I just have to throw in my two cents regarding the resurrected panic-mongering over hi-cap magazines. What really torques me are those people who tell us that we don't "need" hi-caps. I don't want them telling me what I "need." Karl Marx advocated that in his Critique of the Gotha Program, in which he declared "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which advocated that individuals take from society only what was necessary to meet their needs.

I even saw someone on talk-TV describing how his five-round shotgun was restricted to three rounds for hunting, and how he could not understand why anyone would "need" hi-caps.

Well, to those guys and gals who would tell me I don't need hi-cap mags, I would say to them it has nothing to do with "need," it has nothing to do with hunting, and it has nothing to do with self defense. It is instead about having the freedom to choose a legally available product that I want to own. My main interest in S&W handguns has always been ANIB Model 59 type pistols, and they were shipped with hi-cap magazines. Do I "need" those hi-caps? No, but I do want them because they are the correct magazines that were shipped with the guns.

Okay, I feel better now!

I bet a lot of the people asking "who needs 'hi-capacity' mags?" drive a $40,000 car or wear a $2,000 watch, yet would get perturbed if questioned their "need" for those.

I got in this discussion with my BIL who is a Dr and my sister who is anti gun. My BIL is a little more reasonable and has some hunting rifles and a shot gun.

Talking about the Ft Hood incident. Why do you need so many bullets? told him I target shoot and saves on reloading. Still could not understand 10 rounds or 12 rounds. I asked him what is a good limit, where do you draw the line? Is 5 to many?
I told him his Rem 870 12 gauge was probably one of the most deadly weapon around, he looked shocked. I asked him why does he need 3 rounds in it, you miss the bird you will never get off another shot. I think you should plug the shotgun to one round. That was the end of that.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

thats so they absolutely know what time they got their 18,000 repair bill

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Agree. Last January (2010) I bought my first Glock (a 19) and within a week or so bought 2 more 15's plus a 33 "just because I could." I took the filled 33 to the range once and after emptying $15 worth of 9mm in as many seconds, that was that. I still like having one though.

__________________
Lou

Yeah, with some people you can hit 'em where it hurts and they back down. I only have 10 canoes now, down from 14, and each is designed for a specific use, i.e. lakes, rivers, white water, wilderness tripping etc. When a Golfer would ask me why I "needed" so many Canoes I would ask them, why do you need so many Golf Clubs in your bag? They always "got it."

We have to stand up and fight for every aspect of our 2A rights, like high cap magazines, since one thing generally leads to another. I know by saying that here I'm just preachin' to the choir.

My thoughts were along similar lines.
As in, why does anyone NEED a 400 HP engine in their car, when a 100 HP engine can still attain the same national speed limit?

A fast, powerful car, can be compared to a firearm, in that, neither one kill, but with the wrong person handling it, can be the means to do just that.
But I don't see any BAN on high hoursepower ratings coming out of any factory. As it is, a more powerful engine advertised in ANY type of car has always been a good selling point.
WHY?
Because that's what people want, not NEED!
It's all about choice, and that means freedom, plain and simple!

As a mechanic, that is the argument I use.

Leon

i agree, who has the right to tell someone else what they can or should own just because they disagree with it, yet those same people don't want anyone telling them what they can own.
reminds me of something i saw years ago. anti gun jane fonda and here radical anti gun then husband tom hayden's house was broke into and somehow the news got out that they owned guns. when asked about it jane's reply was her stance against guns was that other people shouldn't own them, she didn't mean that it should apply to her.

Would it have made any difference if the shooter in AZ had one 32 round mag or two 13 round mags, or three 10 round mags? I think not.

its all media poisoning .. they hear full auto and auto used interchangeably .. then semi auto and full auto used interchangeably ... suddenly an AR15 is a select fire weapon and the anti's ask why you need one.
Ive been gradually educating my wife on these matters ... she represents a few decades worth of effective media poisoning. She gave me a 1911 for Christmas this year despite the heated debate over .45 auto, which she assumed meant machine gun just a year ago.
Ill call it progress

__________________
it just needs more voltage

WRONG, have you seen any new trucks with a 454 lately? Your President signed to raise the mileage standards. Car makers are going with fewer HP engines to save on gas. It is difficult to find a pickup now days that will tow 14,000 pounds. It would not shock me if all cars were equipped with 6 cylinder motors in the next five years.

