Medium to High Capacity Magazine ban.

[Shoop_da_woop 3]

This proposed bill will ban the transfer and importation of high capacity magazines. The proposal states that "The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." I happen to own a drum magazine for my Saiga 12 and even though I have used it to fire over 1,000 rounds, it has killed a total of 0 people.

 

This Carolyn McCarthy states in her proposal that: "Just as we all celebrate and defend the first amendment but also understand that practical limits must be in place...so too should we be able to respect the second amendment while at the same time supporting commonsense regulations." This is the start of something terrible. First, assault rifles, then detachable mags (California), next high capacity mags everywhere. Finally they'll take our guns altogether. All in the name of Protecting you from you. These bills are written so that Americans can excercise our rights as responsibly and safely as they deem fit. In the last 20 years there have been only a handful of shootings involving high capacity magazines. Whereas "An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002." (medicalnewstoday.com)

 

My friends, we must not stand idly by while Senators and Representatives aim to regulate and limit our freedoms. The moment we let the government make our decisions for us is the moment we stop being Americans. America does not need to be told how to carry out our freedoms.

 

Link to proposed bill

http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf

[Gunfanatic 221]

[Boomstick12 11]

This proposed bill will ban the transfer and importation of high capacity magazines. The proposal states that "The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." I happen to own a drum magazine for my Saiga 12 and even though I have used it to fire over 1,000 rounds, it has killed a total of 0 people.

 

This Carolyn McCarthy states in her proposal that: "Just as we all celebrate and defend the first amendment but also understand that practical limits must be in place...so too should we be able to respect the second amendment while at the same time supporting commonsense regulations." This is the start of something terrible. First, assault rifles, then detachable mags (California), next high capacity mags everywhere. Finally they'll take our guns altogether. All in the name of Protecting you from you. These bills are written so that Americans can excercise our rights as responsibly and safely as they deem fit. In the last 20 years there have been only a handful of shootings involving high capacity magazines. Whereas "An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002." (medicalnewstoday.com)

 

My friends, we must not stand idly by while Senators and Representatives aim to regulate and limit our freedoms. The moment we let the government make our decisions for us is the moment we stop being Americans. America does not need to be told how to carry out our freedoms.

 

Link to proposed bill

http://carolynmccart...gazine_bill.pdf

 

This is only going to get worse. Our "representatives" have no interest in the safety of lives, except their own. Nothing good has EVER come from a government restricting/removing guns from it's people.

 

The problem is that a lot of people, including a lot of gun owners, still think their voices and votes count, There are a lot of people who think our "representatives" give two shits about the Constitution. It's obvious, they don't.

 

So all you can do is sit and wait. I saw a quote some where that was 100% true. It went something like, "America is in a weird transitional phase. It's to late for voting and to early to start shooting".

 

To many people still have life to good. It's human nature. They will continue to give up freedoms because they are afraid to lose the ones the government lets them keep. But such seems to be the circle of humanity...if you will. They will take, take, take, until people have had enough. It's just to bad that most people can't figure out that it would be easier to change things now rather than wait to they've lost everything and have to fight with nothing.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Boomstick12

[theplastik 67]

 

[Shoop_da_woop 3]

 

 

That is pretty hilarious! This legislature makes me want to become a representative/Senator. If Trump can run for pres, and AHHNOLD can be the gov. I think I have a chance!

[lbsrdi 1,078]

Do it^^ I would love to see a drum dump in a campain commercial!

[Shoop_da_woop 3]

Do it^^ I would love to see a drum dump in a campain commercial!

That would be my campaign slogan! "Dumping foolish laws like a 20rd drum on full auto"

[zenman223 460]

Politcal section maybe?

[Shoop_da_woop 3]

Politcal section maybe?

oh crap! there's a political section? I am sorry for mis-posting! I did a search for it, but didnt find anything. Pardon me!

[Bagelthief 1]

I say this needs more attention then it will get in the political section...KEEP IT HERE! & make it a STICKY!

[lbsrdi 1,078]

The main thing that makes us love the S-12 is the ability to use hi-cap mags. Therefore I believe this thread applys to this section. Imagine going back to only being able to purchase 5 round mags, I don't think that will happen, but I think this thread applys to the S-12.

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

I love high capacity mags as much as the next guy, but after seeing this thread, I WANT ONE OF THOSE BARRLE SHROUDS!!!

