1 Cheney needs to check back into the hospital. He's developed a bleeding heart.

2
Usefulness has nothing to do with it.

3 1 Cheney needs to check back into the hospital. He's developed a bleeding heart.

Heh.  Darth Cheney needs a new heart...from the cold chest of Attila the Hun! 

4 Shouldn't the question be  "what is the government's authority to interfere with our rights under the Second Amendment"?

5

No, there is no reason for these large capacity magazines. Frankly, for home defense if you can't hit what needs hitting with what it holds, you need target practice not more bullets.

 

6 Reload (verb): something you do after the target is dead

7 More seriously: a militia is armed with light infantry weapons, right?

Meaning that there are a whole host of weapons (including squad light machine guns and light mortars) that should be available to the average citizen. By the spirit of the Amendment, anyway.

8


Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Because we live in a (theoretically) free country, fuckwit?

And by Fuckwit, I mean Mr. Vice President Fuckwit.  Not you ace, at least not yet.

Jiminy Christmas.  Hi cap mags were made by the MILLIONS after the AWB sunsetted.  "Banning" new production now will do NOTHING but be one more chink out of the wall of our freedoms. 

9

Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Zombies.

10 Yeah, I have an argument. I hate loading the damn magazines.I like the fact that I can load up on Sunday and shoot all week.

11 When the zombies come ace, and they get you while you're reloading, you'll regret this post

12
1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

2. Dick Cheney can go horsefuck.

13

Because I, as a free person, living in a free country, may feel I want one?

Does that work?

14 We can make a good argument for large capacity magazines.

15 No, there is no reason for these large capacity magazines. Frankly, for home defense if you can't hit what needs hitting with what it holds, you need target practice not more bullets.

Actually, you answer your own question. Everyone I know who's got one of these high-capacity magazines uses is for target practice: that way, you don't spend your range time reloading magazines.

16

Do people need a V8 engine in their car?

Making only 10 rnd mags legal to manufacture again, will not take all the existing mags that have been made off the market, and a lot of them have been made since the sunset of the AWB.  So the ban won't do any good in lessening deaths, so then it is basically just a ban on things that are fun.  And 33 rnd mags are fun.

Also, there is a few carbines on the market know that use the same mag.

17 You don't need to be a better shot. You just need to shoot more bullets.

18 Cheney: Sure, Maybe We Should Limit Magazine Sizes He was talking about Harper's.

19  1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

You're wrong.  I have friends who hunt deer with semi-auto .45 pistols.

Not too uncommon.

20

Where do we stand on 33rd abortions?

How about 3rd Kids?

Why does someone need more than one car or house?

 

 

21

Also, it's not going to happen. No democrat outside of a liberal district would vote for this. It would be career suicide.

Many blue dogs are dependent on NRA endorsements, just as Manchin, Critz, Reed. etc.

If they supported this they would lose that endorsement.(which does mean something in many parts of the US)

22 The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense.  I want the most capacity I can have when I need it.  It is not the governments job to limit that capacity as they do not know when and how I may need it.

23 Because I have no desire to have some random bureaucrat whose never used a gun decide at what amount of bullets a magazine is high capacity and at what point it's low capacity.

24 *sigh*

This is meaningless, symbolic BS.

Next time, the shooter will just carry 2 Glocks, each with its own 15-round magazine, and use both hands Matrix-style.

How about we focus our energies on keeping the public safe from crazy people by ... oh, I don't know - controlling crazy people ... instead of flicking beads on the abacus to determine the "right" number of rounds a pistol should hold.

25

 1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

Bullshit.

26 shit cicero, you beat me to it

27 This blog post summed up the issue in a nutshell:

"So by saying you're in favor of magazines that hold no more than X rounds, you're publicly stating that it's only X+1 bodies that bother you. If that's not what you mean to say, then come out and state your real intentions."

28 You get out of your truck in the alley.  It's dark.  You take three steps to the corner of the nearest building, and carefully peer around the corner into the intersecting alley.

You see 33 bad guys.  They all look armed to the teeth.  You only have your trusty Glock 19.  Your name is either Jack Reacher or Bob Lee Swagger.

29 There is no hunting provision  in the second amendment,  Dick.  The right to keep and bear arms is to maintain a militia. The militia was esd. All able bodied males.

30 I know several elderly individuals who have "extended" magazines for the specific purpose of home defense.  Their theory being, in an actual home invasion, bullets stored in clips get used for the purpose of self defense and bullets stored in vendor cardboard boxes do not.

31 So you're saying x, by its own terms, really isn't all that bad? Except to the extent that it makes y possible? Well, can't we just stop y, then?

I don't know, why can't they?  But they never do.

Don't act as if "slippery slope" arises from anything but past experience.  It's not that x might lead to y which could lead to z.  It's that a lead to b which lead to c, and now we're all the way down to x.

As for why it's a bad idea.  Lets go back to the text, shall we?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, adding to that the Federalist Paper explanation of same, we see that the point of the second amendment isn't self-protection (or home protection) at all.  Indeed, to the founders, the thought of requiring a gun for home defense- except perhaps on the outskirts of civilization, was somewhat alien.  Pistols were inaccurate, one-shot weapons best used at very close range.  "Arms" tended to mean muskets, rifles, rockets, and cannon.  Therefore, the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizen to live on equal- or near equal- terms with the United States military.  It was designed to aid in armed insurrection.

