High Capacity Magazine

[Wickerman]

[Columbia]

1. Should be rephrased as regular capacity magazine

Or unneutered capacity magazine.

[Wickerman]

2. Pray tell why

In my year down here I don't recall you making that correction on any other post where someone was longing for days of high capacity magazines and bullets growing on trees.

[Columbia]

3. One does get complacent when there are so many other memes to deconstruct

So little ones tend to slip by.

"High capacity" is the same type of misnomer as given to "assault" weapons to vilify a certain aspect of firearms.

[library_max]

16. Controlling the terminology helps you control the debate.

Standard right-wing tactic. Not surprised to see our RKBAers using it.

[FeebMaster]

31. Well said.

But then it wasn't the RKBAers that came up with the term "high capacity magazine."

[library_max]

64. Oh, so now there's no such thing as a high-capacity magazine?

All magazines have the same capacity, do they? Or all magazines for the same weapon have the same capacity, perhaps? No, they don't. Then there is such a thing, in reality, as a high-capacity magazine. It's not an evil anti-RKBA invention.

Many things come in different sizes and are designated as such, without it being propaganda. What, is it pro-Coke propaganda to go to a restaurant and order a small Pepsi? But when you try to eradicate the distinction or claim that the highest capacity is "full" capacity or "right" capacity or "unneutered," then you are trying to control the vocabulary of the debate.

Lordy, you guys are shameless.

[FeebMaster]

69. No one claimed that all magazines have the same capacity.

That would be dishonest and incorrect as would claiming that someone made that claim. How did they decide that an 11 round magazine is high capacity and a 10 round magazine isn't?

As you said, "controlling the terminology helps you control the debate" and the gun grabbers have certainly done this with their "high capacity" magazines and "assault weapons" which fortunately sounds kind of like assault rifle. Then getting away from the AWB we've got "vest busters," "pocket rockets," "sniper rifles," and the ever classic "Saturday Night N*****town Special." Oh wait, they shortened that last one to just "Saturday Night Special."

How are "we guys" shameless? Dumb, maybe, for using the terminology the gun grabbers have thrust on us, but we aren't the ones that came up with the terms "high-capacity" magazine and "assault weapon."

[Wickerman]

104. Saturday Night Special

Uh, our hero Diane wasn't in office - the Brady Center didn't have letterhead, and VPC wasn't even some freedom grabber's wet dream when the term Saturday Night Special was part of the common vernacular. I refer you to a song by Ronnie Van Zandt, who for assorted reasons made no recording post late 70's.

Two feet they come a creepin'
Like a black cat do
And two bodies are layin' naked
Creeper think he got nothin' to lose
So he creeps into this house, yeah
And unlocks the door
And as a man's reaching for his trousers
Shoots him full of thirty-eight holes
chorus:
It's the Saturday night special
Got a barrel that's blue and cold
Ain't good for nothin'
But put a man six feet in a hole
Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey
And playin' poker on a losin' night
And pretty soon ol' Jim starts a thinkin
Somebody been cheatin' and lyin'
So Big Jim commence to fightin'
I wouldn't tell you no lie
Big Jim done pulled his pistol
Shot his friend right between the eyes
chorus
Oh, it's the Saturday night special
Hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why don't we dump 'em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ol' fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me
chorus
It's the Saturday night special
And I'd like to tell you what you could do with it
And that's the end of the song

[FeebMaster]

107. Gun grabbers have been around

a lot longer than just the current crop.

[library_max]

105. So if a weapon can use magazines with a variety of different capacities

what do you want to call the high-capacity magazines? To distinguish them from the others, you see. Columbia suggested "regular" or "unneutered." So that would make any magazine with less than the maximum capacity "irregular" or "neutered." Is that your idea of fair and accurate terminology?

[FeebMaster]

109. Well if that's how you want to frame the issue

maybe you should call 20 and 30 round magazines standard capacity since they're the originals as far as ARs and AKs go. You can call the 5 and 10 rounders low capacity or "post-ban" or something.

So how did they decide on 10 rounds instead of 11 anyway? Or would you like to use your "selective ignore function" on that as well?

[library_max]

115. Who decided on ten rounds instead of eleven? /nt

[FeebMaster]

117. The person who wrote the ban obviously.

The question I asked was why consider an 11 round magazine high capacity while a 10 round magazine is not high capacity? Were you just selectively ignoring that?

