"High capacity"

L

lp

New member
Why are magazines that can hold a normal amount of ammo called "high capacity" magazines?

Capacity is a relitive concept. "High capacity" implies "more than normal capacity." Normal capacity is what the gun is designed for. Crippled 10 round magazines are not normal. In fact, I consider them an insult.

I'm not going to call a 15 round Glock 19 magazine "high capacity" anymore. When we do that, we are basically giving in to the antis. It is psychological warfare and it works. I call 10 round magazines with spacers where ammo is supposed to be either "crippled magazines" or "targets."

My 33 round'ers are "high capacity."
 
Listen close-----ONE round is considered high capacity to them. As you know, on Jan. 1 2000, we here in the Gestapo State of Kalifornia cannot get any thing higher than 10 rounds. It is even illegal to loan it to a friend to go shooting. I also just talked to D.O.J. today and no dealer can sell his hi-caps outside the state unless they get a new permit. I asked how can the state tell any type of businessperson that they can't sell their products outside Kalifornia and her reply was "Because the law says we can"

------------------
From my cold dead hands.
 
To them, yes. They would rather we have nothing. But we should not fall into thier trap by using terms like "high capacity" when refering to normal magazines. "High capacity" sounds scary. "Assult weapon" sounds scary. Fear works. Every anti-gun person I know (95% of the people I know -- I am in Los Angeles, CA) is anti-gun because of their FEAR of guns. They don't see anti-gun laws as restricting thier freedom, since they don't own guns. They see it as helping to get rid of those scary guns out there. Lets not help fuel thier fear, and lets not let the antis fool us into using thier bulls*** definitions.
 
Hmmm - Standard and Reduced magazine capacity.

That works for me.

But - uh - I gots me some 1911s. Standard is 7 rounds. So anything over that is High Capacity. Well even if it doesnt work for me... It sounds much better.
 
I recently got into a discussion about this "hicap" nonsense. I got out this videotape of an episode of American Shooter where Jerry Miculek sets 3 world records with a revolver.
At one point. he fires 6 rounds, reloads, fires another 6 rounds in under 3 seconds, all on target!
The point is that some nut case don't need no stinkin' hicap magazine to commit a massacre if he wants to.
 
High Capacity is GOOD. Say it out loud!
High Capacity is GOOD!

I say that civilians should have no less capacity in their privately held magazines than that of any local, county, state, or federal police organization (including the military). Civilian arms should be equal to whatever an opposing force may have in their arsenals. Period.

You want to retain a "free state"? Make them fear the "little guy". Something about "liberty's teeth".
 
Paul, I respectfully disagree. Words matter, and I think most of us are pretty damn tired of having our heads handed to us by mental midgets that have spent their time, profitably, on marketing. We must use our heads in this war.

I concur, lp. My personal choices are 'full capacity' magazines (which is exactly what they are, thank you), and 'reduced capacity' magazines. And, when the idiots ask you 'why does anyone need more than 10 bullets?', or 'if you can't get it done with 10 bullets, you're probably dead anyway' and other such drivel, ask them this: why do LEO's need more than 10 bullets? They'll usually say something brilliant such as 'well, they're facing criminals!'. Then ask why we call those people criminals? They'll roll their eyes, and say something like 'well, they've committed crimes!'. Then ask them who the crimes were committed against? They'll probably throw up their hands in exasperation at your density - but, point out that we call them criminals because they usually committed crimes against people like you and like me - civilians.

So, let me get this straight - LEO's need more than 10 bullets because they're facing criminals, but we call those BG's criminals because they attacked civilians. But, civilians don't need more than 10 bullets, even though they are facing the same BG's? BS. You could also talk about the hit rate for LEO's in lethal force situations, but that is usually too cerebral for these airheads.

Other very important semantic clarifications, from my perspective:

1. They aren't anti-gun activists - they are the 'anti-self defense movement'. And, make no mistake about it, they are definitely anti-self defense, and they are practicing moral imperialism.

2. Guns are not made to kill people - they are used to 'terminate violence'. And if you think about it, that is clearly logical. Do we issue firearms to LEO's so they can kill people? I don't think so - we issue them so that LEO's can terminate violence. And, what percentage of firearms are ever used in a crime? I believe the Department of Justice indicates it is well less than 1%. Why would we typify guns as being made only to kill people, when that is their use well less than 1% of the time? Cars rarely kill people, but we don't say they are made simply for killing.

3. I try not to call it a handgun - they have damaged the term. Call it a 'sidearm'. And, do you have any GUNS in the house? Oh, just a few 'household guns', such as AR's, AK's, ... ;) (Thank you Alan Korwin - http://www.gunlaws.com )

4. We're not talking about gun rights - we are most definitely talking about 'civil rights'.

5. It isn't just the 2nd Amendment we are concerned with - we are concerned about the 'Bill of Rights' (which just had a birthday on December 15 - it was ratified December 15, 1791).

6. The RKBA is under attack by statists and pacifists. But, these aren't the old fashioned pacifists who simply won't lift a finger to defend themselves - these are 'aggressive pacifists', who will work hard with statists to prevent you from defending yourself, your family and innocent others. If they win, I suspect they will rue their collaboration with statists - hopefully, they will not win.

7. And, one of my favorites - these anti-self defense, liberal zealots are absolutely 'gun bigots'. Think about the absurdity of their behavior. They try to give the impression they are enlightened intellectuals. But, they have a cramped view of history, and they are absolutely intolerant of our philosophy of self defense. They are ignorant of almost everything regarding firearms, and they despise and loathe those who are knowledgeable regarding their proper use. These people are bigots, and next time they call you a 'triggerhead', 'knuckledragger', 'Neanderthal', 'pistol packer' or any other ignorant epithet, look the SOB in the eye and tell him he is a bigot! They know what the word means, but they haven't looked into the mirror lately. Use the term in your letters to the editor as well, to help these people see the truth of their behavior.

Sorry this is so long, but this subject really irritates me.

Now, before I get the obligatory post that says we shouldn't change our language because of our opposition, let me just say this: consider how these ba***rds have run us ragged for years with 'high capacity magazines', 'assault weapons', 'sniper rifles' 'guns are only made to kill' and other mentally-disabled terms. I'm damn tired of it. Damn tired of it. If the enemy made a flanking attack, would you still fortify your frontal positions, or would you counter their new attack? Let's use our heads in this fight - words matter. And, many of our fellow citizens are swayed by these words, because they are ignorant of the truth.

Let's resolve to begin using logical and smart terms in this war with the statists and aggressive pacifists who would destroy the ancient right to keep and bear arms. These people deserve no quarter, and they are the enemy of free people everywhere. I don't care whether it takes better marketing, more lawyers, academicians doing research or civil disobedience. This is a war we can't afford to lose, and we need to use every moral arrow in our quivers to defeat their anti-self defense movement.

Thanks. Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited December 21, 1999).]
 
we must fight on the same battlefield, and counter the flanking maneuvers. however rather than just reacting to their attacks, we should be siezing the initiative.
in a chess game, one usually wins by forcing the opponent to make counter moves that they don't want to, until they have lost any hope of regaining any advantage that they might have had.
 
"High capacity"..

A pergorative definition coined by those who both know nothing about and hate guns. Once again, they are allowed to define the terms of the debate/battle, with the implication that they are correct and therefore we must justify and defend ourselves. This is out of the same box as the "needs based" arguement...if one accepts to argue, debate, or fight on their terms then one is doomed to lose as acceptance implies a predominant agreement of the rightness of their position.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Jeff...

The anti-gun rhetoric spewed by the anti-gunners is very similar to anti-hunting rhetoric spewed by the animal rights activists. Here's the parallel.

Most of the animal rights nuts have no clue as to what sort of hideous agenda their zealous leaders truly have. That is, to END ALL of man's use of animals...period. They bring unknowing, sympatheic, emotionally charged folks who care about "animal welfare" into their clutches, and their kooky organizations expand. Now, these folks who just don't want dogs kicked by their owners, are standing at the local rodeo with a billboard sign, or at the local turkey shoot dressed as a turkey, or at the next lobster boil dressed as a lobster. You get the picture. These folks with good intentions just love animals, they don't want animals hurt...that is by definition, "animal welfare", not animal rights. But they think they are helping animals, rather than hurting them, by involving themselves with these various animal rights groups. Wrong.

The so-called anti-gun crowd is so similar. They are much the same as the animal welfare crowd, they just want to reduce violence. They are emotional, they don't listen to the facts. They take the lead in their arguments from leaders who have a hideous agenda to strip citizens of their God given Rights. But they DO NOT UNDERSTAND that. Because their leaders have demonized in their minds, any relationship to guns, gun ownership, or gun lobbying, as being "pro-violence". Those "sheeple" that we all talk about are just emotional folks who are good followers, wanting to "help a cause". They take on the buzz words of their leaders, they ignore the history of gun control, gun registration, and gun abolition. They look at the small picture, not the broad one.

Call the damned magazines whatever you want. But do not give the antis any credibility by listening to their completely one sided argument, or adopting their preferred political correct language. Don't give them a platform. Ignore them.

Remember, the plan is one of dividing and conquering. Whether it be one gun a month, magazines that can only hold 10 rounds, or whatever the ridiculous scheme, their ultimate goal is the same. To eliminate private ownership of ALL firearms. Remember it is "they" who are compromising with these silly magazine capacity rules. However, their compromise in their minds accomplishes the same objective, and that is reducing the citizen army (militia) to an impotent one. Their arguments about 10 rounds being enough don't hold water when you look at the possibility of an occupying army invading our soil.

Is a magazine that holds 15 rounds a "high capacity" magazine? Well yeah, if your firearm normally only holds 5 rounds. If tomorrow the government made it legal to own any firearm you'd like, but illegal to fire any of them, how many of you would comply?

Don't waste your money buying 10 round mags (unless you have a 1911). Spend your time, energy, and money buying as many high capacity magazines, assault weapons, and handguns as you can possibly afford. When you stop to rest, buy cases of ammo for those weapons. If you want to win this war (of retaining your freedom), you have to be ready to fight! Words just ain't gonna do it. These leftist slugs are very impatient at the moment, when they come to an impass to accomplish their ultimate goal, they will fire the first shot, believe me.

Be ready.
 
High capacity magazines have been modified or manufactured to hold more than the original factory magazines.

Standard capacity magazines are "standard".

Reduced capacity magazines are Bradys' inventions.
 
lp;

Thank for the post....I like your thoughts....crippled magazines....I knew there was a reason I didn't use them!!!!

Can I use your opinion in my classes?

Best Regards.....
"Train to Defend, Train to Survive, Train to Win"
 
Well, I think describing things accurately, such as the anti-self defense movement, is seizing the initiative. And, DC, I greatly respect you and what you have done, but if you're saying you're uncomfortable in describing these folks as they are, and recasting the debate in what I perceive as more honest terms, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I honestly don't understand the reluctance.

The RKBA still needs various strategies, and this will surely be one of mine.

Take care.
 
Jeff...

Now please tell me how in h___ you came up with "I am reluctant"?

Recall Lou's thread about semi-autos...I wouldn't argue on her terms (need based)...I attacked the fallacy of the fundamental position of need based...but I did argue, didn't I?
High capacity mags is a term invented by the anti's...I never heard the term until Feinstein started yammering about them. I have 5,10,20 and 30 round mags for my Mini-14...they are distinguished by the number...I don't refer or think of the 20 & 30 as "Hi-caps".

My above post refers to a basic concept one learns in Debate and Rhetoric...that is that there are certain ways a question or concept can be worded that automatically puts the opposing position at a disadvantage in the context of the debate/argument before it has even started!. Thus, if you consent to debate when the topic is phrased that way, a priori you accept an inferior position from which to debate or defend.

Example: Hi-cap is a subjective and pergorative term. Hi-cap to whom? Me? Nope, I don't accept the existence of such an object. So, hi-cap is a concept invented by a person who has no knowledge of firearms and who is attempting to control them and make me justify them. If I accept that premise, then I de facto recognize they are correct and in the superior position; thus I would have to fight uphill. Hence...I change the terms of engagement before we begin, just like I did with Lou and she had no position after that.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
DC, I apologize - I misunderstood your post. I didn't see the other thread, and you were pretty succinct - based upon the context you explained, I now understand what you meant. We're on the same page.

Take care.
 
TacTrain,

If you agree with my opinion, it instantly becomes your opinion as well. You are free to use your opinion any way you see fit :)
 
Anti self defense groups is ok. I prefer describing the gun bigots as the pro-criminal, pro-tyrrany lobby myself.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
lp;
You've hit upon something that has long been a very sensitive issue to me. For too long we have let the Dem/Lib fascists define our lexicon for us! First, it was "ole drunk Kennedy" who started calling affordable handguns "Saturday Night Specials." Then the propagandists at H.C.I. started calling Sport Utility Rifles "Assault Weapons." Teflon coated bullets are called "Cop Killer Bullets," despite the fact that no policeman has ever been killed by one. The "High Capacity" magazine moniker is probably attributable to Diane Feinswine. It's all part of a propaganda effort designed to sway the sheeple. We must defy these characterizations at every opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top