Limiting handgun clip size will not be effective for its purported purpose, and will be detrimental to the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

32 Maybe two rounds would be a proper limit ....

33 Hey Ace, the next time a degenerate comes out of the New York Shittie shadows to put a knife in your throat, you can throw a bagel and regular coffee at him. You fucking pussy.

34 Which means it's now an issue for Republicans, too: Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Well, it wouldn't have stopped the tragedy.  As is pointed out constantly, laws exist against murder, yet it still happens.

All this would do is mean the law abiding wouldn't have 33 round pistols, while criminals still might.

Cheney is being stupid.

35 Ace hunts Hobos with a shotgun.

36 1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

Not true. Maybe not the Glock 19, but I've taken many deer with a T/C Contender (capacity - 1).

37 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Yeah, when some fuckwit storms into my house in the middle of the night, I want him down and staying down. There's nothing wrong with having more bullets ready to go. Of course living in Cuomo's NY I can't get them anyway.

38 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

What if you like to wound your "quarry" to death and watch them die?

And I think the slippery slope argument is best applied to judicial rulings, and not legislation which can be changed without a constitutional amendment.

39 Why would you use a gun, anyways?

40 It had occurred to me, as I'm sure it occurred to many, that 33 round pistol magazines aren't used in hunting, and probably not in home defense, either, begging the question of precisely what the usefulness of such a magazine is.

Sorry, I am not going to start the conversation giving that much away. Why does it need to be useful at all? Why are people allowed to buy nitrous for cars? What's useful about it? The chief argument against large clips seems to be that you can shoot a lot more with it. If it's legal to do something why should it be illegal to do more of it? If 2 15 shot mags are legal why should 1 30 shot be illegal?

Which means it's now an issue for Republicans, too: Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Yes, no one has shown not having it would have made a bit of difference. The larger and more cumbersome magazine may have been just what gave witnesses time to disarm him. Had he used regular magazines he might have went through 10 of them at 15 shots a piece.

41 I don't think that banning large-capacity magazines is unconstitutional

Fuck you.

42 >>>The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense. I want the most capacity I can have when I need it. I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

43

look ace, you don't need all that water you're using.  You can even choose which use your one less gallon (this week) will come from.  Shit, shower, cook, clean or drink.  It's a free country, right?  You get to choose.

Stupidest fucking question ever.

30 rd pistol mags are tactically useless unless the pistol is full auto (even then the balance is thrown), but that doesn't mean there's a banning needed.  It's a tool.  Should be ban carbide tip drill bits next?  They're harder than steel!

44 The slippery slope is a perfectly sound argument in this case.

And it is usually a sound argument with liberals because they will always employ something against you once they get their nose in the door. Example: People have to buy car insurance, why shouldn't they have to buy health insurance? Why would one be constitutional and other not?

The slippery slope is not that dissimilar in terms of argument from legal precedent because no two sets of circumstances are ever exactly alike. So you either expand the precedent or restrict it--i.e. move one direction or the other along the slope.

When Scalia said declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional would make gay marriage a reality, he was employing slippery slope. And he was right.

45

Ummm, how about we don't need to provide ANY argument as to why we need high capacity clips. HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS DON'T KILL PEOPLE! Duh!

We don't have to provide a reason. The idea stands alone. You can kill someone as dead with one shot from a single-shot derringer as you can with a 100-round drum on a MAC90. Submitting to the "give me a reason not to ban it" crowd is nothing more than giving them excuses to poke holes in your reasoning because they are more "correct thinking" than you are. According to them. Because they know what's "good" for us. Riiiight!

We have a right to bear arms. Period. End of quotation. The End.

46 In all seriousness.Cheney is opening up a can of worms and seems to have forgotten the cardinal rule. Cardinal Rule: Freedoms of the American people are under assault ALL of the time, that is 24/7 and it don't take off on holidays. Do not give an inch when you know the enemy wants 10 miles.No,no,no,no,no!

47

The War Cock must have gotten gotten turgid which would have required all his blood..

..the brain not being fed is the only reason I can think why Cheney would say something this stupid

48 ace - I draw the line at belt-fed semiautomatic pistols. there. you happy now? .

49 Good.  I hope they try it.  I hope pubbies in blue states vote for it and so do Democrats.

If gun control legislation passes, Obama can say bye-bye to Pennsylvania. At least.

50

This is a dumb argument. If you limit magazine size, then crazypants will just buy more of the 15-shot magazines, which don't take as long to reload as the 33-round. So, there's no way to know if it would limit fatalities.

51

I'll offer the reverse...if the ban is on EVERYONE, including Law Enforcement & Military, then I'm ok.  If not, why does the government feel a need to tell me or anyone else that "civilians" shouldn't have them, but their "enforcers" should?

Not knocking LE or Mil, as I used to be a member of that "club", but since I'm a "civilian" now I'm suddenly not able/capable/responsible enough to own or use Hi-cap magazines?  Really?  Just because someone says THEY don't have/see a need, doesn't mean someone somewhere else doesn't have a lawful need.