I agree that the analogy is good but motors are getting weaker.

Over the last 10 years automobile motors have gotten more powerful. Displacement getting smaller in some cases,increasing in others, but HP increasing. 427 Corvettes, Hemi's, 400+ cube Mustangs.
Manufacturers are squeezing every bit of torque and HP they can out of these engines, while getting gas mileage unheard of just a couple years ago. Look for more things such as turbochargers.

theres only so much you can expect from an engine set up to achieve a given MPG figure. Fuel maps, meticulous timing, advanced engine controls even turbocharging cannot violate the laws of physics. there is a finite amount of potential energy in a given volume of fuel. once that potential is reached, she aint got no more to give ya.
if you want power .. you have to burn some fuel to get it.
but I digress .... I thought we were touching on the latest craze in media poisoning ... that being the dreaded high capacity magazine and the full auto bullet

__________________
it just needs more voltage

I own Standard Capacity magazines. Ain't no such thing as a "High Capacity" magazine. They're standard because they were designed that way. Now, 10rd mags that were imposed because of the Federal AWB. Those aren't standard, those are aborted.

I own them because of freedom of choice, because they are fun, because they give me the tiny minor advantage in a fight for my life, and because they piss of the liberals.

I'm talking horsepower, NOT cubic inches.
454! That thing barely made just over 200HP before it was discontinued, Not really a "powerhouse" now is it?
"My" President? Really?
The GM cars I work on ,mostly ARE 6 cylinders with OVER 200 HP, with even some 4 bangers making 260 HP.
And the trucks are all in the range of 350-400 HP depending on what engine it has in it..
And what other cars out there even have a V-8 anymore beside the niche market Mustang, Camaro, Corvette, Challenger or certain Cadillacs?

Sorry to disappoint you, but these new breed of cars make far more Horsepower with smaller engines when compared to cars made just 20 years ago.

Sorry also for getting off topic, but I felt this needed to be cleared up.

Leon

I agree with the right to own hi-cap mags. If someone wants a 100-round drum for their AR15 so be it.

That's also the argument I use, if the AZ shooter had a pocket full of "post ban" 10 round mags he would have done the same damage.....what does it take a split second to change a mag out? Any of these "magazine bans" are just a "get back" by politicos, who want another way to hurt us and also make their soccer mom and weak, tiny hearted Prius driving consituents all warm and fuzzy because they "banned those clips that hold 50 bullets"....also my other pet peeve, the idiots who want to take things away from us can never use the right terminology, it's always "bullets" and "clips" instead of rounds and magazines......

Hunters are some of the biggest opponents to hi-cap mags, some idiot on the news, at a GUN SHOW he was attending, was saying "there's no need for people to own AR-15's"........while he wears his blaze orange hat with a hunting tag hanging off of it......moron.....how would they respond if the govt. said they had to put plugs into 4 of the chambers of their "handgun season" revolver so they could only have a "sporting" 2 shots? After all, what "sporting man" needs a 6-shot revolver?

I do not consider a semi-auto handgun that uses "issue" mags as being "hi-cap"......in other words, my CZ-85b uses 15 round mags, my Hi-Power uses 13,my Glock 17 takes a 16 round mag, my CZ-83 .32 takes a 15 round mag. That's what they were made for. A "hi-cap" mag, IMO is an "extended" mag like a 32 rounder. I would rather buy more "standard" mags for my pistols. Nothing against them, I just don't like shooting my handguns with a mag that scrapes on the ground and can double as a baton I do have one "bullet hose" and it's a semi-auto MAC-10 with the 32 rounders, totally impractical for anything but range shooting, sights are non-existent and it handles like two bricks glued together. But hey, why did I buy it? Because I CAN!

