HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Pro-Gun Voices in Congres...

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 04:50 PM

 

Pro-Gun Voices in Congress Are Open to Bullet Capacity Limits

WASHINGTON — Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, is haunted by many things that emerged from the investigation of the December mass shooting at a Newtown elementary school. Among them is the nagging question of what prompted the gunman, Adam Lanza, to put down his assault rifle after killing 20 children and pick up the pistol he used to end his own life.

“We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,” Mr. Murphy said, referring to the high-capacity ammunition feeding device used by Mr. Lanza to shoot scores of bullets in seconds. “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.”

It is that conviction that has helped put fresh scrutiny on the size of magazines as Congress debates new gun laws.

While influential lawmakers in both parties view a proposed ban on assault weapons as politically toxic, lawmakers seem increasingly open to a ban on high-capacity magazines, like the 15- and 30-round devices that have been used in shooting rampages from Aurora, Colo., to Tucson, where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, to Newtown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us/politics/lawmakers-look-at-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines.html?hp

50 replies, 8887 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pro-Gun Voices in Congress Are Open to Bullet Capacity Limits (Original post)
SecularMotion Feb 2013 OP
Scuba Feb 2013 #1
bossy22 Feb 2013 #2
Clames Feb 2013 #3
CokeMachine Feb 2013 #10
Lizzie Poppet May 2015 #50
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #4
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #5
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #6
upaloopa Feb 2013 #28
oldhippie Feb 2013 #33
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #38
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #34
upaloopa Feb 2013 #41
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #44
upaloopa Feb 2013 #45
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #46
oneshooter Feb 2013 #42
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #43
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #7
Light House Feb 2013 #8
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #11
gejohnston Feb 2013 #12
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #15
gejohnston Feb 2013 #16
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #23
gejohnston Feb 2013 #25
uppityperson Feb 2013 #9
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #13
uppityperson Feb 2013 #14
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #18
gejohnston Feb 2013 #21
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #24
gejohnston Feb 2013 #26
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #36
Straw Man Feb 2013 #17
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #27
Post removed Feb 2013 #29
arcane1 Feb 2013 #31
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #39
Straw Man Feb 2013 #40
benEzra May 2015 #48
Dr_Scholl Feb 2013 #19
gejohnston Feb 2013 #20
Dr_Scholl Feb 2013 #22
Nasty Jack Feb 2013 #30
DonP Feb 2013 #32
benEzra May 2015 #47
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #37
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #35
benEzra May 2015 #49

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 04:53 PM

1. News Flash: US Senator understands polling.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:07 PM

2. another misleading statement by the NYT

"Constitutional lawyers, including many conservatives, generally believe that limiting magazine size falls well within the boundaries of recent Supreme Court decisions on gun rights, and evidence suggests that a ban on large magazines would have reduced the number of those killed in mass shootings."

Yes, there are limits that would pass constitutional muster, but that does not mean ALL limits would. It might be hard to argue constitutionally that a ban on all magazines over 30 rounds is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but it would be quite easy to do that if the law banned all magazines over 5 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:09 PM

3. Bullet capacity limits?

 

They plan on regulating the internal volume of bullets?

Ignorance in action...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:42 PM

10. That was my reaction as well.

 

I had to check some of my bullets -- before loading in the cases -- to see if there is a way to limit their capacity. Nope can't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #3)

Sun May 17, 2015, 09:53 AM

50. No limits needed: my bullets can hold their liquor.

 

Magazine capacity restrictions? Woo-hoo...one of the least-useful, pointless gun control ideas ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:34 AM

4. NYT may be in error: The Conn murderer Did in fact switch mags several times...

 

Even though they were not empty (allegedly following combat practice), according to PBS on Tuesday night. The network is running several hours of programming about the Sandy Hook murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:10 AM

5. This is true

 

Lanza used what is called a Retention or Tactical Reload.
It is something we (Armed Civillians) drill on.
The reason is 2-fold.

1) In an actual gun FIGHT (as opposed to the massacre of unarmed people) you would take an opportunity to refresh a magazine when cover or concealment is available, rather than wait for the magazine to empty.

2) If your magazine is getting low, you can reload your firearm with a round in the chamber, meaning the gun can still be fired while the magazine is out, rather than having the slide locked back.

As for Murphy's statement that "Amateurs have trouble reloading magazines",well, not exactly.
An amateur (or untrained person) will have difficulty reloading when they are being shot at or otherwise challenged. In that case, where someone is actively resisting, the 1.7 seconds it takes to reload a magazine could surely save lives. BUT that is if and only if someone is resisting the shooter.
Reloading a magazine when you have a bunch of victims cornered in a room with no ability to defend themselves would make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the number of casualties.

Magazine bans hurt LAWFULLY armed civillians.... NOT MURDERERS.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:18 PM

6. Thanks for the details.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:46 PM

28. When are you going to get in a gun fight needing to change

magazines? This shit really is getting deep.
In Vietnam we sometimes took duck tape and tape two magazines together in opposite ends. You pulled one out and flipped it over and put in the other one. I really doubt you are going to ever need to do that in your life time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:36 PM

33. It's done all the time ....

 

.... in video games. They teach and award extra points for tactical reloads at the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:04 PM

38. Funny

 

NVM..
Response will fall on deaf ears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:42 PM

34. Ummm.... really?

 

Well
1 I hope never to be in a gunfight period.
2 The most common failure of a semi-automatic firearm is a magazine failure, so if I'm ever in a gunfight, it's likely that I'd have to reload.
3 If there was an armed person in the aurora, co movie theater, I'm pretty sure a reload would have been proven prudent, if not 100% necessary
4 Thank you for your service. Do you carry a gun now? So I was an infant during Vietnam, but what you deescribe is "Jungle Taping"... which is what Adam Lanza did. Do you think it is less effective with 10 round mags than with 30's? All the info I have says he did retention reloads anyway.
5 You've missed the point of my post entirely. A psychotic killer would not be limited in any way, shape or form by a mag ban. Why would you want to limit a good guy?
6 The name of the product is "Duct Tape"
7 Jungle Taping doesn't work with a pistol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:37 PM

41. Thanks for the corrections. I don't use guns as much as you so I don't give a shit about the lingo.

Vietnam for me was 1967 and 1968 so things get a little fuzzy in old age.

On edit:

I saw guys in Vietnam who all night didn't fire at anything and in the morning shoot a ox pulling some old man's cart. In later life they shoot road signs and the neighbor's pets. It's the sick gun culture we are forced to live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:22 AM

44. Ok, so instead of engaging in a debate

 

..., justifying your proposals or refuting my arguments, you resort to redirection and anecdotal stories about vets with a non-specific disorder shooting road signs and neighbors pets, and blame the "gun culture".

This is where the gun control argument breaks down... it is by in large based on emotion, not fact.

Whenever a person knowledgeable about firearms proves your ideas ineffective, you resort to emotional argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:06 AM

45. Gunners don't debate they are all about winning

a posting war. Nothing you have to say interests me. You time on the stage is passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 05:46 PM

46. I am aware of that

 

That is pretty much the anti-gun mantra.
You're entitled to your opinions, as long as you recognize that they have no basis in fact.

FWIW ... I have no interest in winning a posting war.
Guns are an issue Democrats lose on year after year after year.
It is time to get a clue.... most of America doesn't share your sentiments.

I'll keep at this till Democrats realize how many votes this single issue costs us.
I think it is a civil liberties issue, a criminal justice issue, and yes ... a political strategy issue.


And - FWIW, once I tore down your supposed "gun-logic" you reverted to blind emotion and willful ignorance.
When you're ready to have an open discussion, PM me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:58 PM

42. AS for your #3

He chose the only theater out of 5 in the area that was gun free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 06:09 AM

43. I know this too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:03 PM

7. Banning high capacity magaines a start

I am not for the "taking what we can get" approach, especially with the current momentum on gun control. But if the President gets better background checks plus a ban on high capacity magazines, we could wait until 2014 and a more progressive House and Senate to add more to the list. And here is my partial want list:

1. Ban all assault or assault-type weapons

2. Ban all high-capacity magazines over 5 rounds

3. Universal background checks for all gun purchases

4. Mandatory training for anyone owning a gun

5. Mandatory state reporting of the mentally ill

6. Federal registry of gun owners

Jack E. Dunning/Nasty Jack Buzz Blog

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:08 PM

8. You say this is just a partial list?

 

Care to impart what the rest of your wish list is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:17 PM

11. More wish list

For one, repeal the laws for concealed carry permits except for law enforcement, military and those absolutely in necessity of carrying a concealed weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:27 PM

12. why military?

military police agencies like NCIS, AFOSI, Army CID are law enforcement agencies. How would you weed out the cronyism that exist in may issue CCW jurisdictions like LA and Orange Counties California? NYC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:58 PM

15. Military

Have no idea what you are asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:59 PM

16. why would you exempt military for CCW?

except for law enforcement, military and those absolutely in necessity of carrying a concealed weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:17 PM

23. Military and CCW

Why wouldn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:33 PM

25. civil liberties should be the same across the board

it should be shall issue for everyone, unless it violates the Federal Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, or no issue to everyone.
IL is wrong only because it gives politicians "security guard" permits. I would be OK with IL if the law applied to Chicago aldermen as well as everyone else. I'm OK with Vermont and Texas. NY has no standards at all, just convince the local authority or live in the right county. Same with California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:19 PM

9. WHat "mentally ill" would need reporting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:46 PM

13. Mentally ill reporting

Not exactly sure what you're asking but my point is to identify those with known mental illness problems in order to deny them access to firearms.

Jack E. Dunning/Nasty Jack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:53 PM

14. How mentally ill do you mean? Someone being treated doing well on SSRI anti-depressants? An

unregulated schizophrenic? Someone who sought couples counseling trying to avoid a divorce? All of these could fall into the broad "mental illness problems" category.

What definition of "mental illness problems" do you mean as it is a very broad definition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:58 AM

18. Mentally ill

Whatever the state definition of mentally ill is. Or federal if it becomes federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:22 AM

21. There is a federal law that covers that

the Gun Control Act defines it as anyone who has been adjudicated as "mentally incompetent"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:26 PM

24. Mental health law

Out of date and never enforced. Pass a new law that defines a state of mental health when individual is no longer competent to own or even be around guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:41 PM

26. actually it is enforced

when the states give the data to the FBI. There are certain principles that is essential to a free society that I oppose the left and the right equally when they are wrong. That is the difference between liberals and faux liberals.
Denial of any civil liberty without due process or not having specific objective criteria for disqualifying outlined in the statue. Your idea as written goes against that principle.
IOW, I was against Bush's "terror watch list" before it became popular with gun control advocates and I still am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:57 PM

36. People who carry guns

 

[/sarcasm]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:08 PM

17. Please define ....

... "assault" and "assault-type" weapons. This is not a frivolous question, since at present those terms mean different things in different states.

Also, please explain why anything over five rounds should be considered "high-capacity" when revolvers produced over 150 years ago had a capacity of six.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:44 PM

27. Magazine capacity

Regardless of what happened in the past, it is obvious that today high capacity magazines and assault-type rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murders. I realize this style of weapon is responsible for only a small percentage of gun deaths but even if one Sandy Hook Elementary school is saved, it is worth the effort. The New York law says 7 rounds; I say 5 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #27)


Response to Post removed (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:40 PM

31. Then you're living in the wrong country n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:23 PM

39. Please justify 5 rounds

 

Why 5?
Modern revolvers usually hold 6, 1911's 7 or 8?
Why is 5 a Magic Number?
About 6 months ago, a man needed to defend himself with a firearm.
It held 6 rounds of .380.
Both perp's walked away (each hit with 3 shots Center Mass)
Sounds like 6 rounds was inadequate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:55 PM

40. Weapons of choice.

That is a meaningless phrase. There are other weapons that are just as deadly -- even ones with a much smaller capacity, which, by the way, is a function of the magazine and not the firearm. A five-shot pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot will launch 45 projectiles at its target in less time than it takes someone to empty a 30-round AR magazine. Given Lanza's choice of victims and the amount of time he had before police arrived on the scene, it's questionable whether even a five-round limit would have made any difference.

Please also remember that every step that reduces the offensive capability of a weapon also reduces its defensive capability. Look at the FBI stats for defensive use of firearms. Why do we want victims to be outgunned by their assailants?

The search for a technological fix is a vain quest, but it is very enticing to those whose ultimate goal is the elimination of private ownership of firearms. Every little restriction is one step closer to a total ban. Honestly, if magazine capacity were limited to five, would you consider that your gun-control goals had been accomplished? Somehow I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #27)

Sun May 17, 2015, 09:26 AM

48. So by your definition, this is an "assault weapon"?

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Antique military-style lever action, capacity 16+1.



Or maybe this one? .22 squirrel rifle, capacity 18+1 or 14+1.



