2 Mar

Why we need high capacity magazines

YouTube Preview Image

Larry Correia:

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth
shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums. So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Read more

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

71 Responses to Why we need high capacity magazines

  1. mathman says: 1

    Ever seen (witnessed) someone high on PCP?
    I have.
    Four uniformed officers were unable to control the guy. His hysterical strength was unbelievable.
    Not being able to feel pain, he dragged his hands out of the handcuffs. He bled a lot, but he didn’t notice.
    He had to be bound with heavy nylon straps (I think they were seat belts) and tranquilized just to get him under control.
    As far as magazines are concerned: the devices are made of metal, as are the cartridges and the springs. Just as the moving parts in a gun need to be properly lubricated, the magazine and its contents need to be properly treated and maintained in order to avoid jamming. In addition, the metal magazines do not take well to being in contact with other metal objects; they can be bent, and thus not insert properly into the rifle.
    Like everything else which has to do with guns, practice and training are necessary. One needs lessons from a good gunsmith in maintenance, as well as training in the proper use of the weapon.
    Face it: a jammed weapon is worse than useless. I vividly remember my Army training. Our M-1 Garand rifles had to be absolutely spotless and free from grease and oil. Pristine. Unfortunately the activator piston which bleeds off some of the propellant gas and activates the ejector mechanism will bind if totally dry, making the weapon useless. But our Captain required that boiling water be used to completely clean the weapon. Oh, well. The rifles were inoperable, but they passed inspection with flying colors!

  2. johngalt says: 2

    The magazine limitation just imposed on NY residents is stupid. Cuomo suggested the 7-round limitation based on hunting. However, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting rights. It’s about the right to defend yourself, from criminals, foreign invaders, and domestic tyranny.

    I believe that NY already had a 10-round limitation. Now it is 7. All firearms are to be registered, with the stated reason being to identify those weapons that will be grandfathered in, back to the 10-round capacity. However, the new law states that no matter what capacity round you end up legally entitled to own, that ONLY SEVEN ROUNDS CAN BE LOADED AT ANY TIME. This is where the real stupidity starts. Since when are criminals concerned about laws? Does he really think that a criminal will observe that seven-round limitation when that criminal is breaking other laws?

    So maybe it’s not about the actual number of rounds in a weapon. Or maybe it is about the number of rounds, but not for the given reason they suggest.

    Maybe they wish to limit the number of rounds to make more weapons likely to be considered “illegal”, per their laws, and taken away from the law-abiding. In essence, making criminals out of people who are otherwise law-abiding people.

    You tell me.

    Also, it has been demonstrated that a magazines capacity makes no real difference in the number of shots they can fire in a given time period, in the public arena. Especially when the targets the shooter is identifying are likely to be law-abiding people and not carrying any sort of defense for themselves in those “gun free” zones so popular amongst the criminal crowd.

    So what happens when the next shooter actually follows that round limitation, by choice, or by necessity, and uses a firearm only holding 10-rounds, like Obama suggests? Will the next call be for 5-round mags? Then after the next one, will it be 3-round mags? Will it eventually end up where the law-abiding are only allowed one bullet per firearm?

  3. Greg says: 3

    How many rounds per magazine did the Founding Fathers have to contend with?

  4. johngalt says: 4


    It’s not the capacity that matters, Greg. It’s the limitation imposed on the citizenry by a government that observes no limits upon itself. I’m sure that if the redcoats could have, they would have limited the Founders to bows and arrows, or rocks, while they enjoyed the use of firearms.

    In 1946, after coming home from WWII, veterans around Athens, TN were subjected to one of the most corrupt governments, including the police themselves, in our nation’s history. They attempted to defeat this corruption at the voting booth, but were deterred by the enforcers of the Mayor, the Sherriff, and other political figures who had their hand in the cookie jar, thieving from the citizens.

    On election night, when the ballot boxes were absconded by the very people the veterans were trying to remove from office, and taken to the county jail to be “counted”, the veterans decided that enough was enough, and retrieved arms. From the local National Guard armory. The corrupt government officials and their enforcers had access to the high powered weapons of the day, so in order to compete with that, the veterans needed access to their own high powered weapons, including M1 Garands and Colt submachine guns.

    The veterans prevailed, taking control of the ballot boxes and returning them to a public forum to be counted. The corrupt were driven out, at the point of the gun.

