykid68]

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 would ask what the non emotional for it is?

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, if we are going to be stupid about this...

The yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater argument is not a limitation on the freedom of speech. It acknowledges consequences for the misuse of rights, much in the same way that I have the right to keep and bear arms, but will go to prison for shooting dumbasses who make stupid arguments against following the Constitution.

I also have to wonder what you were thinking when you used a group gathering for a fight as an example of peaceful assembly being limited. Last time I checked, fights are not peaceful.

As for the lawsuit example, violation of a right does not imply a rightful limitation but rather a violation that should (but may or may not) be properly corrected.

According to the US Code, from approximately the beginning of US law, most able-bodied adult men are part of the militia. Joining an organized militia is not a requirement. Further, the introductory clause addresses the intended purpose. It clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of any organization to keep and bear arms.

 

[Sylvain]

The rights set forth in the bill of rights are not absolute.

Yes they are.They are "natural" or "god given" rights.
The bill of right is a recognition of rights, it doesn't give you rights and without the bill of right you still have those natural and unalienable rights.

Even if im in a country where guns are illegal to own I still have the right, as a human being, to own them to protect myself.

 

[jamil]

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

^This. But I have to say, I spend less in ammo these days when I take my M&P Shield to the range.

 

[Tinner666]

Why would 30 round mags be an issue? They don't contribute to criminal intent. They're inanimate objects. They have zero efect on causing anyone to go bonkers and start killing people.

They do give us more range time.


If they were banned, the reality of no lessening of crime would set in and then the fruitcakes will set their sights on something else. And let another killer do his thing because they won't believe the person went on a rampage.

Nuts and sociopaths Do exist and the average person won't have minutes to wait until the PD arrives to protect them. They may only have nanoseconds to respond.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes they are.They are "natural" or "god given" rights.
The bill of right is a recognition of rights, it doesn't give you rights and without the bill of right you still have those natural and unalienable rights.

Even if im in a country where guns are illegal to own I still have the right, as a human being, to own them to protect myself.

Nicely put my French Pringles man

 

[chris46131]

OP: if you feel that strongly about it, I'm certain nobody will try and prevent you from voluntarily giving up YOUR high capacity magazines.

 

[IndyDave1776]

OP: if you feel that strongly about it, I'm certain nobody will try and prevent you from voluntarily giving up YOUR high capacity magazines.

I would bet he could even find volunteers who would take any such devices off his hands and not even charge him for the service!

 

[Sylvain]

Nicely put my French Pringles man

Thanks.
I will deliver a lecture on the US Constitution if anyone is interested.

 

[Avec]

Yes they are.They are "natural" or "god given" rights.
The bill of right is a recognition of rights, it doesn't give you rights and without the bill of right you still have those natural and unalienable rights.

Even if im in a country where guns are illegal to own I still have the right, as a human being, to own them to protect myself.

So, your argument is that God gave us the right to bear arms. You do realize that is a ridiculous argument.

The comparison between magazine size and beer mug size is equally retarded. Please, I expected better from you guys.

You guys are really stumbling. If you have any hope of having your rights recognized and understood, you need to proffer a more logical argument. If a bill was brought to congress that says a 10 round magazine is enough, what is a reasonable, logical argument saying it is not? Three pages in, and nothing yet. Come on. It is time to bring your A game, guys.

Just an FYI, half the kids in one classroom in New Town escaped while that turd was reloading his weapon after killing the first half. The argument against high capacity mags is that if you had to stop and reload more, fewer people would die in these incidents. Yes, I know they don't happen that often. the problem is that when they do, they are big deals. I read a statistic somewhere that gun related deaths will take over as the number one cause of death in America in the next couple years. Sometime between now and just past then, someone is going to put forth legislation. If you want to be a part of the debate, you need to have a good argument. Quoting and requoting the second amendment will no longer suffice. Actual points will be required.

If bringing up a topic or making points that you don't like is considered being a troll in this forum, you guys are pretty sheltered.

/By the way, I am not trying to be a dick. I thoroughly enjoy, and always have, strong debate that challenges my ability to think and react. I will happily parry with anyone so long as ad hominem attacks are kept to a minimum. If you don't want to stretch yourself intellectually, don't participate. I have brought up this topic because if I were to be asked, I would not have an answer. I am looking for one that makes sense.

 

[jamil]

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.

Well there are limitations to the BOR. We can't exercise our freedom of religion to make live sacrifices.

But rather than limiting people's rights preemptively, which this ban does, we accept limitations that prohibit using protected freedoms to infringe on others rights, like live sacrifices does. Banning 30 round magazines is a preemptive limitation. I'm not violating anyone's rights by using my AR15 with 30rd mags for sporting purposes or defense. Why preempt me from owning something just because someone else might use it to do bad things. Should we preempt everything potentially dangerous?

Ewww...that would be too much like ... <cringe/> ... Europe!

 

[Rookie]

Is a limit on magazine size an infringement?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, your argument is that God gave us the right to bear arms. You do realize that is a ridiculous argument.

The comparison between magazine size and beer mug size is equally retarded. Please, I expected better from you guys.

You guys are really stumbling. If you have any hope of having your rights recognized and understood, you need to proffer a more logical argument. If a bill was brought to congress that says a 10 round magazine is enough, what is a reasonable, logical argument saying it is not? Three pages in, and nothing yet. Come on. It is time to bring your A game, guys.

