• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Absurdity Of Magazine Bans

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Here is a video on a proposal from the house to ban "high capacity" magazines, and how absurd it would be to do so.
YouTube
 
uptower said:
I prefer to call them 'clips'...
Click to expand...
How about peaches?

Cato institute report lays out case against banning so-called “high capacity” magazines. A good read for firearms owners and educational for anti gunners;

“There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term “high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard, common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories, but essential components of modern firearms.

Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving large-capacity magazines. But the connection between the crime and the magazine is conjectural at best, while the prohibitions against such magazines have disrupted the lives of many otherwise law-abiding gun owners — and all without any evidence of improvements in public safety. In some courts, it seems that merely uttering the phrase “gun violence” suffices to justify any exercise of state power. These policies are ineffective, dangerous, and unconstitutional.”

Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions | Cato Institute
 
NeverTrump said:
Yawn...
Click to expand...
So let me see if I got this straight. EVEN IF that crackpot "high capacity" magazine ban passes,they are saying "but it's ok to use 10 round capacity magazines" if someone wants to shoot up a school. You do know that's what Cruz used?
 
zsu2357 said:
So let me see if I got this straight. EVEN IF that crackpot "high capacity" magazine ban passes,they are saying "but it's ok to use 10 round capacity magazines" if someone wants to shoot up a school. You do know that's what Cruz used?
Click to expand...

In Colorado in 2013, with a full Democratic majority, rushed to passed as much gun control as they could. A state Congresswoman known as "Rapsheet Rhonda" for her previous check kiting conviction, introduced a bill for the safety of Coloradoans that insisted upon a ten round capacity limit to keep us all safe. Every Democrat supported it unequivocally. In the discusson of the bill prior to the vote another Democrat, in a move still not really understood, moved to amend the bill to allow 15 rounds maximum in an effort he later called a compromise. Once again, every single Democrat, all of whom insisted that 10 rounds was needed to keep us safe, voted the amendment to change the limit to 15. Baaaaah, baaaaah.

I call this the "five more dead schoolkids is okay" law in their honor.
 
Last edited:
NeverTrump said:
Yawn...
Click to expand...

you should get some sleep rather than keeping yourself up on threads where you really don't have anything relevant to contribute.
 
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...

Tell me again of your firefight experience.

Where does the government get the authority to tell the People how many rounds their guns can hold?
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...

How often would society benefit from that? Isn't that like outlawing all bushes in residential yards because criminals could potentially hide in them? How is that worth it?
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...

your own argument destroys your position

criminals choose the time and place to attack citizens. They already violate numerous laws when they do so. People who carry guns when it is illegal for them to do so-are not going to follow magazine bans (and given there are millions of normal capacity magazines in circulation-they will get them). Honest citizens MIGHT. and when a house is invaded in the middle of a night-or thugs storm into a business to rob it-the defender might only have time to grab a gun-and not fill his pockets with extra mags

magazine limits are designed to help violent criminals
 
lwf said:
How often would society benefit from that? Isn't that like outlawing all bushes in residential yards because criminals could potentially hide in them? How is that worth it?
Click to expand...

gun banners are either ignorant or dishonest. They think those willing to shoot cops or engage in armed robbery are going to follow magazine laws. These gun banners are ignorant as to how many such magazines are in circulation.
 
Rucker61 said:
Tell me again of your firefight experience.

Where does the government get the authority to tell the People how many rounds their guns can hold?
Click to expand...

He is on record wanting to ban privately owned firearms. SO when a gun banner talks about limits-its only a stepping stone to complete bans.
 
uptower said:
I prefer to call them 'clips'...
Click to expand...
I like to call them 'clips' just to irritate the people with sticks up their asses :mrgreen:
 
RaleBulgarian said:
How about peaches?

Cato institute report lays out case against banning so-called “high capacity” magazines. A good read for firearms owners and educational for anti gunners;

“There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term “high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard, common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories, but essential components of modern firearms.

Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving large-capacity magazines. But the connection between the crime and the magazine is conjectural at best, while the prohibitions against such magazines have disrupted the lives of many otherwise law-abiding gun owners — and all without any evidence of improvements in public safety. In some courts, it seems that merely uttering the phrase “gun violence” suffices to justify any exercise of state power. These policies are ineffective, dangerous, and unconstitutional.”

Losing Count: The Empty Case for “High-Capacity” Magazine Restrictions | Cato Institute
Click to expand...
You're not even speaking their language when you make posts like this.

They speak emotion.
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...
You've never been in combat.
 
lwf said:
How often would society benefit from that? Isn't that like outlawing all bushes in residential yards because criminals could potentially hide in them? How is that worth it?
Click to expand...
Yup, you gotta cut off your own dick to prevent other people from raping.
 
ryzorsden said:
There's actually some real logical benefits to banning high capacity magazines.

In a firefight, one of the keys to winning the firefight that is longer than most (30+ seconds) is to wait for your opponent to reload. If he has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum (like in Aurora), you're gunna have to wait longer, and he has more of a chance to shoot you.

Microseconds make a different in a firefight. Most cops don't want to face off against and opponent that has more than 10 rounds per magazine.

It's logical. But clearly beyond conservative thinking....
Click to expand...

Its "logical"? :confused:

Could you please tell us all how you did it in a firefight? You know, practical application and all that....I'd like to hear about your experience.
 
DebateChallenge said:
All you will do is embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...
Not at all, actually. All we will do is grief people who are too technically minded to see that their arguments fall on deaf ears. Anti-gun does not care, at all, about what things are actually called.
 
Rucker61 said:
In Colorado in 2013, with a full Democratic majority, rushed to passed as much gun control as they could. A state Congresswoman known as "Rapsheet Rhonda" for her previous check kiting conviction, introduced a bill for the safety of Coloradoans that insisted upon a ten round capacity limit to keep us all safe. Every Democrat supported it unequivocally. In the discusson of the bill prior to the vote another Democrat, in a move still not really understood, moved to amend the bill to allow 15 rounds maximum in an effort he later called a compromise. Once again, every single Democrat, all of whom insisted that 10 rounds was needed to keep us safe, voted the amendment to change the limit to 15. Baaaaah, baaaaah.

I call this the "five more dead schoolkids is okay" law in their honor.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would anyone ever need a clip larger than 10?

That is far to large as it is.

Seriously, what is the need, I literally do not know. (except to slaughter innocent people of course)

I'd limit a magazine at 3. MAX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom