NEED FOR HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES?

[BlasterBob]

Yep, this is just one more thread with my thoughts about the stupidity of banning high capacity magazines. Yesterday, we heard on TV (not by our choice) old Feinstein, the Kalifornia dingbat, stress the need to get rid of all high capacity magazines because she feels that they are made strictly for killing people....... She is seriously convinced that absolutely no one but military and police have need for such items that may possibly cause huge numbers of deaths of innocent people if allowed in the hands of the regular gun owners. Like, why wouldn't a magazine with a capacity of 5 or maybe even up to the dangerous number of 10 rounds be more than sufficient....[Tooth]

To me, this is like forcing the automobile industry to equip ALL new vehicles with fuel tanks that can contain no more than 4 or 5 gallons of fuel. If you have more fuel and get into a wreck, more fuel COULD possibly cause a much larger fire and more risk of death for the vehicle occupants. Of course, this would require having to stop for fuel much much more often. And, more frequent stops at fuel stations could expose us more often to a possible robbery in progress at one of those fuel stations. Of course, our illustrious politicians probably believe this should only be of a little inconvenience for us the people but it would provide much more safety for us, the vehicle occupants.......... [Twist]

When we are target shooting or just plinking, we'd simply rather not have to refill the mag after only 5 shots or 10 shots so we want a much larger capacity to merely save time and effort.

Finally, the next bright idea that some "do gooder" politician may come up with, that would really go over like the old lead balloon, is why not just manufacture vehicles with a device/governor to make sure they are never capable of exceeding our speed limit which could cut way down on highway traffic deaths. More government control!![Rant1]

Hope the above rant does not make me appear to be a damn nut case...[Bang]

[hatidua]

Politicians have to justify their existence through new legislation. They need to look busy, in such that they merit their lifetime healthcare on the taxpayers dime, paid frequent vacations, high salaries for sitting around bickering with each other, etc.

New "hi-cap" magazine bans are a timely topic. If there's an oil spill next week, it will be new safety regulations on drilling or tankers. It's always going to be something.

[Mazin]

I agree 110%, not only does it make no sense to enact mag cap restrictions but I love how no one has talked about the competitive shooting sports, oh but I forgot competitive shooting isn't a real sport right because it invloves guns and guns are bad. [Bang]

[BlasterBob]

Yeah, the D.C. dingbats are convinced that guns are ONLY to be used for HUNTING, not self protection or target shooting/plinking.

I have seen one hell of a lot of changes in our great Country in my 75 1/2 years and most have been good changes until about 20 or 30 years ago. Far too many work ethics have gone down the toilet. Now, if I phone a business of almost any type, it will ring and ring and ring and then if it is answered at all, I seldom get a live person, just a machine and normally do NOT get a call returned as requested. When I was in the work force (20 some years ago), our phones had better be picked up/answered (with a healthy dose of courtesy/diplomacy) before it had a chance to ring the fourth ring. Now the machines will systematically help weed out the calls that someone does not want to accept. Hate to say it but you much younger guys have some really shitty times ahead of you.

OK, I'm done ranting for this day, I'll be much better tomorrow.[Rant1][Rant1]

[flan7211]

Where the hell did this idea of hunting only come up with guns? Honestly in a constitutional sense the government has more of a right to ban hunting on public lands than military style weapons. The 2A is about the ability to fight toe to toe with your government, not being able to keep your bubba rifle. Though that is protected as well!

[Mtn.man]

Guns are made for killing, nothing else.

[Ronin13]

Yeah, the D.C. dingbats are convinced that guns are ONLY to be used for HUNTING, not self protection or target shooting/plinking.

I have seen one hell of a lot of changes in our great Country in my 75 1/2 years and most have been good changes until about 20 or 30 years ago. Far too many work ethics have gone down the toilet. Now, if I phone a business of almost any type, it will ring and ring and ring and then if it is answered at all, I seldom get a live person, just a machine and normally do NOT get a call returned as requested. When I was in the work force (20 some years ago), our phones had better be picked up/answered (with a healthy dose of courtesy/diplomacy) before it had a chance to ring the fourth ring. Now the machines will systematically help weed out the calls that someone does not want to accept. Hate to say it but you much younger guys have some really shitty times ahead of you.

OK, I'm done ranting for this day, I'll be much better tomorrow.[Rant1][Rant1]

I agree completely! Thankfully, in that regard, my old man is a product of those days and we have only a voicemail service here- you call, we pickup- if we're open. We have no way to weed out crap customers (yeah I said it) and, the bane of my existence: sales/fundraising calls!

If anyone honestly believes that the second amendment protects the rights of hunters, politely tell them to chug an entire bottle of drain cleaner.

[speedysst]

I just happened to look up PMAGs and the shop RedDotScopes will not ship mags with more than 21 round capacity to City and County of Denver. Is there some restriction on those in Denver?

[Mtn.man]

I like crap customers, we charge them more.

[Mazin]

I just happened to look up PMAGs and the shop RedDotScopes will not ship mags with more than 21 round capacity to City and County of Denver. Is there some restriction on those in Denver?

http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?t=42017&highlight=denver+mag+bans

[Zundfolge]

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of those that justify whatever ban or law they want to pass with "nobody NEEDS X" and that is that in a free society, "need" is not the base criteria as to whether something should be legal or not.