52

Extended Clip? 33-round mags are extended clips, right? That is, they extend well below the grip of the gun.

Usually that is just used with automatic pistols, right? Or like tiny machine guns like the Uzi? But automatic pistols are generally illegal, right?

It's back to the scary looking weapons ban..

53

Hey Ace, the next time a degenerate comes out of the New York Shittie shadows to put a knife in your throat, you can throw a bagel and regular coffee at him. .

If you sliced that Bagel before throwing it, there will be an additional fee.

54

Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Not that people should have them, but that people should have access to them.

Is there any argument why people should be able to buy cartons of cigarettes? Or Double-Gulp sodas? By only focusing on the negative harms, not really. But America is supposed to be a place where a citizen can decide for himself what he feels is an appropriate level of consumption. Asking this question puts us on the defensive, while those who wish to limit our arms should be on the defensive. The two men who robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America weren't exactly limited by what was legal.

55

Because I, as a free person, living in a free country, may feel I want one?

Does that work?

On a conservative blog, yes. Everywhere else, no.

56 Get your high capacity magazines before it is too late.

57

Uh oh....Ogabe just alienated the "Free Tibet" crowd

Richard Gere's sphincter just violently clenched killing the gerbil

58 I think a 17 round clip is plenty. Yeah, make that a law.

59 Using a gun for self defense carries with it the most permament and grave personal decision one can make..... taking the life of another human being.

I think swirling around in the psyche of ALOT of gun control advocates is a fear, not of the gun itself as an inanimate object, but the fear that individuals be allowed to make that life and death decision on their own. It is antithetical to their social thinking. But IMHO.....the gov't isn't going to be unable to protect you in the circumstance of a mall shooting, home invasion, or violent mob.

Bottom line is, in the end, Im ultimately responsible for my own personal safety and the safety of my family. I hope I never have to make that decision to pull the trigger in my home or anywhere else. But for cryin in a bucket... dont tell me Im not allowed to make that decision... and....do not tell me that Im not allowed to make the decision on how many bullets I can carry.

60 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines? Thou shalt not kill. Call me a radical, but I think murder should be against the law. Not "possession of things which scare me", because that list will never end.

61 The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense. I want the most capacity I can have when I need it.

I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument. Posted by: ace




Well if that is what that statement means then maybe I need to go back to English class.

62 An argument? How about because we want them and the government had no goddamn business between me and my right to guns. The only people who will have high capacity mags will be nutjob leftist criminals like Loughtner if we ban them. High capacity magazines are regularly used by gun owners. Usually at the range. Many ranges charge by the hour. Not having to reload as much saves you time and money. It's also a pain in the ass to reload. For some people with arthritis or other problems reloading is also difficult and bringing high capacity mags to the range means saving them the pain, time and having to lug reloading gear with them. I don't know anyone who carries with a high capacity mag. Their ungainly and hard to conceal. But there are very good reasons to own them. You didn't go RINO on this one but full plaid, ludicrous speed leftist. Wow. Just wow.

63


I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.


Suck a cock ace. 

You know better than that.

That's exactly what the damn amendment is FOR.

You fucking know better.

Don't just DO something, stand there!

64

Let's look at this through the lens of modern political reality.

The Republicans just won some 60+ House Seats, and 6 Senate seats, so they should take what political capital they have gained and use it tackling a second ammendment issue which goes directly against their base?

Regardless of the merit of the argument, you need to see it in the political context.

There is so much that needs to be done, or undone, in Washington, why waste any time on something like this. Let the democrats do it when they are in power, it is their thing anyway.

Republicans doing this would be like Democrats voting to curb social security benefits. It just isn't going to happen

65

Next time, the shooter will just carry 2 Glocks, each with its own 15-round magazine,

I was thinking that.

66

Keep in mind that a lot of carbines (pistol caliber rifles) use pistol magazines; such a ban would affect those too.

There are also rifle-based oddities like the pistol version of the AR-15 that share magazines with it's full sized cousin.

Is there much practical application or need for them?  Not really- you certainly wouldn't use them for hunting, and most target competitions limit magazine size.  However, the standard should not be to allow only that which there is a "need" for.

As far as the "slippery slope" argument- there is some merit to it.  Does anyone really think that a ban on pistol magazine size wouldn't later be expanded to include restrictions on "assault rifles"?

67 The clips that don't go beyond the bottom of the pistol are much easier to change then the extendeds. Use multiple clips with hydro shock rounds.

68 ** The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense. I want the most capacity I can have when I need it. ** ummmm, yeah. Having watched the SWAT training programs on the teevee and the programs on the military channel, I'm fairly certain that the gubmint wins any show-down situation, regardless of clip capacity. A 33 round clip for fun, pleasure, so that you can load the clip on Sunday and shoot all week, whatever ... but if you ** really ** ** really ** think that when push comes to shove that 33 round clip will make a difference, Randy Weaver and David Koresh would like to have a word with you. .

69 Can you imagine anything more heart-rending than losing a loved one to guns?

70

I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

I have always read that as the framers wanted governement officials to know of the potential consequences of actions.

