How can we implement a High Capacity Magazine/Clip Ban?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

I've seen quite a few high capacity clips and extended magazines for a Glock 9mm.
I see no dates stamped anywhere on them, just the brand and caliber.
Some of the bargain bin and cheap off-brand clips have even fewer markings.

If we banned the sale of new high capacity and extended magazines, whose to say new ones aren't made and sold anyways with no date markings, just like the millions already out there? :-(

I don't think we can just "make them illegal" or ban them altogether because wouldn't that be a 5th amendment violation?
The government would have to pay market value for all items siezed... it's not even a gun issue at that point?

Edit:spelling

[Lance_Boyle]

1. They were banned once before.

Didn't accomplish anything. Silly idea.

[CTyankee]

3. Why do so many developed countries all over the world manage to do this?

This country has never gotten ahead with a "no can-do" attitude...

[Lance_Boyle]

6. My guess (without a list of countries you may have in mind)

is that they don't have that pesky second amendment, or maybe some other of our cherished American rights.

Seems to me we have "gotten ahead" just fine with our Constitutionally-protected freedoms in place. :shrug:

[CTyankee]

9. but the high capacity magazine isn't necessarily a 2nd amendment issue.

You can still get the gun. You can still get the ammunition. It doesn't hinder sportmen, target shooters and hunters. You can still defend yourself (police dept. don't use them).

And another point: many of the constitutional democracies around the world have been fashioned on ours to whatever extent. Yet none of the have included our 2nd amendment. If it was a freedom loving issue, a protected freedom issue, why did they not just include a 2nd amendment? Why did they deliberately exclude it? If you haven't already done so, travel in some of those countries and ask the people if they even want a 2nd amendment. Explain your side of the argument. I'd be itnerested in knowing what you find out...

[jtown1123]

10. I like the Chris Rock solution, Make ammo insanely expensive, like thousands of dollars

[Statistical]

12. Chris Rock is a comedian. It was called a joke not a solution.

[CTyankee]

16. Did Chris tell you that?

Hint: irony and sarcasm can be at the very heart of comedy...

[pottersvilleusa]

55. Agreed

Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Hicks--all comedians; all making totally valid points.
Just cloaked in comedy.
A spoon full of sugar...

[spin]

80. I can make ammunition ...

it's easy and costs less than new ammo.

Here's a cheap and simple kit sold at Amazon.com to start out with. I loaded 6000 .38 special rounds using a kit similar to this. I upgraded my equipment and could load faster, but the ammo the cheap kit made worked just as well.


Lee Loader Kit For 357 Magnum Md: 90258
by Lee
Price: $26.25

[CTyankee]

91. WOW, you CAN??!!

You are awesome...er, what do you use it for, dude?

[Atypical Liberal]

173. I just got into reloading, myself.

I just got into reloading myself. If I buy .45 ACP ammo it is about $.50 a shot. But I am casting my own bullets out of recycled wheel weights and I am reloading my ammo now for $.08 a shot. That is a $20 savings per box of 50 cartridges.

My goal is to build up a stockpile of 5000 rounds of ammo in all calibers of firearms that I own, for emergency preparedness.

But I use my ammo for target shooting at the shooting range.

[cleanhippie]

176. You seem to be ignoring the point, that making store bought ammo expensive

will do nothing at all.

[CTyankee]

186. wow, is everybody on this thread "irony deficient"?

One thing about these gun threads, there are a lot of gun owners mad as hell...I just hope they've locked their guns away until after they've cooled down...

[cleanhippie]

187. Who is mad? Certainly not me.

Frustrated that the same, tired, worn out and debunked arguments keep getting trotted out again and again, yes.

What is "ironic" about doing that, anyway?

[spin]

169. delete ... replied to wrong post.

[lawodevolution]

171. I make each 9mm bullet I shoot for 10 cents

If you try to make ammo thousands of dollars, I'll flood the market with my own brand of ammo, boot-legged. lol. Good luck with that.

[aikoaiko]

Police are typically issed high capacity magazines as defiend by Rep McCarthy

Rep. McCarthy defines high capacity magazines as greater than 10 rounds.

Police magazines are usually between 12 - 19 rounds. In truth, I have not heard of Police issuing 33 rd Glock magazines.

But I have seen many police cars outfitted with ARs (carbines) with 30 round magazines.

So yes, high capacity magazines are issued to help police defend themselves from criminals .

[CTyankee]

14. Within Rep. McCarthy's definition is fine.

Why would the police want one with more capacity than that? Don't they know something about the use of guns in law enforcement?

[aikoaiko]

27. I would suggest that police know a lot more than Rep. McCarthy about what is useful for self-defense

I think it comes down to simple premise of wanting the good guys to have their choice in how they arm themselves.

In fairness, I will say that there are police who do not want civilians to own 10+ magazines even as they demand it for themselves.

If you include police in the magazine ban, it will go no where.

[CTyankee]

31. Please don't be silly. McCarthy has staffers who research the issues and the

ramifications of this proposal. They aren't stupid. And neither is she. But staffers look at the constitutionality of laws they are writing all the time.

To think you have all the answers on this issue is just wrong. Beware of doing that...it can lead to a false sense of security...

[Statistical]

34. McCarthy doesn't care about the research or the constitutionality of the issue.

Gun crusaders never do. After Heller it was obvious Chicago gun ban was Unconstitutional but they fought it to the bitter end rather than repeal it. Cost Chicago millions and then they had to pay millions more to the plantiff for legal costs on civil rights case.

[mwrguy]

38. her researchers weren't able to educate her

as to what a barrel-shroud is.

She had no idea what one was, but she knew that they needed to be banned.

[CTyankee]

48. I'm sure they would bow to your infinite knowledge.

[mwrguy]

51. Knowing what something is before you want to ban it is not infinite, merely adequate

and McCarthy did not reach that bar.

[CTyankee]

53. Well, I can't speak for them but here's a suggestion: call 'em up and pepper them

with questions. They may not have the minutia of information about guns that you have. But you probably do not have the degree of knowledge and understanding about the technical aspects of a proposed law's constitutionality. That's their job. Knowing every detail about a gun, which probably fascinates you, isn't necessary...basics, yes, what they need to know to make a coherent argument, yes. Minutia, not necessarily.

Don't get lost in your own fun facts about guns...

[Statistical]

58. They don't care about Constitutionality

After Heller, Chicago knew their ban was Unconstitutional. They wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a failed crusade to keep it.

[SteveM]

65. Know that which you seek to ban, or be made to look the fool. nt

[shadowrider]

60. It's the shoulder thing that goes up. DUH!!!!!!!!! n/t

[X_Digger]

41. Err.. are we talking about the same Rep McCarthy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[CTyankee]

81. Oh, yes. Tucker Carlson in a "gotcha" question interview...

never mind debating the merits of the debate..Boy, some of those comments by viewers were revealing too...esp. charming was the one starting "Bitch!" No wonder you guys love it so...gets right down to basics...

Tucker is SO well known for his erudition...he is particularly beloved in the progressive community, like the one we have here at DU...

[X_Digger]

85. If a legislator doesn't even know what she's proposing.. why trust her?

I know that stupid legislators are becoming more and more common, but damn.. to not even know one of the five features that her bill specifically targets?

That's beyond 'uninformed', and verges on 'incompetent'.

[Statistical]

86. How is it a "Gotcha" she indicated weapons with barrel shrouds should be banned.

The interview only reinforced that she had no clue what a barrel shroud is, why they should be banned, or what makes them supposedly dangerous.