You don't "need" a 4G smart phone.
You don't "need" a 300hp car.
You don't "need" more than 8 crayons in a box.
You don't "need" ice cream.
You don't "need" flavored condoms.
You don't "need" more than the 5-6 TV stations you can get off the air with an antenna.
You don't "need" a video game console.
You don't "need" stylish clothing.
You don't "need" internet forums.
You don't "need" ... you get the idea, this could go on and on forever.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "The rights of the people shall be limited only to their needs."

[sellersm]

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of those that justify whatever ban or law they want to pass with "nobody NEEDS X" and that is that in a free society, "need" is not the base criteria as to whether something should be legal or not.

You don't "need" a 4G smart phone.
You don't "need" a 300hp car.
You don't "need" more than 8 crayons in a box.
You don't "need" ice cream.
You don't "need" flavored condoms.
You don't "need" more than the 5-6 TV stations you can get off the air with an antenna.
You don't "need" a video game console.
You don't "need" stylish clothing.
You don't "need" internet forums.
You don't "need" ... you get the idea, this could go on and on forever.


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "The rights of the people shall be limited only to their needs."

^This. We shouldn't have to justify our rights...

[Clint45]

If all certain municipalities wanted to do was confiscate your hi-cap mags and make you pay a fine for each one, I would be of the opinion that certain municipalities were free to make their own rules and that would be fine . . . but it isn't that way at all. In certain states: IIRC, NY, NJ, IL, RI, MD -- they will charge you with a FELONY simply for owning a single unloaded hi-cap mag in your own home, even if you don't own a firearm or any ammunition. Zero tolerance says they can do that. A felony and mandatory jail time and forfeiture of your constitutional rights simply for owning a thin metal box with a spring inside. And they want to make it that way nationwide, which is contrary to the Constitution and unacceptable.

Purposes for hi-cap mags? Aside from the coolness factor and fun at the shooting range, there are a few scenarios where a homeowner will be on their own with no police available to protect them if they called 911. Rural homeowners often have a minimum of a 30 minute response time, if not longer. In the event of a natural catastrophe or rioting you would not be able to get through to a 911 operator, even if the phones were still operational.

The reason I own hi-cap mags (stored outside of Denver, unloaded) is so I have that option available to protect my home in the event of civil unrest, with gangs of looters going house to house. That is not ignorant paranoia . . . after all, we do seem to have a bit of a gang problem here in Denver. Gangs tend to ignore weapon laws and are well armed. They also probably have very limited supplies at their homes, and once they realize the supermarkets are stripped bare and the fast food restaurants are closed, they WILL be kicking in doors. There is no question that this will occur, the only question is when. Hopefully not until after I've moved out of Denver.

[HoneyBadger]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "The rights of the people shall be limited only to their needs."

Well put. I'm going to post this on Facebook. [Beer]

[speedysst]

I strongly disagree with the crayon statement: I most certainly need more than 8 colors!!

[Adawg38]

It's like I've been telling people that say hi cap mags are for killing. It's a game of chance when it comes to self defense at that point if you do a hi cap mag ban. A BG will always find what he wants but you want me to only have 5 rounds in my mag and if I can't stop him or them with that it's too bad? FU!

A friend looked up online today and the US murder rate he said last year was lower than the prior and stats I have seen are the rate of death by drunk drivers out weigh the deaths by guns so everyone who keeps posting all these stats of gun deaths in America need to cram it! Let's ban alcohol and cars....yeah right! Sorry no website or stats to back up my post here but they're floating around on another post somewhere.

[Whistler]

There are tons of them, this one seems unbiased:

JustFacts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

[Marlin]

This is why congress should be limited to 120 days to conduct business.

[scratchy]

This is why congress should be limited to 120 days to conduct business.


Even then, only with adult supervision.

[BlasterBob]

Even then, only with adult supervision.

Yes scratchy, you are 100% right on that one!! [Beer]
Our politicians should be required to have their staff assistants be able to read and comprehend the facts that they have read about PRIOR to recommending how their boss should respond to current issues. In other words, get the facts straight so the politician knows what the hell he/she is talking about and voting on. If their staff cannot feed them the CORRECT/up to date information, get rid of that member of their staff. Easy!!
Seems most of those folks still do NOT know the difference between a magazine and a clip. [Bang]

[cstone]

I need high capacity magazines because:

A. I want them.
B. I can afford to buy them.

If the government thought I needed high capacity magazines, it would tax others who could afford to pay for them, then provide me a program where high capacity magazines would be provided to me or the purchase would be subsidized in some manner.

If I wanted to live in a country where we could only have what we needed, I would move to North Korea.

Maybe Denver needs a medical magazine dispensary. I personally need lots of recoil therapy. [Coffee]

Be safe.

[HoneyBadger]

This is why congress should be limited to 120 days to conduct business.

And should also be limited to a single term. Nothing in politics frustrates me more than someone who chooses "politician" as their career.