71 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

It may not be pretty, but that's the whole reason for the second amendment. Hunting's got nothing to do with it.

72

1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity

The deer that I've taken with a handgun would beg to differ.

73

Ace, I am dumfounded!

When the zombie apocalypse you write about comes, weÂ’ll both be praying to Saint Heston for some giant mags.

74 34 Maybe two rounds would be a proper limit ....

Exactly!  Why do people need 10 round magazines anyway?  Maybe all new guns should be six-shooters or less.... (maybe I shouldn't give the gun-grabbers more ideas). 

There wouldn't be extended magazines available for civilians if there wasn't a market for them;  I'm thinking these extensions are useful for target shooting and cutting down on the amount of magazines you have to carry and load into the weapon.

Besides, who's to say that Jared Lougher's ramage wouldn't have been decreased if he was limited to smaller magazines?  Reloading a hand-gun with a magazine isn't that difficult or time consuming.  T

his is just more symbolism over substance - Sheriff Dipshit should have done his fucking job and had Jared committed before he even purchased the weapons!!

75 You know, if I'd had to reload, that would have been really inconvenient.

76 The clips that don't go beyond the bottom of the pistol are much easier to change then the extendeds. Use multiple clips with hydro shock rounds.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at January 19, 2011 01:40 PM (SJ6/3)

That's what I'm saying; everyone keeps making the argument that, "Well, if he didn't have the 33-round magazine, he'd have to reload sooner, so they could have tackled him sooner! And less people would have died!"

It's BS.

77 33-round mags are extended clips, right? That is, they extend well below the grip of the gun.

Yes

78 Several points:

First I thought Cheney was looking pretty bad, this confirms it.

Second, I am part of the 2nd Amendment caucus and it reads as it reads. If someone, including Cheney wants to change it, then I invite him to go through the normal route for changing the Constitution. Disregarding any part of it is invitation to disregard all of it.

Third: I dislike hearing that the slippery slope argument is invalid. It has been proven ever day of the existence of this country. If you don't believe me then take anythng our current goverment is doing now and imagine it being done in 1830.  The slippery slope is how the Democrat Party has operated since the early 1900s.

And lastly; As for there being a real use for extended round magazines even though that question is immaterial to the 2nd amendment, of course there is a use. it is used to kill things without having to reload as many times. What things you kill is left up to the user.

79
I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

It's a weak argument. Plus private citizens are waaaaaay out-gunned by the govt so it'd be a futile resistance.

A stronger and more modern argument for the Second Amendment is one of principle. Consider the clause 'The Great Equalizer" which says if the govt can have weapons so can private citizens.

80 The magazine release on my HK45 is under the trigger guard and an expended mag can be dropped and a new one slammed home in short order, the gun still held in the shooting hand, and on point.  That said, the model of the HK45 favored by the D-boys, rangers, and other black ops types, have extended mags.

If the shit hits the fan, one wants more bullets between mag loadings, period.  And who knows when the shit might hit the fan, or where.

81 The second amendment was designed to put US citizens on even ground with our own military AND any potential invading army.

They wanted us to fucking WIN should the real reason for the 2nd amendment ever be needed. Period.

82 Let's say instead of magazines we're talking about wealth.

No one in America really needs to be a fifty-times billionaire or needs to make more than a $100 million a year.

I mean, I really don't see why anyone needs that much dough. I just don't. C'mon? Seriously? Does anyone *need* that much money when people are starving and the government is bankrupt?

Anyone have a problem with my new law not based on slippery slope?

83

At my CCW class a couple years back, we did our range time on outdoor property owned by the instructor..

...you should have seen some of the shit that some of the others brought to play with cuz they could...50 cal pistols, AR-15's, AK-47's

The most fun was the Mac-10. It spit out a clip of 30 rounds in nothing flat

from my cold dead fingers, indeed

84 The specific clip was designed for a full auto version of the Glock: the Glock 18.  AFAIK only the DEA uses that version.

85

I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

Does "necessary" imply that shootings for mere convenience are also frowned upon? 

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This comment may contain words, phrases and/or graphic illustrations that may, in certain contexts connote violence, war, warlike behavior, firearm use, aggressive disrespect for diverse cultures, and/or an inappropriately casual attitude toward carbon emissions.  Certain portions of this comment may be lame efforts at humor and are not intended to reflect the actual views of the author.  Nothing in this comment is intended by the author encourage, incite, condone, provoke, or suggest that any reader thereof should undertake acts of violence or other conduct which may be illegal under state and federal law.  By reading this comment, the reader agrees that he/she is solely responsible for his/her interpretation and reaction to this comment, and the commenter shall not be liable for any consequences which may result from the readerÂ’s decision to the read the comment.   

86

And here I thought the Second Amendment was about bearing "arms", not hunting or home protection tools, but ARMS as in ARMY so that citizens could overthrow the amry of a bad government if need be.

87 The scenarios in which I imagine myself using a gun are 1) a home invasion in the dead of night and I kill the intruder, and 2) looting of San Diego after the gov't of Mexico collapses and they flood across the border. I'd definitely want a big magazine for 2.

