The politics of hi-cap mags

Razorbacker

Before I left for work this morning, my girl and I were sharing coffee together and getting our morning dose of Fair and Balanced. The Colorado shooting is still the hot topic and she asked me why anyone would need a 50 round mag.
I told her that the word need should never enter the conversation regarding personal firearms ownership vis a vis gun laws. But to answer her question at face value I said something along the lines of suppose Zimmerman is acquitted and we have Rodney King like riots nationwide. Even right here in River City.

She thought for a minute and just said "Oh".

How would you folks answer that question?

breamfisher

Rights are not defined by "need."

CaliFFL

They are not "high-capacity" magazines. They are standard capacity magazines. The "hi-cap" term was invented by the same D-bags that coined the term "assault weapon". Don't let the term define the discussion.

Buford

That is a valid question, one that I don't have an answer for.

mkk41

Buford wrote: »

That is a valid question, one that I don't have an answer for.

That's a first!

mkk41

Razorbacker wrote: »

she asked me why anyone would need a 50 round mag.


How would you folks answer that question?

Since when is anything based on NEED?

mkk41

CaliFFL wrote: »

They are not "high-capacity" magazines. They are standard capacity magazines. The "hi-cap" term was invented by the same D-bags that coined the term "assault weapon". Don't let the term define the discussion.

Actually , they are high-capacity. The original 'standard capacity' mag for an AR-15 is 20rds. I'll even concede that a 30rd is pretty much 'standard' today.

But I would definately have to agree that a 50 or 100rd drum is a hi-capacity magazine. It doesn't come with any rifle as standard and I don't believe an manufacturer of ARs makes then , or includes anything but 20 or 30 rounders.

1965Jeff

Why build cars that can go 150 mph- if the speed limit is 70? Where does big brother end or begin to legislate or mandate us to death with every aspect of life. You need a permit for everything except to breed now a days. Buy your ARs now, remember Stockton CA and what happened to the prices for AKs in the aftermath of that shooting.

gunwalker

What Breamfisher said. Analogous to freedom of speech. There are a lot of words we do not need, like ginormous, or awesome. But would we stand for their use being outlawed?

Bigslug

As CPJ points out with his links, a reload doesn't take long if you know what you're doing. A trained shooter will perceive that the gun is empty by feel before the other guy even has a clue, and as the links show, trying to rush such a guy in that extremely narrow space of time isn't likely to do much good - even if he's running stripper clips in a K98 or speedloaders in a revolver. Capacity is pretty much irrelevant unless zombie hordes are part of the equation.

Restricting capacity, however, creates a situation of government has what the public cannot, largely defeating the entire intent of the Second Amendment.

Buford

Bigslug wrote: »

A
Restricting capacity, however, creates a situation of government has what the public cannot, largely defeating the entire intent of the Second Amendment.

So I should be able to own what the government has, Yes?

Bigslug

Buford wrote: »

So I should be able to own what the government has, Yes?

M2's, M4's, M240's, M249 SAW's. . .yep. If the intended goal of the BOR was to keep Uncle Sam honest, that would be the direction.

Buford

I'm in, but we know this will never happen.

Razorbacker

Okay, I guess I'll be accused of having posting rules, which I don't. But let me lay out a better scenario. Let's say you work with a guy who has no involvement with guns. But you're one of the people he knows that owns guns. So he asks you that same question. And you throw out the one liners like, "Because I want one".
Now, I'm with you on that but what is this guy who knows little to nothing about responsible gun ownership and rarely gives a second thought to the 2A supposed to make of that answer? And further more let's carry that little scenario to it's full conclusion.
So a few days later another non-gun owner asks your coworker the same "need" question. What's he to say? "I dunno. I asked the few gun nuts I know and they all just threw out one liners".

I am a self identified gun nut. I contribute what I can to the NRA's lobby arm. I am an NRA member and have been for many, many years. We're all on the same team. Many of the responses above are the same things that jumped into my mind.
I was just trying to get some good responses that maybe I hadn't thought of to use in response to non gun folks who ask reasonable, honest questions. I just want to be the best ambassador I can be on these issues when discussing them with the uninformed. And especially with the misinformed.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to be more clear next time.