Just an FYI, half the kids in one classroom in New Town escaped while that turd was reloading his weapon after killing the first half. The argument against high capacity mags is that if you had to stop and reload more, fewer people would die in these incidents. Yes, I know they don't happen that often. the problem is that when they do, they are big deals. I read a statistic somewhere that gun related deaths will take over as the number one cause of death in America in the next couple years. Sometime between now and just past then, someone is going to put forth legislation. If you want to be a part of the debate, you need to have a good argument. Quoting and requoting the second amendment will no longer suffice. Actual points will be required.

If bringing up a topic or making points that you don't like is considered being a troll in this forum, you guys are pretty sheltered.

/By the way, I am not trying to be a dick. I thoroughly enjoy, and always have, strong debate that challenges my ability to think and react. I will happily parry with anyone so long as ad hominem attacks are kept to a minimum. If you don't want to stretch yourself intellectually, don't participate. I have brought up this topic because if I were to be asked, I would not have an answer. I am looking for one that makes sense.

By definition rights are not negotiable, do not require justification to anyone else's satisfaction, do not require justification of 'need' to exercise them. What part of that do you not understand?

If you are as hell-bent on spurious arguments as you appear, please be advised that more people are beaten to death in the United States than are murdered with rifles of all descriptions, 'assault' or otherwise.

If you are so fixated on addressing this using the left's ground rules and then dropping your drawers and grabbing your ankles, why don't you move to North Korea. I am sure you would be much happier there.

 

[worddoer]

Well. . .
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.

First, you say that historically, gun rights have improved. But you are incorrect. Up until the Nations Firearms Act of 1934, there were no national gun regulations. You could buy fully automatic machine guns through mail order magazines with no background check. No federal regulation existed prior to that.

Then the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted which banned a few more items from private ownership and started the background check system (I agree with the background check portion only). Not to mention that from the 1930's through the late 1990's most state laws prohibited most people from carrying a concealed weapon.

So as you can see, during most of the last 100 years, gun legislation was actually increased. It has not been until the last 10 years that we have been seeing a return of our rights. Rights that were taken away from us during to the 1930's. We are not getting more rights. We are simply getting back a portion of what we used to have.

You want a "reasonable argument". But that is impossible since "reasonable" is a relative term, not an absolute term. You definition of reasonable is different that others. For example, there are countries in the world where pedophilia and child trafficking are "reasonable".

That is an extreme example to show how unattainable your request is. In essence, unless you already agree with the argument presented, you will find it "unreasonable". So your question is impossible to answer. Therefore, you must provide us with an answer.

And if we are going to base our rights on what is reasonable, who will determine that? If it is someone who does not agree with you down the road, then you will loose your rights. What will you do then?

Isn't it interesting that you are so willing to give up someone else's rights. I wonder how you would react if someone else was so willing to give up one of the rights that you hold dear and daily enjoy...freedom of speach...freedom to assemble...amoung many others...

So if guns are killing people, then why stop at restricting magazines. Let's do this right and say we ban guns. Then there would be no guns for the criminals to buy or steal...right? Otherwise you would be a hypocrite and don't really care about others if you are not willing to do what it takes to stop the violence...correct? At least that is your argument to us.

Criminals...by definition...do not follow the law...so what makes you think that they will follow this gun law when they freely break all other laws?

Cocaine is illegal in every part of the United States. Yet, if you know where to go, you can buy it or steal it in every state in this land. Millions of people do every year. So we can see that banning or restricting an item does not keep criminals from accessing or using it.

Again, human and child trafficking is illegal in every part of the United States. Yet, up to 20,000 children and adults are taken advantage of each year in the United States alone. There are many parts of the United States that offer this despicable trade. And even though it is illegal, it still happens.

If we cannot stop drugs and if we cannot even stop human trafficking...what makes you think we will stop criminals from obtaining illegal guns and magazines.

Therefore, since it is a fact that criminals will always have guns, we must and should arm law abiding citizens as protection against evil doers. It's our only effective protection. Criminals are like water, they always look for the path of least resistance. The more resistance we can provide, the less criminal activity we will see.

Here is a quote that reveals how flawed your logic is: "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes. But there are more good men than evil. And while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." Col. Jeff Cooper

 

[rbhargan]

Interesting.

The OP claims they want to have a reasonable discussion about the merits of placing a capacity limit on magazines. Fair enough. However, while he chides others for not offering a detailed enough explanation of their arguments, he blithely dismisses the arguments of others with a contemptuous cry of "ridiculas" and "retarded."

I am not saying the OP is a troll, but it it talks like a troll ...

 

[Avec]

Well there are limitations to the BOR. We can't exercise our freedom of religion to make live sacrifices.

But rather than limiting people's rights preemptively, which this ban does, we accept limitations that prohibit using protected freedoms to infringe on others rights, like live sacrifices does. Banning 30 round magazines is a preemptive limitation. I'm not violating anyone's rights by using my AR15 with 30rd mags for sporting purposes or defense. Why preempt me from owning something just because someone else might use it to do bad things. Should we preempt everything potentially dangerous?

Ewww...that would be too much like ... <cringe/> ... Europe!

All limitations are preemptive. Saying you cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater is a preemption of something that would cause an injurious stampede. Banning thalidomide was a preemption of birth defects. It obviously would have no impact on those that already were born without limbs. Limited speed on a highway is to lower the likelihood (preemptively) of car accidents.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence covers the inalienable rights: those would be "Life, liberty and the pursuit of of happiness" don't confuse this with the Constitution.