Is it too much to ask that people pushing for bans know
a) what they want to ban
b) why that should be banned


It was no more gotcha than Palin interviews when she came off as an idiot.

[CTyankee]

88. Oh, c'mon.

So she wasn't as familiar as you are with a term. She knew what she meant and what it was she had in mind, but that was not the purpose of Tucker's interview: it was all set up on the gotcha premise. She's not a gun expert, she's a legislator. We have legislators making our health care reform efforts and they are not all doctors. Pleez...you are squeezing this to death...

[shadowrider]

92. ROFL

So anyone can propose any legislation, with no knowledge of what they're proposing, how it would impact anyone, INCLUDING people managing health care reform with no knowledge of what they're doing?

Dang, no freakin wonder D.C. is a cesspool of legislators.

As an aside, if a Republican had said what she did, would you be so generous in your forgiveness of ignorance? Methinks not.

[CTyankee]

95. Well, she knew what she meant...do you honestly believe that supporters of HCR

all knew the details of what say, a neurosurgeon or a radiologist, knows? Have you ever asked to read you medical chart in your doc's office? I have, and I understood a lot, but not every term...and I have an advanced degree, just not in medicine...

[shadowrider]

96. You prove my point

Beaurocrats are involved in making decisions and proposing legislation (gun right, health care, etc.) without consulting EXPERTS in their respective fields all because:

We're the government and we know best.

LOL

[CTyankee]

99. You don't know that her staff did NOT contact "experts."

What you are suggesting, I think, is that they didn't consult the NRA or its supporters and you don't know that. If you do, please document...

[X_Digger]

100. Did this rep consult an expert to help her with this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

One of McCarthy's good buddies, this time..

Who knew that incendiary rounds are actually heat-seeking.

[CTyankee]

104. what?

[X_Digger]

107. The representative claimed that incendiary rounds were 'heat seeking'..

That makes about as much sense as saying that because my car has GPS, it can drive itself in auto-pilot mode.

(Yes, that's how badly off she was..)

[CTyankee]

109. Again, what? A propos of what?

[X_Digger]

111. " You don't know that her staff did NOT contact "experts." "

Apparently they didn't. It wouldn't take an 'expert' to disabuse her of that notion.

Hell, apparently she didn't even 'contact' a dictionary.

in·cen·di·ar·y (n-snd-r)
adj.
1.
a. Causing or capable of causing fire.
b. Of or containing chemicals that produce intensely hot fire when exploded: an incendiary bomb.

[CTyankee]

113. and what does this mean in this context?

[shadowrider]

118. It's like riding a motorcycle

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand. (Or you'd flat out refuse to understand).

[CTyankee]

125. Iknow. I'm such an idiot...all of us on the other side are...how silly of us to disagree..

[X_Digger]

124. That the tip of the bullet contains compounds that set things on fire..

.. not that it would 'seek out' sources of heat.

[shadowrider]

120. Contacting experts, and actually LISTENING to their input, are two

completely seperate issues.

[Straw Man]

98. She knew what she meant?

She obviously did not. Barrel shrouds have nothing to do with "shoulders" or "going up." It's not a case of lack of expressive ability. She did not know the rather simple details of the legislation she was supporting.

Gun design is not neurosurgery. Guns are fairly simple devices, and a few hours of focused reading can acquaint one with their working parts. You'd think a person who bases her entire political career on controlling these devices would invest a little time in learning about them.

She didn't do her homework, her due diligence, because in her worldview, all gun control is good.

[CTyankee]

101. Well, she can know about these "devices" without knowing every term.

I know you have a vast knowledge about guns. I have a lot of knowledge about certain areas. I wouldn't expect my legislator to know it all...she has to know a LOT of things...in order to be a legislator you simply must have staff to break this all down...it's just too much and you would be spread too thin. I wouldn't want a representative that was just "on" to one subject, but it looks like you do...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

112. If a legislator wanted to ban FSAs... wouldn't you expect them understand what an FSA is??

With all this talk of reworking/defending/repealing healthcare reform, what if talk about FSAs comes around and some legislators want to outlaw FSA's for some reason. Wouldn't you expect them to have at least an understanding WHAT a flexible spending account is and WHY they think it should be regulated? Even if they're reason is no good, at least formulate some semblance of reality and logic. It has nothing to do with "regulating healthcare" or understanding "exactly how the insurance industry works"... those can be legislated without knowing the idiosyncrasies if experts are consulted. But when you say "X is bad and should be banned" you ought to know what the hell "X" is, if only on some topical observational level.

Her bill she sponsored explicitly stated to ban based on a feature.
She had no idea what that item or feature was. Her guess wasn't even close.
What a fucking putz. :eyes:

[CTyankee]

114. Hey from "bitch!" to "fucking putz"...great! looking forward to more uplifting debate from you, dude

[Straw Man]

121. Carolyn McCarthy...

...has dedicated her entire political career to gun control. It is her keystone issue. It is the whole reason she got into politics in the first place. She certainly should be better informed.

It's not a "vast knowledge." There were five features being banned. It's not too much to ask that she know what these are and why they are supposedly dangerous.

Again--she didn't do her homework. She couldn't defend her own legislation in even the most basic terms.

I don't want a "one issue" legislator either, but we're talking the least common denominator here. It's her signature issue, and she is woefully ignorant on it.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straw Man]

135. You have no idea how I vote...

...so I will just ignore that particular innuendo. It can be difficult being a Democrat when my party is so decidedly regressive and illiberal on the issue of gun rights. Nevertheless, I haven't given up on my party, which is as much mine as it yours, because I believe it to be right on the vast majority of other issues.

I believe in reasonable laws too, like the NICS check. I see these hardware bans as meaningless and unreasonable. The Carolyn McCarthy clip is a case in point. A barrel shroud prevents the shooter's hand from being burned on a hot barrel. Somehow this was construed as a threat to public safety. She was called on to explain this, and was unable to.

I don't care where the clip came from. It shows Carolyn McCarthy embarassing herself on an issue that she should know something about.

Yes, I should be here, if only to counter self-righteous proclamations of liberality and progressiveness from would-be enforcers of lockstep orthodoxy.

I'm just sayin'...

[CTyankee]

139. And I fervently hope that those opposing this view of high capacity magazines

will also come onto DU and be heard.

I know what you are trying to do and I am fervently opposed to you doing it. I will encourage the proponents of sensible gun control to present their views...even tho they are not as heated on the issue...I think a cooling should be also encouraged...the "sleep of reason" that Goya so suffered with comes to mind...he knew what was coming...and it came...

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. Everyone thinks *their* gun control proposals are sensible. That's a given.

The trouble comes when it becomes necessary to persuade others that they are, in fact, sensible.

Merely stating that they are is inadequate. I expect every gun control proposal to be hotly debated, my own

(opening up the NICS to private sellers on a non-mandatory basis) included.

[Straw Man]

145. What, pray tell...

I know what you are trying to do and I am fervently opposed to you doing it.

...am I "trying to do" besides express my opinion despite your suggestion that I leave DU?

[Atypical Liberal]

174. Ok...

Look, you're beyond the pale your defense of this lady.

She did clearly not know what she meant, nor what she had in mind.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a legislator to fully understand the issues that she is voting on - especially when it involves a Constitutional right.

If a legislator wants to ban barrel shrouds on firearms, I expect her to know what they are, and be able to articulate what benefit banning them will bring.