Is this an "assault weapon"? Capacity 15+1 or 17+1.



"Regardless of what happened in the past, it is obvious that today high capacity magazines and assault-type rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murders."

The worst mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out with a compact 9mm pistol, a .22 pistol, and a backpack full of non-extended, mostly low-capacity magazines. Banning rifles with handgrips and magazines that stick out wouldn't save *any* lives.

FWIW, magazine capacity is more important for defensive use than offensive use, given that someone planning an assault can carry all the magazines they want, whereas a defender may have only the magazine in the gun (if a long gun at home), or a couple spares if carrying with reloads.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:03 AM

19. There won't be any major gun control for at least 4 years.

 

You'll be lucky to get universal background checks. But an AWB or even a stand alone ban on high cap mags? Not happening. Let me explain.

1) The Republicans control the House- Do I even need to go into detail here?

2) We're not gonna retake the House in 2014- Yes, I know i'll get flamed, but we need to come to terms with this. Republican gerrymandering and the 6 year itch make it next to impossible. We'll probably lose seats in the Senate, too.

3) There are a good number of Democrats that don't wanna touch it- Especially in rural area and in red states.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:19 AM

20. besides gerrymandering

IIRC, historically the party that holds the executive branch loses seats during mid terms. One of the few exceptions was 1998, which was attributed to the outrage over Ken Starr's porn novel and abuse of impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:48 AM

22. 1998 was the exception.

 

And even then, we only gained 5 seats. To retake the House, we need 17 seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:30 PM

30. Gun control

Good points. But I think you underestimate the power of a progressive movement combined with more awareness by the public that gun ownership is mostly uncontrolled and this needs to be fixed. It all comes down to just how long we can sustain an interest in passing "some" gun control measures, and 2014 might just fall into place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:19 PM

32. Uncontrolled?

 

With over 20,000 Federal, state and local gun laws on the books already, I can't wait to hear how they are "uncontrolled".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #30)

Fri May 15, 2015, 08:23 AM

47. Like in 1994, you mean?

When a misguided and pointless law that didn't even ban any guns, just marketing names, and didn't ban 30+ round rifle magazines, and raised the price of over-10-round pistol magazines but didn't prevent anyone from buying as many as they wanted, cost the House and Senate and unseated the sitting Speaker of the House for the first time since the Civil War?

Yeah, keep pushing that meme. I would suggest that you are living in an echo chamber...particularly since you are most obsessed with outlawing the lawful use of the least-misused guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:00 PM

37. Haha

 

You do know Harry Reid is "A" rated by the NRA, and is up for re-election in 2 years?
And next in line Chuck Schumer holds a coveted NYC carry permit?
And 1/3 of Senate Democrats hold an NRA rating of "B" or better?
Forget Republicans in the house, none of this ever sees a Senate Vote.
Which is why Biden is busy strong arming state legislators and governors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasty Jack (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:53 PM

35. Ummm... OK

 

1. Ban all assault or assault-type weapons
Define "Assault Or Assault Type Weapons" please


2. Ban all high-capacity magazines over 5 rounds
Why 5? Why not 2? Or 1? Or 15?
Heller v DC
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Looks to me as though if the Militia can have it, so can Civillians.
Also - The MOST COMMONLY used firearm in the entire world, the Glock 19, carries 15 rounds.
What make > 5 rounds "High Capacity"?

3. Universal background checks for all gun purchases
OK

4. Mandatory training for anyone owning a gun
Training to what degree or level.
I earn my living providing this training, but I feel what is mandated in CT is inadequate.
Could you please elaborate on what adequate training entails?

5. Mandatory state reporting of the mentally ill
This already exists. It doesn't work (obviously)

6. Federal registry of gun owners
Why? What does it accomplish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun May 17, 2015, 09:50 AM

49. A ban on 10-to-30 round magazines would be even more politically toxic than an AWB...

since the magazine ban wouldn't just affect modern-looking rifles, but many popular pistols and traditional-looking rifles as well.

As to requiring magazine changes every 10 or 15 rounds, here's a regular dude shooting a local-to-me USPSA match with a hard-kicking, very-low-capacity pistol (M1911 .45 ACP, capacity 8+1):



Unless you are going to ban ownership of multiple magazines, even New York's wacky 7-round limit (less than half the capacity you could buy in NY in 1861) doesn't really limit rate of effective fire. Of course, that wasn't the intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread