High capacity magazines

[scottb332]

I don’t understand why he says using the 2A is not a legitimate way to justify our right to own “high capacity magazines”. If the goal is to persuade people who are on the fence about gun rights, you have to go into the debate with the assumption the other person is not a hardcore leftist gun grabber. Let us assume that no matter how well you lay out your argument, you are not going to change Senator Feinstien’s mind (or anybody on the far left).

Once you take out the hard left population, you have the center population to work with. There is going to be a large percentage of this group that really has not given the Constitution any thought for many years. They read it in school, and did not give it any more in depth thought than what it took to pass a test. They have forgotten almost all of it except for maybe bits of the preamble.

These people could possibly be educated in what the 2A says, and why the framers put it in there.

 

[ZX-14R]

I didn't call him an idiot....I merely stated that famous quote never argue with an idiot because he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
I did not say avec is an idiot......

^^^He's right, he didn't. I did it. I called him an idiot because I couldn't call him what I wanted to call him. He was and still is.....an idiot.

 

[winchester]

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.

"why" is it people like you always feel the need to bring "up a question" of how the goverment can control more aspects of our lives?

 

[Two-Tornadoes]

Lets see. Starting with the Second Amendment. If it can be infringed upon, what about the first? Oh, that has already happened when we can't speak our opinions without the threat of retribution from the IRS taking away tax free status because of something the government deems as hate speech. I know, the slippery slope thing is cliché, but true.

 

[japartridge]

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.

Regardless of any other reasons.. the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Bill of Rights is an extension of that; therefore any laws that attempt to circumvent the Constitution are null and void. That is the ethical reason. As to the moral reason... are you saying that it is acceptable to have 10 bodies, or 20 bodies, but 30 is out of the realm or moral acceptance? If 10 bodies are acceptable... then how do you propose to keep larger magazines out of the hands of criminals? There is no true and legal way to remove the millions of these magazines that are already in circulation. Do you think that madmen and criminals will abide by rules of man? Adam Lanza did not; he killed his own mother, arguably one of the most heinous crimes that exist; just to obtain the weapon(s) that were used in the most heinous crime that can be committed! The laws that are in place worked, he was denied the purchase of a rifle, hence the reason for his murdering his mother.

You mention that half of the students in one classroom escaped while he reloaded... what source do you have of that? Who can/could know that other than the students, teacher, and Mr. Lanza? I have seen that the media reports tend to be a bit "lacking" in their consistency and possibly in their accuracy in this event as well. I find it hard to believe that approx 10 - 15 students could have fled a classroom during a reload of even a shooter who is only marginally used to shooting; a reload takes around 1 - 1.5 seconds for an untrained, unpracticed shooter. If you don't believe me, try it, it's not that hard to do. Now I would think, Of course I've never been in a mass shooting so I can not speak as an expert, if I was a victim in a mass shooting situation I wouldn't really have the ability to be able to time the shooters reload, and be able to move quickly enough to evade being shot, not to say that it couldn't happen, just saying that it is not a reason to punish 99.9% of the legal owners of these magazines.

Furthermore, why is it that we cannot have these pieces of metal and polymer? Why are we so presumptuous as to think that whatever laws are made will keep people safe from the deranged and criminal? Laws only work for the law-abiding, Criminals by definition do not follow the law. The deranged are incapable of following any thing other than their own twisted mind. So again I ask how will a law keep people safe from the lawless and deranged? What is an acceptable body count? How will anything other than a good man keep an evil man in check?

 

[40calPUNISHER]

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.

Lets run with your home defense comment...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B-jaaCr6rc

Four armed suspects, IF they also have 10rd mags thats 40rds to your 10. But we all know CRIMINALS dont obey the law, thats why we call them CRIMINALS. So those CRIMINALS will most likely have 30rd mags and you, the law abiding citizen, only have 10rds.... Good luck with your 10rds.

 

[Lex Concord]

Why are they needed? Why should they be allowed? What is a reasonable argument for their possession?

I don't know that a "reasonable" argument - at least not one that would be considered reasonable by most who would be "willing to listen" - exists.