The best explanation of "need":

I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.

Raymond Chandler

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

YES! These are excellent points!

Regarding the comment on terminology, I am not sure that the term "assault weapon" is technically accurate. I have never seen the term in any firearms literature. I suspect it is a media fabrication; by using "weapon," media have a word that would have greater emotional impact than "rifle," and it could be used to cover any firearm they wanted.

My understanding is that the term assault rifle is derived from the WWII German Sturmgewehr ("storm rifle," or in English "assault rifle") 44, and that "assault rifle" currently refers to rifles that are intended for ranges of 300 yards or less, whereas "battle" rifle describes rifles intended for use at distances of more than 300 yards. I have never read of an "assault weapon" outside mass media circles. I ask that our military friends and firearms historians on the forum clarify this; they certainly are more knowledgeable that me.

Yes, we need to ban hi-cap magazines. And while we're at it, I've noticed that we are becoming a land of fatass people. We need to ban hi-cap forks. No fork should have more than one tine.
Thank God the wise people in gooberment are going to take care of us. We are all largely doomed.

__________________
Get off my lawn.

I do not care for extreme high capacity mags but I have a few 15-19 round mags.

While the 30+ round mags are not for me, I have nothing against those that want and use them.

Just another pricey item I am not going to spend money for.

Leon, the paperwork on my 454 Vortec 7400 says 305 horsepower. The new trucks will not pull the weight my old one does and that is why I dropped a new motor in for a high price.

In the late 1980s I was touring the gun room of a very wealthy customer, amongst his couple of hundred guns of all kinds and hunting trophies was a picture he had taken at a hunting lodge. I couldn't believe my eyes, it was Jane Fonda posing with an elk she had shot. He confirmed it was her.
Steve W.

I agree! The 15 round mags that come with pistols are STANDARD CAPACITY mags- that's what the pistol was designed to use. The 10 round mags are REDUCED CAPACITY mags.

__________________
NRA Life Member

The best way to deal with the magazine-ban idjits is to ask them three questions:

Question 1:
"What was your position on magazines before the Tucson shooting?"

Question 2:
"How is it that this killing has you so adamant now?"

Question 3:
"Wouldn't it be better to just ban all guns, instead of this ineffectual magazine ban?"

(you got 'em by the short-curly's now)

You deliver the Coup de Grace:
"I hope you don't have a gun the day you need one."

...and you just walk away.

__________________
WWSSD?
What would Skeeter do?

Excellent!! I'm gonna remember that one, and will use where / when appropriate.

Greetings to everyone, my name is Zach, and I use the handle Bootspur, that handle is another story.
*
Not interested in giving up the factory hi-cap mag that came with my .40 cal, but I can do without a 30+ rounder jutting down 5 inches below the pistol's grip... Just a personal preference.

Ace22,
In reguards to the Hayden/Fonda Burglary, one of the Officers I worked with responded to that call when he was an officer with San Jose PD. When the Officers of that Department arrived at the front gate, Tom Hayden met them there and was carrying a Colt Python. The Officers ask him if anyone else was home and he replied his wife, Jane Fonda. They ask him if she was armed and he replied that she had a High Power. My friend ask Hayden why they had guns and they were so Anti Gun. He said that Hayden replied that was for other people, not he and his wife. My friend retired from that department and work for the National Park Service as a Seasonal Lawenforcement Ranger. Swell guy and he carried the Model 28 four inch that he carried all of his day with that California PD.

Rule 303

I was straight up into Revolvers during the hi-cap magazine ban (1994-2004) and was wondering if, during that time, it was illegal to use the pre-ban mags during that 10 year period? I have a few standard capacity magazines for some of my Glocks that must have been manufactured during that time frame that clearly state on them, "For Law Enforcement Use Only."

I heard a NY politician, who is in favor of the ban, make the statement on TV yesterday that even the NYPD doesn't use high capacity mags because they feel they are too dangerous.

