Should High-Capacity Mags be Banned?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Perhaps one day Congress will allow reason to enter its confines and legislators will finally vote to either radically alter the 2nd amendment or repeal it altogether.

The only thing standing in the way of a reasonable and realistic gun policy is the idolatry of the Constitution. Hopefully one day americans will be able to have an objective debate eople could have been avoided if only there was a different attitute to the ownership of guns.

You have to realize that we don't have the luxury of relying on another, more powerful, more violent country to help protect us if things really go to Hell and we need to start fighting a real enemy*. Costa Rica, Europe, Australia, etc. can all come running to us if they have to, and they have, and we've usuallu been there for them (not out of charity of course, out of self interest, but still). We did refuse Vietnam when they asked for help overthrowing the French, which led to them becoming Communist.

If the US government is able to suppress it's own citizens, the rest of the world is just as screwed as we common-folk Americans would be.

While amateurs with small arms might not be able to militarily defeat the US Armed Forces in a straight up fight (assuming the government controlled them), they are not a force to be discounted. A rifle killed JFK didn't it?

EDIT - And, of course, a handgun with only one bullet (or two or three, whatever it was) took Gabby out.

* I mean no disrespect to the allies that are helping us and have helped us in the past in our wars.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm glad I live in England such that getting a gun is near enough impossible via legal means; but given that this isn't the case in america and the majority seems to be happy with this can't some system be imposed such that, say, if you're issued with a maximum of 6 bullets then you cannot purchase any more (legally at least) unless you can provide a valid acc ...[text shortened]... sessions are purchased at the shooting range, and any excess returned when you leave.

Could some of the pro-gun posters respond to Agerg's astonishingly sensible and precise proposal?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You have to realize that we don't have the luxury of relying on another, more powerful, more violent country to help protect us if things really go to Hell and we need to start fighting a real enemy*. Costa Rica, Europe, Australia, etc. can all come running to us if they have to, and they have, and we've usuallu been there for them (not out of charit ...[text shortened]... no disrespect to the allies that are helping us and have helped us in the past in our wars.

I assume this post was intended as satire or parody? Were you trying to be the new John W Booth?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Could some of the pro-gun posters respond to Agerg's astonishingly sensible and precise proposal?

I'd prefer to stay focused on Rep. McCarthy's sensible proposal rather than on a proposal for an intrusive regulatory regime which has zero chance of acceptance in the US.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd prefer to stay focused on Rep. McCarthy's sensible proposal rather than on a proposal for an intrusive regulatory regime which has zero chance of acceptance in the US.

Yep, wait for a crisis and then inact as many statist regulations you have any hope of passing. I beleive it is what former advisor Rahm Emmanuel referred to as not letting a crisis go to waste.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I'm just thinking of some of the shooting sports out there. I have occasionally shot competitively (for fun and training) in IPSC matches with pistols. I can imagine shooting through the stages of those matches with 10 rd mags and a few extra reloads to get through a stage, but pistol mags are relatively small. You can only realistically carry so many m ...[text shortened]... were going to ban all of them (and not merely new sales), you really wouldn't be doing much.

It would be an inconvenience at such events surely. Given the benefits of the proposal, such an inconvenience for a small number of individual surely doesn't outweigh the good.

McCarthy explains why the bill doesn't criminalize possession of already owned high capacity mags:

Many of these devices exist currently and it would be
impractical and unwise to attempt to ban their possession – criminalizing individuals who purchased the device
legally. Instead, the bill will prohibit the transfer of those devices currently in existence. This allows
individuals who currently own the devices to legally retain possession but works to prevent the spread of the devices by making it illegal to transfer them to another individual.


The elimination of any more of these mags into the stream of commerce would reduce their number over time. And it would make it so people like Jared Loughner couldn't purchase them at the local Wal-Marts. That's good enough for me; surely you know that any attempt to ban possession of high capacity mags would be met by the "The liberals are trying to take away our guns so they can impose a dictatorship" screeching (which is happening anyway even with this modest proposal but just seems silly here).

Originally posted by whodey
Yep, wait for a crisis and then inact as many statist regulations you have any hope of passing. I beleive it is what former advisor Rahm Emmanuel referred to as not letting a crisis go to waste.

Typical tripe; it sounds like something Jared Loughner would have spouted on YouTube.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Typical tripe; it sounds like something Jared Loughner would have spouted on YouTube.

In all honesty, what should be the penalty for breaking the proposed legislation you favor? Jail time? What type of police state do you wish to impose?

Originally posted by whodey
In all honesty, what should be the penalty for breaking the proposed legislation you favor? Jail time? What type of police state do you wish to impose?

The type of "police state" where citizens don't possess devices who's only purpose is to kill large numbers of their fellow citizens.

Perhaps you'd care to answer the question MacSwain dodged:

Please answer whether the following weapons should be allowed to be owned by private individuals:

Machine guns

Flamethrowers

Mortars

Artillery

Tanks

Tactical Nuclear weapons

I assume if you're in favor of banning private possession of any of those devices, you favor a "police state", too.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The type of "police state" where citizens don't possess devices who's only purpose is to kill large numbers of their fellow citizens.

What should be done to them?

Also, should the state begin to infiltrate militias around the US to try and bring them to "justice"?

Originally posted by whodey
In all honesty, what should be the penalty for breaking the proposed legislation you favor? Jail time? What type of police state do you wish to impose?

The bill provides:

Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall
9 be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10
10 years, or both.’’.

Seems reasonable to me.

Originally posted by whodey
What should be done to them?

Also, should the state begin to infiltrate militias around the US to try and bring them to "justice"?

I'm not a big fan of the government infiltrating any organization.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The bill provides:

Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall
9 be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10
10 years, or both.’’.

Seems reasonable to me.

Ok then, get busy building more prisons and then we can talk. In fact, Obamacare is about to kick in so you could put them next to those who fail to comply with the government mandate to buy insurance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not a big fan of the government infiltrating any organization.

Why not? I mean, if they are breaking the law by having unlawful weapons are they not a "threat" to society? Would you not want to quell this threat?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok then, get busy building more prisons and then we can talk.

I doubt many people will wind up in prison for such an offense; the bill doesn't ban possession. Of course, we could release a bunch of non-violent drug felons to make room.