88 I am more radical than a 'no more regulation' sort of gun nut.

I want deregulation.

89 Not to wax nostalgic, but if the weapon were, say, longbows, there'd be a debate about how many arrows could be in a quiver. Just sayin'

90

We can make a good argument for large capacity magazines.

Posted by: Asian Shop Owners Who Protected Their Stores From The Rooftops During The LA Riots

Nice.

91 Posted by: ace at January 19, 2011 01:36 PM (nj1bB)

Ummm... too bad?  It's the heart of the 2nd Amendment. 

See, you don't "need" guns at all for hunting.  People hunted dangerous animals for a long time before guns existed.  Bows and arrows, spears, even just rocks have been used to kill animals to feed people (mmmm... venison...).  That doesn't include traps and snares used to capture smaller game.

Even for home protection the issue comes up so rarely that both sides have all the anecdotal evidence they need to support their side (This time, the guy saved his family by grabbing his shotgun.  That other time, this other guy watched helplessly as he realized his gun was in the other room.  Etc.  Etc.).

So, either you support the 2nd Amendment, or you believe that it is "outmoded" and/or "icky."  But the idea that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your right to hunt or to protect your home from criminals is just not supported by the text of the amendment itself or of the understanding of the Amendment by those who wrote it and most passionately defended it originally.

92 >>>I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument. Us too.

93 Perhaps if you learned the definition and usage of "begging the question," you would appear less the ignorant internet fool.

At least, it might be a start.

94 The second amendment was designed to put US citizens on even ground with our own military AND any potential invading army.

The second amendment is over 100 years old. How are we supposed to know what it means?

95 For those who may be new around here, every few weeks or so, depending on his health and such, The Proprietor feels the need to reboot his RINO credentials. Don't be alarmed. He gets over it. He's just scared to death of being mistaken for a llll...libert..can't say it. Paulbot.

"Begs the question." Since TheAce has admitted to learning "rigor" from the mathematicians, instead of studying the logical fallacies, on his way to whatever the hell advanced degree of larnin he's credentialed with, he's unlikely to know what begging the fucking question really means. And that's how he gets away with doing it, right here.

Doesn't it make him sound just like famous hi-cap user Rachel Maddow?

96
Watch this guy and maybe you will understand that how many rounds a mag can hold is really immaterial. 

Are you going to ban practicing mag changes?

97

Taking this to its logical conclusion we should just outlaw all magazines and revolvers and allow ownership of single shot pistols only. A single shot pistol would still allow people to protect themselves and their property while preventing criminals from mass shootings, no?

98

think that when push comes to shove that 33 round clip will make a difference, Randy Weaver and David Koresh would like to have a word with you.

Koresh's first mistake was setting those buildings on fire.

99 Actually I know a former police officer who uses the 33 round mags for home defense. His argument was, "train for the worst case scenario," meaning multiple home invaders. His target practice sessions aren't for pinpoint accuracy but for putting as many rounds into a torso sized target as quickly as possible, using a practice exercise designed by Glock representatives for police officers. The 33 round mags are difficult to conceal (as pointed out above), and so are really only viable as defensive weapons in your car or home. Banning them only gives perps an advantage. And yeah, the Tuscon shooter could've just used a pair of Glocks or just practiced more until he was quick at reloading.

100

Sorry Dick...but this is completely fucking stupid. The fucking criminal isn't going to stop shooting because  you went through your ten round clip.

..there are no fair play rules, fucker

101 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines? A $14 trillion debt. Fucking get to work, Congress.

102

I don't think a longbow could do as much harm as a multiple capacity crossbow bolt magazine.

103 Wow, I'm down for murder, but breaking a gun law?

104

Anyway, I didn't bring that up because there seemed to be no point -- I don't think that banning large-capacity magazines blog posts longer than 33 words is unconstitutional, nor do I think it will prove to be terribly effective at all; it's mostly (mostly) symbolic pap that can only have the most trivial effect on things either way. And so it's probably not worth it to even concede a trivial point.

As I said: The Democrats are too scared to bring this up, except for the super-safe Representatives in super-liberal districts. But the few remaining Blue Dogs are scared to death to broach the question, and even liberals in gun blog-friendlier states aren't going to take chances.

Which means it's now an issue for Republicans, too: Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines long-winded blog posts?

105 1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

Two words: hobo hunting.

106

As far as the "slippery slope" argument- there is some merit to it.  Does anyone really think that a ban on pistol magazine size wouldn't later be expanded to include restrictions on "assault rifles"?

 

The slippery slope agurment isn't always great, but in this case it is. The anti-Second Amendment lobby and politicians try everything to ban weapons or make it so hard to own them.

Ace, do you honestly not think that Chicago or New York would immediately then ban guns that carry more than 1 bullet? It would then make the legal justification that if congress can make a law banning the number of bullets, why can't a state, city, town or municipality? How would the supreme court then say its ok for the federal government to impose a ban and not the locals? How could the supreme court then decide 10 is the magic number.

107 It's a free country. You don't have to justify why you should be able to do something. "I wanna" is good enough. The person who wants to stick a gun in your face and tell you you cannot (because that is what all government power boils down to) has the duty to tell you why you shouldn't. I have seen absolutely no evidence of any sort of improvement in society based on limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold. In fact, we already tried it and it has absolutely no effect on crime.

108 Not to wax nostalgic, but if the weapon were, say, longbows, there'd be a debate about how many arrows could be in a quiver.

We spit on your silly longbows.

109

FAIR WARNING TEABAGGERS - I GET MORE AND MORE INRAGED AS MARCH 5 GETS CLOSER!  THE HORRIBLE ANNIVIRSARY OF WHEN YOU NEOCONS PIOSININED MY JOE!

 

SPIT!

 

http://tinyurl.com/7hv2q

110 I guess my 100 round dual rotary  magazine for my CMMG AR is really gonna send somebody over the edge.

111 How many rounds did Loughner shoot?

112

How about the idea that we don't need to make new laws after every freaking tragedy in this country?

Maybe we can work on that. Why is a new law the answer to everything?

113 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument. Posted by: ace at January 19, 2011 01:36 PM (nj1bB) So did we.

114 First this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURZ3LxYhIY

...and this.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/01/19/30-clip/

115 Hey kay, is that a comment or Tourette's Syndrome?

116

KayInMaine, I'm just curious, but how much money do you spend on glue during the week?

117 115

How about the idea that we don't need to make new laws after every freaking tragedy in this country?

Maybe we can work on that. Why is a new law the answer to everything?

Posted by: Ben at January 19, 2011 01:48 PM (wuv1c)

This. 

118


De La Soul says that 3 is the magic number.

119 I am a firm believer that magazines should be limited to no more than 20 pages. If they can't get their point across in 20 pages, then they have no point at all.

120

We're going to have to do better than these arguments. I'm not with Cheney here but an extended clip is way too useful for mass carnage and doesn't offer much advantage in home protection. You can buy another clip easily for your home. A spree shooter swapping out clips in public is an opportunity to take him out.

I am also unsympathetic to our host's aversion to home protection against authorities. I don't see the need on the horizon but maybe big-ass weapons in the home is one reason I don't.

121 You're right Ace.  I do think at a certain point you have enough rounds.

122 individuals be allowed to make that life and death decision on their own.

And, yet, they have no problem at all with allowing a woman choosing to kill her unborn children...

123

Taking this to its logical conclusion we should just outlaw all magazines and revolvers and allow ownership of single shot pistols only. A single shot pistol would still allow people to protect themselves and their property while preventing criminals from mass shootings, no?

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 19, 2011 01:45 PM (JxMoP)

No. Because Criminals would know that you only got one round. Once you fire that one round there is a window of opportunity where they can get to you and kill you. Or they'd do the criminal thing and buy a multi-shot weapon off the street.

We can't even secure the southern border, what makes you think the Government can keep illegal guns off the streets?

124 "Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?" I think that question is just a little ass-backwards. Prohibition on weapons ownership, like taxation, is not a normal state of nature. Therefore I think the proper question here is "Can we advance any strong argument, other than the potential actions of lunatics, that people should not have 33 round pistol magazines?" Furthermore, since there are so many fewer lunatics than there are guns in this country, I think we should concentrate our government's limited resources on lunatic control rather than gun control.

125 I would make a comparison between legislative erosion of the 2nd amendment and McCain-Feingold and the FCC and the first amendment freedom this blog enjoys, but I like my first comment better.

126 Cheney needs to check back into the hospital. He's developed a bleeding heart.

It's hard to add anything when the first comment wins the thread.

127 Six shooters worked for me.

128

30 rd pistol mags are tactically useless unless the pistol is full auto

ummm...huh?

129 Ace, some years ago, the NRA staged a demonstration between a 6 shot lugar (Yeah, I know, why make a semiautomatic pistol with only 6 shots?) and an expanded magazine pistol. (Glock, I think.)


Needless to say, both men were firing at a target, and the guy with the lugar would miss only one single shot (compared to the other guy) before he'd popped a new clip in and resumed firing. The point of this was to illustrate the futility of trying to limit magazine size.

Reality anyone?

130 How many rounds did Loughner shoot?

Posted by: moi at January 19, 2011 01:48 PM (Ez4Ql)

33, right? Then he had to reload and was tackled.

131 Did Seung-Hui Cho use extended magazines for his massacre?  No?

This argument is pointless. 

: Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

I want one for home defense and they are available.  'nuff said.

132 I've never used a high capacity magazine in a pistol,but it seems to me that it would really screw up the balance of the gun and make it more difficult to control the recoil.And I do know for me personally when firing rapidly after my first few shots my accuracy goes way down.I think in cases like Tuscon a shooter with a minimum amount of practice could have done more damage using a standard magazine because in the few seconds it takes to switch out magazines you can collect yourself and reacquire targets.

133 I actually think the slippery slope argument is valid.  The problem is not that X may lead to Y, but that X will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to Y.

134 tiny machine guns like the Uzi

Your regular Uzi is not tiny, though there are some machine pistol variations that could qualify.

135



Pffft, Kay doesn't do glue.  She does DUSTOFF.

136

Hu is talking now now...

..Do I rook rike the First Rady?? I said, do I rook rike the First Rady?

