High capacity magazines

Lock up the baby formula. So says Mayor Bloomberg, today.

We need motorcyles as they are the greatest producer of hearts for transplants.

Hunting can be done with single shot rifles or two round shotguns.

Sporting use is not the issue. Perhaps average SD situations - one mugger be gone could be handled with just a Model 10. But some can't. The defense against tyranny and genocide can't. That's the answer.

No hi-caps, no big gulps, no baby formula. Let a short little rich man decide your life.
 
I have large capacity mags because I enjoy them. That is reason enough. I don't believe that some person should tell me I don't need a large Coke or that my wife must breast feed.

When you open the door for someone to tell you what you need based on a arbitrary number, you open the door for someone to make even more decisions for you. Answer the following questions and you will under stand why I have some high capacity mags.

Why do you need a gun that allows you to fire seven shots without reloading?

Why do you need a military style, semi auto assault pistol? That is your 1911 by the way......

Why do you need a gun that fires a military cartridge?

If you allow a person to restrict your choices based on what they want you to have, your choices are going to become fewer and fewer. Don't think that the person who says you can't have a 100 round, or 11 round mag, won't tell you that you can't have your 1911 based on the questions I posed above.
 
Last edited:
No hi-caps, no big gulps, no baby formula. Let a short little rich man decide your life
Click to expand...

Well said, Glenn. Since when does this little twerp get to weigh on on every little detail of peoples' lives? What an arrogant and dangerous attitude.
 
I take issue with the arbitrary political definition of what constitutes a so-called "high" capacity magazine, i.e. greater than 10rds.

In my opinion, the magazine a firearm was originally designed to accept is properly termed a standard-capacity magazine. For my M&P9 full-size, this is a 17rd mag. For a M1911, it's 7rds, although 8rds fit in virtually the same size mag. (Same basic concept applies to my S&W M3904, which was designed for an 8rd mag, but a 9rd M952 mag is the same size and works equally well.)

If a political jurisdiction arbitrarily decides to require a smaller mag, it is properly called a reduced-capacity mag.

If any mag can properly be called "high-capacity", it's one that's significantly larger than a standard-capacity mag, and projects much farther than normal from the gun. This applies to mags such as the DWM Luger "Trommelmagazin" drum mag, the G18 33rd mag, and various AR/AK drum mags. However, just because these mags are supposedly "high-capacity" does not necessarily justify restricting ownership of them.
 
OK, you get to tell me what I can do and I get to tell you what you can do.

The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment, without it, you won't be able to tell anyone anything, your freedom of speech and thought will disappear.

And to top it off, the gangs and thugs will still have guns with high capacity magazines. So will the authorities, and they will not enter gangland, instead, they will enter your space.
 
Freebird's comment

No need for meanness and belittling comments. Common courtesy should be one of the hallmarks of this forum.
I raised a question for the sake of discussion. My feeling about high capacity magazines is of no consequence to the discussion.
 
I was not belittling you, I was actually trying to come to your aid in the fact that most people who responded jumped on your case. I was saying you did not write back in fear of being ridiculed again.
 
One of the problems with a ban on high-capacity magazines is that it's tantamount to admitting that the firearm itself (or some component of it) is intrinsically responsible for potential bad acts. It might then stand to reason that if high-capacity magazines are thusly "evil", so are the weapons to which they are paired. If these weapons are also "evil" and in need of restrictions, why not all weapons?

Does anyone need them? A "well-organized militia" might make the argument in today's world. The bottom line, as others have said, is that "need" doesn't have a place in the conversation about whether or not their ownership is permissible.

Also, as others have said, there have been attacks which could have been worse had the attacker not used a high-capacity magazine that resulted in a malfunction.

I'm glad to see that folks on this forum can have a mature, civil discussion about a controversial issue such as this one.
 
I cannot see the need to have high capacity magazines. My USGI 1911A1, for example, holds seven rounds. If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that? I have seen ads for a 100 round magazine for the Ruger 10/22- why?
(I know that this is an emotional issue but I would like to hear calm, reasonable responses about this issue.)
Click to expand...

Well don't buy them then. But don't you dare tell me I can't.

BTW if you have to deal with multiple home invaders, you may wish you had higher magazine capacity.
 
"I feel we should be free to own items we choose to own. The right to own an object should be regulated based on my behavior not some else’s."
Click to expand...


-- What if that object was a nuclear bomb? Something absolutely destructive? A plutonium warhead?

Sure, you may be a great person. You may be responsible. You may be a gentlemen but what about you nutty neighbor? Would you still feel the same way?
 
That is a use of the exception proofs the rule technique. Before we go down that vein of whether I can have a tanker of nerve gas or a nuke, let's say we stay with magazine capacity for good ol' rifles and pistols.

The BOR are not a suicide pact and we don't have absolute freedom in many domains. But, let's stick to hi-caps.

Thanks.

Glenn
 
Generally speaking, when it come to "protection" of any kind.. self defense, security, fire, etc.. Its not about what you need but rather what you may need. What you may need in sitations that are considered to be "reasonably possible" in relation to the subject matter threat.

What a person may need should be determined by the individual' in their specific situation. I dont think that it is prudent for someone else to determine that for me.

I carry a 5 shot Jframe.. not because I dont want more rounds but because its what fits me in my particular environment and its what Im used to. My home defense handgun is a 19+1 Springfield XDM.
 
Framing the argument....

First off, why do we continue to use the framework of the right deniers?

NEED has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

They always demand for us to explain why we have a need for this, or that. They demand that we justify ourselves to them. That assumes that THEY have both the right and the power to decide, for US what we should be allowed to have, based on our convincing them of a need.

This automatically places us on the defensive, a weaker position in the argument. As a mild reminder, there is a line in one of those old, musty "outmoded" documents that refers to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Nothing in that one about having to justify a need.....

in fact, it has been reported (although seldom lately) that early drafts of that document used the phrase "pursuit of property" or "posession of property"....

I have a couple of guns with a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine of 100rnds. That's the way the factory made them.

Since we already have laws that say you cannot shoot people for fun and profit (and these are routinely broken) what possible good can laws limiting any physical features of a firearm do? Nothing but annoy the people who want such things but would never break the law.

I consider telling me I cannot do or have a thing, because someone else might do somthing bad with it to be a prior restraint on my rights (that pesky pursuit of happiness thing), as well as treating me like a child that is incapable of making a good decision.

How odd it is that these same people who actively treat us as incapable of making important decisions are completely willing to accept our decisions as rational and valid, when it is a vote to put them in office.
 
Given the option of more ammo capacity vs less, I would always opt for more ammo! :D

That, and you don't have to reload so much. Why do our service men carry 30-rd mags when they used to carry only 10 or 20?
 
Keep in mind that in both recent mass-murders where high-cap magazines were used, the killer was forced to stop/pause for several seconds due to failures.

In Arizona, that Jared creep was stopped because his high-capacity Glock magazine caused a failure. In Colorado, police found the front of the theater littered with unused .223 rounds, and noticed that the drum mag had failed, causing the shooter to cycle through several rounds in an attempt to get it going again.

I wouldn't trust my life to the cheap junk that is often sold as novelty "high capacity" items.

I have a feeling that quality high-capacity drum magazines go for a pretty penny, and that gun collectors who know what they've got aren't about to sell them to Johnny on the street, simply because of investment purposes. And Johnny on the street isn't going to pay for quality.
 
Let me start by saying that most of the guns that I own and use on a regular basis have a magazine capacity of less than 10 rounds and that for most of my needs, that is plenty. I do, however, own a couple of guns that have "high-capacity" magazines (CZ-75 and 922r-converted Saiga .223) and, under certain circumstances, they can be my preferred firearms.

While I live in a rather low-risk area and try to live a low-risk lifestyle, I do sometimes have to venture into areas that are not so low-risk. In certain parts of large cities where gang-activity is not uncommon, the 17+1 that my CZ-75 holds is much more comforting than my revolvers or single-stack semi-autos.

Likewise, the Saiga is my dual-purpose home defense/wait-out-the-crisis rifle. Four years ago, the town in which I live flooded and much of it was cut off from the outside world for a couple of days. While the police, fire department, hospital, and even National Guard (there is a large military base just to the north) did the best they could, the flood happened so fast and was so devastating that they were simply overwhelmed and we did have some looting problems (though thankfully there were no acts of violence). This made me think that, should a similar natural disaster occur and take more than a couple of days to resolve (such as what we saw with Hurrican Katrina), help might be simply unable to reach me and my family and a high-capacity firearm would be a very nice thing to have should I need to defend myself for an indefinite amount of time.

More to the point, however, my ownership of high-capacity magazines and firearms hurts no one that doesn't already intend to do evil upon me and my loved ones. That being the case, I fail to see why someone who does not know me, my situation, or my wants and needs should get to tell me how many rounds my gun can hold.

Even more to the point, I've watched the tactics of gun-banners long enough to realize that they would not be satisfied simply by banning high-capacity magazines. Various figures within the anti-gun movement have admitted over the years that their ultimate goal is a total ban of all privately owned firearms (such as Dianne Feinstein's infamous "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America" comment), but because that's too big a pill to swallow at once they instead try to chip away at our rights a little at a time. The goal of this strategy is to zero in on small minorities within the gun-owning community thereby dwindling its numbers until the gun-owning community itself is a small minority. At that point, the gun-owning community would be too small to stop whatever draconian regulations the gun-banners wish to impose upon them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "we must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately."
 
My USGI 1911A1, for example, holds seven rounds. If I am a capable marksman why would I need more than that?
Click to expand...

A capable marksman should be able to make do with 1 shot no?

So why not just a single shot?
 
To the original poster. To raise this question, at this time, is to many people an obvious troll attempt. Maybe your next question, for discussion, can be about how nobody "needs" a semi-automatic gun.

Now, this may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across. With the antis in full force across the land, along with their pet MSM leading the way as usual, it smacks of trolling.

It would be like going to say, Democratic Underground, and raising similar questions about hot button items, "simply for discussion". Say, about a certain birth certificate, for example.

And as many have said, we have standard capacity magazines, because that is what they actually are, because we want them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top