So after watching that lesbian flirt fest that Van posted of Rachel Maddow and Meghan McCain at an NRA gun show, I wanted to see how many people here are for or against hi cap magazines. Both of them came to a conclusion based simply on McCain's feelings that most NRA members are for limiting magazine capacity against the NRA's stated policy. Not a single poll or document showing this conclusion, just what McCain feels is true.

Something like for a pistol the mag can't extend more than 2inches past the bottom of the grip.

For a rifle no more than a 30.

Just my .02

Here we ago again with this topic.

Paladin wrote:...Here we ago again with this topic.

Yeeep.

Honestly, I think it won't go away until the LGC retracts from some of its "positions"...
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/positions/

Xela

Something like for a pistol the mag can't extend more than 2inches past the bottom of the grip.

For a rifle no more than a 30.

I could live with that. I guess I would have two pre-ban pistol mags though.

I have no issue with limitations placed on magazine capacity. I am neither for or against high capacity magazines...in other words, I really don't care.

Personally I prefer a magazine that fits into the well of my handgun without protruding. In my case, that is a seven round single stack magazine. I also prefer a 10 or 20 round AR magazine over the 30 round because;
A) A 30 round takes a log time to load.
B) 30 round magazines interfere with how I hold the rifle on a bench.

I also don't have an issue with the sexual orientation of Rachel Maddow or Meghan McCain and really can't see that it is of any relevance one way or the other to the question posed. Unless of course there is some movement afoot to limit the magazine capacity of lesbian and gay people...then I would be against that...they should be entitled to the same magazine capacity as homophobes or pinko commies.

It does not matter to me. High Point only has a 10 round "large capacity" mag. Even the Hi Point carbine mags are only 10 rounds.

I'm starting to see a dangerous trend in the American mentality. "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care." Granted that notion's been most prevalent in conservative circles, but it disturbs me that it's creeping up here. "I don't care because 30 rounders affect my shooting position on the bench." Really?

rolandson wrote:I also don't have an issue with the sexual orientation of Rachel Maddow or Meghan McCain and really can't see that it is of any relevance one way or the other to the question posed. Unless of course there is some movement afoot to limit the magazine capacity of lesbian and gay people...then I would be against that...they should be entitled to the same magazine capacity as homophobes or pinko commies.

I saw little value in that interview other than its flirtatious nature and the assumptions of both participants, i.e. it was pointless, but it did make me wonder how many people here hold similar ideas. Interestingly, according to the poll so far the majority of people disagree even with the organization's own stance on the issue. Oh and before you start throwing terms like homophobe around, you'll find fewer people as ardent supporters of the restoration of rights to the gay community than I.

If you don't like hi-capacity magazines then don't buy them. I am a responsible gun owner. I like my 33 round Glock magazine. I like 30 round AR-15 magazines. I don't think they should be restricted. Also I feel that it is another area where the right tries to get us in a trap.

ABNinfantryman wrote:I'm starting to see a dangerous trend in the American mentality. "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care." Granted that notion's been most prevalent in conservative circles, but it disturbs me that it's creeping up here. "I don't care because 30 rounders affect my shooting position on the bench." Really?

Yeah, really...and this is a "dangerous trend" one should be worried about? Pray tell, why? I have no practical need or desire for high capacity magazines. I am not going into combat, I seriously doubt zombies will be crawling out of the woodwork ever...in short, I am a civilian, not a cop, not in the military. Really, I don't care.

rolandson wrote:I also don't have an issue with the sexual orientation of Rachel Maddow or Meghan McCain and really can't see that it is of any relevance one way or the other to the question posed. Unless of course there is some movement afoot to limit the magazine capacity of lesbian and gay people...then I would be against that...they should be entitled to the same magazine capacity as homophobes or pinko commies.

ABNinfantryman wrote:I saw little value in that interview other than its flirtatious nature and the assumptions of both participants, i.e. it was pointless, but it did make me wonder how many people here hold similar ideas. Interestingly, according to the poll so far the majority of people disagree even with the organization's own stance on the issue. Oh and before you start throwing terms like homophobe around, you'll find fewer people as ardent supporters of the restoration of rights to the gay community than I.

I also threw the terms "lesbian," "gay" and "pinko commies" around. That you are identifying with any of them...? Perhaps you might read the first sentence of your post again and consider how it might possibly be interpreted.

We believe that LCM magazines (in our definition, magazines that are capable of holding greater than 20 rounds) should be sold in the same manner as any handgun – through an FFL after a NICS check.

This is The LGC position. It's the least of what could be done. The position statement describes that the main problem lies in the LCMs currently in circulation amongst the public. The stockpile is too great to regulate or control.