137 Handguns are infact used for hunting. Legal hunting. You can hunt deer with a .357 or.44 Mag, probably even 10mm Auto.

138

How about banning sales of firearms to crazy-looking dudes who have made death threats to various people and who walk around smelling of cannibis and mushrooms, all the while muttering incoherent bullshit?

Banning the sale of extended clips is not just shutting the barn door after the cow is in the field, it's shutting the barn door when the cow is in the next county. 

Of course, I could be wrong.

139 They should ban murder. No wait...

140 O/T:  does obama speak Chinese or does he have a wire connected to a translator.

CNBC is asking the in studio commenters to discus what they are watching.  Kind of difficult to do unless you speak chinese?

141 I think they ought to ban firing the gun while holding it sideways, too.

142 Okay, over at Sweetness & Light, they say he got of 20 rounds. They also ask where did Loughner get the money to buy this gun, the magazines,and the ammo? It amazes me how few questions are being answered about this case by the authorities and the media.

143 Sorry BumperStickerist but what on Eath does David Koresh and Randy Weaver have to do with my wanting a 33 round clip? And what is this push and shove stuff? You seem to be eluding to the Feds firebombing my home should I not wish to give up my 33 round clip.Is that what will happen should I not give up my clips and after that my 30 round M4 or well, insert whatever firearm/ammunition/magazines that they will come after next once I'm made a firebomb target for not getting rid of my 33 round clips. Quite frankly, there is a point for everyone, you included where it just don't matter if the Feds start chucking phospherous gernades into your domicile, because thats the precise moment, nothing matters much anyhow......with the exception in my case that I have 33 GD bullets in my clip as opposed to 15.

144 a .357 or.44 Mag, probably even 10mm Auto.

Posted by: Holger at January 19, 2011 01:51 PM (YxGud)

Yep, I know at least three guys who hunt deer every year with a .44 Mag. And believe me, they will stop a deer. Or a locomotive.

145

We're going to have to do better than these arguments. I'm not with Cheney here but an extended clip is way too useful for mass carnage and doesn't offer much advantage in home protection. You can buy another clip easily for your home. A spree shooter swapping out clips in public is an opportunity to take him out.

You do reaize that someone who wasn't crazy and planned out this attack could have tripled the body count using only a bow and arrow. 

Heck.  I bet he could have doubled it with a 6" blade and some care.

 

146 Carry 2.

147

12
1. Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity.

Wrong.

148 first they refused to sell guns to the crazy-looking dudes who have made death threats to various people and who walk around smelling of cannibis and mushrooms, all the while muttering incoherent bullshit and I did nothing ..

149 My biggest problem with this (excepting second amendment absolutism) is that this idea is completely emotion-based. Cheney's acting like a liberal ... he doesn't need a heart transplant; he needs a brain transplant.

The whole idea that we need to "do something" legislatively in reaction to this incident regarding gun laws is straight out of Rahm's "never let a crisis go to waste" playbook.

150 ""Your regular Uzi is not tiny, though there are some machine pistol variations that could qualify.""

yeah, like the mini Uzi and micro Uzi. Those are fun.

151 Because I've got two guns. One for the each of ya.

152 .......he was a juggalo..........  http://tinyurl.com/5td7wxa

153

Muzzle-loaders!  One at a time!  That's what the Founders wanted, right? Right?! 

Oh wait - maybe they were concerned with a whole bunch (ten, anyway) of individual freedoms, bacause they KNEW if they didn't enumerate and specify...the government would gradually absorb all those 'freedoms'..and then ration them out as they saw/see fit.

 

Collectively, can't you just feel the liberals thinking:  "Never let a crisis go to waste."   

154 This thread is pegging at 11 on the violent rhetoric scale..

If CNN was to gauge.. 

155 144 I think they ought to ban firing the gun while holding it sideways, too.

People like that usually ban themselves via natural selection.

156 Another question I have, according to those who knew him, he was experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, plus, he was delusional. Why was he allowed to drive a car? Have an MI or TIA and there goes your DL. But, be crazy as a loon and they allow you to a two ton weapon.

157 This from a guy who shot a hunting buddy in the face.

158

I'd ask it the other way: is there any reason to think crazed gunmen can't work around a high-capacity magazine ban?  And of course the answer is no.  

The Rwandan genocide was mainly carried out by machete.  After years of gun control the UK is now looking at knife control.  No kidding.  Next: garden tool control.   

159 Never mind the magazine capacity. Why should anyone need 33 rounds of ammunition for self defense, whether in one mag. or two?  Isn't that where you're headed Ace?

160
No doubt that a .45 will stop a deer or even a bear.

But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Or do some bring their handguns for short-range shooting along with their rifles/shotguns?

161 Maybe he was talking about Time and Newsweek.

162 No, this is wrong. All wrong.

It is not within the government's purview to tell me what I "need" in the way of ammunition.

This is complete bullshit.

If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the Second Amendment.

The government does not get to tell me how many rounds I can carry.

The government does not get to tell me how many guns I may own.

The government does not get to tell me how often I may purchase a gun.

The government does not get to tell me how many guns I may purchase at one time.

The government does not get to tell me how many guns I may purchase over a given period.