CaliFFL

mkk41 wrote: »

Actually , they are high-capacity. The original 'standard capacity' mag for an AR-15 is 20rds. I'll even concede that a 30rd is pretty much 'standard' today.

But I would definately have to agree that a 50 or 100rd drum is a hi-capacity magazine. It doesn't come with any rifle as standard and I don't believe an manufacturer of ARs makes then , or includes anything but 20 or 30 rounders.

We forget the AWB so soon? Anything over 10 rounds was defined high capacity. Not just ARs, but anything with a detachable magazine.

I still wouldn't call drum mags hi capacity. I prefer increased capacity. :jester:

Razorbacker

CaliFFL wrote: »

We forget the AWB so soon? Anything over 10 rounds was defined high capacity. Not just ARs, but anything with a detachable magazine.

I still wouldn't call drum mags hi capacity. I prefer increased capacity. :jester:

I like that nomenclature Cali. In fact I like it so much I will begin using it immediately

Buford

One liners, there is a problem with this?
The truth is there has to be a middle ground. The problem is no one will meet in the middle. One side wants unrestricted access to military weapons and the other side wants no guns period. No one trusts the other side and is willing to give an inch. Until folks are willing to compromise this is what we have. Do I need a 50 round drum yes I do but I can't have one.

Razorbacker

Buford wrote: »

One liners, there is a problem with this?
The truth is there has to be a middle ground. The problem is no one will meet in the middle. One side wants unrestricted access to military weapons and the other side wants no guns period. No one trusts the other side and is willing to give an inch. Until folks are willing to compromise this is what we have. Do I need a 50 round drum yes I do but I can't have one.

It is my firm believe that there is in fact a middle ground. A large one. Everything from the person who duck hunts with his plugged magazine and that's the only gun he owns to folks who don't own guns or really think about them much til something like this happens.
That's why I posted looking for cogent responses. In my view there is a big difference in the far lefty loons focused only on more power for the state and just regular folks who are either ambivalent on these issues or are misinformed/brainwashed by the likes of NBC.

I see times like these as an opportunity to reinforce our positive message. And again, it my view, it needs constant reinforcement.
What happened in Colorado is a tragedy. A nightmare for all concerned. The last thing I want someone to think is I'd try to make hay of it. Unlike the left. But since they will exploit this incident I'd just like to have my ducks in a row.

mkk41

Buford wrote: »

Do I need a 50 round drum yes I do but I can't have one.

And just why do you NEED one?

Bigslug

Buford wrote: »

One liners, there is a problem with this?
The truth is there has to be a middle ground. The problem is no one will meet in the middle. One side wants unrestricted access to military weapons and the other side wants no guns period. No one trusts the other side and is willing to give an inch.

Well. . .as long as we are talking about ability to take and hold ground, it's pretty easy to pick which side you want to be on.

But to get Razorbacker's thread back on track - the topic of how to answer somebody who asks "What legitimate reason could you have for wanting that___________ (rifle, handgun, magazine, knife, etc..."

There are several answers to that, which can stand by themselves or be delivered together:

1. Protection from the lone criminal / nut job. Even if you outlawed all guns and magically made the existing ones disappear, there's still the Dhamers, Bundys, Gacys, and Suffs who kill plenty of folks with no high-tech aids whatsoever. Should you encounter one of these individuals without a firearm, you are at the disadvantage of surprise, and dependent entirely on your physical ability to survive. The gun is an equalizer - and remember, criminals DON'T CARE if guns are illegal.

2. Protection from lack of government. In recent times, we've had both the L.A. Riots and Hurricane Katrina. During the former, law enforcement was taxed beyond their capabilities, and could not be counted on to respond in anything like a timely manner. During the latter, functioning law enforcement simply ceased to exist, and the entire population had to fend for themselves. Remember also these two points; that law enforcement has to make it to you in order to help you; and that they are only obligated to protect society as a whole, not you specifically.

3. Protection from an overabundance of government. Always remember that Adolph Hitler was popularly elected (more or less), and a very large part of why he was able to turn millions upon millions of people into air pollution and fertilizer for the steppes was because virtually nobody had the means at their disposal to effectively say "NO!" Stalin and Mao - pretty much the same story, differing only in paths to power. For every multitude of kind-hearted, doey-eyed liberals who think we'll be better off without guns, there eventually will be one potential tyrant waiting to pounce on a defenseless population. You can never count on your government to be consistent and benevolent. Look at Germany during the entire 20th Century; in the space of one long human lifespan, that patch of dirt went from being several monarchies, to a single monarchy, to a parliamentary democracy, to a fascist dictatorship, to a twin nation divided by political ideologies, to the modern country of today. No matter what social or political camp you were in during 1900, at least one of the ruling factions of the next 100 years would have wanted you DEAD. Think such things can't happen here? So did the Jews.

Buford

mkk41 wrote: »

And just why do you NEED one?

I tried to get one for my Tommy gun before the ban went into effect here. My violin case has an empty spot that I would like to fill with a drum.

mkk41

But you don't NEED it. There are drums that look like a 50rd , but hold only 10. You should get one of those.

Buford

mkk41 wrote: »

But you don't NEED it. There are drums that look like a 50rd , but hold only 10. You should get one of those.

I did check those out. Only a fool would pay that price for a 10 round mag. My 30 round stick mags work OK.

Razorbacker

Bigslug wrote: »

Well. . .as long as we are talking about ability to take and hold ground, it's pretty easy to pick which side you want to be on.

But to get Razorbacker's thread back on track - the topic of how to answer somebody who asks "What legitimate reason could you have for wanting that___________ (rifle, handgun, magazine, knife, etc..."

There are several answers to that, which can stand by themselves or be delivered together:

1. Protection from the lone criminal / nut job. Even if you outlawed all guns and magically made the existing ones disappear, there's still the Dhamers, Bundys, Gacys, and Suffs who kill plenty of folks with no high-tech aids whatsoever. Should you encounter one of these individuals without a firearm, you are at the disadvantage of surprise, and dependent entirely on your physical ability to survive. The gun is an equalizer - and remember, criminals DON'T CARE if guns are illegal.

2. Protection from lack of government. In recent times, we've had both the L.A. Riots and Hurricane Katrina. During the former, law enforcement was taxed beyond their capabilities, and could not be counted on to respond in anything like a timely manner. During the latter, functioning law enforcement simply ceased to exist, and the entire population had to fend for themselves. Remember also these two points; that law enforcement has to make it to you in order to help you; and that they are only obligated to protect society as a whole, not you specifically.

3. Protection from an overabundance of government. Always remember that Adolph Hitler was popularly elected (more or less), and a very large part of why he was able to turn millions upon millions of people into air pollution and fertilizer for the steppes was because virtually nobody had the means at their disposal to effectively say "NO!" Stalin and Mao - pretty much the same story, differing only in paths to power. For every multitude of kind-hearted, doey-eyed liberals who think we'll be better off without guns, there eventually will be one potential tyrant waiting to pounce on a defenseless population. You can never count on your government to be consistent and benevolent. Look at Germany during the entire 20th Century; in the space of one long human lifespan, that patch of dirt went from being several monarchies, to a single monarchy, to a parliamentary democracy, to a fascist dictatorship, to a twin nation divided by political ideologies, to the modern country of today. No matter what social or political camp you were in during 1900, at least one of the ruling factions of the next 100 years would have wanted you DEAD. Think such things can't happen here? So did the Jews.

Wow. just wow. That number 3 is exactly what I was looking for. I'm a huge student of history. Especially WWII but after many years of study I could never have connected the dots quite so eloquently.

I've preached 1 & 2 fairly well, I like to think but #3 I've felt like folks would be looking for my tin foil hat.
Not so now and I thank you for that.

Bigslug

Razorbacker wrote: »

I've preached 1 & 2 fairly well, I like to think but #3 I've felt like folks would be looking for my tin foil hat.
Not so now and I thank you for that.

I say it to everybody here - you want to pick up a copy John Ross' Unintended Consequences, a good combination of historical fiction and modern (1990's) action thriller. Pretty much covers the entire history of gun control as viewed through the eyes of people like us from about 1903 through about 1996. While there is possibly a bit of tinfoil between the covers, Ross very succinctly makes a lot of good arguments for the cause. An entertaining read well worth your time.

Razorbacker

Bigslug wrote: »

I say it to everybody here - you want to pick up a copy John Ross' Unintended Consequences, a good combination of historical fiction and modern (1990's) action thriller. Pretty much covers the entire history of gun control as viewed through the eyes of people like us from about 1903 through about 1996. While there is possibly a bit of tinfoil between the covers, Ross very succinctly makes a lot of good arguments for the cause. An entertaining read well worth your time.

Thanks. My girl and I will look into the price variance between downloading it via her Kindle verses the tactile version I prefer via Amazon or whatever. Although I must say I foresee it on the bookshelf rather than the tablet.

Edited to ad: Geez. 50 bucks for a well used copy? is this a textbook or something?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1888118040/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1342928958&sr=8-1&keywords=john+ross+unintended+consequences&condition=used

Bigslug

Razorbacker wrote: »

. . .I foresee it on the bookshelf rather than the tablet.

Edited to ad: Geez. 50 bucks for a well used copy? is this a textbook or something?

Well, it's not terribly short of a thousand pages, so yeah - almost; but it IS one of those books you'll want a hardcopy of after Skynet's EMP wipes out everybody's e-copy of The Twilight Saga.:tooth:

Razorbacker

Bigslug wrote: »

Well, it's not terribly short of a thousand pages, so yeah - almost; but it IS one of those books you'll want a hardcopy of after Skynet's EMP wipes out everybody's e-copy of The Twilight Saga.:tooth:

LOL. Couldn't we just wrap her Kindle in tin foil?
I should get paid on my current contract by Friday so knowing me I'll get one. Thanks again.

Jermanator

Let those people know that those extended capacity magazines tend to be unreliable. Limited capacity 10 round ones would not have jammed up and they can be very quick to switch out. Here is what I just read from the news...

The gunman's semiautomatic assault rifle jammed during the attack at the Aurora movie theater, forcing him to switch to another gun with less firepower, a federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press. That malfunction and weapons switch during the shooting rampage might have saved some lives.
http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-suspects-gun-range-membership-rejected-200819340.html
I keep 20 rounders loaded up for my HD AR, not 30's.

Essentially, we can make an argument that this turd's high capacity magazine actually might have saved some lives.

Buford

Jermanator wrote: »

Essentially, we can make an argument that this turd's high capacity magazine actually might have saved some lives.

That's weak. The same argument can be said if he couldn't have bought that magazine lives might have been saved. Most gun folks know that those silly looking double drum mags don't work worth a damn.

robert38-55

You guys should find a copy of comedian Tim Wilson, and listen to his skit on Guns and magazines!!!!! It's funny and real... I have him on a cassette tape; Tim Wilson,tuned up. Anyway he says in the skit: "When your hunting in the woods in NC with 6 of your drunk cousins, you need that fire power....... When your spot lighting that whole herd of deer, you need a 50 clip.":rotflmao:

Now as far as I am concerned, there is no such a thing as a 'High capacity' magazine. It's a misnomer, it doesn't exsit, never has and never will, just like they ain't no such a thing as a so called "Assult rifle." If I want magazines that will hold 20 or more rounds then I am going to buy them, when I can find them...The term high capacity magazine, assult rifle, are just cleverly invented terms, by bleeding heart pro liberal anti-gun politicians, design to scare the jeebees out of the unsuspecting American unarmed American public.

These anti-gun politicians, media folks, and all the others that fit this catagory need to get there facts straight...It doesn't take 20 or 50 rnds to murder a single indivual, it only takes one and one only well placed shot, and as a matter of fact it doesn't even matter what caliber it is, one well placed shot on a human being will drop that person like a bad habit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This anti-gun rhetoric about high capacity mags, and assult rifles is nothing more than a backdoor underhanded attempt to futher disarm the American people. Do I need a magazine that holds 20 or 30 or even 50 rnds, of ammo for my guns? You bet your bibby I do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't care what anyone says, I need that potiental fire power!!!!!!!!!!!!!! especially when I am spotlighting that whole herd of deer! hahahahahhah:silly::roll2::roll2: