High Capacity Magazines

[Ed45]

this guy sounds like somebody gathering information on what we're willing to compromise-----NOTHING-NADDA--ZIP!

Amen, brother. The far left USES compromise to get gains but will NEVER reciprocate. Look at the debt reduction debacle. The Republicans went along with Obama's tax increases as part of a compromise tht would yield spending cuts for them. Guess what? No spending cuts and Obama is on a crusade to close tax loopholes and in essence collect even more taxes. He is a pathetic liar and I have no trust in the word compromise for anything to do with him or the dems. I think his attack on the Second Amendment will be a huge mistake for his administration and will be his political comeuppance.

 

[orion1]

Here is the problem; what is a high capacity magazine and who gets to define it. I know people with 100 round magazines for their Semi Automatic Sporting Rifles (AR's). The current discussion of limits seem to be towards 20 & 30 round mags. However in N.Y., up until recently it was anything over 10 rounds. That has been now changed so that anything over 7 rounds is "high capacity" and is therefore banned. So you will not be able to buy a .22 cal. Ruger 10/22, but you will be able to by a 15 shot tube fed Marlin mod. 60 .22 cal. It all comes to to subverting the 2A a little bit at a time.

 

[BlueZero]

My Red Ryder BB gun holds over 600 rounds!

 

[RedNeck Jim]

I have not yet had to use my weapons to defend the security of a free state, but that is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Not plinking, or pumpkin spattering, or hunting. So while I have not yet had a "need" for a standard (aka "high by the banners) capacity magazine, I understand the "need" for it to remain available and unrestricted in case of future need.

Outlaw the crime and not the tool. When I lived in New York, a guy shot his girlfriend (with a .22) and threw her over a cliff. He got an extra five years for using a gun in a crime. He would have gotten off easier if he had tossed her alive over the several hundred foot tall cliff.

Great post & thanks. I can make a case for use of "standard" magazines but where I really have trouble is with those huge drum magazines. When asked who "needs" such a thing, I can not come up with a good argument. I mean at the point you have a military type weapon with such a huge capacity, how different is it really from a fully automatic weapon (SAW)... especially if paired with those new fast firing stocks?

I am conflicted in that I understand why some folks would think such an item is not necessary & possibly bad for the common good. However I really don't like folks asking me why I need something. Why do I have to give them a reason or a justification? They really want me looking into their private life & asking for justification for every thing they do?

 

[RedNeck Jim]

Amen, brother. The far left USES compromise to get gains but will NEVER reciprocate. Look at the debt reduction debacle. The Republicans went along with Obama's tax increases as part of a compromise tht would yield spending cuts for them. Guess what? No spending cuts and Obama is on a crusade to close tax loopholes and in essence collect even more taxes. He is a pathetic liar and I have no trust in the word compromise for anything to do with him or the dems. I think his attack on the Second Amendment will be a huge mistake for his administration and will be his political comeuppance.

PLEASE do not have this discussion shut down with political comments. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE. I am a rookie here & understand that.

 

[hydro556]

Sheesh. I am new to this forum. I am amazed at how much ignorance of the constitution/BOR/founding documents I see.

Fast cars, liquor and shoes are not mentioned in the BOR, nor are they God given inalienable rights. The OP's argument is absurd.

God given, shall not be infringed, etc. What words do you need to hear to understand that no government has any business even discussing these. They are criminals already and not only do we stand here and allow, we even offer ideas to help?

***?

 

[ballistictoyz]

well jim if you are who you say i apologise,im just tired of the left coming on gun forums to gather info and then twisting it or cherry picking the answers they want to use against us. funny most crimes are commited with hand guns but yet they are trying for our (assault rifles)

 

[adamstonad]

There is no need for me to describe what I use my gun/magazines or ammunition for! Just know that they are mine and I use them within the limits of my Second Amendment rights!

 

[RedNeck Jim]

Here is the problem; what is a high capacity magazine and who gets to define it. I know people with 100 round magazines for their Semi Automatic Sporting Rifles (AR's). The current discussion of limits seem to be towards 20 & 30 round mags. However in N.Y., up until recently it was anything over 10 rounds. That has been now changed so that anything over 7 rounds is "high capacity" and is therefore banned. So you will not be able to buy a .22 cal. Ruger 10/22, but you will be able to by a 15 shot tube fed Marlin mod. 60 .22 cal. It all comes to to subverting the 2A a little bit at a time.

Agree completely but it is not unusual for the government to define & set limits. They do so already in so many facets of our life, such as age you can drink, how much you can drink & still drive, age you can join the military, age you can purchase a gun, etc., etc.

Did making fully automatic weapons a class 3 device (or whatever you want to call it) subvert the 2A? Did restricting the age someone can buy a gun do so? I perfectly understand our rights can be stripped from us little at a time and we have to be vigilant, but does that mean we ignore the concerns of a significant percent of our population? Do you really think you have a "need" for unrestricted use of a 200 round magazine or maybe there could be a need to define what standard is? I am not for bans but as with automatic weapons & suppressors, I can see a need for restriction.

 

[RedNeck Jim]

well jim if you are who you say i apologise,im just tired of the left coming on gun forums to gather info and then twisting it or cherry picking the answers they want to use against us. funny most crimes are commited with hand guns but yet they are trying for our (assault rifles)

Accepted & yes I am what I am. I can not & will not be labeled as any having any one belief or affiliation. I am a complex being.