What does exist is the truth.

It has been said, and successfully demonstrated, that a lie, told often enough, is soon taken as truth.

I think that we may do well to tell the truth, stick to it, explain it well, and tell it often enough.

The simple truth is that we are all essentially part of the militia.

The simple truth is that the role of the militia, as understood by the founders, is to protect the security of a free state, not just against foreign enemies, but against domestic enemies as well.

The simple truth is that 30-round magazines are the standard capacity used by the military and LEO and, therefore, should be readily available to the militia so that they may 1) be well-regulated in being prepared to do their fulfill their intended role and 2) carry out that role should the time ever arise (God forbid) that it be necessary.

Perhaps if these truths are stated clearly, calmly, and frequently enough, eventually, they will come to be believed as so many lies have been over time.

That said, the militia aspect is merely a subset of the right to self defense. That right is, and must be, absolute. Without self defense, the concept of rights altogether crumbles. If no right to self defense exists, then one does not truly own himself, and all other perceived rights are merely privileges given by the wielder of the most power.

While we may not truly be so far away from entering a state of merely being privileged, further restrictions on arms will ensure that such a state will be the race's lot for generations to come.

The mere possession of an inanimate object obtained without fraud or force cannot, by definition, infringe on the right of another so the argument of a priori limitations to protect the rights of others is DOA.

 

[Lex Concord]

To address the separate matter of Avec's intentions, while I am still not fully convinced of them, I must say that his posts in this thread have been generally thoughtful and civil.

His prior point would be well taken. If your first instinct, upon having a deeply seated belief questioned is to attack the questioner's intelligence and or motives rather than defend your belief, you may want to consider strengthening your ability to defend your belief, or even consider whether it is yet worthy of being held.

 

[darrent]

Good luck with your 10rds.

One shot, one kill - six rounds to spare

 

[jamil]

One shot, one kill - six rounds to spare

Remember, they get to shoot too. Perhaps it ends with 4 shots, 1 kill.

 

[BroodXI]

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

if you are between the ages of 17 and 45, i got news for ya buddy. you're in the militia. that is of course you are not Biden.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt


edit: hell, im sorry for feeding the troll. please forgive me

 

[walkercolt]

To the original poster, I really think the focus should be on preventing such tragedies in the future, not trashing the 2nd amendment.

I understand your viewpoint; I along with everyone on this site hate seeing these things happen. But we need to address the people issue at sometime or current events will continue to occur with different methods and for me that is the issue.

We are not England, drug problems account for nearly 90 percent of the Homicides , we also need some sort of state-by-state mental health care system, as we have had in the past not the decayed excuse of private clinics that we have now .

Insanity can defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

That is exactly what is being proposed now. I don’t feel that my kids would be any safer by what is being proposed or you are suggesting. Some whack job could still walk up to any school with a bat and I don't even want to speculate on what might happen especially if it takes 20 minutes for the LEO's to get there, not slamming LEO's just not enough of them in some cases.

The mass shooters all have had some sort of mental issues that we are not currently capable or willing as an society to even acknowledge let alone discuss, we must blame inanimate objects for our society woes, and refuse to even mention anything that deals with certain civil liberties. Well, we need to change and change soon if we want to make a difference, you can only blame wood and steel for so long. Or you can accept the fact that non-gun violence will be worse as has been proven in many countries, such as the UK and feel proud that firearms were not involved like Piers Morgan. Rape, rob and kill with a blade and Piers will make you special guest, but defend yourself with a firearm you are part of a roaming hoard of Barbarians and a stupid person for trying to defend yourself ,liberty and safety.

It is strange that the media and society in general views serial killers (mass murders), Ted Bundy,Jeffery Dailmer, John Wayne Gacey, Night Stalker and etc. different than the mass shooters given the fact that are all are equally mentally disturbed. In regards to the serial killers the media focuses on the individual and their mental problems, mass shooters it's mainly the fire arms used and the attention on individual killer wanes after a few days. If I had a poll on CNN that had just two names one being a mass serial killer like Ted Bundy and the other being Seung-Hui Cho,
I believe that 90 percent would know Ted Bundy less than 5 percent would know Seung-Hui Cho.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States

The Indiana department of Corrections has over 6,000 inmates with some sort of mental disorder, but can only treat 240 at time. Just imagine New York,California, Chicago. While I will conceide that the majority of these people are harmless, the fact remains that they are not getting the help that they need and there are no provisions to do so. Who knows how many are on the street.