[TX-RAT]

118. Other than the Browning Hi-power

What was the first pistol offered with hi-capacity capability's?

[FeebMaster]

120. I have no idea.

But it's probably best to ignore the Browning HP since it was introduced in what, 1935? I don't even know if it was the first pistol to have a "high capacity" magazine, however you choose to define it.

[TX-RAT]

122. "I have no idea."?

I stumped the answer man? I'm shocked. I figured you pull that right of the top of your head. No sarcasm intended.


Hell i don't know either. My guess would have been the Smith 59.
I might add, the first hi-power had a 15rd mag option.

[FeebMaster]

123. Does it matter really?

It's not like someone came up with the idea for "high-capacity" magazines in 1993. They've been around for a good long time.

[TX-RAT]

124. "Does it matter really?"

Yes it does. I'm try to determine just when everybody decided they can't live without a weapon capable of holding more than 10 round in the mag. Seems to me that hi-cap mags would have been the norm since 35, but amazingly they were not. I guess my question is, when did the hi-cap craze start, and why?
And once again, I'm not being sarcastic, just curious.

[FeebMaster]

126. How so?

Seems to me that hi-cap mags would have been the norm since 35, but amazingly they were not.

I guess it depends on what kind of gun you want to carry and in what caliber.

Browning HP - 13 rounds - 1935
VP70 - 18 rounds - 1970
Beretta 92 - 15 rounds - 1976
Glock 17 - 17 rounds - early '80's


They've been around for a while.

[FatSlob]

134. They pretty much started with the "Wonder-Nine" wars.

In the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, ammo manufacturers finally came up with some decent bullet designs for the 9mm. The major manufacturers started building more 9mm pistols and they had a fairly great capacity. This is due to the tininess of the rounds.

[library_max]

119. Maybe you don't understand how legislation works.

When legislators write a law restricting something, they have to define the restriction. They can't just ban firearm magazines that have "too many bullets in them." They have to provide a number. The number they provided, apparently, was ten. They could have said eleven, but they said ten.

That's not propaganda, that's legislation. They didn't set the limit at ten to make magazines with eleven or more bullets look bad. They weren't trying to scare people. They just had to specify a number. Does that clarify it for you?

[FeebMaster]

121. Oh, we talking about legislation.

See I thought after that whole "assault weapons" confusion in the other thread where no one was actually talking about "assault weapons" as defined by federal law when they were talking about "assault weapons" we might not actually be talking about "high-capacity" as defined by federal law but some other mystical definition of "high-capacity" that no one can seem to define yet everyone knows what it means.

So you support the magazine ban as set at 10 rounds? Would you object to changing it to 15? Would you like it lower than 10? 5 maybe?

It doesn't really matter, I guess, if you want to selectively ignore those questions as irrelevant twiddle, it will be gone in 55 days unless "pro-gun" Bush renews it.

[library_max]

125. Attention entire thread!

Ten bucks to anybody who can explain what the f*ck Feeb is talking about!

Not you, Feeb. That'd be cheating. Although if you would be so kind as to explain what you're talking about for free, that'd be nice.

[MrBenchley]

127. I suspect that our "pro gun democrat" friend

is trying to pretend that legislation and laws have no relation whatsoever, for whatever bizarre reason...

[FeebMaster]

129. If you say so

Really, pro-gun "Democrat" would make more sense than "pro gun democrat."

[MrBenchley]

130. Ask your question again, feeb....

[FeebMaster]

131. OK. Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

Are you going to answer it this time?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

133. Wow. I have just been floored.

Not only did you give me a direct answer of "Nope, not going to answer it," but you also directly called gun owners ignorant right wing shits for the first time to my recollection. Sure there's been the endless implications, but I'm pretty sure never a direct accusation.

Has someone hijacked your account?

[MrBenchley]

139. You did that for me, feeb....

All I did was point out all those answers our "pro gun democrats" gave....

[FeebMaster]

128. I seem to recall a thread

where you thought "assault weapon" meant something other than "assault weapon" as defined by the AWB and spent a number of posts pointing out that everyone was using some definition of "assault weapon" other than the definition of "assault weapon" provided in the AWB. Sadly you never did get around to telling me what definition of "assault weapon" everyone else but me was using but you made it very clear that it wasn't the definition of "assault weapon" that is in the AWB.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x70011#70106

There were a few other posts, but that one seemed like it was the most relevant in this case.

