Large Capacity Magazine Ban -- thoughts from Eugene Volokh

[spencerhenry]

where in the 2nd amendment does it say ANYTHING about self defense?
the premise is wrong, we as gun owners do not need to prove any NEED or suitability for any purpose. the 2nd amendment does not say "for the purposes of hunting and self defense".

[cstone]

where in the 2nd amendment does it say ANYTHING about self defense?
the premise is wrong, we as gun owners do not need to prove any NEED or suitability for any purpose. the 2nd amendment does not say "for the purposes of hunting and self defense".

The Second Amendment does not directly address the point of why we are keeping and bearing arms, it implies that arms are necessary for defense as in maintaining a well regulated militia.

The Second Amendment makes no statement about automatic or select fire weapons. It makes no statement about short barrels or suppressors either. The point behind the blog post seems to address what a future court could decide was Constitutionally acceptable limitation on weapon features.

As a group, I would assume no one here reading this is in favor of any type of magazine ban. I personally see no purpose for me in purchasing or training with 100 round magazines, but I will defend anyone who is legal in owning a weapon's right to possess magazines that operate with a million round capacity.

Future courts, legislatures, and politicians may not agree with us and that is why we, as a group of citizens should be concerned when ever anyone proposes that one of our rights be restricted in any way without direct proof that it is for the greater good of the nation.

Be safe.

[battle_sight_zero]

The 2nd in my thoughts is to allow Americans to have weapons to stop a government that over reaches and that is out of control. Not saying our government is out of control now to where we are should be fighting it. However what if the government started draging people from their houses for no reason. Taking our liberties away without reperssentation. I believe the founders had in mind that the armed and capable American was the best deterrent to a tyranny of a government. Not saying were like the other countries that have or are fighting their Governments. Most of them don't have the rights we have and as a result a deterrent to tyranantcal government. Our founders were pretty darn smart.

[sabot_round]

The Second Amendment does not directly address the point of why we are keeping and bearing arms, it implies that arms are necessary for defense as in maintaining a well regulated militia.

The Second Amendment makes no statement about automatic or select fire weapons. It makes no statement about short barrels or suppressors either. The point behind the blog post seems to address what a future court could decide was Constitutionally acceptable limitation on weapon features.

As a group, I would assume no one here reading this is in favor of any type of magazine ban. I personally see no purpose for me in purchasing or training with 100 round magazines, but I will defend anyone who is legal in owning a weapon's right to possess magazines that operate with a million round capacity.

Future courts, legislatures, and politicians may not agree with us and that is why we, as a group of citizens should be concerned when ever anyone proposes that one of our rights be restricted in any way without direct proof that it is for the greater good of the nation.

Be safe.

^^^^
THIS.
Banning any Hi-Cap magazines will only help the criminals have an unfair advantage over the law abiding citizen. Hence the word criminal, they do not follow the law. Limiting the amount of ammo that any gun can carry at any given time it's just the beginning of the erosion of our second amendments rights. Next thing you know we'll be restricted to carry flintlocks!!