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/indiana/judge-indiana-indifferent-to-mentally-ill-inmates

Our mental health system has declined vastly over the past 20 years due to funding, lack of interest and civil liberties concerns championed by the Dems largerly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/seven-facts-about-americas-mental-health-care-system/

We can do a feel good assault weapons and 10 plus round magazine ban and accomplish nothing except not trampling on a crazed killers civil liberties.The Adam Lanzas will still be good to go.

Al Sharpton gave the best insight on the current Dem political views,"After guns are banned if people are killing with knives we will ban those too and we will ban anything after that." Note to self, self-knives and other objects have accounted for more Homicides than rifles.

Note to Al Sharpton "Day late dollar short".

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14107-fbi-more-club-and-hammer-homicides-than-rifle#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1357358444435&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenewamerican.com

No mention of increased security, better response time (alarms from school doors and windows direct 911) and etc.

Here's a list of serial killers from around the world, note the gun free countries. I guess it's better to ban guns or magazines then address the real issues. But I guess killing with other methods doesn’t count, just with 30round mags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country

I guess where we differ OP you want Adam Lanza to have ten rounds, I dont want him on street without professional help which it sounds like his mother was trying to setup months before she was killed. That goes the same for James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, William Spengler.

My rant,

Hello!!! Lets blame the people doing the killing , it wasn’t that 30 round mag, it wasn’t that rifle, it wasn’t video games, it was someone who had mental problems all thru school and even his mother saw that but the system doesn’t work when needed .

Sorry for the long post everyone.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

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.

This is the exact point where I stopped taking you seriously at all. You somehow expect a well-reasoned argument, yet say something as MONSTROUSLY stupid as that?

I would venture a very high wager you don't even know what a nosocomial infection is -

 

[ke7cq]

If you had lived in New Orleans during the flood you would have been much better assured for the survival of your family and personal; belongings from looters and thugs

 

[ke7cq]

Why are extra fuel tanks allowed on trucks and autos?

 

[FreeLand]

Here's a story from Atlanta where a mother shot an intruder 5 times in the neck and face and the guy still managed to walk out of the house.


Cops: Mother of two surprises intruder with five gunshots | www.ajc.com


Had she only hit him once and missed five times, this could have been a crime with a tragic ending for this woman and her children. If this happens to my family, I don't want my wife to be limited to a gun with a 10 round mag.

 

[Brian S.]

All I have to add is this: With regard to whether or not rights are "absolute rights", yes they are. The problem is that the word "contextually" is missing from that phrase.

Rights are absolute in the context that their exercise cannot infringe upon others' rights. In the cases of the "limits" of rights such as shouting fire in a crowded theater or engaging in human sacrifice, these are not limits on rights. They are examples of directly harming or attempting to harm other people and THAT is what is illegal and they are charged after the fact. We have people in this country that were they living elsewhere in the world, their religious beliefs could be used to justify the abuse and murder of women, children, homosexuals etc.. We don't outlaw these beliefs or monitor and limit their allowable actions. We enforce laws against abuse and murder for everyone. Likewise, we don't place controls on how, where or what can be said in the press. What we do have are repercussions if you use that right to slander or libel others…after the fact.

The point of rights is that people have a right to use their own judgement. It is not possible nor is it moral for others' judgement to serve you.

 

[PMPORTER]

Because Uncle Sam always wants more so when he comes for my lead I can give him 30 and not just 10

 

[jamil]

Because Uncle Sam always wants more so when he comes for my lead I can give him 30 and not just 10

Please don't say this in the presence of someone on the fence in this debate. This kind of comment is what helps drive people who really don't care one way or the other, to caring the wrong way.