    This is just one case where an armed citizenry took freedom back for themselves, using the available weapons of the day that the government had free access to.

    How do you think that would have turned out if the veterans only had access to hunting rifles or shotguns, while facing an enemy using fully automatic weaponry?

    Your inane comment means very little when it comes to my rights to defend myself, whether that be against some gang-banger, an armed assailant in my home, or a corrupt government hell-bent on instituting tyranny.

  5. Petercat says: 5

    @Greg: #3
    “How many rounds per magazine did the Founding Fathers have to contend with? ”
    The same number as the civilians of that time period had available. As it should be today.
    I don’t “need” a 30 round magazine.
    I don’t “need” a car that can reach speeds of over 130 mph, either.
    But I want them.
    As long as I, personally, don’t use them to hurt another person, I should be free to own them.
    Despite what use idiots and the insane might put them to.
    Arguing gun control based on “need” is letting the liberals control the argument.

  6. John Hardesty says: 6


    How did the Founding Fathers surf the Internet ?
    How did the Founding Fathers talk to their family while they were away doing FF stuff ?

    If the Founding Fathers did not use the Internet or the telephone, then neither should we ?

    What an asinine non sequiter you posted with that question.
    The Founding Fathers would have with their Musket and pistol – a bag of gunpowder, flints, wads of cotton and of course lead balls

    Obviously you dont have balls – lead ones – do you ? Like the Founding Fathers
    Not a storage bag of gunpowder
    Or a powdered wig
    or a tricorn hat
    or a snuff box

    As it was said, the founding fathers had the the same armament as the military / government as – queue the history channel – the Industrial Revolution has not progressed to military arms. However, 4 score years and such later, there were more develops in arms during the ACW that before. and at the end, repeating rifles, machine guns, etc……

  7. johngalt says: 7


    Exactly. My rights to anything, whether it be high capacity mags, or screaming “the sky is falling” in public, stop at the point they affect someone else’s rights. When I do not use my firearms, with 30-round magazines, to murder people, Greg doesn’t have the standing to limit my right to own a weapon like that. Ever.

    They can call their “solutions” common sense, but in reality, they are based on something completely unrelated to logic and sense.

  8. Petercat says: 8

    @johngalt: #7
    You got it, buddy.
    Let the citizens exercise their freedom to wave their arms.
    When their waving arms connect with someone else’s nose, then deal with the errant citizen.
    Just don’t tell me that I can’t wave my arms because they might conceivably make contact with another’s nose.
    Or because Mrs. Grundy is afraid of arm waving, or feels that since she has no desire to wave her arms, no one else should be allowed to.

  9. Nan G says: 9

    Remember the ”Hollywood shootout?”
    It was February 28, 1997.
    Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars.
    They were being shot up without making a dent on either shooter.
    Eleven of them lay all about in the open shot and bleeding while it was too dangerous to even try to get to them behind a car as cover.
    Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor.
    They also wore body armor of their own.
    Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers’ body armor, the patrol officers’ bullets were ineffective.
    Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer.
    The laws CA passed afterward would have made this upgrade in penetrating ammo unavailable to these quick-thinking police.
    They also would have been limited to small bursts against either man.
    The criminals might still have these guns, but police would not.
    Just brilliant!
    BTW, I watched this live on TV.
    One of the two killed himself after being hit numerous times around and through his body armor.
    The other was allowed to bleed out after a quick-thinking officer shot him from UNDER a vehicle, breaking both his legs.

  10. Petercat says: 10

    @johngalt: #4
    I wish that we had the Athens Option today, sadly, we can not seize electronic voting records and count them in public. Wouldn’t do us any good, as any altered votes were created at the point of input, anyway.
    I remember an image from Iraq, of a tearful Saddam Hussein announcing the results of his last election:
    “It is unanimous! Every one in my country voted for me!”
    Then we had Barack Hussein saying the same thing about how many counties in his last election?
    With about as much credibility.

  11. Petercat says: 11

    @Nan G: #9
    And now we have guns showing up in the hands of Mexican gangs here in the USA.
    Unregistered guns.
    Some fully automatic.
    With no serial numbers. Not “removed”, but “Never had”.
    Made in China. Imported from Mexico. Across our unprotected southern border.
    Gun control won’t prevent crime, Criminal control will. And I don’t mean legislating normal, law-abiding citizens into being fiat criminals, either.