 

 

[Shoop_da_woop 3]

The main thing that makes us love the S-12 is the ability to use hi-cap mags. Therefore I believe this thread applys to this section. Imagine going back to only being able to purchase 5 round mags, I don't think that will happen, but I think this thread applys to the S-12.

I found out about his terrible bill while looking for 10rd Saiga mags.

[volkov 318]

Great. Looking forward to when we're as "civilized" as England and knives are banned.. Oh and apparently in England glasses are being considered for banning from pubs too because they can be broken and used to stab. Really getting tired of this crap. I'm starting to think it's a war of attrition we can't win. These bastards never give up no matter how little logic they have.

Edited April 7, 2011 by volkov

[DogMan 2,343]

If your home is invaded by four men and you are the lone defender of your family, about the only chance you have to make a stand is to already have a so-called high capacity mag loaded up. Assuming two rounds per criminal you have spent 8 rounds. Allowing for just one miss per criminal you have now spent 12 rounds. Is one criminal still moving and trying to come at you? Good thing you've got a few more left (but Carolyn McCarthy wants you to have to reload even before this point). A couple more in him and now you've spent 14 rounds assuming you are as good a shot as this scenario says you are. Assuming you had an 18 round mag which is at the higher end you now only have four rounds left. I don't know about you but I kind of think having a few rounds left over might be a good idea. This is the kind of common sense that Carolyn McCarthy chooses to ignore.

[WhiskeyMinion 300]

Oh and apparently in England glasses are being considered for banning from pubs too because they can be broken and used to stab.

 

They're only banning high capacity pint glasses.

 

Doesn't affect my low ball of scotch so I say bring it on. Who needs a whole pint of booze anyways?

[theplastik 67]

If your home is invaded by four men and you are the lone defender of your family, about the only chance you have to make a stand is to already have a so-called high capacity mag loaded up. Assuming two rounds per criminal you have spent 8 rounds. Allowing for just one miss per criminal you have now spent 12 rounds. Is one criminal still moving and trying to come at you? Good thing you've got a few more left (but Carolyn McCarthy wants you to have to reload even before this point). A couple more in him and now you've spent 14 rounds assuming you are as good a shot as this scenario says you are. Assuming you had an 18 round mag which is at the higher end you now only have four rounds left. I don't know about you but I kind of think having a few rounds left over might be a good idea. This is the kind of common sense that Carolyn McCarthy chooses to ignore.

 

Hale Caesar: [holding his AA-12 shotgun] "You know, the enemy's always been terrified of noise, especially shotguns. With this big boy spitting out 250 300 rounds a minute, you tell me who's tolerating that. Absolutely zero."

 

Granted, the quote is inaccurate, I don't see many people sticking around for an entire round dump from an S12 or similar.

 

I don't want to be rude, but I think this argument is moot.

 

Realistically, it would be 1 - 5 men enter your home (most likely 1 or 2), you fire between 3 - 5 shots to render armed threats to be non-threats. The other potentially armed threats leave immediately.

 

I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, just extremely unlikely.

 

Either way, the argument shouldn't be that we need high caps just to kill criminals.

 

It needs to be stressed that high cap magazines are essential for sport shooting as well as recreational shooting.

 

Banning high caps, in general, would kill our already suffering economy by eliminating thousands of jobs in the firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition industry.

 

This also affects thousands of other jobs in the metal and polymer industry and also from engineers to FFL dealers due to lack of demand.

 

Worst of all, it would turn many standard, law abiding citizens, very suddenly, into criminals simply because so many people own high caps.

 

I don't think McCarthy sees the bigger picture here.

 

I also don't see her holding very much weight in the matter since she has made no progress in over 13 years of gun control advocation.

[Jeep297 20]

This has been around for quite a while already as it was introduced soon after the Arizona shooting. In my opinion, I don't see it having any chance of passing (especially with the non-transfer of magazines). I am much more worried about what the ATF has planned since they don't require a vote.

[Mephis 82]

Banning high capacity on shotguns won't work at all.

 

Plus like I always say, there's nothing wrong with being a conscientious objector. Especially when you're objecting to a violation of your rights.

I see too many people supporting unconstitutional laws and trying to push everyone to obey them, especially on gun forums. It's pretty sick, to be honest, because if a law like this passes, it'll be the next first reply to a thread of questionable legal content.

