"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

[1stmarine]

If everything is nice and calm I don't need a 30 round magazine. Might not even need a firearm. But then when things go south then we need all help we can get to defend our families and ourselves.
So, limiting by men's made laws the capability for the humans to be able to defend themselves by any means they consider necessary is not just irrational but against natural law.
We all know that a mother bear will use anything in her arsenal to defend her cubs and we accept that because it is natural law. We do not hold her guilty of praying w/o reason. So what kind of entitlement can anyone have to deny such a fundamental right given by the laws of God and nature to any sentient being ?

What I have been doing the last few days is to write all senators, post online with my limited knowledge of the media circus, and donate all my Christmas money to the NRA, Scope and other organizations fighting for liberty.

Read and share this I got in the WSJ...

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...TAyMDIwNzEyNDcyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email

Thanks.

 

[gossamer]

You argue there is no compelling NEED for these devices; a point which could be refuted if you're willing to debate at length and discuss topics which are frowned upon at THR (such as the need to defend one's homeland from governments which turn on their citizens).

That is NOT what I argued. I argued that various needs (and rights) have been found to be curtail-able by the SCOTUS and our society on the grounds that those needs are trumped by other, "greater" societal goods. So I do not advocate using the "need" argument on those grounds.

The argument that the magazine limitation would criminalize otherwise law abiding people is a strong one. But our country has dealt with this before.

I'm still not sure we've formulated a sufficiently strong argument in favor of hi-cap magazines. I think for it to work these arguments have to be rooted in law because that is where they will ultimately be challenged. That's why the strongest one may be "I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen with no kind of gun fetish, and you propose criminalizing me."

 

[Trent]

The argument that the magazine limitation would criminalize otherwise law abiding people is a strong one. But our country has dealt with this before.

Our country has never dealt with a firearms ban of this particular magnitude, or with these particular repercussions. The original AWB was grandfathered without registration, did not prohibit the transfer or sale of weapons or magazines in existence prior to the enactment. You, as well as anyone else, knows that a ban lacking these provisions is ineffective; I was able to buy high-capacity magazines at whim, a full 10 years in to the 10 year ban.

As magazines do NOT have serial numbers or other uniquely identifiable characteristics, it is impossible to tell WHEN they were manufactured, or to register or track WHO owns them. The ONLY way the magazine ban will work, in the end, is to make possession of them outright illegal. Which, constitutionally, should not be possible.

Illinois attempted to side step this by requiring photographs of every high capacity feeding device and/or original sales receipts. (The latter being impossible to provide, since I've paid cash for most everything over the years). Their logic is "at the onset of the ban, you had "X" magazines, if we catch you with "X+1" you're a felon.

I will not now, or ever, catalog my personal possessions for the benefit of the Government. We've recently seen an example of exactly what everyone fears in the release of all those concealed carry permit holders in New York. Literally - a roadmap right to gun owner's homes.

The risk that I *forgot* to include a magazine that has been sitting in a box somewhere is very, very real. I was recently cleaning the garage and found a box containing 4 fully loaded AK-47 30-round magazines and two 100 round German 30 cal belts, which I had MISSED when calculating the total numbers I quoted earlier this year. They'd been sitting in that box for at least 5 years, the box hadn't been opened since we bought our new house and moved!

Boom. I just became a felon, if that law had passed in Illinois. A law enforcement search would no doubt be exhaustive. What if I double-count, miss-count, or forget to photograph a particular magazine to prove I owned it prior to the ban... I'm screwed.

Do I then become a felon due to bad math, or getting distracted by one of my five children's theatrics, or the phone ringing, or whatever?

This isn't theoretical, not at all. A law was presented THIS YEAR in my state to do this very thing. Feinstein just presented something far worse.

I will not now, not ever, either willingly or compelled by force, give up or catalog my personal belongings for the benefit of a government which is hell bent on denying me the right to those items.

I'm still not sure we've formulated a sufficiently strong argument in favor of hi-cap magazines. I think for it to work these arguments have to be rooted in law because that is where they will ultimately be challenged. That's why the strongest one may be "I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen with no kind of gun fetish, and you propose criminalizing me."

There's a stronger argument to be put forth, much stronger. But such topics are verboten on this forum. People's beliefs, when put to the test, can have undesirable outcomes.

 

[tomrkba]

This whole "sporting purposes" nonsense has to go away. The purpose of the Second Amendment, according to The Federalist Papers, is war. Sport shooting, hunting and personal defense are nice side effects. Thirty round and larger capacity magazines serve a military and militia purpose and therefore are protected under the Second Amendment.

