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

If it's designed for hunting then sure a 3 round plug is appropriate, and in most areas, the law, but I don't think that should infer a magazine limitation on all shotguns.

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

Can you tell us why you believe that? Not being a pain, just curious.

No high capacity mags.

When we get to phasers and blasters, are we only going to allow so much mAh batteries in each?

I voted depends because of the restrictions on certain activities already on the books. However I am not generally in favor of magazine capacity limitations. I also live in California so I deal with capacity restriction every day. It has not really made a serious impact other than making magazines slightly more expensive in some cases. I do understand however, the concerns over how arbitrary the capacity amounts are. 9mm semi-autos are typically equipped with 15 to 17 round magazines as standard capacity for a full size firearm. Compact and subs can carry up to 12 rounds where as standard capacity for most .45ACP is 7-10 rounds and 5-7 rounds in a compact model. I think the 20 round capacity limit is not a horrific stance from the LGC, but I am more on the side of no restrictions than on any limitation.

I am always on the side of behavioral change rather than object control.

Magazines should not have a set round capacity whatsoever. If people do not like high capacity magazines, they should not be buying them. I think one should be able to purchase them just as easily as any other magazine. Guns themselves don't kill people (The Swiss are required to have guns in their homes and know how to use them, and their crime rate is not through the roof). For every lunatic with a gun with high capacity magazines, there are countless sane people with a gun with such magazines. Not to mention that criminals are known to obey gun laws in the first place.

I am a staunch opponent of gun control (even a "broken clock" like a Conservative is right twice a day). I even believe that selective fire and fully automatic weapons should be unrestricted. I also think it should be mandatory for able bodied people to have some sort of firearms training during their youth (I am not calling for conscription or anything, but people should know how to use guns and understand basic safety).

Ultravox wrote:

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

Can you tell us why you believe that? Not being a pain, just curious.

Well it was tongue and cheek, basically I don't understand why any body needs to load more than 5 rounds in their semi automatic pistols and rifles, most of the hi cap mags are junk that turn interesting weapons into jammamatics. but people want them so so be it. I think that the argument about hi cap mags is tiresome I don't see them as a threat at all, the clown that shot Madame Congressman Gifford would have wrecked more havoc if he didn't have to clear a jam in his Glock.

7N6Wolf wrote:Magazines should not have a set round capacity whatsoever. If people do not like high capacity magazines, they should not be buying them. I think one should be able to purchase them just as easily as any other magazine. Guns themselves don't kill people (The Swiss are required to have guns in their homes and know how to use them, and their crime rate is not through the roof). For every lunatic with a gun with high capacity magazines, there are countless sane people with a gun with such magazines. Not to mention that criminals are known to obey gun laws in the first place.

I am a staunch opponent of gun control (even a "broken clock" like a Conservative is right twice a day). I even believe that selective fire and fully automatic weapons should be unrestricted. I also think it should be mandatory for able bodied people to have some sort of firearms training during their youth (I am not calling for conscription or anything, but people should know how to use guns and understand basic safety).

In general I agree with you on the restriction issue. The problem with using Switzerland as an example is that you are comparing apples and oranges with regards to culture. The Swiss are required to serve in the military from the ages of 20 to 30, thus they have a citizen army. Guns have a very different significance in their culture. They are not The Swiss are also generally more homogenous in ethnic background and socioeconomic status, thus are not prone to the racial tension and poverty related issues that drive much of the violent crime here. Comparing a nation of about 7.5 million with a very distinct history and culture to one of 310 million because of one common concept is not a particularly good argument.

Still, I think that overall, you are correct in your stance against restriction. It is up to the government to prove a compelling reason for the restriction of rights and as tragic as the 15 thousand or so deaths that occur due to gun violence are, restricting magazine capacity would be like decreasing the stereo volume in cars by 5 decibels to decrease auto accidents.

eelj wrote:

Ultravox wrote:

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

Can you tell us why you believe that? Not being a pain, just curious.

Well it was tongue and cheek, basically I don't understand why any body needs to load more than 5 rounds in their semi automatic pistols and rifles, most of the hi cap mags are junk that turn interesting weapons into jammamatics. but people want them so so be it. I think that the argument about hi cap mags is tiresome I don't see them as a threat at all, the clown that shot Madame Congressman Gifford would have wrecked more havoc if he didn't have to clear a jam in his Glock.

And there as Kurd Maverick would agree is "the rub". I don't believe anyone needs such magazines, nor do I want them myself. However if someone wants them, the government has to demonstrate that trampling on that right to want would be outweighed by the benefits to society. Like I said earlier that will be difficult if not impossible.

The repug shills over at VPC/Brady et al, have a wonderfully crappy, emotion based, fact free propaganda commercial going on now with a guy shooting a little girl silhouette with a Glock, in order to push their intellectually dishonest agenda. This makes me want to push for "free mag rights" more than anything else.


Before I was really into 2A rights I used to argue with the guys at the gun shop I worked at about "need" issues. I used to laugh at guys that said they "needed" an AR. Just tell me you want the fucking thing, it's your right and I'll have more respect for you if you are honest about it.

The "need" thing goes both ways. The anti's like to scream "why do you NEED high cap mags?" as if someone appointed them the Constitutional need police. There is no need stipulation in the 2A, and none in any other civil right protected under the BOR.

WhyPartisan wrote:
And there as Kurd Maverick would agree is "the rub". I don't believe anyone needs such magazines, nor do I want them myself. However if someone wants them, the government has to demonstrate that trampling on that right to want would be outweighed by the benefits to society. Like I said earlier that will be difficult if not impossible.

The repug shills over at VPC/Brady et al, have a wonderfully crappy, emotion based, fact free propaganda commercial going on now with a guy shooting a little girl silhouette with a Glock, in order to push their intellectually dishonest agenda. This makes me want to push for "free mag rights" more than anything else.


Before I was really into 2A rights I used to argue with the guys at the gun shop I worked at about "need" issues. I used to laugh at guys that said they "needed" an AR. Just tell me you want the fucking thing, it's your right and I'll have more respect for you if you are honest about it.

The "need" thing goes both ways. The anti's like to scream "why do you NEED high cap mags?" as if someone appointed them the Constitutional need police. There is no need stipulation in the 2A, and none in any other civil right protected under the BOR.

Rights aren't need based.

If rights were need based, they'd be considered privileges.

Privileges are granted to subjects.

We're citizens.

I don't think any legal restrictions should be made but i want manufacturers to stop making damn high cap mags that are beyond their technical functional ability (i.e. Jam)

My position is based more on esthetics. Since we're not really dealingwith real numbers or situations, it makes as much sense to limit mags based upon whether the operator likes having an extended magazine jutting out under the weapon or if a shorter mag is justified to improve the concealment of the weapon.