My case for having Hi-Cap mags
- Thread starter pat701
- Start date
Come and take it.
New member
Another reason to fight hard against magazine limitations would be this.
That once it is shown that a limit can be placed on magazines and that a court would uphold the law, than they could go ahead and one day leave a person having to use a one or two round magazine. If I am not mistaken in some countries you can only own a semi-auto if it has a magazine that holds only a few rounds.
That once it is shown that a limit can be placed on magazines and that a court would uphold the law, than they could go ahead and one day leave a person having to use a one or two round magazine. If I am not mistaken in some countries you can only own a semi-auto if it has a magazine that holds only a few rounds.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495800
The above thread gives a nice, real-world example of why 10 rounds may not be sufficient to stop even ONE attacker.
The above thread gives a nice, real-world example of why 10 rounds may not be sufficient to stop even ONE attacker.
The "need" discussion can be an eye opener.
Start by talking about illegal deaths involving guns being balanced by the positive effects of firearms. Briefly mention self-defense, national security (remember Yamamoto's quote from WWII about a rifle behind every blade of grass and the Swiss national defense paradigm), note that they provide some level of defense against tyranny, note the deterrent value of an armed society in discouraging certain types of crimes (e.g. burglary of predominantly occupied homes in "gun-free" societies vs. burglary of mostly unoccupied homes in "gun-rich" areas).
You may want to touch on the idea that the "equalizing" factor provided by firearms has a civilizing effect on society by elevating it from the state where the biggest, strongest person rules by virtue of nothing other than his physical prowess to a level where democracy is possible and decisions must be discussed because even the physically weak and unimposing can't be ignored.
Then you note that it is hard to quantify those benefits and state that the easiest way to justify firearms is via their recreational value--and pause to give them a little rope.
When they jump on that one, interrupt and ask them about the need for drinking alcohol, owning jetskis, or trampolines. We, as a society, tolerate the decidedly negative aspects that these things (and other similar and common things) often bring in terms of death and injury in spite of the fact that the only real point in their favor is that they provide recreation--people like them and want them.
If society can turn a blind eye to DWI deaths in the name of recreation, why is anyone even daring to talk about restricting firearms when everyone knows that they provide important and quantifiable benefits beyond recreation.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The mall shooting in Utah a couple of years ago is a perfect example. The shooter was initially engaged and pinned down by an off-duty police officer from another jurisdiction. He was armed with a compact Kimber 1911 and no spare magazine. So he had, IIRC, a total of either 7 or 8 rounds.
He was quoted after the event as wishing he had had more ammo.
He was quoted after the event as wishing he had had more ammo.
This is not about "sporting purposes", I have AR15s and 30 round magazines because it's the closest I can get to "Government issued firepower". If the government needs them, then so do the people.
The idea that the people should only own firearms intended for "sporting purposes" is ridiculous, and goes against nearly every sentence written about the intent of the Second Amendment by it's authors, I have written numerous letters to government officials lately reminding them why the Second Amendment exists, using it's authors writings as a guide.
We are free to elect officials that will amend the Constitution and do away with the Second Amendment, or any amendment in the Bill of Rights for that matter.
The idea that the people should only own firearms intended for "sporting purposes" is ridiculous, and goes against nearly every sentence written about the intent of the Second Amendment by it's authors, I have written numerous letters to government officials lately reminding them why the Second Amendment exists, using it's authors writings as a guide.
We are free to elect officials that will amend the Constitution and do away with the Second Amendment, or any amendment in the Bill of Rights for that matter.
You are right. This isn't about sporting and hunting. But that's what the liberal leaders are trying to turn it into. In their opinion we should only be concerned about having guns that allow us to hunt or use for sport. That satisfies our 2nd Amendment. I sent a strong message in support of our 2A rights to both senators from Illinois and actually got a response from democratic Senator Dick Durbin. Read his response to my message, and of course I had to respond back to call out his errors in the message below his.
Sorry in advance for the length of this message!
======================================
On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:30 PM, <correspondence_reply@durbin.senate.gov> wrote:
January 7, 2013
Mr. Gregory G.
Crystal Lake, IL 60012-2145
Dear Mr. G:
Thank you for your message about gun control. I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible fashion. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of any effort to reduce gun violence. I have consistently supported tough crime control and prevention initiatives since coming to Congress.
Enforcing our nation’s existing gun control laws must remain a high priority. I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban are supported by law enforcement officials who must patrol our streets. These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.
I will continue to support efforts that help ensure our nation’s gun laws are vigorously enforced. Thank you once again for contacting me.
Please feel free to stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ab
======================
Dear Senator Durbin,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond personally to my email regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. However I feel compelled to respond to your letter as I believe your interpretation has strayed from the verbiage and true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere in the text does it state "owning guns in a responsible fashion". That becomes your interpretation of what "responsible" is. While I want only responsible people to own arms, focus should be placed on ensuring mentally unstable people don't have access to weapons. I support the Brady Act in so much as completing background checks on potential firearm purchases.
You also appear to support the "Assault Weapons Ban" as being "common sense restrictions", however once again this becomes your interpretation of what an assault weapon is. This is too restrictive and is not the problem causing gun violence.
And finally, you reference laws that "help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms". With all due respect, this is very concerning as you are putting words into the constitution that do not exist. The 2nd Amendment does not speak of the right to have weapons for hunting and sporting uses, it speaks to "being necessary to the security of a free State," and that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I think it is important to point out that violence is not growing due to legitimate gun owners that are legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, including those that own semi-automatic weapons. Violence is committed by people who don't care about laws, and will continue to commit their crimes regardless of any weapons ban.
Senator Durbin, I implore you to reconsider your position on this matter and do not add your beliefs and will to the constitution, but instead place more energy behind being tough on crime and violence. Guns don't create violence, bad people do. Knives, hammers, swords, baseball bats, etc. don't create violence, bad people do. Focus your attention on controlling and/or punishing bad people.
Sincerely,
Gregory G
Sorry in advance for the length of this message!
======================================
On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:30 PM, <correspondence_reply@durbin.senate.gov> wrote:
January 7, 2013
Mr. Gregory G.
Crystal Lake, IL 60012-2145
Dear Mr. G:
Thank you for your message about gun control. I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
Americans are entitled to own and use guns in a responsible fashion. Strong penalties for violent crimes involving firearms should be part of any effort to reduce gun violence. I have consistently supported tough crime control and prevention initiatives since coming to Congress.
Enforcing our nation’s existing gun control laws must remain a high priority. I support efforts that address illegal possession and use of firearms. Common sense restrictions such as the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban are supported by law enforcement officials who must patrol our streets. These laws help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms.
I will continue to support efforts that help ensure our nation’s gun laws are vigorously enforced. Thank you once again for contacting me.
Please feel free to stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/ab
======================
Dear Senator Durbin,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond personally to my email regarding our 2nd Amendment rights. However I feel compelled to respond to your letter as I believe your interpretation has strayed from the verbiage and true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere in the text does it state "owning guns in a responsible fashion". That becomes your interpretation of what "responsible" is. While I want only responsible people to own arms, focus should be placed on ensuring mentally unstable people don't have access to weapons. I support the Brady Act in so much as completing background checks on potential firearm purchases.
You also appear to support the "Assault Weapons Ban" as being "common sense restrictions", however once again this becomes your interpretation of what an assault weapon is. This is too restrictive and is not the problem causing gun violence.
And finally, you reference laws that "help protect people from crime and violence without infringing on legitimate hunting and sporting uses of firearms". With all due respect, this is very concerning as you are putting words into the constitution that do not exist. The 2nd Amendment does not speak of the right to have weapons for hunting and sporting uses, it speaks to "being necessary to the security of a free State," and that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
I think it is important to point out that violence is not growing due to legitimate gun owners that are legally exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, including those that own semi-automatic weapons. Violence is committed by people who don't care about laws, and will continue to commit their crimes regardless of any weapons ban.
Senator Durbin, I implore you to reconsider your position on this matter and do not add your beliefs and will to the constitution, but instead place more energy behind being tough on crime and violence. Guns don't create violence, bad people do. Knives, hammers, swords, baseball bats, etc. don't create violence, bad people do. Focus your attention on controlling and/or punishing bad people.
Sincerely,
Gregory G