 

Next thing you know, if someone posts that they get a double fire on a forum and asks for help, someone will report them to the ATF.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Tombs

[DogMan 2,343]

If your home is invaded by four men and you are the lone defender of your family, about the only chance you have to make a stand is to already have a so-called high capacity mag loaded up. Assuming two rounds per criminal you have spent 8 rounds. Allowing for just one miss per criminal you have now spent 12 rounds. Is one criminal still moving and trying to come at you? Good thing you've got a few more left (but Carolyn McCarthy wants you to have to reload even before this point). A couple more in him and now you've spent 14 rounds assuming you are as good a shot as this scenario says you are. Assuming you had an 18 round mag which is at the higher end you now only have four rounds left. I don't know about you but I kind of think having a few rounds left over might be a good idea. This is the kind of common sense that Carolyn McCarthy chooses to ignore.

 

 

I don't want to be rude, but I think this argument is moot.

 

Realistically, it would be 1 - 5 men enter your home (most likely 1 or 2), you fire between 3 - 5 shots to render armed threats to be non-threats. The other potentially armed threats leave immediately.

 

I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, just extremely unlikely.

 

.

I wasn't trying to state the most likely scenario. It was an intentional over-simplification to illustrate mathematically why limiting magazine capacity can put homeowners at a disadvantage. You seem to be stating yourself how a home invasion will play out when you can't know any of that. To say that "other potentially armed threats leave immediately" almost sounds like a joke. My point was simple: Here is a very simple (1+1=2) EXAMPLE of why magazine capacity should not be limited in today's world, which is a rebuttal to Carolyn McCarthy's own call for "common sense".

[The_Caged_Bird 474]

If your home is invaded by four men and you are the lone defender of your family, about the only chance you have to make a stand is to already have a so-called high capacity mag loaded up. Assuming two rounds per criminal you have spent 8 rounds. Allowing for just one miss per criminal you have now spent 12 rounds. Is one criminal still moving and trying to come at you? Good thing you've got a few more left (but Carolyn McCarthy wants you to have to reload even before this point). A couple more in him and now you've spent 14 rounds assuming you are as good a shot as this scenario says you are. Assuming you had an 18 round mag which is at the higher end you now only have four rounds left. I don't know about you but I kind of think having a few rounds left over might be a good idea. This is the kind of common sense that Carolyn McCarthy chooses to ignore.

 

 

I don't want to be rude, but I think this argument is moot.

 

Realistically, it would be 1 - 5 men enter your home (most likely 1 or 2), you fire between 3 - 5 shots to render armed threats to be non-threats. The other potentially armed threats leave immediately.

 

I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, just extremely unlikely.

 

.

I wasn't trying to state the most likely scenario. It was an intentional over-simplification to illustrate mathematically why limiting magazine capacity can put homeowners at a disadvantage. You seem to be stating yourself how a home invasion will play out when you can't know any of that. To say that "other potentially armed threats leave immediately" almost sounds like a joke. My point was simple: Here is a very simple (1+1=2) EXAMPLE of why magazine capacity should not be limited in today's world, which is a rebuttal to Carolyn McCarthy's own call for "common sense".

 

[pedal2alloy 206]

First of all, except for some very unlikely situations, you can never be carrying too much ammo.

 

Number 2, in a home invasion scenario or any other home defense situation what would happen is that a homeowner, even if fully trained in the use of a firearm, will fire many shots without scoring a single hit. So even if there is only 1 bad guy, and all you've got is a handgun, you're going to need at least a 15 round mag.

 

But with a shotgun of course, you could get by with just the 8 rounder.

[theplastik 67]

If your home is invaded by four men and you are the lone defender of your family, about the only chance you have to make a stand is to already have a so-called high capacity mag loaded up. Assuming two rounds per criminal you have spent 8 rounds. Allowing for just one miss per criminal you have now spent 12 rounds. Is one criminal still moving and trying to come at you? Good thing you've got a few more left (but Carolyn McCarthy wants you to have to reload even before this point). A couple more in him and now you've spent 14 rounds assuming you are as good a shot as this scenario says you are. Assuming you had an 18 round mag which is at the higher end you now only have four rounds left. I don't know about you but I kind of think having a few rounds left over might be a good idea. This is the kind of common sense that Carolyn McCarthy chooses to ignore.

 

I don't want to be rude, but I think this argument is moot.