My personal opinion is that although it would be reasonable to regulate LCM's especially for pistols -- regulation could create an arms race amongst the citizenry, and because I don't like the idea of conservative extremists (neo-nazis, racists, minutemen and such) being better equipped than myself I would likely participate in such an escalation. I don't believe in monopolies and an ideology having a monopoly on firearms is no exception.

rolandson wrote:Yeah, really...and this is a "dangerous trend" one should be worried about? Pray tell, why? I have no practical need or desire for high capacity magazines. I am not going into combat, I seriously doubt zombies will be crawling out of the woodwork ever...in short, I am a civilian, not a cop, not in the military. Really, I don't care.

I'm gonna bust out a conservative argument because it's fitting. "I don't care because I'm not a jew." Yes, it's a dangerous trend and a dangerous mentality to have because it forms into a logic cycle which lacks empathy and is sociopathic by it's very nature, which is why it's the same argument conservatives rely on. We're supposed to be the "free thinkers" and yet here some of the denizens are basing the legitimacy of certain rights on their necessity. It's the same mentality which passed the Patriot Act, "well I'm not a terrorist, so I don't care," ended up being the greatest violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. So yes, it's a dangerous trend.

That you are identifying with any of them...?

Is not your business.

Perhaps you might read the first sentence of your post again and consider how it might possibly be interpreted.

Is Rachel Maddow not a lesbian? So is it not a fair description to say "lesbian flirt fest"? I didn't say dyke, clam eater, butch or anything remotely derogative about her orientation, or is the term lesbian offensive to you?

ABNinfantryman wrote:

rolandson wrote:Yeah, really...and this is a "dangerous trend" one should be worried about? Pray tell, why? I have no practical need or desire for high capacity magazines. I am not going into combat, I seriously doubt zombies will be crawling out of the woodwork ever...in short, I am a civilian, not a cop, not in the military. Really, I don't care.

I'm gonna bust out a conservative argument because it's fitting. "I don't care because I'm not a jew." Yes, it's a dangerous trend and a dangerous mentality to have because it forms into a logic cycle which lacks empathy and is sociopathic by it's very nature, which is why it's the same argument conservatives rely on. We're supposed to be the "free thinkers" and yet here some of the denizens are basing the legitimacy of certain rights on their necessity. It's the same mentality which passed the Patriot Act, "well I'm not a terrorist, so I don't care," ended up being the greatest violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. So yes, it's a dangerous trend.

That you are identifying with any of them...?

Is not your business.

Perhaps you might read the first sentence of your post again and consider how it might possibly be interpreted.

Is Rachel Maddow not a lesbian? So is it not a fair description to say "lesbian flirt fest"? I didn't say dyke, clam eater, butch or anything remotely derogative about her orientation, or is the term lesbian offensive to you?

ABN, Your post asked if magazines should have a set round capacity; my response was that I do not care one way or the other. I have no issue with it, one way or the other. I am neutral. I have a preference that applies to myself and no other. Put another way, if the federal government wanted to outlaw 30 round magazines, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Trying to equate this with a hidden reference to the holocaust or the patriot act seems a rather sophomoric attempt at issue baiting. At the moment, I do not believe your 30 round magazines are threatened.

No, it is not a fair description to reference Maddow's interview with McCain as a "lesbian flirt fest" any more than referencing the orientation of two straight males having the same discussion. Just what their sexual orientation has to do with magazine capacity escapes me. Personally I found the comment disingenuous and condescending and I think we are above that form of ridicule.

I will point out the general trend, that folks who believe there should be a limit or who do not give a hoot about a limit are under the assumption that the hypothetical limit will be higher or equal to what they are currently using.

I feel safe proposing that all those who either don't care, or who want a limity, would change their minds should the "set limit" be two. Two cartridges in the magazine. For a maximum handgun/rifle/shotgun capacity of two plus one in the chamber.

Why do I use two as an example? Because I am under the impression that the great majority of gunfire events follow the 3 / 3 / 3 rule. 3 shots, inside 3 yards, over in 3 seconds.

So... if the limit was set at two, who here would change their mind and begin to reject limits? Remember that camel nose under the tent issue - if 5 rounds is good enough for a small revolver chambered in .45 then it's good enough for a full size glock 17 right?

rolandson wrote: I also don't have an issue with the sexual orientation of Rachel Maddow or Meghan McCain and really can't see that it is of any relevance one way or the other to the question posed.

Agreed.


I am NOT in ANY WAY in favor of mandatory magazine capacity limits. Personally, due to the length of them, I don't care much for 30rd mags, but at the same time, my 75rd drums only stick out as far as my 20's, and I like that. The drums have the distinct advantage of the old cliche "Load on Sunday, shoot all week". I do own a couple of 30 rounders and I have no intention of giving them up any time soon, even if they just collect dust in storage.

This is mine, and I love taking it to the range.

AmirMortal wrote:Personally, due to the length of them, I don't care much for 30rd mags, but at the same time, my 75rd drums only stick out as far as my 20's, and I like that.

Not to hijack the thread, why are those 75-round drums so much more expensive than the banana mags? For just over double the cap, the price difference is an order of magnitude more... understand that there's more metal in them, but over $100 more?

AdAstra wrote:

AmirMortal wrote:Personally, due to the length of them, I don't care much for 30rd mags, but at the same time, my 75rd drums only stick out as far as my 20's, and I like that.

Not to hijack the thread, why are those 75-round drums so much more expensive than the banana mags? For just over double the cap, the price difference is an order of magnitude more... understand that there's more metal in them, but over $100 more?

Limited supply, and very high demand. I bought the drum on the right for ~$100 (at the time everything else was $300+), and the one on the left for ~$65. Now if you'd tried to buy one of these 4 years ago, you would have paid closer to $3-400, but there were a LOT of them imported recently. The one on the right is either Romanian or Russian and the one on the left was marketed as "Romanian" as well as "Korean" or even "Bulgarian", but the word on the street is that the latter is really a Chinese manufactured one, which are still selling for a few hundred bucks under that name. Here's a great deal, and it's the same one I got in on too:
http://centerfiresystems.com/drum-ak-c.aspx

I mostly wrestle with five or six shot revolvers. I don't see the big deal if the capacity of magazines is limited. You could say you would be at a disadvantage in a firefight if the other guy has pre-ban mags and you don't, but you could stretch that argument to any number of other things.

Help me out here. I'm new and not very bright to begin with but how can lower capacity magazines in any way make any one realistically safer? Have you ever watched an IPSC or Steal Challenge shooter change mags? I can imagine a bad guy swapping mags after X number of rounds while continuing to do his bad guy things with little to no change in cadence to his assault.

Five rounds, ten rounds, thirty

rolandson wrote:Trying to equate this with a hidden reference to the holocaust or the patriot act seems a rather sophomoric attempt at issue baiting.

I'm equating the mentality which allowed those events to happen with the one being displayed here, not the events themselves. Forget baiting, lets just get to the bottom of the issue. Every single issue, regardless if it's hi cap mags, gay marriage, socialism vs capitalism, separation of church and state, what have you, the anti's position is motivated by fear of what may happen. Conservatives, republicans, tea partiers, and Libertarians have built their social concept around fear, but sometimes it squeaks by on the left on certain issues. Why is it when it comes to homosexual behavior displayed in public we argue to just ignore it, but when it comes to say television we're all about the FCC deciding what's suitable for us to watch under the guise of protecting the children when we're fully capable of pushing a button? Why do we argue for banning people practicing their faith in public facilities to accommodate our lack there of when we're fully capable of ignoring someone's prayer? We argue for the rights of gays, but piss on the rights of the religious. The condescending attitude you say I have towards gays has been displayed here against the religious members. Not saying you personally have, but it's happened here and it happens on other liberal media. If we're going to be the logical reasonable party, then lets do it and not look at issues based on emotion prone to double standards.

To be honest, if they banned hi cap mags I'd get over it and make do, but that doesn't preclude the fact that it's restricting our rights to gain security.

Just what their sexual orientation has to do with magazine capacity escapes me.

Dropping it, too much read into a preface.

In order to place a "ban" on an item protected under the 2nd, the government must demonstrate that by in doing so, said ban would be improving the health and safety of the populace as a whole.

This will not be done easily, as not one person can demonstrate that the benefits of such a ban would outweigh the trampling of the rights of law abiding citizens.

How long, even for an untrained oaf, does it take to drop and reload a Glock? There have been a few very high profile mass shootings in which the shooters used standard capacity magazines. Banning anything is a knee jerk emotional response to a non-problem. If someone is resolved to shoot a lot of people at once they do not need high capacity magazines, and the availability of such empowers no one to do the aforementioned.

All said we then get into the banning of sales or the confiscation issue, which is another matter entirely that would be logistically about as easy as finding Hoffa.

WhyPartisan wrote: How long, even for an untrained oaf, does it take to drop and reload a Glock?

This is not an argument you want to use: the shooter of Gifford and others got tackled and subdued because he had to reload.

So as it stands right now 81% of americans polled on the LGC forum are not in favor of magazine capacity restrictions and I'll bet that percentage will continue to climb as time goes in and more people vote. Even amongst a bunch of liberal shooters, this is not a favored proposition. Personally, i would love to see the organizations official position changed, but we'd have to convince the founder, and he is not easily persuaded.

However, in defense of Mark and our organizations position, he is NOT calling for a ban on the magazines, just a regulation of their sale. Again, while I disagree with the idea, thee are far worse positions adopt.

AdAstra wrote:

WhyPartisan wrote: How long, even for an untrained oaf, does it take to drop and reload a Glock?

This is not an argument you want to use: the shooter of the Gifford and others got tackled and subdued because he had to reload.

And if I recall, he thought he had more rounds, thus the bungle. From everything I read (failing to cite for lack of time), the weapon jammed. Not only did he have to reload, but clear a misfeed as well.

Far be it for me to interfere with anyone else's toy, but you're probably committing murder after 2 rounds anyway, as far as the law is concerned.

I firmly believe that the tubular mags in shotguns should be plugged to hold no more than 3 rounds.