This is not a "gotcha", other than it did "get her" by showing that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

[Hangingon]

52. Thanks for the laugh.

I have know quite a few of those expert staff researchers.

[SteveM]

64. They researched "that thing that goes up"? nt

[beevul]

119. Does she?

"Please don't be silly. McCarthy has staffers who research the issues and the ramifications of this proposal. They aren't stupid. And neither is she."

Watch the video, its short.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

If not stupid, then what WOULD you call someone and their staffers trying to ban something, when they don't even know what it is?

They need to be fired.

They have demonstrated that they and/or she do a piss poor job.

[CTyankee]

131. oh, pleez, she's supposed to know every technical term....

I know you gunners love to recite your litany of guns, ammo, etc. but give it a rest here in GD. Keep it in the Gungeon where it belongs. Be happy there. It will make you feel better with your budds...

[beevul]

138. If she proposes banning it ...

"oh, pleez, she's supposed to know every technical term?"

Nice try, but nobody is asking for her to know the the technical terms for everything. We simply say if she supports banning something, particularly is she SPONSORS banning something, that she ought to know what the thing she sponsors banning, actually is.

How on earth can you disagree with that?

I assume you would not be comfortable going to a doctor that did not know basic anatomy?

That same principle holds true where legislation is concerned, as well.


"I know you gunners love to recite your litany of guns, ammo, etc. but give it a rest here in GD."


LOL, this is IN the guns forum, in case you hadn't noticed.

[GreenStormCloud]

181. Expecting her to know what she is trying to ban should not be...

...too much to expect. And she should know that there is no such thing as a "heat seeking bullet".

[one-eyed fat man]

129. Wanna bet?

"They aren't stupid. And neither is she.":rofl:


"...shoulder thing that goes up"

"...heat seaking bullets"

To be any more stupid, some Congressman would have worry Guam would capsize.

[CTyankee]

132. Well, DO tell us about your LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE.

I can't wait to know about it...

[one-eyed fat man]

137. Here, how about a picture?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=358336&mesg_id=358779



That is a 50 round drum magazine for a 1928 Thompson submachinegun. The gun is properly registered on an ATF Form 4 and the tax is paid. It is 100% legal. So are the 20 round and 30 round "stick" magazines

The assault weapons ban and its magazine ban had no effect on machine guns. NONE. It had no effect on machine gun parts. The assault weapons ban had no affect on any firearms covered by the NFA. None! By definition a machine gun is not an assault weapon because it is NOT semi-automatic!

There is a semi-automatic look-alike but none of the parts from a real "Tommy Gun" will fit on the semi-automatic version, not even the magazines

[CTyankee]

140. So, alluva sudden, we're now talking about a "50 round rum magazine for a1928

Thompson machinegun"? What?

Hmm, maybe we should have a talk about this gun's "capacity" too...

[one-eyed fat man]

151. You said show you a high capacity magazine

You got what you asked for. You said, "Well, DO tell us about your LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE."

Do you not consider 50 rounds to be high? They did make a 100 round drum in 1921, but those are really rare. Is a drum magazine not a magazine?
You got told and a picture too. How much more accommodating can a response be?

[CTyankee]

153. Oh, dear, so sorry, you missed my real point here...

I was being, shall we say, "ironic"?

I do apologize. I thought you knew that...my bad, of course...

[cleanhippie]

177. No, you were being sarcastic and insulting, but he humored you anyway

in an effort to show you that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Now that you DO know, how will you use that info? Will you continue being, shall we say, "ironic"?

[CTyankee]

189. Yes, I think so. And if folks are insulted (as they regularly seem to be on these threads)

then they can put me on Ignore and voila, no more sarcasm and "insults"....that works and it's fine by me...

[cleanhippie]

190. So you use sarcasm and insults instead when you cannot argue your point?

Very telling.

[CTyankee]

192. done arguing...sorry you don't like it ...it may surprise you to know that I find

their whole argument grounded in a fantasy, the entire construct based on an argument from the past in this country. They argue over niggling points and get all worked up. With all that anger and guns close at hand, well, I'm glad I don't live anywhere near them...

[cleanhippie]

194. Fair enough.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Statistical]

35. McCarthy defines 11 rounds as high capacity.

Every single Police department in the country uses more than 11 rounds.

McCarthy chose 10 rounds as the limit simply because she couldn't get away with less. If she could have banned mags down to 6 rounds she would have.

[The Green Manalishi]

157. Respectfully,

Large capacity clips are convenient. If I only have a brief time at a range (because they charge by the hour and/or my time is limited) I sure as heck don't want to spend time loading that clip. Also if I am at an outdoor range and it is COLD; loading that clip is a pain in the butt.

I'm a wheelgun person, myself, don't care for semiautomatics, but when dad got older and the arthritis was bad he appreciated the fact I'd load up a few clips before we went shooting.

[mwrguy]

33. police departments DO use them

Most cops carry a 15-17 round magazine in their duty weapon, depending on make and caliber.

They carry 30 round magazines in their patrol rifles.

This is why magazines great than 10 rounds were stamped "Mil/LEO Use Only" during the AWB years.

[CTyankee]

36. If what you are saying is true, why do they need 30 round magazines in their

patrol rifles? What is the purpose?

[Statistical]

39. Why would it makes sense to carry less?

30 rnd magazine is standard for semi-auto rifles.
Why would a Police Dept purchase smaller magazines?

They purchase the STANDARD capacity magazines.
13-18 for pistols depending on caliber and model.
30 for rifles.

[mwrguy]

42. The purpose

is to not run out of bullets before the bad guy, in the case of a gunfight.

30 rounds is a standard magazine size for an AR. You can buy a 20 round magazine, but it will cost you more than the 30 round one.

[CTyankee]

47. Ah, I see. A rifle, not something concealable and something it would make sense

to regulate (it's government issue if the police carry it).

If true, this must also mean that the PDs have concluded after examining the need for stopping some criminal warrants the larger capacity. And they are trained in their use.

[Hangingon]

56. Chek out the reports of the 1986 FBI Miami shootout.

The bureau's final report concluded that agents needed additional fire power. Analysis of the North Hollywood bank of 1997 showed the same results. The robbers were clad in body armor. The police went to gun stores for heavier weapons to stop the perps.

[RSillsbee]

74. The reason 20 rounders cost more than the 30 rounders

I have heard that Mel Gibson bought all of them up to use in "We Were Soldiers" making them hard to come by on the open market

[GreenStormCloud]

83. Nope.

At most he would only need a few dozen for the movie set.

[mwrguy]

115. Even brand new ones

like Pmags

[shadowrider]

61. LA bank shootout. Sheesh, that was easy. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

77. Purpose: To have enough ammo when the shooting starts. N/T

[CTyankee]

134. Yes, and we ARE talking about the police, right? Not just citizens...

It seems to me that we, as citizens, grant the right of the police to carry certain weapons in not only the defense of their life but also in the interest of public safety. That is VERY different from allowing private citizens to spray bullets over a crowd of undefensable people in a supermarket...

[one-eyed fat man]

142. The police

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Some tell us do not resist, and simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, do you still expect a woman to, with great dignity and poise, simply "get up off that pussy?"

A criminal threatens lethal violence but we are supposed rely on the criminal's good nature: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want."

Call for a cop, call for an ambulance and call for a pizza, see who shows up first!

[CTyankee]

148. yeah, heard that one before...that's old...can't think of a newer one?