 

Realistically, it would be 1 - 5 men enter your home (most likely 1 or 2), you fire between 3 - 5 shots to render armed threats to be non-threats. The other potentially armed threats leave immediately.

 

I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, just extremely unlikely.

 

.

I wasn't trying to state the most likely scenario. It was an intentional over-simplification to illustrate mathematically why limiting magazine capacity can put homeowners at a disadvantage. You seem to be stating yourself how a home invasion will play out when you can't know any of that. To say that "other potentially armed threats leave immediately" almost sounds like a joke. My point was simple: Here is a very simple (1+1=2) EXAMPLE of why magazine capacity should not be limited in today's world, which is a rebuttal to Carolyn McCarthy's own call for "common sense".

 

I see, my mistake.

I thought it was a depiction of a likely scenario rather than the emphasis on the mathematics of the situation.

 

But honestly, I think you're giving burglars more credit than deserved.

 

If someone is on the receiving end of a 14 round dump from an S12, you don't think some will at least attempt to flee when say 2 out of 5 burglars are downed so immediately and brutally?

 

 

 

 

Let's not be a child and actually contribute to the conversation/debate.

[YARP 300]

OH MY GOD RUN! THR FUCKING SKY IS FALLING! Save your money and by more high capacity mags right now, there problem temporarily solved.....

good day

[Bagelthief 1]

IF this does pass, how long do we have to stock up?

 

btw...Fuck that dumb bitch, I'm going to put my crotch thing that goes up, right down her face thing that never shuts the fuck up...

[Mephis 82]

Also another thing, who got the bright idea of calling factory standard capacity "hi capacity?"

 

For the saiga 12 it'd basically be 8, for the AK, 30. Sure, drums are actually hi capacity, but they have downsides in that they're heavy.

There's advantages and dis-advantages to everything, I don't see why politicians can't understand that.

 

Wouldn't a lower capacity magazine in an AR15 make it a target to get called a "ultra deadly politician assassination sniper platform" since it allows you to get the weapon a lot closer to the ground? Common sense+Gun laws don't mix, ever. The second amendment is pretty clear, and most all current laws are a violation of it already, much less new ones.

[DogMan 2,343]

If someone is on the receiving end of a 14 round dump from an S12, you don't think some will at least attempt to flee when say 2 out of 5 burglars are downed so immediately and brutally?

 

I don't see the point in trying to predict something like that. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I think we are on the same side here. Do we agree that a single homeowner should have a right to prepare for any eventuality, and have chance to fight back without running out of ammunition, regardless of how many run away or stay and fight? I think so.

[scalilou 2]

 

:lol: LOL......CLASSIC

[Mephis 82]

If someone is on the receiving end of a 14 round dump from an S12, you don't think some will at least attempt to flee when say 2 out of 5 burglars are downed so immediately and brutally?

 

I don't see the point in trying to predict something like that. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I think we are on the same side here. Do we agree that a single homeowner should have a right to prepare for any eventuality, and have chance to fight back without running out of ammunition, regardless of how many run away or stay and fight? I think so.

 

 

Home defense/Personal defense is more or less a god given right than a constitutional right. I.E. it goes without saying.

 

If the weapon doesn't give the people a fighting chance against who ever would attack us, then it's not really an "arm" by definition of the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I'm still scratching my head on what "sporting" has to do with anything. Last time I checked, using arms to defend your freedom has nothing to do with sport.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Tombs

[DogMan 2,343]

If someone is on the receiving end of a 14 round dump from an S12, you don't think some will at least attempt to flee when say 2 out of 5 burglars are downed so immediately and brutally?

 

I don't see the point in trying to predict something like that. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I think we are on the same side here. Do we agree that a single homeowner should have a right to prepare for any eventuality, and have chance to fight back without running out of ammunition, regardless of how many run away or stay and fight? I think so.

 

 

Home defense/Personal defense is more or less a god given right than a constitutional right. I.E. it goes without saying.

 

If the weapon doesn't give the people a fighting chance against who ever would attack us, then it's not really an "arm" by definition of the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I'm still scratching my head on what "sporting" has to do with anything. Last time I checked, using arms to defend your freedom has nothing to do with sport.

No, but it's sure gotten twisted around into a sporting issue instead of self defense and defense from government. When politicians want to kiss up to gun owners, they never say they have a .38 on the nightstand, say get video showing them stomping around in a field with borrowed plaid hunting clothes and a borrowed side by side that someone had to show him how to hold correctly.