I believe we're having the wrong discussion when pushing for magazines that hold fewer rounds.

[Snarkoleptic]

Newly manufactured and imported weapons should have no magazines at all, rather, rounds should have to be loaded directly into the weapon. This would require any mass shooter to either carry a large number of weapons or pause and reload, allowing people time to respond by running or fighting back. Admittedly, someone would attempt to modify the weapon, but anticipating this, design should be required to anticipate this and make it as difficult and unreliable as possible.

[geckosfeet]

1. And automobiles should not have fuel tanks.

Do you really think you are advancing the discussion by proposing something like this?

Or did you forget the smiley.

[Schema Thing]

3. huh?

What is unreasonable about this idea?


And how does "And automobiles should not have fuel tanks" show such unreason? His proposal is in fact not unlike saying that cars should not be able to pull trailers with 150 gallons of fuel and a hose connection between trailer and car.

That would work, but we don't allow it because it would be unsafe. Sort of like ammunition magazines are unsafe.

[geckosfeet]

12. The op meant magazines fixed to the firearm?

That was not clear.

There are plenty of fixed magazine firearms. Shotguns and revolvers come to mind. Removable magazines are designed to overcome some of the limitations of fixed magazines. Portability. Easier maintenance and repair.

I do understand the idea of wanting to cripple reloading speed, but someone practiced with a revolver can reload quickly. They make these things called speed loaders. They are like these "little clippy things" that hold ammunition. Go ahead - google the term (speed loader, not "little clippy thing&quot .

You load rounds into them so that when you eject spent casings from the revolver a full magazines worth of ammunition can be chambered at once rather than one round at time.

You have to understand. The idea of reloading speed is fundamental to firearms and has been grappled with since gun number one. The evolution of firearms technology has tracked with reloading speed and capacity as well as accuracy, power and muzzle velocity.

It is very clear that many of people posting these technology solutions to firearms violence have had little if any practical exposure to firearms, and seem unfamiliar with the history of the technology.

[geckosfeet]

19. Errr. What? Not sure what your point is but you sure look bad making it.

Here. Read this - if you can stop raving for moment.

Speed loader

[mmonk]

2. Given the type of guns already in circulation,

limiting the rounds seems reasonable in avoiding larger carnage from the threats our school children face.

[Lurks Often]

4. Please explain

how you are going to get such a proposal through Congress and the Court system?

There is not enough support for your proposal in Congress and given the Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago rulings, the likelihood of your proposal holding up under judicial scrutiny is probably about the same as you winning 250 million dollars in Lotto.

[DanTex]

9. Do you think we should capitulate to the GOP on all issues?

Why are the gun fanatics so opposed to even discussing anything that Scalia and John Boehner don't approve of? Are you also opposed to discussing, for example, single-payer healthcare?

A ban on all guns without detachable magazines wouldn't pass congress right now, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. A few decades ago nobody would have believed that gay marriage would be a winning issue for Dems.

On the contrary, we absolutely should be discussing ideas like this. Obama's proposals are a step in the right direction, but realistically they aren't going to be enough to get our gun violence rates down in line with the rest of the world.

[randome]

10. It's not just the GOP we would need to convince.

[DanTex]

14. You are missing the point.

Yes, I'm sure there are some "centrist" Dems from red states that take NRA money also. The point is, we shouldn't limit our discussion to proposals that would pass through the house. If we did, we wouldn't be talking about limits on carbon emissions, or a public option in healthcare, or the Jobs act, or the Dream act.

A few decades ago, gay marriage would have been politically unthinkable. I hope you wouldn't have been there scolding any progressive who brought it up.

[MrYikes]

5. fyi and to your point,

Last year I decided I needed a rifle that would extend my reach to 200 yards. Two rifles were being considered, a lever action 30-30 and a sks. The Marlin would be softer to shoot, but 200 yards was an over-reach, so I bought the sks. It holds 10 cartridges in a non-removable magazine, but it does punch the shoulder pretty good. I have taken it to the range twice to sight it in and will continue going twice a year. Other than that, the rifle will not be out of the house. Cost was a major factor.

[Travis_0004]

6. I can reload an M1 garand just about as fast as an AR15

I'm a bit slower, but mainly because I shoot it less. Eliminating magazines won't significantly slow down reload times, and even so, I trust the supreme court would throw the stupid law out.

[DainBramaged]

8. Why is the law stupid? Moonshiners think taxing liquor is stupid.

I guess if you don't agree it becomes stupid?

[Travis_0004]

13. Because guns with magazies are common, and the second admendment protects them.

[DainBramaged]

15. Really? The Second Amendment was written when guns were muzzle loaded

And you didn't answer the question, just threw shit at the wall hoping it would stick.


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.


Where does it say anything about magazines?

[99Forever]

16. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

[IMG][/IMG]

[DainBramaged]

17. +1

Another empty magazine masquerading as a Constitutional expert in our midst.


Stupid laws, throw them all out

[uponit7771]

20. +1

[DainBramaged]

7. Like the original M1 Garand rifle?

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/m1garand.htm


•Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield (7.62 x 63mm), 7.62 x 51mm NATO
•Capacity: 8-round en bloc clip inserted into an internal magazine
•Muzzle Velocity: 2750-2800 ft./sec.
•Effective Range: 500 yds.
•Rate of Fire: 16-24 rounds/minute
•Weight: 9.5 lbs.
•Length: 43.6 in.
•Barrel Length: 24 in.
•Sights: Aperture rear sight, barleycorn-type front sight
•Action: Gas-operated w/ rotating bolt
•Number Built: approx. 5.4 million
•Accessories: M1905 or M1942 bayonet, grenade launcher

[DanTex]

11. Yes, a ban on all guns with detachable magazines would be much more effective than

a limit on magazine capacity. The limit on magazine capacity is a step in the right direction, though.