[rl6214]

162. The police aren't there to provide defense

or to protect us or provide for public safety. They are there after a crime has been committed to clean up the mess and write a report. To serve and protect is a fallacy. And the only guns I have ever seen spray anything have been squirt guns. Supersoakers are the best.

[GreenStormCloud]

168. If you are ever in a gunfight, there is no such thing as too much ammo.

Private citizens are not allowed to spray bullets over a crowd. If you want to seriously discuss gun issues you would do well to avoid such silly statements as that. For that matter, cops aren't allowed to spray bullets either. Both cops and citizens are taught to AIM their shots. At my range test, live firing my handgun at targets, I scored 250 points out of a possible 250. I hit what I shoot at.

[RSillsbee]

73. It also doesn't hinder criminals NT

[benEzra]

149. Police departments *overwhelmingly* use them.

You can still get the gun. You can still get the ammunition. It doesn't hinder sportmen, target shooters and hunters. You can still defend yourself (police dept. don't use them).

Police departments *overwhelmingly* use them. Remember we are talking about banning all magazines over 10 rounds here, not rare 33-round Glock magazines.

The standard capacity for full-size civilian 9mm pistols, like the one your local police officer might wear on her hip if her department hasn't upgraded to .40, is 15-20 rounds; the standard capacity for civilian/non-automatic .223 rifles and carbines (commonly issued to regular non-SWAT patrol officers in addition to, or in lieu of, the traditional 12-gauge shotgun in the rack) is 30 rounds, or 20 if space is tight. I don't know of any departments at all that use pistols under 10 rounds, though.

You have to go back prior to the 1860's to find a time that over-10-round guns weren't on the U.S. civilian market, and their law enforcement use goes back a century. And yes, banning them would hinder target shooters and defensive users, though I agree they're irrelevant to the minority who hunt.

[Atypical Liberal]

172. Perhaps not for handguns...

You can still get the gun. You can still get the ammunition. It doesn't hinder sportmen, target shooters and hunters. You can still defend yourself (police dept. don't use them).

If we agree that the intent of the second amendment was to insure that the populace was armed with small arms appropriate for infantry use, then, since current infantry forces use rifles with "high capacity" magazines, then such magazines are necessary to put civilians armed with such rifles on equal footing with the regular army.

I could see a case for such magazines not being necessary for handguns.

And another point: many of the constitutional democracies around the world have been fashioned on ours to whatever extent. Yet none of the have included our 2nd amendment. If it was a freedom loving issue, a protected freedom issue, why did they not just include a 2nd amendment? Why did they deliberately exclude it? If you haven't already done so, travel in some of those countries and ask the people if they even want a 2nd amendment. Explain your side of the argument. I'd be itnerested in knowing what you find out...

I chalk it up to naivety and fear. Fear, because not many leaders of any government are going to build a government where the governed have the Constitutionally-enumerated right to shoot violently overthrow same government. It would take very, very brave leaders to do that. Or, if one is charitable, you could chalk it up to naivety. Perhaps the people making their governments just assumed that their government would forevermore be beholden to the interests of its people, and violent resistance to oppression would never be necessary.

[Callisto32]

207. You are right.

Police departments generally use the magazine that is standard for the weapon.

That means 15+ rounds for 9mm, generally, not to mention 20 and 30 rounds on duty carbines, which generally will take STANAG mags.

Appeal to popularity is NOT an argument, by the way.

[Hangingon]

50. Other countries don't have a constitution?

[Euromutt]

59. They don't

To the best of my knowledge, the only other country that has adopted a limit in magazine capacities is Canada. In the rest of the world, if it's legal to own, it's legal to own with the magazines with which it came from the factory.

[CTyankee]

84. They do have strict regulation and you must qualify to own.

I don't know if the high capacity issue is one that has been tested in those countries...but my point is that the gun ownership is limited and highly regulated.

[Euromutt]

122. Well, as you asked elsewhere in this thread...

"How do other constitutional democracies manage to do it without infringement upon rights of the citizenry?"

There's your answer: they don't.

And as for whether "the high capacity issue is one that has been tested in those countries," do the names Erfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre) and Winnenden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting) ring a bell? While those incidents led to calls for age limitations on possession of firearms (which were introduced, partly because they'd been in the works anyway) and prohibitions on first-person shooter video games and paintball, nobody called for prohibitions on "high capacity" magazines and none were adopted.

[CTyankee]

130. How often were these laws invoked?

And was high capacity(similar to the Tucson massacre) the real issue?

[Euromutt]

166. Oh sorry, I thought you mean "high capacity" in the McCarthy/Schumer/Feinstein sense

I.e. anything over 10 rounds. No, in the German massacres (16 dead in Erfurt, 15 in Winnenden, not counting the shooters capping themselves) the shooters used standard capacity factory mags: in Erfurt, Steinhäuser used a Glock 17 with 17-round mags, and in Winnenden, Kretschmer used a Beretta 92FS with 15-round mags. Both are handguns chambered for 9x19mm; Steinhäuser fired 71 rounds, Kretschmer 112.

And magazine capacity has never been "the real issue" in any spree shooting.

[Bandit]

17. If they had not been available at least half the people in AZ would not be wounded or dead

What is silly is saying these are not a problem....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. But you can't say "what if X was unvailable"...

it's wishful thinking. You can't uninvent something - especially something of which exists millions.

We can't say "if we hadn't of invaded iraq, thousands of Americans would still be alive"... because it WE DID.

All we can do not is move forward, and that is what this discussion is about.

[CTyankee]

32. You're the one who said we "can't."

I think that's defeatist thinking. It makes me think that you have constructed a box that you cannot/won't think outside of, even for creative solutions...

[MilesColtrane]

43. Not necessarily

Loughner could have carried two guns, like the Virginia Tech shooter.

[X_Digger]

46. He actually purchased two on Nov 30, but only brought one to the shooting. n/t

[X_Digger]

45. Really?

You're assuming that the same people who tackled the shooter would be in the same position to do so after round #11? You're assuming that the shooter wouldn't have changed tactics to account for a decreased number of rounds? Remember, Loughner purchased a second handgun on Nov 30, but didn't bring it.

Much as Cho (VT) or Hennard (Luby's), this guy could have used the second handgun to cover himself while reloading. Both killed and injured more people than this nut did.

I know it's comforting to thing that just by changing one little thing, tragedy could be averted or at least minimized. But to assume that someone bent on this kind of destruction wouldn't have the presence of mind to change tactics is naive and dangerous.

[Euromutt]

63. Assuming all other things being equal, maybe

The problem with that kind of speculation is that you have make the assumption that a killer doesn't tailor his plan to the weapons he has available. If Loughner hadn't had extended mags available, he might have come in with two guns. Or rented a U-Haul and plowed it into the crowd first, like one guy in Tokyo did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre). The point is, without those extended mags, he wouldn't have carried out his attack the way he did, so you don't know any deaths would have been averted, or whether things might have been worse (say, because the spring on a non-extended mag wouldn't have failed).

[SteveM]

67. Well, how did Cho kill far more at VT with "shorter" mags?...

Because he carried more mags?

Frankly, I don't see the "problem." Is it the wide-spread use of these magazines in crime? Is it the common use of these mags in mass shootings? If there is no really discernible social problem linked to these magazines, then why the proposal for a ban? Is it to make a statement? If so, then that statement has to be explained, with particular attention paid to the cultural aspects of those statements.

