Magazine size restrictions are ridiculously dumb and pointless. They do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime, or the potential thereof.
Even during a mass shooting situation, as long as people have pockets in their clothing, they have the ability to reload the firearm quickly. The average untrained person can easily reload a magazine inside of 2-3 seconds with only a tiny bit of practice.
Even with a 6 shot revolver, for more than 20 years, it's been possible to shoot all six rounds, reload 6 more, and then shoot all six of those within 3 seconds.
Here's a video of that:
Fastest shooter EVER, Jerry Miculek- World record 8 shots in 1 second & 12 shot reload! HD - YouTube
Twelve shots inside of three seconds is 4 rounds per second. Obviously the untrained person will be slower. The point is that a revolver is just as deadly as a higher capacity semi-auto, potentially more if magnum style cartridges are used. Magazine size restrictions accomplish nothing.
Even with rifles that have a convoluted and slow reloading process, they can still be reloaded within a matter of seconds. Even a bolt action rifle, or a shotgun, can maintain a surprisingly fast average rate of fire while pulling loose rounds out of a pocket, one at a time.
Proponents of magazine bans often insist that magazine size restrictions can potentially reduce the amount of potential carnage during mass shootings. However, that logic is built on layers of misguided assumptions.
It's silly to think that the threat of a speeding ticket would prevent a bank robber from speeding while running from police. It's also silly to think that magazine size restrictions will stop people from acquiring high capacity magazines, especially if they're involved with other criminal activity, or planning something that's horrific.
Even if laws were passed that outlawed clothing with pockets, outlawed handbags, and banned anything else that could hold magazines for a gun, criminals could just hide as many magazines as they want in the wasteband of their pants.
We can get into all kinds of silly points and analogies but ultimately magazine size restrictions infringe on the core purpose of the Second Amendment, which is far outside the scope of self defense purposes.
People often highlight the fact that most self defense situations are resolved within 3 shots, however that logic falls apart when considering the possibility of multiple armed attackers. Imagine having to defend your family in your home, in the middle of the night during a home invasion, against multiple armed people, while being limited to an AR-15 or a Glock that only had 10 rounds in the magazine.
My underwear don't have pockets for spare magazines.
Magazine bans simply inhibit the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves during their most desperate moments, especially where more ammo is better.
However all of that is a moot point when considering the Constitutional aspect of magazine size restrictions simply because they inhibit the people's ability to form a well regulated militia. Ultimately it's that simple.
Imagine if citizens of certian other countries in the world had the ability to own firearms and form a well regulated militia like we do. Perhaps there wouldn't be as many dictators in the world. That's what the Second Amendment is there for, it's the last line of defense for for freedom and democracy. Magazine size restrictions are detrimental.
It doesn't take a Constitutional expert to understand how important the Second Amendment is to maintaining freedom and democracy over the long term. In this country, the First Amendment is the first line of defense and the Second Amendment is the last line of defense. It's critical for the people to maintain widespread ownership of effective weapons, including magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Imagine citizens with semi-auto weapons having to defend themselves against an oppressive government who would obviously be using fully automatic weapons. Now imagine the citizens doing that and also being restricted to 10 round magazines.
How far is the Supreme Court going to let this go before ending these kinds of ridiculous and flagrant violations of our Constitutional Rights?