 

[1stmarine]

The sporting purposes refers to hunting and sports that is a privilege.
The 2nd amendment that is the actual right doesn't imply any limitations for people to be able to defend themselves effectively and efficiently in any form of shape they might consider necessary.
They can put anything they want in the law, that proposal is against the 2nd amendment so it should be put in the trash can.
All we have to say all firearms owners with one single voice is we will not obey that law because of the result of that law being passed and implemented only means that the check and balances have failed to protect the supreme law of the land.
We know the politicians taking the votes are the puppets of the sensationalist media and hidden agendas.
The emphasis should be only in laws that help keep any guns away from criminals and assist with the keeping of legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

 

[gossamer]

Our country has never dealt with a firearms ban of this particular magnitude, or with these particular repercussions.

I'm talking about the fact that this country has dealt with the legal concept that otherwise law-abiding people would be criminals if a new law passed. There have been exceptions, exclusions, "grandfatherings," time limitations, etc. etc. in all kinds of areas concerning restrictions on liberties and rights that have been found satisfactory and reasonable by the SCOTUS to sufficiently avoid the criminalization of non-criminals.

 

[nazshooter]

He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40).

That's incredibly short sighted. I don't plan to publish anything very controversial, I've never had my property searched without a warrant, I'm not black etc. Does this mean I shouldn't care if we ditch the 1st, 4th, 14&15th amendments? You cannot infringe on one of our rights without weakening the protections on the others. You yourself have proven the point by using various historical infringements on the 1A in order to justify infringements on the 2A. We either hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.

Which is exactly equivalent to my right to own a 10+ round magazine so long as I don't use it to commit a crime. What someone else does with theirs is irrelevant in both cases. The right to own a sports car (or even a horse) isn't anywhere in the Constitution but firearms are which means they get MORE protection.

Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

Alcohol is very much appropriate in that people who abuse it often cause harm to others. There is a town not far from me that has a problem with street alcoholics. It's so bad that some of these guys have more than 400 police contacts per year!

We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals....

Yes, but they are still allowed to protest and there has been no limit imposed on the content of their protest. This is equivalent to gun free zones. Many of us think they are counterproductive but few believe they are actually unconstitutional in most cases.

There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

Interestingly enough that line comes from the case of Schenck v. United States where the court said that the government could ban distribution of fliers opposing the draft because it threatened the governments recruitment efforts. Do you really want to tie your argument to THAT sort of thinking?

So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

There is NO right to be "free of fear". At a bare minimum it is up to those fearful people to show that MY 30+ round magazine is ACTUALLY putting their child in danger. Their fear is not an argument against my Constitutional right any more than my unfounded fear of women voting is an argument against allowing them to do so.

I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."

All that shows is that "slippery slopes" tend to work both ways. You've just added evidence that we really shouldn't give in just a little because it's likely to be the start of a trend.

I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served.

More specifically, when you are talking about an individual right, such limitations need to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. Once again, it is up to the government to prove that any particular infringement meets these requirements, not up to the people to prove that it does not.

(2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."

A magazine is clearly a part of a firearm. To argue that the government cannot infringe on our ability to own or carry a firearm but can infringe on our ability to own or carry each individual sub-component would make the entire 2nd null and void.

I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."

Unless you think being shot to death is worse than being murdered in any other way we should be talking about mass KILLINGS, not mass SHOOTINGS. Do you have ANY evidence that past magazine limits have significantly reduced the number or severity of mass killings?

 

[nazshooter]

How about this? Millions of Americans think 10+ round magazines are so necessary that they have given up their hard earned money in order to buy them as well as to buy guns designed to utilize them.

 

[Collector0311]

We hunt hogs here in Texas, they cause tens of millions of dollars in property damage annually. Not to mention maiming and killing people.

I once watched my uncle be charged by a hog while we were hunting, and he was reloading his revolver. My dad shot the hog 8 times before it dropped and had only 3 rounds left in a 30rd mag when it was over. He needed it. And I still have an uncle. Anyone care to counter? Didn't think so.

 

[David E]

How about this? Millions of Americans think 10+ round magazines are so necessary that they have given up their hard earned money in order to buy them as well as to buy guns designed to utilize them.

Why would the antis care?

In addition to personal defense, the 2A is about defending the country from threats foreign and domestic. The forefathers expected the militia (citizenry) to have a current arm suitable for the task.

 

[Trent]

Q: "Why do you need 30 round magazines?"

A: "In case a bunch of humorless folks in body armor and tactical gear show up trying to take them away under threat of deadly force."

But, you could still do that with a 10 round fixed magazine, you'd just have to be able to feed it quickly.

Then some genius will devise a speedloader system for rifles with fixed magazines... OH WAIT THEY HAVE (M1 Garand, SKS, etc.).

So fixed magazine capacity will be limited and speedloaders of all sorts will be made illegal.