[slackmaster]

33. Seems to be a standard anti-RKBA tactic as well

Saturday Night Special
Weapon of choice
Assault weapon
Hidden guns
Cop-killer bullets
No legitimate sporting use
Designed to kill lots of people quickly
Spray-fire
Sniper rifle

etc.

Pot, meet kettle.

[library_max]

67. Anti-RKBAers invented the term "sniper rifle"?

I think you'll find that "Saturday Night Special" wasn't ours either - it came from the police. I will give you "Cop-killer bullets." Assault weapon is a legal term. None of the rest are examples of biased terminology, just statements of fact.

[FeebMaster]

70. Assault weapon is a legal term now?

Gee, I thought that when people said "assault weapon" it had nothing to do with the AWB where it is defined by law. Have you changed your mind on this point now?

[MrBenchley]

75. "Spray Fire"

"Next morning, under the cover of morning mist and without the customary artillery barrage announcing the beginning of an attack, 381 British tanks raced forward on a six mile front with supporting infantry. The surprise was complete as the Germans were quite obviously used to the habitual several days' advance warning by the artillery. "The Division (109th Brigade) moved to the attack at 6.20am, 107th and 108th Bdes. in support. Battalion "details" remain in Velu Wood under command of Major J.G. Brew."
As no tanks had been allotted to the Division's sector, and as no artillery was allowed prior to the attack, the job of the 109th was actually made that much more difficult. Machine Gunners were to move up with heavy Vickers machine guns and spray fire down the wide Hindenburg trenches, allowing accompanying troops to move up unhindered. The 9th Fusiliers remained in reserve during the morning but moved forward to a position 500 yards north-east of Vélu Wood two hours after the assault began."

http://www.royalirishrangers.co.uk/somme2.html

Guess the Royal Irish Rangers in WWI have joined with the New England Journal of Medicine as part of that sinister anti-gun coalition....

[FeebMaster]

77. That's another good one.

Although when the gun grabbers are whining about "spray firing from the hip" they aren't talking about machine guns like the Royal Irish Rangers were.

[library_max]

83. Quote? Or just garbage? /nt

[FeebMaster]

85. Quote what? (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

87. It's generally easier to "spray fire" with a machine gun.

Too bad the weapons the VPC uses that terminology to describe aren't machine guns.

[MrBenchley]

90. Gee, is that why they "invented the term," op?

[OpSomBlood]

96. It is certainly "invented" when used to describe semi-autos.

But then again, so is calling a semi-auto an "assault weapon."

[Wickerman]

97. Come on Bench

the latest term ain't spraying or anything close - its the less scary - Squad Cover Weapon. You know, as in mow down the entire...

[MrBenchley]

106. I guess that appeals to those with "neutered capacity" ethics

(snicker)

[iverglas]

4. dangerously close

high capacity magazines and bullets growing on trees

... to a lawn dart reference.

[Wickerman]

9. We'll have no mention of that

horrid, banned adult toy here.

[slackmaster]

5. Robb is a dingbat

Of course they're functional. The larger the capacity, the less often one has to change magazines.

Detachable magazines are great. When I take an AR-15 to the range I load up five to ten 30-rounders at home. That eliminates the need to mess with cardboard ammo boxes, some of which have plastic incerts, and the resulting small pieces of litter at the range.

FWIW the federal restriction which will expire in September has had little effect on me personally. Neither has California's stricter ban, enacted in 1999 IIRC, which does not allow existing magazines to be transferred or imported into CA. I bought enough standard Glock G17 magazines, US government-surplus 30-rounders, M1 and M2 Carbine mags (15 and 30 rounds respectively) for any future foreseeable need.

I am thinking about acquiring an FAL rifle. New-in-wrapper 20-rounders are still plentiful. Knowing both bans were imminent, I bought magazines in anticipation of possibly wanting the rifle later.

[Union Thug]

6. Geez... at the range I go to

you can only load a magazine to a maximum of 10 rounds at time... =(

[slackmaster]

7. Ranges have all kinds of weird rules

My indoor range requires a minimum 1-second interval between shots, but I've seen them waive it for some of the best pistol shots. Basically if it's on the paper you're shooting OK.

I saw a man who could reliably put 5 rounds of .45 ACP into pie plates at 10 yards in 1.4 seconds, including drawing his gun from a holster. If a gang of pie plate ne'er-do-wells makes the mistake of invading his home at night, they'll never know what hit them.

:freak:

[iverglas]

8. damn

That eliminates the need to mess with cardboard ammo boxes, some of which have plastic incerts, and the resulting small pieces of litter at the range.

Wouldn't a trash (or better, recycle) container solve that problem?

Detachable magazines are great. When I take an AR-15 to the range I load up five to ten 30-rounders at home.

Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that you are driving around with a loaded whatever-it-is? And is this actually legal?

I ask, because ...

http://www.canlii.org//ca/regu/sor98-209/sec10.html

10. (1) An individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) except in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, it is unloaded; and

(b) in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, its firing cap or flint is removed.

and probably the more applicable

http://www.canlii.org//ca/regu/sor98-209/sec11.html

11. An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;

(c) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; ...

The folk customs of other peoples sometimes just seem so weird ...

[slackmaster]

10. Legal in CA if the rifle is properly stored

In a locked container. See http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/travel.htm - under the heading REGISTERED ASSAULT WEAPONS.

I transport the rifle disassembled and in a soft rifle case with a teeny little cheap Chinese padlock. As long as the loaded magazines aren't in the same pocket as the rifle that qualifies as "unloaded". The soft case is considered by police to be adequate to fulfill the requirement for a "secure container", since the term isn't defined in the code and that's what most people use to transport handguns and registered AWs anyway.

BTW - At outdoor shooting venues there is often some wind blowing dirt around. The fewer opportunities you present to get grit on your ammunition the better.

[iverglas]

11. my ignorance is abated

As I now understand it, you loaded the magazines, and not the firearm.

Of course I assume you also lock it in the trunk if you leave the car. The bits of the Cdn regs that I didn't reproduce, in the case of a restricted weapon (I don't really know whether the thing in question is a restricted or prohibited weapon, but the rule seems to be the same):

(d) it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and

(e) when it is in a container described in paragraph (d) that is in an unattended vehicle,

(i) if the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and

(ii) if the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.

For non-restricted firearms (i.e. ordinary long arms for hunting), it goes like this:

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an individual may transport a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle only if

(a) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked; and

(b) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and the vehicle, or the part that contains the non-restricted firearm, is securely locked.

(3) If, in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting, an individual is transporting a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, and the vehicle or the part of it that contains the non-restricted firearm cannot be securely locked, the individual shall ensure that the non-restricted firearm

(a) is not visible; and

(b) is rendered inoperable by a secure locking device, unless the individual reasonably requires the non-restricted firearm for the control of predators.

[iverglas]

14. and now I have a question

I am working on something that is actually about a firearm ... the one that killed 14 women students at the Montreal Polytechnique in December 1999. Can someone tell me whether ".223 calibre Rem" (allowing for the different spelling of calibre/caliber) means something, and if so what?

If it weren't for the context, I'd call this one of those gun porn / hobbyist posts ...

[slackmaster]

17. Civilian nomenclature, equivalent to 5.56 x 45 mm NATO ammunition

Technical data and a lot of annoying ads at http://www.ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=BKnerrTPVv&catid=132

[iverglas]

19. aargh

It's correct to say though, right? I don't actually have to know what it means ...

I may be back. So far I think I'm okay with "trigger pressure" and "single fire action"?

Oops. Where are my manners? Merci!

[FatSlob]

26. The .223 Remington...

Fires a small caliber projectile, typically in weight of 40 to 62 grains. It is dimensionally identical to the 5.56 x 45 NATO round. However, the 5.56 NATO is loaded to higher pressures and requires a longer throat and lead (sp) in the chamber. Firing 5.56 NATO in a .223 chamber can lead to signs of overpressure, and is not advised. The .223 Remington is a moderate power cartridge, most suited to use against varmints. It also loses effectiveness rapidly in shorter barrel lengths. Overall, the .223 Remington is best used as a varmint or plinking rifle.

[TX-RAT]

29. Firing 5.56 NATO in a .223 chamber can lead to signs of overpressure

Might explain why i kept blowing extractors in my old 722 Reminton. I used it for bench rest competition, still chambered for 222. When i retired it to varmint hunting, i re-chambered to 223. Kept blowing extractors until i replaced it with a Sako extractor.

[iverglas]

32. aargh aargh

This was

a Sturm Ruger brand rifle, mini-14 model, .223 calibre Rem.
barrel length 470 mm. (18.5 in.)
overall length 943 mm.

So it's the cartridge that was a .223 calibre Rem? What I'm reading made it sound like it was the firearm.

It was used against a lot of people whom the person using it did indeed consider to be "varmints" -- women, and specifically women who had been accepted by the engineering school that had rejected him. Fourteen dead and, I believe, fourteen injured. The fourteen dead isn't counting himself.

Marc Lépine had been issued a firearms acquisition permit and bought the firearm and ammunition legally. He had magazines with 5- and 30-cartridge capacities. The rules for that sort of thing now are a little esoteric for me to get a grasp of on a quick read: http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/whole.html

[slackmaster]

36. Specifications are written for both cartridge and firearm

Most important specs concern physical dimensions of the chamber, cartridge case, and bullet; and the working pressure. There's a lot more arcana, but FYI the term .223 Remington is well understood by most people who are familiar with firearms.

[OpSomBlood]

37. .223 Rem is the ammunition.

Ammo calibers are often named after the gun manufacturers that developed them:

9mm Luger
.40 Smith & Wesson
.45 Glock
.223 Remington

Etc.

[iverglas]

42. ta again

This is all a pretty minor aspect of the document in question, but I wanted some sort of confirmation that what I was reading and understanding it to say made sense, since it was very shorthand.

[Romulus]

54. Mini-14 photo for those who bother

Base model not covered by the AWB because:

NO pistol grip
NO "flash suppressor"
NO bayonet lug
NO folding/adjustable stock

[iverglas]

63. and for those who also bother

"Base model not covered by the AWB because: ..."

My posts had absolutely not Thing One to do with the US's assault weapons ban, as I clearly explained. My posts had to do with a document concerning the 1989 killings of 14 women students at a university in Montreal, and my desire to confirm the accuracy of the terminology used in it.

For anyone who really wants to bother pursuing the actual issues that some might see in the situation in question, I've given links to the Canadian firearms law/regulations, which might be used to determine whether this particular individual would still likely be able to purchase this particular firearm and the particular magazines he used in the incident.

I don't know, offhand. I do know that Canada has not experienced a multiple homicide remotely similar to that one, since that one.

I don't think that bayonet lugs and some of those other gadgets figure specifically into Canada's laws/regulations. We seem to have found it perfectly easy to specify what firearms and accessories are restricted or prohibited just by identifying the darned things.

E.g.: http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec84.html

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-462/whole.html

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted
SOR/98-462
Registration 16 September, 1998

5. The components and parts of weapons, accessories, and cartridge magazines listed in Part 4 of the schedule are prohibited devices for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (d) of the definition "prohibited device" in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

Part 4

... 3. (1) Any cartridge magazine

(a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in

(i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada,

(ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun, ...

Strikes me that the magazines used by Lepine in 1989 would now be "prohibited devices" in Canada. And strikes me as pretty straightforward.

[FatSlob]

12. I prefer to call them "full capacity" magazines.

And, all my students are instructed to use that nomenclature also.

It is so nice to have the correct number of rounds in my gun.

[TX-RAT]

13. correct number of rounds in my gun. ?

And that number would be?
Let me guess, All i can get?

[FatSlob]

18. The correct number is what the design calls for.

For example, the Glock 17. The G17 was the seventeenth product produced by Glock. It was designed to compete in the trials for a new pistol for the Austrian armed forces. Coincidentally, the G17 was designed with a 17 round capacity. Therefore, the correct number of rounds (by design) of the G17 is 17. My Springfield XD was designed and manufactured in Croatia. It was also designed to have a capacity of 17 rounds. The extra weight aids in the balance of the gun, and also means less time spent reloading. This is why police and military carry full capacity magazines.

[TX-RAT]

21. 30 round mags were also available for the G17

Does that mean they were designed for 30?

[FatSlob]

24. They were available,

But poorly made, I do know of them being designed for use in the Glock 18. The design of the G17 called for 17. Use of the regularly available 30 round mags leads to excessive jamming and failures to feed.

[slackmaster]

41. I have one of those

It was intended for the selective-fire G18 and holds 31 rounds IIRC.

I never use it in my G17 because it seems kind of klunky and awkward in use.

[library_max]

15. Thank you, God of Magazine Capacity.

Whatever would we do without you to teach us right from wrong?

[FatSlob]

20. I keep on forgetting that some are ignorant about these things.

Please see my response to TX-RAT for an explanation. I am sorry that I didn't explain in my earlier post. I stupidly made the ASSumption that my readers would have the same knowlege base as me. Sorry!

[library_max]

22. Yes, we know, everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

No surprises there either.

[FatSlob]

23. Nothing to do with that,

and you know it. Get over yourself. If you didn't know about the original designs, then you were ignorant of the facts. Simple as that. I freely admit that I am ignorant of the gun laws in Alaska.

[Wickerman]

27. Full Capacity, High Capacity

anti-choice, right to life, its all the same - verbage is verbage, everyone knows to what was referred.

And, judging by the responses here, I'd guess the AWB addressed (addresses) more than cosmetics.

thanks for the inspiration, FS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x71847#71853

[OpSomBlood]

35. Actually the capacity requirements aren't covered by the AWB IIRC.

Isn't it part of the separate Crime Bill?

[Wickerman]

43. Actually, they are

by way of manufacture. poor writing of the original law allows magazines outside the US to be imported legally. I believe the Crime Bill attempted to correct that, as does the proposed update AWB.

[FatSlob]

73. Right, to clarify.

The magazine must have been manufactured before Sept. 13 1994. For example, Britain sold a bunch of pre-ban SA-80 mags to US dealers over the last few years. The gov't of GB has had to certify that they were made before the ban went into effect.

[FatSlob]

81. You are welcome.

You are right, we all know what one means, but I'll stick with my semantics!

[OpSomBlood]

25. Less reloading at the range.

And I agree with those who don't use the term "high-capacity" to refer to 10+ round magazines. The ten-round standard is arbitrary and very recent. If there were a law passed tomorrow limiting mag capacities to five rounds, would we call a six-rounder a "high-capacity"? Would revolvers then be considered "high capacity" too?

Current 10-round magazines for use in larger capacity pistols are generally not as reliable due to the fact that the capacity is artifically limited by changing the shape of the interior of the mag. Also, at pistol ranges where you pay by the hour, it is considerably more convenient to have your mags pre-loaded and ready to go.

I would like to see the evidence that supports the claim that the eleventh round in a magazine is more "lethal" than the first or third. If I recall correctly, the vast majority of gun crimes involve less than three shots fired.

[CO Liberal]

28. And I Thought "High Capacity Magazine"...

...was the latest publication from the NRA.

:-)

[MrBenchley]

30. Couldn't be....

there's nothing but extremely low capacity minds in the "target " audience....

[OpSomBlood]

34. Yeah, because name-calling and ad hominems...

...is a surefire indicator of a rapier wit.

[MrBenchley]

39. Geeze, op.....no rapier is needed

[OpSomBlood]

40. I find it pretty hilarious...

...that a person whose "arguments" are usually some variation of "right-wing horseshit" or "Too TOO funny..." can have the temerity to accuse anyone else of being witless or unintelligent.

[MrBenchley]

47. I find it even funnier

that anyone's supposed to care what a "pro gun democrat" who denied he'd read a post he'd actually responded to says...

[FeebMaster]

49. There you go again.

"pro gun democrat"

I keep telling you, pro-gun "Democrat" looks better and makes more sense.

[MrBenchley]

50. Hey, feeb...

Tell us again that you can't think of a single reason to vote for John Kerry....

[FeebMaster]

51. Gee, I don't think I've ever said I can't think of a single reason

to vote for Kerry. Maybe you could point out where I've said that. I did ask you "Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?" or something like that. You never did bother to answer.

[MrBenchley]

53. I did ask you "Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?"

[FeebMaster]

56. No, I'm pretty sure I asked you. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

57. Yes, I know you did...

that's why I quoted your post again....

[FeebMaster]

58. Were you planning on answering the question? (nt)

[MrBenchley]

59. Nope...just pointing it out again and again...

as the epitome of our "pro gun democrats" and their posts...

[FeebMaster]

60. There you go again.

"pro gun democrats"

It really makes more sense as pro-gun "Democrats." Good thing for you no one jumps on you for not capitalizing Democrats.

So why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

61. As do you: "So why should gun owners vote for Kerry?"

[FeebMaster]

62. Why should they? (nt)

[MrBenchley]

65. Ask me again, feeb....

[FeebMaster]

66. OK.

Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

68. Hey, shows what our "pro gun democrats" really are

better than anything I could ever say...

Just like this thread shows what a load of crap the "it's only cosmetic" argument is....

[FeebMaster]

71. There you go again.

"pro gun democrats" would really look better as pro-gun "Democrats." You might want to capitalize the Democrats too, it apparently upsets some people to see Democrat not capitalized.

So why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[MrBenchley]

76. Yup...and there you do too....

Shows better than anything I can say what the "pro gun democrats" are really all about...

[FeebMaster]

78. You really should capitalize Democrat

you wouldn't want someone to jump all over you for not doing it. Also, "pro gun democrats" really would look better as pro-gun "Democrats."

"pro gun democrats" really doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say these Democrats aren't pro-gun or are you trying to say these pro-gunners aren't Democrats? Maybe you're trying to say they're neither pro-gun nor Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

79. Yeah, it shows.....

[FeebMaster]

80. What shows?

Also, why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[library_max]

84. Why should pro-gun "Democrats" quote Ronald Reagan? /nt

[FeebMaster]

86. What are you talking about? (nt)

[Romulus]

92. I don't know, either

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=565

Sarah Brady said President Reagan supported both the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Sounds like the anti-gun-owner crowd is the one embracing Reagan . . .

Me, I'll stick with JFK:

"By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our Founding Fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the second amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of the country. For that reason I believe the second amendment will always be important."

[FeebMaster]

95. Not to mention his machine gun ban

but where was anyone quoting him? :shrug:

[library_max]

99. Backtrack the subthread. Difficult, but not impossible. /nt

[FeebMaster]

102. Well, I just reread the subthread

and I didn't see any Reagan quotes. Maybe you could link me to them.

[library_max]

108. Seek and ye shall find.

Try your post #71.

[FeebMaster]

110. That's a Reagan quote?

If you say so. I'd like to see a cite showing where and when Reagan said that.

[MrBenchley]

88. Sure is interesting to see

how our "pro gun democrats" have rushed to answer feeb's question, isn't it?

[FeebMaster]

89. Well, gee, I was asking you.

What is a "pro gun democrat" anyway?

[MrBenchley]

91. I guess we've all got a pretty good definition now, feeb....

[FeebMaster]

94. Do we?

Why don't you spell it out for us?

I mean I have a pretty good idea what pro-gun "Democrat" means. Clearly a person using that phrase is claiming that a person is pro-gun but not a Democrat.

"pro-gun democrat" on the other hand, ignoring that lack of capitalization, is ambiguous at best. Are you implying that these "pro-gun democrats" aren't Democrats? Are you saying they aren't pro-gun? Are you saying they aren't pro-gun or Democrats? See? Ambiguous.

[MrBenchley]

98. Yup...

And the "answers" from our "pro gun democrats" spell it out much more eloquently than anything I could even try to say....

[FeebMaster]

100. Which answers would those be?

Since we haven't even determined what a "pro gun democrat" is how am I supposed to know what their "answers" are, eloquent or not?

You never did answer the original question: Why should gun owners vote for Kerry?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

103. Being deliberately ignorant is nothing to brag about.

on edit:

"MrBenchley, isn't that Selective Ignore function cool?

I see that you've got it too. Very useful in responding to FeebMaster's posts."

[MrBenchley]

112. And yet some of our "pro gun democrats" seem to take pride in it...

[library_max]

114. Ignoring irrelevant twitter doesn't make anybody ignorant.

Lordy, Lordy, how you RKBAers love to throw around the word "ignorant"! Project much?

[FeebMaster]

116. Irrelevant twitter?

I guess you're welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, when people ignore questions they don't want to answer it makes them look ignorant at best and more likely than not dishonest as well.

"Lordy, Lordy, how you RKBAers love to throw around the word "ignorant"! Project much?"

Not at all. Maybe you could answer the question for me: Why should gun owners vote for Kerry? Although, frankly, I'd prefer you answered some of the other questions I asked you first. You know, the ones you've apparently decided to ignore as irrelevant twitter.

[MrBenchley]

111. Yes it is....

And now let's study all those responses from our "pro gun democrats" to feeb's fine question...

[FeebMaster]

113. I wasn't asking any of these "pro gun democrats"

whoever they might be. I was asking you.

[FatSlob]

135. That would be a great magazine title.

Probably better for a rock & roll mag though.

[FeebMaster]

38. The magazine portion

of the AWB is easily the most unpleasant thing about it. Usually the gun grabbers are too busy crying about machine guns and RPGs and whatnot and never mention it so it rarely even comes up. Frankly I wonder if most people arguing that the ban needs to be renewed even know about it.

[OpSomBlood]

44. I thought the mag capacity was affected by the Crime Bill...

...which was separate from the AWB. Am I wrong?

[Wickerman]

46. here, from a RKBA source

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

"High Capacity" Magazines

Another major effect of the law is the ban on manufacture of "high capacity ammunition feeding devices," otherwise known as normal or full capacity magazines. "High capacity" is arbitrarily defined as more than 10 rounds. Citizens must either pay exorbitant prices for "pre-ban" normal capacity magazines for their firearms, or use inferior artificially limited magazines. Neither choice is appealing.

[Wickerman]

45. I guess all the gnashers of teeth on the cosmetic issue

don't. Seems our gungeon experts agree (moving target terminology aside) it is far from cosmetic.

[FeebMaster]

48. The magazine ban may not be cosmetic

but the magazine ban has nothing to do really with assault weapons other than the fact that assault weapons use magazines covered by the magazine ban. Millions of other guns not affected by the AWB also use magazines affected by the ban.

Do you support the magazine ban lunabush? Why 10 rounds and not 15? Why not 5?

[Wickerman]

52. I frankly don't give a shit

But I do find it disingenuous for folks to say the ban is strictly cosmetic. As 'Slob says, its one of the most annoying parts of the ban.

Like you, I don't own one of the weapons. If I were to own a gun so affected, sure, I would want the ability to carry more hot lead in one cartridge, magazine, whatever term you desire. However, I might reach a different conclusion about societal cost and be content to have my 5 rounds.

That really isn't the point of my posts here, though.My point is, the AWB does contain language that bans the manufacture of said "full" capacity magazines. It is not a cosmetic issue, as clearly determined here today - so RKBAers should stop saying the AWB is only cosmetics. I do regret that I am ill-informed on separate magazine legislation. Would you be so kind as to supply me the link?

edited for incredibly bad spelling

[FeebMaster]

55. I guess it would be more fair

to say that other than the magazine ban the AWB is cosmetic. Although saying the AWB is cosmetic at all is somewhat inaccurate. Flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and collapsible stocks do have purposes, although a bullet fired out of an AR-15 clone with them is no more deadly than a bullet fired out of an AR-15 clone without them.

For all the crying about machine guns and AK-47s and UZIs and the blood that will surely flow in the streets come September 14th, AWB supporters certainly seem to be more worried about assault weapons than magazines. I don't recall ever seeing an AWB supporter even mention the magazine ban in any of the many AWB threads here on DU.


What separate magazine legislation are you talking about?

[Wickerman]

72. fair enough

On Magazine legislation - I guess I misread your post. You asked if I supported the magazine ban - I read that as sep leg. My bad.

[FeebMaster]

74. I see.

Well there are various state bans on magazine capacity.

[Jack_DeLeon]

82. Full capacity magazine...

Myself and other use the term "full capacity magazine," which pretty much means it will hold as much ammo as possible while still remaining inside the grip and not extending below it.

On my 1911 standard magazine size is 7 rounds, but there are also 8 round magazines that would still fit inside the pistol grip. There are also 10 and 15 round magazines but they all protrude under the grip.

On a Glock 17, you can fit a 17 round magazine inside the pistol grip.

[Wickerman]

93. Thanks

there have no been about 75 "corrections" of terminology. Interesting that has never come up before with any regularity. I do appreciate those who actually took time to respond to thread content.

[MrSandman]

136. Just had to say other...

Magazines over 10 rounds do not necessarily change the rate of sustained accurate fire appreciably, given practice. Some have noted the convenience of magazines with greater than 10 rounds...I would consider this less than functional.

The true function of the limiting of magazine size, IMHO, has been to encourage the development of more compact large caliber pistols. Why take a ten round 9mm when in the same size weapon, one can get an 8 round .45? To be sure, widespread CC laws have contributed to this, but I believe the mag capacity limit had an effect also.

So maybe the AWB wasn't all bad? Just counterproductive to the gun prohibition movement.

[Wickerman]

137. I gotta call foul on that

what are you doing posting an intelligent post in this thread.

:spank:

[MrSandman]

138. Oh yeah, Tuesday...n/t