I too use that argument. From what I understand, long guns of all types are used in only 4% of gun deaths. So why the heck pick on ARs? I can't give my answer because it deals with politicians.

 

[RedNeck Jim]

Sheesh. I am new to this forum. I am amazed at how much ignorance of the constitution/BOR/founding documents I see.

Fast cars, liquor and shoes are not mentioned in the BOR, nor are they God given inalienable rights. The OP's argument is absurd.

God given, shall not be infringed, etc. What words do you need to hear to understand that no government has any business even discussing these. They are criminals already and not only do we stand here and allow, we even offer ideas to help?

***?

Your gun rights are not absolute, no more than free speech is. We already have restrictions, do we not?

 

[hydro556]

Your gun rights are not absolute, no more than free speech is. We already have restrictions, do we not?

you're mistaken. Constitution is the document to which everything is beholden. to which our elected " leaders" are sworn to uphold.

just because it has been illegally subverted does not mean those who trample it have the right to do so.

either Americans will stand up and abolish those who have trampled it, or we will be the first generation of Americans who allowed liberty to be made extinct.

time will tell, but in either case, you are wrong.

 

[CrazyFingers]

This Thread:

 

[Kayback]

And there are restrictions on what you can do with a gun. Surprisingly things like murder are still illegal if you use a firearm.

Trying to limit the tool when there are plenty of other rules against killing people with guns "to limit the killing" is the most retarded thing ever.

EVER.

Look at that event that happened recently where a woman defended herself and her family from an attacker with a 6 shot revolver, hitting the assailant 5 times. He didn't die. Chances are he could have still been a threat. If there were more than one of him? How does "7 rounds" help you when 5 solids hits don't stop one person? Even if it DID, you don't have enough to stop any more attackers.

Often there is more than one badguy, often they take more than one round to stop. Having to reload because someone decided a low number of rounds is a good idea is time you could be fighting to protect your life.

That being said, I use "high capacity" magazines (40, 60, 75 and 100) in various shooting competitions and in various fun events. I have literally fired hundreds of thousands of rounds without killing anyone. Why should I be penalized because some people do use firearms to break the law?

KBK

 

[RedNeck Jim]

KBK, thanks for that insightful post. That is EXACTLY what I am looking for!

 

[Majorlk]

This "guy" is an American citizen who has proudly served in our military. I am a business owner that has paid taxes all my life & expects nothing from my government. I am a God fearing giver... not a taker. I have concerns that our government might fail to some extent in the future & that anarchy will be the result. That is why I arm myself & stock many thousands of rounds of ammo & why I live on 20 acres in the country & am "prepped" for the worst case situation.

This "guy" simply asked for info & feedback to be able to better communicate with non gun owners & be prepared to make my case. You know, there is nothing wrong with communication & compromise. If our founding fathers felt as you, that any compromise was not possible, you would now be paying for your guns with British pounds... assuming the queen would allow you to own one.

How come I knew I would receive such a response?

Uh ... The founding fathers DID NOT compromise with the crown! We went to WAR WITH THE CROWN - AND WON!!!

Please don't try to rewrite history.

 

[beemerphile]

One round in the hands of a criminal is too many. One hundred in the hands of an honest person is not too much.

7, 10, 20, 30 re just arbitrary numbers. Most 100 round AR style magazines are jam-o-matics. The public is safer if the perp has several of those than a single good PMag.

 

[Majorlk]

Your gun rights are not absolute, no more than free speech is. We already have restrictions, do we not?

And every one of them violates the spirit and intent of the constitution.

The anti-gun crowd just loves gun owners with your attitude. That's the line they have been spouting for years!

 

[don5]

The original question the op posted was " how do you use your large capacity magazines?"
I will attempt to answer this question very simply. My response needs no return explanation from the op as most reasonable ADULTS can understand the answer. The "large capacity magazines" are used for various purposes depending on the caliber of the weapon in use. For example, although our military uses their automatic rifles for combat, some people in the south use theirs for hog hunting. Now I have never been hog hunting but I hear it is very dangerous and the hogs travel quickly in groups. According to what I have seen, on the TV no less, when you are on the ground and in a dense thicket with a large group around, the one thing that you want it is a weapon that has a large ammo capability strictly for your own self protection. That is what is known as common sense. Now in this particular forum we use a rimfire version of the same weapon. Having a "large capacity" magazine allows certain shooters the ability to perform certain "drills" to either keep their skills current while they are not on deployment with the military or they help keep our law enforcement officers "sharp", while not costing the officer a lot of money to train. Now I feel that explains the military/law enforcement side of the question. I will address the civilian side after lunch. Don't go away as I will be back directly. And no more question from the op as I am answering his/her original question. Thank you and I shall return.

 

[RedNeck Jim]

Uh ... The founding fathers DID NOT compromise with the crown! We went to WAR WITH THE CROWN - AND WON!!!

Please don't try to rewrite history.

History tells us our founding fathers had to compromise with each other. Some wanted small government... some large. Some wanted all the power at state level... some at federal.

Point is, if they hadn't compromised our "experiment" could never have worked. Without compromise, there would have been no Constitution. That wonderful document was not written by one person, giving just their perception on how to run a new country. That wonderful document was the most perfect example of compromise know to man.

Our founding father's compromise allowed us to agree to separate from the Crown & allowed us to work TOGETHER to establish our new country.

Even a redneck from Mississippi understands that truth. When did compromise become a dirty word?