[CTyankee]

94. I think you can break down these types of crimes based on the individual necessity

of the shooter, as it were. Who knows what Cho was thinking? Or knew what we know about these "mags"? Or whether he figured he could reload his guns between areas that he roamed and shot in?

We DO know that more bullets in faster time can kill and wound more easily in a crowd. Just makes sense...

Let's deal with THIS one first and then...

[one-eyed fat man]

147. Cho had all the time in the world.

The campus police responded by establishing a perimeter around the building and calling for the city police. If you listened to the cell phone camera footage students made outside Norris hall you could hear slow, sporadic and methodical gunfire. It took the SWAT team about a half hour to show up and another 10 minutes to break through the doors.

Cho did not kill himself until after the first armed officers actually got to his floor. He did not want to risk surviving capture.

At Columbine it was hours before the police actually entered the building. People bled to death waiting while the police methodically cleared the building.

[CTyankee]

150. That's a real good reason to get rid of the police force OR

to control gun violence at some level, perhaps with the ammunition.

But really, do you want to argue that we shouldn't have law enforcement officers in our midst? Is THAT what you mean to say? REALLY?

[one-eyed fat man]

154. The police do a good job of deterring by their presence

You ever wonder why there's never a cop when you NEED one? Most crooks, even lunatics, try not to commit a crime with a cop standing there.

Back in the olden days, before SWAT teams, a cop came on a scene like that he was expected to deal with it. Going back to the Texas tower sniper, while ordinary citizens with deer rifles and such kept the sniper distracted a beat cop, climbed the tower, no vest, nothing but an issue .38 caliber revolver and did what had to be done.

In Montreal, two city cops there on an unrelated matter heard the gunfire and immediately undertook to go after the shooter or more girls might have died. They took immediate action. They did not secure the perimeter to ensure the shooter could continue unimpeded until SWAT arrived

When seconds count, aren't you heartened that the police or only minutes away?

[CTyankee]

158. Here we go again...old, old, old argument...can't you guys come up with a fresher one?

really, you've been beating this poor dead horse, for YEARS.

enough already. Try harder...

[one-eyed fat man]

161. Has the passage of time

made it one less bit true?

I am sorry, I will admit that there was an incident in 1924.

The 1924 town council elections became known as one of the most crooked elections in the Chicago's long history, with voters threatened at polling stations by thugs. Capone's mayoral candidate won by a huge margin but only weeks later announced that he would run Capone out of town. Capone met with his puppet-mayor, in broad daylight, inthe middle of the afternoon, and personally threw him down the steps of city hall, in full view of the mayor's embarrassed police security detail.

So I guess there were some criminals who were undeterred by a police presence.

[rl6214]

164. "Let's deal with THIS one first and then..."

And then WHAT?

Therein lies the problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. You are assuming that he wouldn't have been able to reload.

Both the Virgina Tech killer and the Luby's killer used standard magazines and reloaded several times. Reloading with a standard magazine can be done faster than reloading with another extended magazine.

[RamboLiberal]

117. Virginia Tech - Cho fired 174 rounds 17 empty magazines

Do the math. He was using 10 rounders yet he killed 30 and wounded scores more.

[one-eyed fat man]

133. If all the people

Who say they knew he was crazy had done anything he'd been a mental hospital someplace.

One was even quoted as saying that as soon as he heard the news on the radio, "He knew it was Jared."

So, everyone who knew he was a lunatic and did nothing are blameless. The lunatic would have stayed home if the ban hadn't expired.

He will wind up in one, just like Hinckley. And just like Hinkley, back on the streets, sooner or later.

[CTyankee]

2. Surely, we can devise a way. We need to do this.

What is YOUR suggestion on how to reduce these magazines? How do other constitutional democracies manage to do it without infringement upon rights of the citizenry?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. "Yes We Can/Should" is not a solution...

All the desire and justification in the world isn't a solution.

We have magazines that existed before any bans which are effectively be unidentifiable from magizines produced after any bans (for law enforcement). They are undated, unserialized, and there's hundreds of millions. Arguably, all one would have to do to any new mags is remove the identification information.

This is a quantitative problem that is compounded by the fifth ammendment - so the government can't just make them illegal and sieze them without paying for them. Personally, I don't have a solution... unless you feel the government has tens of billions to spare to buy siezed magazines from pissed off people.

[CTyankee]

13. Why didn't you just entitle your thread "We can't ban these magazines and we shouldn't even try."

And not ask "how." You clearly "know" there is no "how."

Surely, you know that there are experts who disagree with you and can argue just as forcefully. I heard one of them on NPR just the other day and he covered the areas you mention. They are quite prepared to argue this in the courts.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Well, then post dome of those arguments or strategies.

I can admit that just because I don't have a solution to the problem, that there may still be a solution.
This is a discussion board, I was hoping for some community input. Surely someone has ideas I don't. :shrug:

[CTyankee]

29. I hope someone will. Guns are not the focal point of my interests in life.

They appear to loom larger in your life and a few others who are quite vocal here at DU on just this issue, since I keep hearing the same arguments again and again, with the same cited material. That's fine, but be aware that some of us non-experts are bright enough to pick up the drift of these arguments. But I know that there are other voices on this, such as the expert on NPR. He had a well thought out argument, in the face of the recent SC decisions. It would be nice to have him on DU.

But many of us here are not as immersed as you are in this issue and would welcome the opposing view. Perhaps there will be more voices to counter yours, but based on what this gentleman was saying there are moves now to challenge this one area of public safety law. Rep. McCarthy's staff have evidently been hard at work on her bill and we shall see how it goes, going forward. You may wake up someday to find that your castle of arguments were made of sand...

[SteveM]

69. There are some old rifle types which hold 20 rounds of ammo...

and they have been around since the Civil War. They do not have clips, and the magazines are integral to the weapon, often loaded in a tube under the barrel, or through a tube built into the wooden stock.

If a McCarthy 10-round ban is enacted, would you later push for a further reduction to, say, 6?

[GreenStormCloud]

82. Your desired ban will never make it through congress.

Half of the Senate and over half of the House have an NRA rating of "A". That means they agree with everything the NRA says. Get the point? The NRA owns congress.

[CTyankee]

87. That's a very good point.

You are exactly right! So does the banking and the health care and the drug industry. And the military industrial complex. They all have their dirty hands all over the Congress...making it no longer a congress of the people, who often want VERY different things from the congress and they don't get them.

It's time for the people to take back Congress...

[GreenStormCloud]

97. With respect to guns, we HAVE taken congress back.

The NRA is composed of CITIZENS who voluntarily join to focus their energies. About 4.5 million of them.

Those members with "A" ratings are there because we elected them and used thier NRA ratings as a voting guide.

[CTyankee]

102. well, goody good for you, there are some 250 million others.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. Enough of that 250 million vote pro-gun to have elected...

...the strongest pro-gun congress ever.

[one-eyed fat man]

165. One possible way

To measure how much support an organization has is to see how many dues paying members it has. After all, is it not fair to argue if people feel strongly about something they will join organizations that represent their views.

Well over 4 million gun owners are willing to pony up dues to join the NRA.

How many members does the VPC have? Philanthropic Research has a web site named GuideStar, which contains tax returns for many non-profit organizations. According to their tax returns the VPC receives no money membership dues. Between 1996 and 2006, the Violence Policy Center received U.S. $4,154,970 in funding from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit foundation based in the Great Lakes region of the US that funds several gun control organizations

This year, the VPC took a grant cut of $115K from their sugar daddies at the Joyce Foundation. Assuming no increases or decreases, that would mean Josh Sugarmann and Kristen Rand are now siphoning nearly half of the total grant in just their salaries alone (what a sweet gig).

