Should very large handgun magazines be heavily regulated

[eb07]

We will continue to lose as long as there are those among us willing to compromise.

 

[ladder13]

No one has to do anything with a 50 rd drum. They can buy it, put it in the safe, and take it out to look at it. Much like what people do with guns they buy and never shoot.
Nothing illegal about either.

 

[7tenz]

Very respectfully, what makes it different? Look at this from the antis point of view. All guns are evil, no discussion, no compromise. They want to ban guns. Period. If they could, they would.
The 40 round Glock magazine is just the flavor of the day, last month it was AR rifles. Next month it will be something else: silencers, .50 BMG ammo; remember when Glocks were a threat because they didn't show up on x-rays?
NYS already has a 7 round magazine limit for handguns. Surprise! A career criminal violated the law. IMHO what we have here is a social problem; the lack of criminal punishment for felons. If the assailant in NYC last week was arrested carrying, but not using his 40 round Glock, he most probably would have been booked but released without bail. No much in the way of deterrence from his point of view. The solution? Criminals should go to prison for lengthily sentences for all gun crimes.

In conclusion, I don't own a high capacity Glock magazine, a bump stock, a pistol brace AR, a suppressor or many of the other marvelous inventions out there. However, I see no rational need to prohibit my law abiding fellow citizens from possessing them.

If they can afford to feed it I don't care if a law abiding citizen wants a machine gun.

In CA during our brief freedom week a few years ago we overloaded more than one gun supply related website. My CC took a big hit then.

 

[crows]

I am still having a problem understanding the arbitrary number of 40- 50 rounds. I have played around with a Glock 17 with a 33 round magazine. While it might be dimensionally smaller than an AR15 pistol with a 30 round magazine, I can say it didn't balance as well as the AR15, and I believe that it is arguable that it is any easier to conceal. Now add this evil 40-50 round magazine and there is even less difference.
Do you see where this is going? Those that oppose the 40-50 round magazines for the Glock, do you oppose the AR15 pistols? This is the perfect argument to go after them with this magazine ban theme. It is an easy sell of the "excessive deadliness" of the .223/5.56 vs. 9mm.
Do you see the very easy leap in "logic"?
Even leaving out the AR15 system for a moment, for the sake of the discussion, shouldn't we, just to be safe, include all 30 round magazines. And while we are at it, who really uses 20 round magazines to hunt with??
Wow, those 30 round AR15 magazines that are somehow acceptable to some on the forum just made the ban list.
And yes, that IS how it happens when you seek appeasement, next thing you know something that YOU like has made the LIST.

 

[biku324]

We will continue to lose as long as there are those among us willing to compromise.

I'd mildly suggest we will lose very often when we pick the wrong fights.

 

[K Frame Keith]

So...as someone who actually owned a gun prior to the GCA '68, I need to say that right now we are in a golden age of firearms ownership. Concealed carry licensing is widely available, in some places without any permit required. You can buy firearms on the internet and pick them up locally; you can buy ammunition and reloading tools/components online with no restriction (except a in very few places) and on and on. That was most assuredly was NOT true for the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why the paranoia? Firearms access has expanded, not contracted, and even with last year's bump in murder rates, we still enjoy murder rates far less than those of the 70s, 80s, and early-to-mid 90s.

I'm unwilling to screw all of this up over 40, 50, to 100 round magazines.

I agree with you that we should celebrate the successes and gains concerning our Second Amendment rights. This is in many ways and in many places the best of times for gun owners.
But in many jurisdictions they are banning guns, violating Second Amendment rights and pushing for more. They wont compromise and you know they wont stop. Incrementalism is a thing.

Let's protect what we have won. We did not succeed by compromise, I assure you. We succeeded by winning.

 

[K Frame Keith]

The MP-5 magazine holds 30 rounds exactly. Just saying.

 

[LVSteve]

Typical feel good liberal legislation to say "hey look! we did something! we were thinking about the children!"

Do-something-itis. It's a major plague in all the democracies of the world.

 

[biku324]

The MP-5 magazine holds 30 rounds exactly. Just saying.

It was 30 years ago - I've slept since then.

 

[Beemerguy53]

I posed these questions almost 48 hours ago, and no one has answered them:

For the no-compromise never-give-an-inch folks on here...should there be no gun laws at all, since criminals don't obey them? And politically, would that be a wise or practical position to advance?

 

[johngalt]

I posed these questions almost 48 hours ago, and no one has answered them:

For the no-compromise never-give-an-inch folks on here...should there be no gun laws at all, since criminals don't obey them?

Correct, no gun laws.

And politically, would that be a wise or practical position to advance?

Don't care.

 

[Mistered]

Do-something-itis. It's a major plague in all the democracies of the world.

And the best one of all - 'If it saves just ONE life'

I have heard/read this so much it nearly sickens me......

 

[BC38]

I'd mildly suggest we will lose very often when we pick the wrong fights.

And I'd strongly state that we lose EVERY time we compromise. The other side does NOT compromise. Their idea of compromise is US not giving up EVERYTHING they want right now.

 

[biku324]

And the best one of all - 'If it saves just ONE life'

I have heard/read this so much it nearly sickens me......


Then you haven't had to deal with enough blood.

 

[biku324]

And I'd strongly state that we lose EVERY time we compromise. The other side does NOT compromise. Their idea of compromise is US not giving up EVERYTHING they want right now.

That's not my experience. No one gets everything they want.

 

[BRL40]

When one guy can rent a truck and blow up a building, using an improvised explosive device, I not going to fret if a law abiding American citizen wants to own a magazine that holds 40-50 rounds.

 

[biku324]

When one guy can rent a truck and blow up a building, using an improvised explosive device, I not going to fret if a law abiding American citizen wants to own a magazine that holds 40-50 rounds.

Law-abiding citizens aren't the problem, until they are. Like 'ole Timmy.

 

[BC38]

That's not my experience. No one gets everything they want.

Name one time the anti-2nd Amendment crowd has compromised in any way other than propose something draconian and then merely accept a lesser infringement on our gun rights.

I'll wait.

 

[biku324]

Sure!

Do you suppose anti-gun folks did NOT want to stop CCW laws, internet ammo/component sales, trading sites like gunbroker, gun shows, etc.? Have they stopped of those yet? Only in limited places that were already more restrictive than most of America.

How do you separate the tiny minority of criminals that use guns from just folks like us? You don't know, and neither does anyone else.

 

[BC38]

Sure!

Do you suppose anti-gun folks did NOT want to stop CCW laws, internet ammo/component sales, trading sites like gunbroker, gun shows, etc.? Have they stopped of those yet? Only in limited places that were already more restrictive than most of America.

CCW laws they lost the vote. They didn't compromise - they got beat. Not the same thing.
Same for GunBroker and gun shows. They didn't willingly compromise ANYTHING. They fought it tooth and nail and got beat at the ballot box and in court.
Give and example of compromise. You know, where they said "give us this and we'll give you that". That is the definition of compromise. Getting beaten is not compromise. Look up the definition if that isn't clear enough.