  12. Greg says: 12

    @johngalt, #4:

    When people talk about keeping a democratically elected government in line through force of arms, I begin to worry as much about them as I do about the government. For one thing, opinions seem to vary quite a bit these days about what is “out of line.”

    The U.S. government will always have private weapons owners outgunned. Any thoughts of an individual attaining parity are absurd. You might have an AK-47 with a 100 round banana clip, but they’ve got AH-1 Cobra Attack Helicopters.

    Forget about an arms race with the U.S. government. All it’s creating is an arms race on the streets of America. Criminals and mentally unbalanced people have access to the same weapons that the general population has available. If you provide more efficient tools for mass killing to the general population, that’s what becomes available to the people you least want to have them. Which group is the more likely to misuse them?

  13. Budvarakbar says: 13

    @johngalt: In answer to your third and fourth paragraphs — The idea appears to be setting precedents re gradually tightening the restrictions (infringements) on gun ownership and potential usefulness –

  14. Budvarakbar says: 14

    @johngalt: Thanks for illustrating my comment #13

  15. Petercat says: 15

    @Greg: #12
    “Which group is the more likely to misuse them? ”
    Ruby Ridge.
    Now, if your argument is that we should limit guns due to potential damage, then we really, really need to limit guns and other destructive devices available to democratically UNELECTED government agencies. The potential for damage is so much greater.
    After all, as you point out, “they’ve got AH-1 Cobra Attack Helicopters. ”
    Which worries me more than a thug on the street. HIM I can avoid, or meet with the odds on my side. The thugs in government agencies I can not.

  16. Greg says: 16

    I don’t think the most intelligent or productive response to a Waco or a Ruby Ridge is to arm up and take a confrontational attitude toward authority and government. It’s not as if those incidents were in any way typical of the government’s normal interactions with the people it’s supposed to serve. Such tragedies shock us and stand out because they’re so strikingly atypical. Our government–unlike some other governments–is not the enemy of the people. It can, however, become an enemy of those people who choose to make it so. A person can do the same thing with the local police.

  17. Nan G says: 17

    @Petercat: Gun control won’t prevent crime, Criminal control will. And I don’t mean legislating normal, law-abiding citizens into being fiat criminals, either.

    That’s a great point, Petercat.
    In CA, where more than 1/3rd of all drivers have NO license and NO registration and NO insurance, guess what police do?
    They ignore them!
    They will NOT waste their time citing or confiscating vehicles from ”poor” people (illegals).
    They WILL, however, come down on a licensed, insured person whose registration is not up to date…..full force, hundreds of dollars.
    They will also come down on a person who has all three but is not carrying proof of insurance at the time….again full force.
    They will come down full force if you left your DL at home.

    But NOT the POOR.
    They are a ”waste of time.”

    CA is awash with criminals driving deadly weapons all over our streets but police ignore them.

  18. Petercat says: 18

    Let’s get back to the “need” thing.
    Does anybody “need” a home swimming pool?
    Yet, more children die each year by drowning in home swimming pools than die from gunfire.
    Multiple times more.
    The Constitution doesn’t address any right to own a swimming pool.
    So why isn’t Obama trying to ban swimming pools?
    After all, if it saves the life of one child…
    Oh, wait, swimming pools don’t look scary.
    And the Obama and his cronies couldn’t posture as effectively.

  19. Petercat says: 19

    @Greg: #16
    You have a valid point, Greg, in that they shock because they are atypical. But so are school shootings. The point of this discussion is that when the government decides to ignore the limits that the Constitution places on their authority, then the government has, indeed, made itself our enemy, and we must prepare ourselves to fight it with a response proportional to the force that the abusive government uses against us.
    No one here is advocating violence as a solution to the problem… until the government first uses violence against us.
    If the government is preparing to unleash deadly force against those who disagree with it, then those who disagree with it must prepare to unleash deadly force in self-defense.
    Or so say the writers of the Constitution, at least. Them I will trust.

    And yes, I have seen black helicopters silhouetted against the sky. After they landed and were no longer against a bright background, they were OD green.

  20. scampydog says: 20

    Glad you mentioned this. Spent an hour or so reading about it this afternoon. As an aside, it was reported that the vets cleaned the firearms before returning them to the armory.

    Greg, you make me laugh and think. Most times I think you were dropped as an infant but other times I like your cogent thoughts. Albeit I typically disagree. Discourse and debate are good things and you certainly bring those to this forum.

    As a general thought it seems that we’ve allowed the media to once again frame the debate. As Petercat mentioned and reinforced by Nan, both directly and indirectly in their comments, the masses are not focused on the correct issue(s). Perhaps what we should be discussing as a nation is how to get the firearms out of the hands of criminals and how to prevent the mentally deficient from wreaking havoc with whatever their weapon of choice or opportunity may be. The number of rounds a magazine holds is merely a diversion from their agenda.

    I don’t know this guy but did read his book & like his blog. He has some excellent (and snarky) commentary on this topic: http://truthandcommonsense.com/2013/01/15/new-yorks-liberal-chickens-have-come-home-to-roost-on-the-heads-of-republicans-and-freedom-lovers-everywhere/

    I have wrestled with this topic since the tragedy. A few things that I do know: 1) This topic is the proverbial third rail. 2) molon labe is alive & well 3) tomorrow I will go send some lead down range at pizza boxes doubling as paper targets

    Back to my Bacardi.

  21. DaNang67 says: 21

    Even in 1989 China, when the government decided to send troops into Tienanmen Square to suppress public demonstrations, they had to bring in military units from Mongolia because they couldn’t trust their regular army to fire on their own civilians. I don’t believe that American troops would obey orders to suppress public dissent in America. I know that I could never send an American son home in a body bag. Those who would are probably pretty rare.

    The BATF is too small to be useful to suppress widespread dissent, so my weapons will never see use defending my rights against the government. When the buyback laws are passed, I’ll just keep them illegally, with no place to shoot them. If my life is ever threatened by an individual or a mob, I’ll have my handguns or defense rifles ready.

    The Constitutional arguments are interesting academic exercises, but American military helicopters will never be an issue for American civilians. An angry mob? A group of thugs following a prolonged disaster? These are much more likely scenarios. I had a customer around Sixth and Vermont during the L.A. riots. I got to see the immediate aftermath in Koreatown. I remember the Korean family who protected their business from the rooftops with their defense rifles. They never had to fire a shot. Their family business and those nearby were intact while all around there were gutted and burned storefronts.

  22. johngalt says: 22


    You are missing the point, Greg. The entire purpose of acknowledging the rights of citizens under the 2nd Amendment is geared towards their protection. From criminals, and from an abusive government. Mostly, according to the writings of our founders regarding the 2nd, from the abusive government.

    I provided the Athens, TN example in order to shortcircuit any response by you about it never happening here. As noted, that happened in 1946. It also went further than just the local government in place, as repeated requests of the Federal government to provide any sort of help for those wishing election integrity went ignored. In the end, it was the local citizens themselves who ended up doing what was necessary to take their government back. From that “democratically” elected government you mentioned.

    And no one that I know is advocating, currently, for the overthrow of the federal government through force of arms. I don’t believe we have gotten to that point yet. We are, however, moving steadily closer, with more of our rights becoming subject to limitations and restrictions that were never mentioned within the Constitution.

    And yes, there are many different opinions about exactly how and when the federal government is stepping “out of line”, in regards to the Constitution. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s about perspective. I will not, however, give up a right, outlined and acknowledged in the Constitution, simply because some other person says that we “don’t have a chance against the government”, or that “our rights aren’t being abused by the government”.

    Limiting magazine capacity, which the article is about, is not only ineffective, as shown by what happened in the VaTech shooting, but also a serious infringement of our rights under the 2nd Amendment. It is akin to suggesting that a journalist be limited in the number of articles they could submit for publication in our newspapers, or that a TV journalist be limited in the number of shows they can appear on over the course of a year.

  23. Greg says: 23

    No Constitutional right is absolute. The founding fathers lived in a world of smooth bore, single shot muskets and flintlock pistols with a top fire rate of around three shots per minute. They very likely would have written a somewhat differently worded Second Amendment, had they anticipated the mass production of fully automatic rifles and machine pistols capable of firing of 400 to 800 rounds per minute.

    You can’t blindly apply the thinking of 1789 to the world of 2013. You have to take into account the fact that the world and the things in it have drastically changed. Should the Second Amendment be taken as an absolute statement? Obviously it can’t be. It would be patently insane to allow anyone who wished to do so to carry around a machine gun at will. If it were allowed, he fundamental right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness mentioned in another important document would be seriously compromised.

  24. Nan G says: 24

    Interesting point, Greg.
    In WAR one side loses almost always because the other side has it out-gunned.
    We saw it when bows and arrows went against early, primitive guns on the American plains.
    We saw it when Britain ruled the world simply because they had a great navy.
    We saw it when air superiority won wars.
    We saw it when the earliest special forces teams (Israel) beat back a three front war designed to surprise and push the Jews into the sea.
    We saw it with the first nuclear bombs.

    Now an oppressive, tyrannical government might have to be opposed here.
    If it does, you should look at the writer of the 2nd Amendment’s words……
    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    Yes, we need to be as well armed as possible.

    See also:
    Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

    “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry

    “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    The other side:
    “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
    Sara Brady
    Sara Brady’s husband sustained a permanently disabling head wound during the Reagan assassination attempt which occurred on March 30, 1981.

  25. John Hardesty says: 25


    Again you are using asinine arguments about the 2nd amendment. Your statement about whether they would have written it differently if they knew that machine guns etc would be around

    To demonstrate how asinine your argument, let us state – the founding fathers would have re-written the 1st amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – if they had known that the internet and Twitter and cyber stalking would appear/

    The FF were very intelligent and very well educated. They were quite aware of the fact that there were a lot of inventions every year. Bow and arrow, cross box, sword, armor, firearms…

    They wrote the 2nd amendment not for the technology about the arms – but about the citizens having the right to have (bear) arms. And the word – Arms – means armament – Sword, axe, etc

    At this juncture in time, it is gunpowder based weapons as opposed to muscle powered weapons

  26. Greg says: 26

    @Nan G, #24:

    Now an oppressive, tyrannical government might have to be opposed here.

    We haven’t got an oppressive, tyrannical government. We have a system that incorporates checks and balances, and elected representatives that can be removed at the ballot box any time the people collectively take a mind to do so.

    @John Hardesty, #25:

    “The right to bear arms” does not confer a right to possess and carry any weapon you wish, regardless of its destructive capabilities. In my humble opinion, arguing that it should mean that would be more than asinine. It would be totally insane. No one right is absolute. Extending any to the fullest possible degree without qualification inevitably results in the diminution of some other right. The founding fathers certainly understood that.

  27. Nan G says: 27

    @Greg: We have a system that incorporates checks and balances…..

    No, Greg.
    We had a system that incorporates checks and balances before Obama began sidestepping both Congress and the Courts.

    A 2010 Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 23% of voters nationwide believed the federal government today has the consent of the governed.
    Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not.
    In two years that rose to 25% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.
    60% saying it does not.

    Basically that change is within the margin of error.

  28. John Hardesty says: 28


    The term – Arms – means exactly that. Any weapon that is can be used by the citizenry.

    The definition of arms is not defined or limited by people saying you can only have means that bruise o tickle one’s enemy or opponent

    You are obviously realizing that your position is un-defenseible and are coming up with asinine reasons / excuses in order to defend your position. While I will defend your right to make a complete ass of yourself – as would everyone else – as it is ALSO protected by the US Constitution under the 1st Amendment – clause about the freedom of speech – ; I will as will the others counter your position and reasons as well

    Since you are such a grand defender of what our Dear President and the idiot of the government of New Yori is doing, would the new law or the Executive Actions .. if they were in place before Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting – prevented the crime. The answer is no. The laws and executive actions would ONLY impact those individuals who follow the laws. Criminals would ignore them as they did in Aurora and Sandy Hook – as both of these were a declared Gun Free Zone.

  29. John Hardesty
    hi, on your 6
    did you forget the spitting copper bowl on the floor in many houses.

    I wonder if there is a quality degree on the bullets
    where are they made, is it CHINA WHO USE A MIX ALLOYED METAL,

  30. MW says: 30

    I am not as eloquent a writer as you all are, so please bear with me. Greg, while I respect your opinion and statements, I must respectfully disagree with your arguments. The 2nd Amendment serves to protect the remainder of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The government must resect the people, not the other way around.

