Magazine Capasity Bans

[SMTA]

Ever since the sun-setting of the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban I still hear pro gun control politicians campaigning for more bans on "high capacity" magazines that can hold over ten rounds. Lets assume for a moment that these politicians have a logical reason for this restriction, a side from the fact they hate guns. Where did they come up with the limit of ten rounds? Did they draw that number from a hat, and that is what they went with? If there logic is based on prevented innocent people from getting shot, "if we can save just one life!" , why is a five round limit to little, and twelve round limit to much? As a public servant, what makes me unrestricted as a police officer, but the law abiding civilians can't be trusted with them?


View attachment 67218203

The number 10 is the equivalent of their collective IQ.

 

[SMTA]

lol...clip, magazine, whatever. I understand that one actually goes into the gun while the other is just an ammunition carrying device, but unless someone is a gun zealot, any detachable magazine can be referenced as a "clip," especially in this thread's context where we are clearly all talking about the bullet carrying capacity of guns.

Completely incorrect post on all points.

 

[calamity]

Completely incorrect post on all points.

Nothing to be "incorrect" about.

 

[zsu2357]

Maybe I just don't like one of the dogs...

So then your placing your ideals on someone or something you just don't happen to like? Well I guess that makes a lot of sense. Not.

 

[zsu2357]

Nothing to be "incorrect" about.

How can you say this is correct? One is a magazine the other is an En bloc clip that fits into an internal magazine of the M1 Garand. Big difference.

 

[calamity]

How can you say this is correct? One is a magazine the other is an En bloc clip that fits into an internal magazine of the M1 Garand. Big difference.

Maybe that's why the pic says "magazine" and "clip" next to each image :roll:

 

[SMTA]

How can you say this is correct? One is a magazine the other is an En bloc clip that fits into an internal magazine of the M1 Garand. Big difference.

The verbal description was wrong.

 

[zsu2357]

Maybe that's why the pic says "magazine" and "clip" next to each image :roll:

But yet you would seem to not know the difference even though you point it out?:roll:

 

[calamity]

But yet you would seem to not know the difference even though you point it out?:roll:

Ironic, considering the gross spelling error in the thread title, that you would decide to be pedantic about a minor detail in my made up term, clip-limiters, to describe people who want to put restrictions on magazine capacity. But, hey, when you got nothing, you gotta act like you got something. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

Ironic, considering the gross spelling error in the thread title, that you would decide to be pedantic about a minor detail in my made up term, clip-limiters, to describe people who want to put restrictions on magazine capacity. But, hey, when you got nothing, you gotta act like you got something. :roll:

what is your position on magazine limits TODAY?

 

[calamity]

what is your position on magazine limits TODAY?

I could not care less. In fact, in my first post I said such limits are probably ineffective, but I understood why people would want to limit capacity. But, of course, even saying that is going too far for gun zealots.

 

[TurtleDude]

I could not care less. In fact, in my first post I said such limits are probably ineffective, but I understood why people would want to limit capacity. But, of course, even saying that is going too far for gun zealots.

let me explain this to you. Not that you will bother understanding it but so I can point out, in the future, that you were educated, and you didn't learn

Gun banners think that the government has the proper power to limit magazine capacity to whatever it sees fit. You cannot support a limit and also say that too few rounds would violate the constitution. This is a clearly black or white issue. Either the government can draw a line wherever it can get enough votes from the legislature to pass or the government cannot draw the line


that's why when Bannerrhoids are asked at what point a limit is improper or unconstitutional, you will never get an answer from a bannerrhoid. The smart ones know that if they say a certain limit is unconstitutional, they are out of luck in terms of logical argument.

 

[calamity]

let me explain this to you. Not that you will bother understanding it but so I can point out, in the future, that you were educated, and you didn't learn

Gun banners think that the government has the proper power to limit magazine capacity to whatever it sees fit. You cannot support a limit and also say that too few rounds would violate the constitution. This is a clearly black or white issue. Either the government can draw a line wherever it can get enough votes from the legislature to pass or the government cannot draw the line


that's why when Bannerrhoids are asked at what point a limit is improper or unconstitutional, you will never get an answer from a bannerrhoid. The smart ones know that if they say a certain limit is unconstitutional, they are out of luck in terms of logical argument.

I'm not sure what your rant has to do with my position. I oppose capacity limits. Now, if you are trying to swing me from understanding the why behind those who do want limits, I do not think that is even possible. However, you may want to try figuring that why out instead of just adhering to the rather simple-minded CT you scribbled about above.

TLDNR: It has nothing to do with "Bannerhoids."