When I heard that I said to my wife, "If that is true then the NYPD might want to look into better, or more, training for their Officers."

If it is true, I'm pretty sure that the Officers themselves aren't the cause of this policy and will just leave it at that.

It doesnt take 'that' highly skilled of a shooter to put a round on target, reload with a new mag, and put another round on target in about the same amount of time as an average shooter just putting two rounds on target.

By the same token, when I hear people say semi-auto's should be outlawed because you can shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger and reload them fast, I just show them a video of Jerry Miculek shooting and reloading an 'old fashioned' revolver. And then if thats not good enough, I'll go to a video of one of the hot-rod cowboy action shooters doing a wicked-fast string with a single action revolver.

Usually they see how rediculous their arguements are after that.

Until recently, I carried Commanders, exclusively. Never saw a need for Hi-Cap weapons, but, to each their own. Now, at 60, I have transitioned to .45acp revolvers. When asked how I intend to survive with only 6 shots, the answer comes easily:

I am old. I am very nearly always in pain. I am cranky. I have no time for nonsense. I will simply put the first bullet where it belongs and use the other five for over-kill.

I never have been one to see my CCW as being a license or mandate to defend the world. I do not cruise looking for 7-11's being held up. I carry strictly for self defense and my experience has been that most muggers, purse snatchers or stick-up men, as it were, do not travel in packs. Six rounds should do nicely.

Just my two cents...

I have a Browning Hi Power 9mm that I bought in 1968 and carried as my personal weapon during several deployments to Vietnam. Although born a Texan, I have called California home for more than forty years. California has a law forbidding the sale of pistol magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (there are quibbles in the law). I have been neutral on that law simply because, as the Marines say, "Semper Fi Mac, I got mine!" The three magazines I bought along with that Hi Power hold 13 rounds, and are 'grandfathered in'. During Vietnam, I wanted what those three magazines provided: a means to force my way through the North Vietnamese citizenry to the coastline, where I might have a chance at being rescued. In other words, war.

My first shotgun was a single shot, and I brought home a lot of duck with it. The one I used to hunt with most of my life was a Winchester Model 24 -- a double gun. I never hunted deer, but if I had, it would have been with one of my bolt action rifles, which held five cartridges. I have two revolvers, one a J-frame (which holds five rounds) and the other a 686+ (which holds seven). I'm trying to make a point here, so I had better get to it: I believe the only gun control law that has a prayer of passing in this Congress (thank goodness for that!) would be one banning the sale of pistol magazines holding more than the standard number of rounds for that pistol. And I would support a law of that sort.

Jack

I had no idea there were that many differnt kinds of canoe. I guess it makes sense when you think about it awhile.

Maybe thats why I never had much luck with the heavy clumsy 'GP' versions we had at summer camp when I was a kid.

I wouldn't. Since a peaceful environment is created more by an armed populace than by an armed constabulary (because of the huge numerical difference, therefore a huge difference in the likelihood of a perp's being affected by one or the other), the law I would support would be one that charged a $1000 annual tax for any household that does not own a firearm, since they are sponging off of those that do.

It would never be passed, but that's what we should be shooting for. We need to keep up front in the discussion just who is pro-criminal and who is pro-justice.

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

I would not support it. While I have zero use for more than one shot, I do carry a gun with 10 rounds in it. However if we let the camel get his nose under the tent, it will not be long until the rest of him follows. Allowing the government to ban high capacity mags this time, say down to ten rounds, how long will it be until they decide to go to six rounds?

Then *gasp* does that mean they'll go after my "high capacity" 8-shot revolver too??? Maybe somebody will make 'plugs' that fill two of the chambers so I dont have to turn this wicked killing machine in to be chopped up.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I say compromise. Give in to a twenty round magazine max, and enact nationwide CPL/CCW/CHL reciprocity, Right to carry.

Romeo Tango said: "I say compromise. Give in to a twenty round magazine max, and enact nationwide CPL/CCW/CHL reciprocity, Right to carry."

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! Why, in Arizona, was no one there carrying? If anyone had a handgun, besides him, would not things have changed at least a bit? Ah, but there's the rub.

Jack

the citizen who physically took him down was CCW and was armed. he opted out of drawing due to the large number of people and the risk of innocents.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

I was watching the news on a Milwaukee channel a few days after the shooting and they were interviewing people. One older man late 60s or so was talking about his deer rifle and how it only held 5 rounds and people really didn't need more that that and a good hunter only needed one round.

I started wondering how many people they really interviewed and who they chose to televise.

__________________
Stan

I expect a hi capacity magazine ban will be just a s effective in stopping crime as every other gun control law passed in this or any other country. Wouldn't it be simpler to make shooting politicians illegal? Oh wait, we tried that already and it doesn't always work either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by walnutred I expect a hi capacity magazine ban will be just a s effective in stopping crime as every other gun control law passed in this or any other country....

Therein lies the rub. Any law impacting the RTKBA must withstand strict scrutiny as must a law impacting any fundamental right. The law must be for a compelling public interest, be narrowly tailored, and it must work in satisfying the compelling objective.

If the overriding compelling public interest is to reduce crime and violence, bans on firearms and accessories do not and will not work to reduce crime and violence. During the erroneously named Federal AWB when standard and extended capacity mags were banned, rates of crime and violence were higher than after the ban expired. Crime and violence has decreased with the AW Ban on common firearms and accessories having sunsetted and right-to-carry having expanded. Those localities with state bans on standard and hi-cap mags have seen rates of crime and violence remain stagnant or increase. Those localities that do not permit lawful carry have not seen as great of reduction in rates of crime and violence as have their neigbors where conceal carry shall issue permits are granted.

Folks are using the fact that the shooter in AZ had an extended mag as a means for drumming up support to ban standard mags and usher in all sorts of gun control. I am not aware of extended mags available for most models of pistols. They may exists, but I have never seen one for a Simga, M&P, XD, H&K P Series, etc. Glock is one of the few manufacturers that make extended mags available for pistols - and even then it is only for 9mm models. (Granted some firearms are basically rifle receivers with short barrels and pistol grips that classify as "handguns" and accept rifle mags, but I don't consider those "pistols" in the same vein as M&P, Glock, 1911, etc...) Further, these folks are using the AZ incident not to target just pistol mags, but also rifle mags.

Those dead set on mayhem will work around laws: use multiple firearms for NY reloads, find pre-ban accessories, use homemade IEDs, etc. Yet, the average number of shots fired when a gun is used in the commission of a crime is merely 1.2 rounds. Prohibiting all but 10 rnd mags will have zero effect on the overall number of shots fired by criminals. As for restricting rifle magazines: nearly twice as many people were killed last year using bare hands/feet than were killed using a rifle of any type or capacity. Clearly, rifles (nor any firearm for that matter) are not the source of our crime and violence problem.

Massive social science research and historical data clearly shows the ineffectiveness of gun control in reducing crime and violence. I am not usually a cold cynic, but in this case I can see no other real reason than the proponents of gun control just do not like people who have guns. It’s not the guns they despise – it’s the people who own them: sport shooters, hunters, and self defenders. They paint every sport shooter out to be a trailer-park militia-type who wants to destroy the Republic rather than defend it.. They paint anyone who simply desires to protect themselves or their family as dangerous wanna-be Rambo vigilantes looking for any reason to draw down. They want us to believe there are no evil people in the world – only evil things and all we have to do is restrict man’s access to the things they deem evil -be that happy meals or firearms- and all our problems will disappear. Their attempts to develop public policy on such faulty premises are misguided and just plain wrong.

Our nation does have a serious crime and violence problem and it will require serious solutions. Simple-minded, knee-jerk reactionaries that blame inanimate objects as the root cause of societal violence, even if well-meaning, are way off base. They must realize that such obviously faulty and misguided approaches, without respect to the Constitution, will not solve our crime and violence issues and should not be used as the basis for law.