    I want to bring something else to everyone’s attention. While discussions seem to be focused on weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, we may be missing the worst government assault on our 2nd Amendment rights, which is a National Gun Registry. It is a consistent historical fact that gun registry results in confiscation. It has happened in every nation that has implemented a gun registry. We must be very careful when writing to our legislators regarding the ban of weapons. We must also include that we are not willing to compromise on gun control. We are not willing to allow a ban. We are not willing to allow a restriction of our magazine capacities. We are not willing to allow a federal registration of our firearms. I’m just trying to get the word out.

    Sorry for the interruption. Please carry-on. I’m quite enjoying the debate. :-)

  31. MW says: 31

    I’m truly sorry. Just one more thing…

    Greg, do you have complete trust and faith in your government? If not, then why would you ever want citizens to be without the firearms in question? Don’t you at least want the right to change your mind, if you ever so desire? If you do have complete faith and trust in your government, then you are not well informed of their actions.

  32. MW
    you gave a good clue which was not mentioned before thank you,
    and welcome to FLOPPING ACES,
    I appreciate your new opinion which I find very important to
    refuse now before it become too late to do,
    best to you and keep up with us,
    we’ll be interested to read you for more opinions
    in any POSTS YOU CHOOSE.

  33. johngalt says: 33

    Nice to see this discussion topic moved “to the head of the line”.


    You can’t blindly apply the thinking of 1789 to the world of 2013.

    And yet, you seem to do that very thing here;

    The founding fathers lived in a world of smooth bore, single shot muskets and flintlock pistols with a top fire rate of around three shots per minute. They very likely would have written a somewhat differently worded Second Amendment, had they anticipated the mass production of fully automatic rifles and machine pistols capable of firing of 400 to 800 rounds per minute.

    As in many liberal/progressive arena’s of conflict and thought, it seems as if you want to have your cake and eat it too.

    Our founding fathers lived in a world of changing technology and ideas, despite what you and other liberal/progressives might wish to believe, though certainly not as rapidly as has happened within the past handful of decades. The musket itself evolved from the time our ancestors first stepped foot on these shores, to the War itself. It is naive to believe that the founding fathers would not have considered the advancement of personal-carry, hand-fired weaponry to go beyond what was currently in use as “best tech” at the time.

    And, considering the reasons they, themselves, wrote about, as to why the 2nd Amendment was necessary, the actual type of weaponry available has little, or no, bearing on the 2nd.

    My right to protect myself is absolute, Greg. And I have that right because of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And when discussing personal firearms, yes, I believe that I have an absolute right to them. For, my protection and right to life doesn’t just extend to what is commonly called a criminal, but to any who seek to limit that absolute right I, and you, have.

    By limiting the number of rounds in a magazine, Greg, you are suggesting that my right to life is limited to how good I am at changing out magazines, or how good of a shot I am with limited rounds. That unless I can knock the wings off a fly at 20 yards, in the crazy, hectic atmosphere that a firefight becomes, and incapacitate the attacker(s) with minimal rounds, that I don’t have the right to live. That is essentially what a magazine capacity ban does, Greg. It limits a person’s right to defend themselves.

    Never mind that a mag capacity limitation does nothing to prevent crime, or minimize the extent of casualties during a mass-shooting, which is easily shown by what happened at Va Tech in 2007.

    Do not seek to limit my rights because you believe that you know better than I do how I should/could go about protecting myself. That is tyranny, Greg, which is the exact scenario our founders were attempting to prevent with the 2nd.

  34. Common Sense says: 34

    @Greg: How many murders by abortion did they have to deal with? How many murders by high-capacity magazines have taken place which would have made a difference? Still no clue or grip of reality eh??

  35. johngalt
    yes and they seems to focus on the possible danger of abuse from leadership on the new AMERICANS they must have found so braves and obedient to laws and showing a multitude of ideas to make their lives bearable and better, as they where coming with nothing but their intelligence to succeed ,

  36. Aqua says: 36


    We haven’t got an oppressive, tyrannical government. We have a system that incorporates checks and balances, and elected representatives that can be removed at the ballot box any time the people collectively take a mind to do so.