More bad news as the Brady Campaign sells its member list to raise cash.

The Brady mailing list contains the names of 50,000 people, but apparently none "dues paying members." Also note, "As Huffman points out, 50,000 members is far below the 'about half a million members' that Brady president, claimed in a 2004. Maybe the "450,000 members" who "disappeared" quit to protest the selling of their names in violation of Brady's own published privacy policy?

Did Brady misspeak, prevaricate, dissemble or just flat out fucking lie? Again? or still?

[kctim]

44. Why do we need to do this?

[shadowrider]

62. Here's a better question

How do we pre-emptively identify who is a threat and who isn't?

Of course, that would require a violation of civil rights to commit them against their will esp. if they're 18 or over. If you're not willing to do that, limiting magazine capacity simply won't help.

[SteveM]

68. In short, I do not favor "reducing" these mags...

because they do not appear to have a significant impact, either way, on social problems. So, I would not have any suggestions in regards to your "reduction." As far as other "constitutional democracies," you will have to show what they have done regarding extended magazines. You may wish to explain how any of these actions "infringed...upon rights of the citizenry." My understanding is that most of these countries do NOT have a Second Amendment or its equivalent; in other words, the right to keep and bear arms is not recognized in the first place. This country DOES have a recognized RKBA, and gun control/prohibitions may affect the rights of OUR citizenry.

[Euromutt]

76. Most other countries don't have magazine restrictions

Once you've jumped through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to own a firearm, you can own it with whatever the standard magazine is with which it comes from the factory.

[one-eyed fat man]

211. They don't

"How do other constitutional democracies manage to do it"

://www.frankonia.de/waffen/waffenzubehoer/magazine/categorylist.html#pagingSize=16&sortOption=performance&f_s_marke=MEC-GAR|SIG+Sauer|Glock&displayType=gallery&page=0&lastSelected=f_s_marke|Waffen Frankonia]

Large capacity magazines are for sale in Germany. No restrictions. While not a routine stop for tourists, those of us who actually spent years living and working in Germany know where to go shopping.

"....probably should have said 'western european countries'"

Germany IS a western European country.

[Statistical]

5. First of all what is high capacity?

McCarthy wants to prohibit the sale of 11 round magazines. Calling that "high capacity" is the height of hyperbole.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Lats say anything over 30?

I'm on your side here ;)...

I'm just trying to illustrate why any bans will be quantitatively and logically pointless without violating multiple Amendments.

[Statistical]

8. This is a major reason why the AWB only prohibited new sales.

Well no it didn't even do that. The AWB prohibited new manufacturing. Well technically it only prevented new legal manufacturing.

Magazines exist. There are hundreds of millions of them (maybe as many as a billion). They aren't consumable, they last a very long time and can be easily repaired (usually a bad magazine simply means a bad spring). None of them are serialized, or dated which makes accounting impossible.

Still I like to interject the 11 round reality anytime someone uses the term "high capacity".

[Katya Mullethov]

75. An attempt to redefine "Standard Capacity "

[Llewlladdwr]

11. Why would we want to? NT

[slackmaster]

15. Start with your own home

You have the right to ban them yourself.

You do not have the right to ban them from my home.

[CTyankee]

19. That's a good argument! I could use that basic premise not to pay my income taxes this year!

Pick and choose the laws you'll obey! I like it...

[slackmaster]

22. You have intentionally misrepresented what I posted, and I think that's despicable.

I have never advocated that anyone violate any law.

[CTyankee]

30. I did no such thing. I carried it reductio ad absurdum. That's all.

Sweetjesus, you guys get so mad so fast...

[slackmaster]

37. That's not a true reductio ad absurdum, and claiming that it is just digs you in deeper

You intentionally misrepresented my position.

[CTyankee]

49. Goodness gracious! Then have me burned at the stake for a witch!

[slackmaster]

71. You'll get better

Work on it.

[CTyankee]

105. Maybe you'll do better.

but I dunno...

[SteveM]

70. Poor argument...

Choosing NOT to pay your income taxes is against the law, possessing a 30-round magazine is not. You can, however, choose not to possess such a magazine.

[CTyankee]

89. But if non payment of incomes wasn't against the law, then you can't "choose" to pay.

It begs the question: why not just ban them? Then "choice" is not an issue...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

93. "why not just ban them? Then "choice" is not an issue..."

With views like this... if you could just do us all a favor and not publicly admit to others that you believe in liberal values, that'd be great. K, thanks!

[SteveM]

103. Try to enact a ban, then.

[CTyankee]

106. Hey, that's the point! Some people are working on it!

Don't worry, they'll show up...we have a real uphill battle, but so did lots of social legislation that we love today...social security for one...

[shadowrider]

116. Excellent. Republican President, House and Senate for the foreseeable future

Gotta love them "liberal" gun-grabbers

[SteveM]

127. Reality is suspended in a culture war. Losing doesn't matter, either.

[SteveM]

126. Social security is fine. Prohibition is failed, corrupt policy. That's the point.

[CTyankee]

136. Travel a little. It works fine in other countries.

Have you ever been abroad? Do you know anything about countries other than the U.S.?

If not, you are typical but it is not a terminal state. You can always travel to other democricies in the world where gun control is a given.

Have you ever thought of going to Europe? There are nations that suffered the MOST in WWII and they came out of it as strong constitutional democries but without our 2nd amendment. Why is that? What had they learned that we never did?

I have travelled to Europe, many times. I would implore you to expand your limits to other cultures and nations that differ with us on these social issues. Just try it. It won't kill you. As a matter of fact, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at how "civilized" these people can be.

I am taking my 8th trip to Europe in 6 years this April. I will go to Paris on an art intensive with a study group. I learn a great deal culturally but also politically from these trips. It is a different world out there, but you must explore it on your own.

I encourage you to do so. Why not?

[SteveM]

143. I am convinced of the "civility" of peoples in Europe...

without having to travel there. While it is always broadening to travel, such travel is in no way a substitute for sound thinking, nor an ace-in-the-hole for good logic, nor a measure of one's superior background on cultural matters (though it certainly can be).

Turning to the Second Amendment, this right was guaranteed to the citizens of the U.S.; other countries can deal with rights (enumerated or otherwise) as they wish. Frankly, the Second is one of the true "radical, liberal" rights which flowed from our revolution -- emphasis on OUR revolution.

Prohibition stinks. We have a real war on our southern border because of prohibition, and we have some rather narrow, extreme pro-ban journalists actually trying to graft gun-prohibition onto drug prohibition! Maybe they need to take that world-wide tour you suggest. If I had enough money, I would take such a tour, but I doubt that my views on the Second would be changed. Frankly, I don't know why, why, why some American citizens get so bent out of shape over the Second. Remove guns (or severely restrict their use) in this society, and you would -- voila! -- engender a massive, effective, sophisticated and well-funded underground. Just as with other prohibitions masking as culture war.

[CTyankee]

146. No. You don't know without going there. It is transforming. You must meet with people

in other cultures who have experienced what you never have to know this.

What is it about Americans that they "know" about people in other nations without even bothering to travel there and find out?

that's crazy.

At the very least, try reading history. Read up on WHY those nations chose NOT to adopt our 2nd amendment. Why is that? Any idea?

Get a little more background. The U.S.A. is not that "exceptional". In many ways, we are "regressive." And this is one...

[one-eyed fat man]

195. Swiss and the right to vote.

The Swiss democratic tradition predates ours. The Landsgemeinde or "cantonal assembly" is one of the oldest and purest forms of direct democracy. The first historically documented assembly took place in 1294. It is still practiced in two cantons of Switzerland on a cantonal level and in others on district level.

Free Swiss citizens demonstrated their eligibility to take part in the earliest Landsgemeinde by bringing the weapon they were going to use to defend the country. Out of this strong militia tradition, the Swiss attitude was if you were not willing to fight for the country you did not deserve a say in how it was run. By the 1848 constitution voter eligibility was tied to military obligation.

Women had no obligation for military service. Women had no vote. This did not begin to change until 1971. The last Swiss canton to allow women to vote was Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990.

[CTyankee]

202. And the Swiss are now reconsidering their gun laws...

I never said everything was perfect in Europe. When I visit I talk to the people there and we discuss differences in our systems of democratic government and on a wide variety of subjects (abortion rights and environmentalism were two that I recall). I think it is a great opportunity to learn and to see how other constitutional democracies operate.

[one-eyed fat man]

188. I was born in Germany in 1942.

My parents and I managed to escape East Germany in 1954. The Stasi had an informant for every seven people. One difference I noticed almost immediately after being enrolled in school in the United States is none of my teachers telling me it was my duty to inform on my parents.

Not 10 years later, I was a soldier in the US Army in stationed in Germany. Out the next 20 years I lived in Germany for 12 of them. I spent a lot of time working on the border. I never saw anyone escaping from the West to the East.

[CTyankee]

203. I probably should have said "western european countries" as those are the

ones who developed new constititutions after WW2, with some good developments a bit later, as with Franco and Salazar. I never visited Iron Curtain countries, altho my mother did back in the 70s...

[shadowrider]

191. I've traveled, a lot. Been around the world twice working on equipment

You're right, guns are outlawed in Britain, some knives require gov't permission to buy, etc.
Their weapon of choice now? Steel-toed boots where they simply kick you to death or did you miss this little detail in your travels?

[CTyankee]

204. Yawn...you know the answer...I don't have to repeat it...

[GreenStormCloud]

196. Are you offering to pay for the tickets and accomodations?

Travel isn't cheap you know. The only country I could afford to go to would be Mexico. They have extremely tight gun control there.

[shadowrider]

200. That's right. Because of their tight gun control

You can walk the streets of Juarez and Tijuana in perfect safety.

Wait, nevermind.

[CTyankee]

205. oh, lawdy...what a really silly response...

[CTyankee]

208. Well, I found a cheap ticket and I've got a good travel buddy and I'm going to Paris in April!

And you're not...evidently.

I'll have a litle aperitif in a cafe in your honor...

[oneshooter]

199. I have traveled overseas. Two tours in the RVN, one each ROK and Okinawa.

I prefer to remain in Texas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[shadowrider]

201. Dude, you're talking to someone who insists street gangs don't have AK's

You may want to spell out RVN and ROK. (I know what you mean, they won't).

[oneshooter]

209. Ya, I Know. But if he gives a damn, which I doubt, he will look it up.

[one-eyed fat man]

210. Just cause her grief

Her definition of a "tour" and our definition are wildly divergent.

That fact that you and I did field work in "Applied Foreign Policy" would likely cause great distress.

[GreenStormCloud]

212. "Applied Foreign Policy" I love it. LOL.

Thanks for your service. I was in the Navy.

[Marengo]

206. I have lived in Asia and traveled in Europe as well

In mainland China for example, I found an intense curiosity about firearms and a surprising amount of admiration of our RKBA. Most of the Chinese who expressed an opinion to me on the subject wished they had the legal right to do so. There were exceptions of course, but I discovered the "pro" position to be supported by a broad gender/age/social class cross-section of those who opined.

Something else I discovered in Asia: the ugliness of European arrogance. Many of the western European tourists I encountered behaved in a patronizing, condescending manner and couldn't be bothered to disguise their contempt for modern China. Yes, there is much to be critical of, but at least have the sense not to offend those whose country you are visiting.

As a whole, I'm not as impressed with Europeans as the "enlightened" seem to require me to be. Many manifest a palpable cultural chauvinism and feeling of superiority which is tiresome at the least.

[Euromutt]

197. No, you can use that premise to not pay *slackmaster's* income taxes

Your income taxes remain your lookout.

[cowcommander]

18. Don't people realize just how easy it is to make a high-capacity mag?

That's all it is - a metal/polymer container with a spring pushing bullets up. The carrying capacity of a magazine depends entirely on how big the container is.

[RamboLiberal]

21. Which would you rather trade?

A few years of a feel good measure that does nothing or a decade or more of total Republican rule in the Federal government and many states and good bye to even this health care law?

[-..__...]

24. Better question - How can we derail/thwart/defeat

the attempts by anti-gun organizations, individuals and legislators to impose/enact a ban (or regulate), on "hi-capacity" magazines?

We have the organization, money, muscle and motivation on our side to prevent any new feel good gun control legislation from happening.

We need to put those factors into motion and put the pressure on our representatives in Congress that any "ban" or regulation on magazines
is unacceptable.

We've made some fantastic gains and big victories the past few years.

Lets not squander those accomplishments by allowing the anti-gun crusaders to turn the clock back on us.

[CTyankee]

78. Your approach is more honest, IMO. You title it exactly for what it is.

There really is no "could" here...a futile question in this context.

[Taverner]

25. Create a stamp tax

And make the stamps impossible to get

It worked for other things

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. What are you talking about?

Stamps? What does that have to with firearms & magazines?

[Taverner]

28. What do stamps have to do with Marijuana?

Yet that's the law - marijuana is fully legal if you buy a stamp - which is of course impossible to buy

Create a law saying that to buy or posses a large magazine, you need to pay a tax that's impossible to pay, and get a stamp that's impossible to get.

[mwrguy]

40. ATF issues stamps all the time

$200 and a few months wait gets you a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or full-auto stamp.

The first 2 can then be bought at a store, brand new. The third item you need to buy from someone who had one on the books prior to the 86 ban.

[SteveM]

72. Yeah, like marijuana.

[pottersvilleusa]

54. I think you ask exactly the right question

Guns don't kill people (according to the NRA).
Ok then ammo kills people.
I can play their game.

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. Hopefully not

The last time major gun control legislation was enacted, Democrats lost big in the next election.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. Picture of restricted magazine markings

Here is a marked magazine produced during the ban. It is marked, "RESTRICTED LE/GOVT ONLY"

After the ban was passed in 1994 one of the largest police supply companies in United States ran a special deal for police officers. They would trade even up, a brand new Glock, Sig, S&W etc to any police officer who traded in the same model USED, as long as it came with its unmarked pre-ban factory magazines.

They did a land office business and more than recouped their investment reselling the trade ins with the pre-ban mags at a healthy premium.

One other tidbit, locally there was an individual arrested for some computer scam late in 2003. One of the things the police discovered in searching this guy's house were two "Law Enforcement Only" marked Glock magazines. Similar to the one pictured.

Even though the ban had "sunset" before he came to trial, he was still convicted of unlawfully possessing the magazines which were NOW legal because they were illegal when he had had them.