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not sure what your rant has to do with my position. I oppose capacity limits. Now, if you are trying to swing me from understanding the why behind those who do want limits, I do not think that is even possible. However, you may want to try figuring that why out instead of just adhering to the rather simple-minded CT you scribbled about above.

TLDNR: It has nothing to do with "Bannerhoids."

you constantly have changed your position on gun rights. so which one do you actually believe?

 

[LaylaWindu]

Magazine limits are pretty stupid and do little to nothing to curb any problems.

 

[calamity]

you constantly have changed your position on gun rights. so which one do you actually believe?

Gun rights are not absolute. Nor should they be. We ban indicted and convicted felons from having them, for example. And, I am certainly in favor of that. It's a gray area with very little black and white. Zealots on either side of the issue are misguided.

 

[calamity]

Magazine limits are pretty stupid and do little to nothing to curb any problems.

Except that by keeping them legal, we continue making them and putting them on shelves where more and more people can buy them. And, unfortunately, a good number of those high capacity magazines end up in the wrong hands, especially in gang infested neighborhoods where bangers have shootouts with each other on public streets.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Except that by keeping them legal, we continue making them and putting them on shelves where more and more people can buy them. And, unfortunately, a good number of those high capacity magazines end up in the wrong hands, especially in gang infested neighborhoods where bangers have shootouts with each other on public streets.

How, exactly, do magazine capacity limits (10 rounds vs. 15 rounds?) help to fix those "hoods" where shootouts on public streets are the norm? Are adding a few more brief reloading pauses (assuming that gangsters would even comply with these limits) really the answer or simply an excuse to increase "reasonable restrictions" on everyone else?

 

[calamity]

How, exactly, do magazine capacity limits (10 rounds vs. 15 rounds?) help to fix those "hoods" where shootouts on public streets are the norm? Are adding a few more brief reloading pauses (assuming that gangsters would even comply with these limits) really the answer or simply an excuse to increase "reasonable restrictions" on everyone else?

50% more capacity? Are you seriously going to argue that doesn't mean anything?

My point was simple. Keeping high cap mags legal encourages the mfg and sale of said mags, thereby putting more of them on the street.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gun rights are not absolute. Nor should they be. We ban indicted and convicted felons from having them, for example. And, I am certainly in favor of that. It's a gray area with very little black and white. Zealots on either side of the issue are misguided.

so you don't understand the bill of rights

I figured that

 

[TurtleDude]

50% more capacity? Are you seriously going to argue that doesn't mean anything?

My point was simple. Keeping high cap mags legal encourages the mfg and sale of said mags, thereby putting more of them on the street.

see that's bannerrhoid logic there you are essentially arguing for a ban on firearms.

 

[ttwtt78640]

50% more capacity? Are you seriously going to argue that doesn't mean anything?

My point was simple. Keeping high cap mags legal encourages the mfg and sale of said mags, thereby putting more of them on the street.

Yes, I can confidently assert that swapping magazines 3X vs. 2X (50% more often) in order to fire 30 rounds will do nothing to stop gangsters from shooting at other gangsters on the streets of "the hood". If someone is confident that they will not get caught shooting at others "on the streets" then I can assure you that they will not fret over being caught using an illegal tool to do so, much less worry that a barrage of gunfire directed at their rivals would be less effective if they had to change magazines a bit more frequently.

 

[calamity]

Yes, I can confidently assert that swapping magazines 3X vs. 2X (50% more often) in order to fire 30 rounds will do nothing to stop gangsters from shooting at other gangsters on the streets of "the hood". If someone is confident that they will not get caught shooting at others "on the streets" then I can assure you that they will not fret over being caught using an illegal tool to do so, much less worry that a barrage of gunfire directed at their rivals would be less effective if they had to change magazines a bit more frequently.

Who said it would "stop" them?

Having 15 rounds available without need to reload is far more destructive than running out of ammo after 10. Common sense should be part of the equation in these debates.

 

[Socrates1]

Ever since the sun-setting of the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban I still hear pro gun control politicians campaigning for more bans on "high capacity" magazines that can hold over ten rounds. Lets assume for a moment that these politicians have a logical reason for this restriction, a side from the fact they hate guns. Where did they come up with the limit of ten rounds? Did they draw that number from a hat, and that is what they went with? If there logic is based on prevented innocent people from getting shot, "if we can save just one life!" , why is a five round limit to little, and twelve round limit to much? As a public servant, what makes me unrestricted as a police officer, but the law abiding civilians can't be trusted with them?


View attachment 67218203

It's simply about CONTROL !

 

[calamity]

see that's bannerrhoid logic there you are essentially arguing for a ban on firearms.

That's a ridiculous assertion demonstrating a complete breakdown of logic with a strong indication of paranoia.