1. I don't think I'm wrong about the 2nd Amendment, but if such a proposal is enacted on a federal basis, I'm sure we'll find out one way or another, as it will no doubt be challenged.
Yes, we will. If it comes to pass, that is.
2. I disagree about the police chiefs being trustworthy. There are reasons they have risen to the level they have, and not all of them are political. I think it's rather cynical to accuse them of dishonesty or ulterior motives. In any case, I find their arguments on this issue to be compelling.
Police chiefs are not county sheriffs, they are not elected by the people. They are promoted/appointed, and they get these by politicking and demagoguery.
3. I reject all slippery slope arguments. If someone presents me with what I consider to be a reasonable proposal, I will be in favor of it. If I am presented with an unreasonable proposal (such as seizure of guns from private homes) I will be opposed to it.
If only it were as simple as "we accept this, but not this". The good people of the UK and AU supported registration, believing they were doing the right thing, and after all, they had "nothing to hide", right? Fast forward a few years, and they saw large scale confiscations.
Your notion that it's not a slippery slope is fundamentally flawed; You assume that the government will not seek more power, when all evidence the world over for the entire history of man plainly demonstrates otherwise. The "common sense" stuff is incrementalism, period.
Regulation>Registration>Confiscation>Subjugation. History does repeat itself.
4. Let's take this in parts:
(a) Nothing I can do about the millions of high capacity magazines already in existence. However, a study I read in the Washington Post reported that the previous AWB ban between 1994-2004 did have a significant effect on the availability of these magazines. My main rationale for believing that, with such a ban in place, these crazies will not use them nearly as often is that they are just that: crazies. They are much more like to obtain whatever is easily obtainable. Make these magazines illegal and they WILL use smaller magazines.
No, it had a significant effect on
cost of the magazines. I came of age in the midst of the ban, and had no trouble getting 15, 20, 30 and 100 round magazines. They were just about 3 times as expensive as they were pre and post ban. There are
millions more of these magazines on the market today than in 1994 (largely because of the previous ban).
(b) While many of you are gun experts and can reload in 2 seconds or less, I don't believe that many of these crazies can. Again, I have to rely on the law enforcement experts that you guys find disreputable, but they tell me that these crazy people struggle when trying to reload and thus can be taken down at that time. Therefore a limitation saves lives. Someone actually posted if it made any difference if 10 people die instead of 17? My answer is absolutely yes. That is the point, the ONLY point of this ban.
You admit to having no experience with firearms, yet espouse knowledge of reloading times and it's effect on violent crime? Non sequiter.
(c) The examples of Columbine and Virginia Tech demonstrate that this proposal will not be 100% effective or even 70% effective. In fact, there will be no way whatsoever to prove that it was effective at all if it's put into place, and no way to disprove your arguments that it won't make any difference. I believe it will, but I can't prove a negative. Still, I think that overall lives will be saved.
Myriad studies of the '94 ban prove that you believe incorrectly.
5. The issue of whether or not one's home defense is significantly hurt by not having these magazines is debatable. I don't think it is. I believe that most of you that own high caliber magazines do so not for defensive purposes, but because you enjoy owning them- in short, for personal pleasure. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, except in this instance I think it has to be limited in order to protect society against crazy people.
Hopefully I'll never be affected by any firearm legislation in regards to self defense, because hopefully I'll never need to defend myself or my family with a firearm. But if violent actors ever do target me or my family, I hope I have enough rounds to stay in the fight.
Assuming that a certain number of rounds is enough to defend oneself from violent actors is assuming to know the impossible. How many hits will each violent criminal require to cease his actions? How many actors will there be? How many times will the defender miss? The list goes on. The reality is that a defender may run out of ammo even with a 15, 17 or even 30 round mag, or he may be killed with rounds still in the magazine. But the possibility of a defender coming up short in an armed confrontation are magnified with restrictions on magazine capacity; Would sure suck to be that law abiding citizen who managed to bring down 2 out of the three assailants with 10 rounds, but was killed while trying to reload by the surviving criminal.
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference 1-2 seconds of reloading makes for a murderer with soft targets versus a defender. One will be (maybe) minimally inconvenienced by fewer rounds, the other may lose his life.