[CTyankee]

90. Sounds like we needed a more restrictive law...

[one-eyed fat man]

123. the Fifth Amendment

The fly in the ointment is the Constitutional guarantee.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That pretty much means that not only is there a due process requirement, there is a requirement to pay market prices. Most ban proponents are all about the ban and ignore or dismiss the requirement or cost of compensation. That is why the ban was on NEW production magazines and they were required to be marked if manufactured after September 13, 1994.

[CTyankee]

141. Betcha the new legislative proposals have studied that...whaddya think?

Oh, I know they're too stupid...right, gotcha...

[X_Digger]

152. You'd think so.. then there's this..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41031214#41031214

Check out Representative Brady's comment starting at 1:20 or so..

O'Donnell asks him if Brady's proposed regulation of speech is actually constitutional-

"Well, first of all, let the supreme court decide that, that's what.. they get paid enough money to decide what's constitutional or not constitutional.."

[benEzra]

155. Well, their chief legislative sponsor in the House once proposed to ban "barrel shrounds"

and opined that a barrel shroud was "the shoulder thing that goes up," and other backers have opined that a 9mm carbine would "blow a deer to smithereens", and considering the claims they throw around about flash suppressors and protruding handgrips, I find it hard to believe that they are particularly knowledgeable about civilian firearms...

[CTyankee]

156. wow, how old is that?

[Pullo]

159. Less than 4 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_McCarthy">From Wikipedia

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act. She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity clips used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, the Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines; they were the AWB compliant 10 round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, McCarthy incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up".

[benEzra]

170. It's the same ban she pushes *every year*.

The talking points about handgrips that stick out, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, ad nauseaum date from 1988 or so (from Sugarmann's original strategy paper), but ban proponents trot them out every year.

[one-eyed fat man]

160. Got any toes left?

That is precisely why the last time around they went through the magazine ban they did not go after existing magazines. That avoided the whole takings, due process and compensation issue.

They banned the production of NEW magazines except for "Law Enforcement or Government Use" and required they be so marked. Even posted a picture of what the markings looked like.

You were unhappy with that, "Sounds like we needed a more restrictive law..." were your exact words.

You care to explain if its the Fifth Amendment restrictions you don't like or that, recognizing the Constitutional hurdles, the law was drafted to avoid them?

Unlike the ridicule Carolyn McCarthy so richly deserves for her technical acumen, she is entirely without fault or credit on the original ban as she was not yet elected to Congress when it was written and passed.

[Pullo]

108. Brady II sought to limit magazine capacity to 6 rounds

We've been here before. In fall of 1994, with the ink barely dry on the AWB and its 10 round magazine capacity limit, the anti-2A crowd was foaming at the mouth to impose even more constitutionally-dubious and ineffective restrictions on the RKBA.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html">Brady Bill II


Sorry anti-gunners, these retread proposals are a NON-STARTER.

[CTyankee]

110. well, welcome to DU, Pullo...

[cleanhippie]

184. Huh, Pullo has been here since 2008.

Sometimes I wonder....

[cleanhippie]

185. Exactly! Great post!

[Hoopla Phil]

167. How can we without a constitutional amendment?

[Atypical Liberal]

175. Yes, you can ban them very easily.

First of all, anyone who thinks that high-capacity magazines can't be banned is kidding themselves.

Yes, they can be banned, and successfully, at that. If you don't think so, try to by a machine gun today. Oh, they are still perfectly legal, all those transferable, pre-1986 machine guns. But they are effectively gone from the market.

No doubt, magazines are much simpler, and much cheaper, and probably exist in much higher numbers.

But most firearm owners obey the law.

If the government passes a law tomorrow that says, "all pistol magazines larger than 10 rounds are now illegal for sale or possession in the United States", you are going to have a very hard time buying them. They will be gone from gun shows. They will not be available for sale online. If you own some, you won't be able to take them to the shooting range, for fear of being spotted.

They will become, like machine guns today, essentially "cemented" away with their current owners, hidden away in attics around the country, and that doesn't count the countless people who will just turn them in.

It could happen, and it could happen very easily. Don't kid yourselves.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

178. Machinegun Ban works because:

A) Rareity of the item... since 1934, all machineguns were required to be serialized, taxed, registered, and have a $200 tax fee. Up until the late 70's, $200 was a disuasive amount of money. In 1932 it was a ton of money clearly designed to make it unlikely anyone would ever legally own one. The 1932 NFA worked and machineguns remained relaively rare well into the 80's. When the banhammer came down in '86 there were not so many to account for.

B) Comprehensive accounting and identification... as mentioned, all the MGs were serialized and registered sice 1934. When the ban took effect, if the item wasn't registered it was illegal. After 1986, it was VERY difficult to make a legal counterfiet MG due to the records.

Magazines are nothing like NFA MGs. There literally HUNDREDS of millions of "high capacity" magazines - too many to inventory after the fact. Furthermore very few of them are serialized or have dates of manufacture. And the fact remains, for the government to just say "these are illegal for sale or possesion" amounts to an infringement and siezure of rights & articles... which must adhere to the 5th ammendment protections. Firstly, to make the ban stick there must be due process of law whenever rights are reduced because ultimately magazines fall under the catagory of "arms" and should be protected articles. Other restrictions, such as the MG "tax" have held up to scrutiny. Secondly, to effectively take things away from people would require just compensation. Remember, no MGs were "taken" or banned from possesion in 1934 1986... only MGs that did not yet exist.

[Atypical Liberal]

179. Doesn't convince me.

The fact of the matter is, if the government made all high-capacity magazines illegal today, it would make buying or using them extremely difficult. Sure, the hundreds of millions of them would still be out there, in peoples homes, but they would hardly ever be used or sold.

It could happen.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

180. You're missing the 5th amendment protections...

1) To "ban" or remove from circulation an item which for constitutional protection may apply, Due Process is required. The ban will require those planning the legislation to demonstrate the ban will both EFFECTIVE in it's objective (lowering crime) and the legislation provides for minimum level of constitutional infringement (ie: is there a way to effect the changes without or with fewer restrictions). A magazine ban, in my opinion fails scrutiny under Due Process and I suspect the courts would agree - because that is who ultimately decides (SCOTUS).

2) To effectively BAN something (which was previously 100% legal) from possession or sale amounts to a de facto seizure for the interest of public safety. The 5th amendment requires Just Compensation for such acts - so the fed gov would have PAY market value for the hundreds of millions of magazines they ban. Not to mention that, with the stroke of a pen, you make 80 million US citizens potential criminals overnight - this is political suicide for any party.

Talking about all out "bans" like people have been doing is not a 2A issue... it's a 5A issue. The fact of the matter is, if the government made all high-capacity magazines illegal today, it would be acting unconstitutionally.

[Atypical Liberal]

182. I'm not arguing that point.

I'm not arguing how likely such a ban would be. I think it's highly unlikely. I'm just saying they could do it, it's been done before, they could do it again. We shouldn't let our guard down thinking it can't happen.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

183. Agreed.

They can do it.
But with the post 90's political clout of the NRA and the fact that ALOT more people now have these magazines than 15 years ago I don't think the law/ban would last more than one year before being tossed out as unconstitutional. Two years if you have to wait for the electorate to vote in people who would repeal it.

[guitar man]

193. We can't

I've got a friend right down the street, retired sheet metal smith with the tools and skills to make them in his garage. It's basically just a sheet metal box with a spring in it.

[GreenStormCloud]

198. 258 Members of the House have an NRA "A" rating.

That is over half of the house that completely agrees with the NRA. Any new gun control measures won't get out of committee.