Of course, I could do the same thing with 30x 10 round fixed capacity long guns that I can do with one assault rifle and 10x 30 round magazines.

So then they'll impose a limit on how many firearms you can possess.

But, a person with one firearms will still be able to kill 1000 people even if it's single shot... So you'll need to limit how much ammunition a person can possess. (Something else they've hinted at... "thousands of rounds of ammo" becomes a "stockpile" in every news report... disregard in an average month many of us shoot a thousand or more rounds of ammo...)

Of course, then those evil hunting rifles like the 300 Win Mag and 7mm Remington Magnum and anything else capable of emptying a skull at 1/2 mile or more will be deemed dangerous.. so those will go too...

Down to 22 rimfires, but you can stuff that against someone's temple and even a 22 short will end them (very quietly, at that).

So those go too.

The end result is "all guns must go."

Get it through your heads! This is the thought process and the conclusion that has been reached on the other side. ALL weapons must go.

Period.

Every minor victory we hand them advances them towards that goal.

So quit giving ground.

 

[FiremanJim]

I'm a firefighter/paramedic.
Not saying that to be stuck up or anything. Just saying that so you know, I'm not some guy blowing wind out of his butt.
A friend of mine who is a policeman for the city we work for was on a routine stop, and was suddenly fired upon by a man with a AK 47 intending to kill his psychiatrist and everyone in the Dr's office until my buddy pulled him over. He had 30 round mags. He swiss cheesed the patrol car and was shot with a police issue Glock that held 15 rounds. My buddy wasnt hit, and the guy survived his wounds and he's currently incarcerated.

I've got eight 9mm holes in my house and one in my jeep wrangler when some kids had a party across the street and started shooting.
Two kids dead and seven wounded. So I'm no starnger to gun violence at work or at home.
I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however.
Guns seem to scare everybody, as well they should. They shouldnt be taken lightly, but given the utmost respect for what it is they do.

Do we need AR's or semi-auto weapons? Probably not. I have an AR, and I love it, but I havent used it for much else than target shooting.
For serious hunting, I have a uberti 1873 rifle and a remington 700 M24 replica in .308
For self defence I have a Sig P226.
Havent had to shoot anybody, and hope I never do.

To be honest, 30 round mags are cool, and I like my windowed PMAG's.
Do I need them, naw. Not unless the zombie apocalypse really happens, and I aint holding my breath.

If I cant have my AR anymore, I will HAPPILY donate it it to the guys in the SWAT team who I KNOW will put it to good use.

Thing is, it really doesnt matter whether you ban 30 round mags or 60 rounders or 100 rounders or belt fed boxes or whatever.

Because those who want them, have ALREADY got them.
If they are banned, only those who HAVENT bought them already, are SOL.
And if 30 round magazines are banned from the streets, period?

Guess what, those who respect the law WILL leave them at home.

But a psycho whose determined to kill innocent lives, doesnt care if he uses 20,30,60, 100 round mags or not.
A guy in China and a fella in Japan used kitchen knives to kill schoolchildren.

And kitchen knives still arent banned in those countries.

I hear your brothers view, and I respect it. But in truth, most of us in Fire, Police, and EMS know that even if there was a COMPLETE ban of ALL weapons, and NOBODY could even buy a slingshot, it wouldnt matter.

A person who's determined to kill, is going to find a way to kill.

Banning 30 round mags is pointless at this point.
It's WAY too late. Everyones got them.
ESPECIALLY the psychotic, deranged people.

And chances are, he's got more of them than most of us do.
And he doesnt care if it's banned or not.

Tell your brother not to get too heated about all this. Thats what the media wants.
Good for ratings. And does nothing but stir up anger.....................................................And better ratings.

The good people who own guns and 30 round mags and dont bother anyone arent our enemies, and dont deserve to be demonized.
The psycho who wants to kill for no reason already has his weapons, or can get the without saying "purty please?"
It's just a matter of time before he snaps and uses them.

Banning guns and mags may help, but I doubt it.
You can buy stuff ILLEGALLY, without anyone knowing.
And even if a psycho LEGALLY buys 20 round or 10 round mags because he wants to play nice.

A nickels worth of duct tape easily makes a 10 rounder into a twenty,or a twenty into a forty.


Tell your brother to do what he thinks is right, but it aint worth getting pissed of at his brother for.

The damage is done. Whats going on now is just political public relations damage control,and media ratings boosting, which seems to be slacking off now that everyones attention is on this fiscal cliff stuff.

And of course, boosting gun and gun magazine sales, which if I'm not mistaken, was the exact opposite of what everyone wanted.
All this fear and anger did, was help boost the economy, and gun gougers, who are laughing their butts off as they stuff their wallets.