    Yet. It seems with each administration we come closer. I count republican and democrat administrations. I challenge anyone to name 10 laws that have been passed in the last 20 years that have expanded the freedom of American Citizens. Yet I bet almost any of us could name 10 laws that have restricted freedom in just the last 4 years, 20 in the last 8 years, hundreds in the last 20 years.
    I read the news everyday and see the government taking rights away from its citizens. Like this:

    The Milk Board shut down Morningland’s manufacturing operation and ordered all cheese at the facility embargoed on August 26, 2010 after receiving a report from the California Department of Food and Agriculture that Morningland cheese seized in a raid of the Rawesome food club in Venice, California in June 2010 had tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes and Staphyloccocus aureus. Not a single block of cheese in the warehouse had the same batch number as the cheese seized in the Rawesome raid. A Milk Board inspector initially told Joe Dixon that he would only be shut down for a few days—but that changed when FDA stepped up their involvement in the case a short time later and pressured the Milk Board not to let Morningland resume their operations.

    Or this:

    The raisin marketing order requires “handlers” who process and pack raisins to place part of their product in reserve, with the industry-run Raisin Administrative Committee deciding how much they’re to be paid for this set-aside tonnage. Raisin handlers set aside 47 percent of their crop during the 2002-03 season and 30 percent for 2003-04, but they were paid for only part of what they surrendered.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/11/20/175197/supreme-court-will-hear-raisin.html#storylink=cpy
    They creep in on our freedoms every single day. When do we say enough is enough?

    @Nan G:
    You forgot this one:
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

  37. UpChuck.Liberals says: 37

    @Greg: Not enough. They didn’t have fools like you to contend with, just the British.

  38. MW
    yes it took a while for me to get the dangers fact of a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY,
    like select who is not in their party and slowly but surely do what they do to other people
    be them in any kind of busyness farming is quite a regular target for them,
    another is the lawyer who was paid for finding even small flaws regarding the disable free access to their store, he use to pay a disable person one thousand dollar to come in the store and report to him,
    then he move in to attack and threaten of big expansives cost to the owner if they want to fight it but he incite the owner to pay him and that would be fix, yes and the same for other target, by a lawyer being paid by the GOVERNMENT, AND EPA IS DOING THE SAME THING TO AMERICANS ,
    and the unequivocal fact , that THE PEOPLE HAVE LOST

  39. MW says: 39

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Exactly. It is the most harmful of all legislation that Obama wants passed.

  40. MW
    yes we must keep that name alive for THE PEOPLE TO SAY,
    IT’S A NO NO.

  41. Greg says: 41

    High capacity magazines are presently legal. You can buy a new 100 round dual-drum magazine for an AR-15 for under $200.

    Another currently legal accessory is a bump-fire—or slide-fire—stock; new, around $369.

    Buy them both, and you’ve got this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62m7yOhgRY

    What is it good for?

    Not accuracy, certainly. Maybe it’s good for wrecking a perfectly good AR-15. Although a lunatic in a crowded setting could do a lot of damage before that happened.

  42. Greg says: 42

    Evidence that an IQ test might be an advisable part of firearm licensing requirements:


  43. GREG
    do you know where the magasine is made?
    or is it mark on the outside where it come from?
    is there a brand or more made in THE US?, I think so,

  44. Greg says: 44

    @ilovebeeswarzone, #43:

    do you know where the magazine is made?

    No, I don’t know who makes them. There are several different kinds for sale. I hear they’re all in short supply. So many are being sold that sellers have run out of inventory.

  45. GREG
    I thought that was important to ask where the gun and magasine are made from,
    I would not want to buy bullets made of alloyed steel,
    and I thought they could come from different COUNTRIES,
    as a matter of fact I would think that

  46. Greg says: 46

    I’m sure there are people around here who could tell you anything you might want to know. I really don’t know enough about firearms to be making reliable comparisons.

  47. GREG
    ON 42,

  48. GREG I thought you said you have one firearm,
    you have been debating all this time against something you don’t know,

  49. Greg says: 49

    I own a semi-automatic rifle. I know several other weapons from military service. That doesn’t make me any kind of a general firearm expert.

    What I meant in #42 is that guns need to be taken a lot more seriously than the girl seems to be taking them. She seems to think of a machine gun as some sort of recreational toy. To me that’s sort of like thinking of recreational explosives.

  50. when you have a gun pointed at you,
    you wish you had one also, and even if you never use it,
    you learn fast enough,
    I m suppose to be dead, I had 3 guns pointed at me at different time,
    I never forgot the feeling you have of being at the mercy of the gun,
    in the hand of a bad guy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>