Want to really make a difference, join us in public safety and help take care of our neighbors.

Or ask the government for people to get a mental health screening would be a bigger help than gun control nowadays.

Leave the speculation and politics and anger for the guys not working out here in the streets and getting shot at.

And now that unarmed firefighters are apparently on the killing list for psychos, I could really care less what type rifle or capacity magazine a guy has who's shooting at me.

All I wanna know is who and where the jackass is shooting at me, and when is backup gonna get here.

 

[Collector0311]

Another thing. Even IF I didn't "need" 30rd mags (which I do) that doesn't matter. I've fought and bled and watched my friends die to protect the freedoms we enjoy. That's all the "need" I need.

 

[JustinJ]

I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however.

The reason nobody is calling for the banning of those items is that they are recognized as necessary items for our modern lives and the positives of their availability drastically outweigh the negatives. If nobody saw value in such items there most certainly would be calls to ban them. Those who advocate banning magazines and specific guns fail to see value in them.

 

[armoredman]

Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.

Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch.
Did I cry for banning of Cadillac cars after a maniac drove one onto a school playground trying run over as many as he could, telling people he was "killing the onnocents"? True story. Did we cry to ban box cutters when they were used to commit the most horrific crime in US history on Spet 11th? Nope.
Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade.

 

[Trent]

Another point.

I had the state police contact ME, as a private individual, after I closed up my gun shop in '09. "You still have any AR receivers or parts?"

They couldn't GET any.

I sold them a couple dozen. AT A LOSS.

When the local Marine reserve unit was shipping out for a tour of duty in Iraq, one of them called me up. The conversation led to me driving over to Bartonville, IL and giving a full day, hands-on seminar to their company on Klashnikov-type weapons (including live fire of 3,000 rounds of ammunition).

Arming the state police... training our Marines... self-defense, there's many roles for these weapons.

Boil it all down, we possess them for the greater good.

 

[bikerdoc]

Blaming the tool is easier than blaming a wack job that should have been dealt with already.
What we really need is a government that does not have its head up.........

 

[JustinJ]

Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch.

Cool your jets. Nobody has accused you of anything. Calling his comments such is preposterous.

Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade.

Is that supposed to be some thinly veiled threat because there are quite a few laws already in place that prevent you from legally possessing once legal items such as select fire weapons? Or are you just waiting to open "Pandora's box" for the right time? Yeah, right.

 

[FiremanJim]

"I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however."

That was to help make a point, but hopefully the original poster of this thread can show this to his brother, and help ease some of the tension.

 

[FiremanJim]

And on that note,......bye.

 

[browningguy]

Actually twice in the past few years the NYPD has needed 50 and 47 shots to put down a single unarmed individual.

Can you even imagine how many shots you might need for an actual armed bad guy.

 

[W.E.G.]

I respond by to that attack with a question.

I ask the inquisitor whether they have any firearms experience.

Their answer is usually one which opens the door wid to the complete de-construction of their attack.
Usually they just run away, like the debate-cowards that they usually are, before I'm anywhere close to done with them.

 

[armoredman]

"Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch."
Cool your jets. Nobody has accused you of anything. Calling his comments such is preposterous.

Hmm, you mean this,

"It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

...doesn't mean what it says? Ah, of course it was a universal statement, a global "me" as opposed to specific "me"...as was my response to the mythical person making this accusation.

"
Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade."
Is that supposed to be some thinly veiled threat because there are quite a few laws already in place that prevent you from legally possessing once legal items such as select fire weapons? Or are you just waiting to open "Pandora's box" for the right time? Yeah, right.

I can possess such firearms if I have the money, since I live in a Free State, no laws prevent my legal ownership thereof.
You misread again - this is what happens when free men are disbarred the right of arms. The Pandora's Box I refer to is confiscation, (such as the Governor of New York has bluntly stated he wishes to happen and will work for in his state), and what happens afterwards. Remember signs that read, "Armas, por que?" They went up all over Cuba after Castro won the revolution. Wonderful bastion of freedom, Cuba, people just dying to leave the place. By the way, accusing me of threatening anyone is completely out of line.

I say it again, don't blame me and mine for what some lunatic did elsewhere. Don't blame innocents for the work of madmen. Now if you're all done with insulting comments, pehaps can we get back to the discussion?

 

[willroute]

To shoot 30 rounds in one magazine.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

"For the children" doesn't cut it with me. I have a child too, now grown. I have never made the asinine connection between her safety and the mag capacity of any firearm.

As a matter of fact in a lifetime of owning firearms I have never felt the urge to turn them loose on the public. So why do I need a 30 rd mag? I haven't ... yet. I by gosh I have to ask who does it hurt that I have a few?