The government does not get to tell me what calibers I may and may not possess.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

163 But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Yes

*Raises hand*

164

For those who may be new around here, every few weeks or so, depending on his health and such, The Proprietor feels the need to reboot his RINO credentials. Don't be alarmed. He gets over it. He's just scared to death of being mistaken for a llll...libert..can't say it. Paulbot.

He probably also interacts with non-conservatives on occasion and wants to sharpen his argument beyond conservative cliche-sounding responses. He was asking for strong arguments. It's a good exercise.

165 Soothsayer,

Yes, there are people who regularly hunt with sidearms.

But even if there weren't, it doesn't follow that it's okay under 2A to ban magazine sizes.

166 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument. WE DON'T.

167 The Rwandan genocide was mainly carried out by machete.  After years of gun control the UK is now looking at knife control.  No kidding.  Next: garden tool control.  

Actually, they've already done the knife thing.  They're looking at dogs (really) next.  Apparently some of the criminal element have decided to train attack dogs, and (literally) throw them at their victims to kill them.

168 I read that and thought it was satire. When the headline said limit "magazine" sizes, I thought we were no longer talking about guns, but instead "Newsweek," "Time," etc.

I mean, if the cause of the shooting really was "tone" and " civil dialogue," magazines certainly contribute to that, so we should limit how large they are and how many words they contain in order to limit the "tone."

169 I'll accept a magazine size limit when Cheney accepts a buckshot density limit. Oh wait, Cheney wouldn't do that because he's and experienced hunter with no history of shooting incidents.

170 But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Me for one.....

171 "But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun? " ... and a smile.

172

You do reaize that someone who wasn't crazy and planned out this attack could have tripled the body count using only a bow and arrow. 

Or any number of explosive materials that can be purchased legally at your local Wal-Mart. Which is why banning items is useless. Someone who has evil intent in his heart is going to find a way to commit evil actions no matter how many laws or regulations you enact to try to prevent him from doing it.

173 #162  After years of gun control the UK is now looking at knife control.  No kidding.  Next: garden tool control.  

IIRC, if you are accosted in Britain, you're only "allowed" to yell for the nearest Bobby - not even resist your attackers.

/Until the cops arrive (if they do), just lie back and think of England?

174

But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Some just bring a knife.

175

No, Uzi's are legal, but they have to be semi-automatic.

Almost all guns that use clips have the capacity to be made into automatic weapons. One simply has to have a simple understand of mechanics to turn a gun from semi-auto to automatic. Obviously it is illegal and shouldn't be done, but it's possible.

176 What?

Looking at Obama on the TV trying to say something about international trade and economics.

Obama is clearly not evil.

He's just kinda stupid and obviously in way over his head.

I feel bad for the dude.

Pathetic really.

Now I understand why his personal approval ratings don't track with his policy / performance poll results.

America feels sorry for him!

We wish we had a better President but will just have to make do with the guy we have right now.

177

No, there is no reason for these large capacity magazines. Frankly, for home defense if you can't hit what needs hitting with what it holds, you need target practice not more bullets. 

Posted by: NJ Mike at January 19, 2011 01:29 PM (A0Evr)

Heh, reminds me of my first years in law enforcement, many many moons ago, when we carried revolvers and the saying was "If you can't do it with 6, you can't do it at all."  

178 Guys who shoot their friends in the face because of bad gunhandling should just shut up about guns from then on.

179 Home defense is a perfect application for a 33 rd Glock mag. Does anyone remember that home invasion last year of the wealthy couple with the disabled kids in which 8 bad guys participated? It is good to be prepared for multiple BGs.

Also, contrary to the false impression created by movies and TV, most shots in a battle are misses, and one shot is rarely sufficient to immediately put down a perp. Add all that together and there is an obvious rational for large magazines.

180

135
I've never used a high capacity magazine in a pistol,but it seems to me that it would really screw up the balance of the gun and make it more difficult to control the recoil.

It doesn't.  If anything, the weight of the additional rounds helps a little with recoil, at least at first.  Otherwise, it doesn't make much of a difference as long as you're sighting correctly.  Law-abiding shooters like them because they don't have to switch mags as often, or want to be able to shoot a continuous string without reloading for as long as possible. I agree with the other commenter that the onus is on the banners to provide compelling reasons why law-abiding American citizens should be forbidden from obtaining items used in the exercise of a Constitutionally-recognized right?

181 "what the usefulness of such a magazine is" So now I have to defend the "usefulness" of something or the gubbmint can ban it? Nice Conservative argument, there, City Boy. [and I say City Boy cuz you apparently have not gone plinking in the desert. Large magazines are useful there.]

182

There are things called "wolfpack attacks".

High-cap magazines are an excellent solution to them.

183

You do reaize that someone who wasn't crazy and planned out this attack could have tripled the body count using only a bow and arrow. 

Heck.  I bet he could have doubled it with a 6" blade and some care.

See, that there is what I'm talking about. We have to do better than this.

Loughner, the Columb-idiots, all these spree shooters couldn't be bothered to train or practice or make elaborate tree stands for skewering pedestrians and students with frikkin' arrows or Buck knives. That's not what they do.

You guys keep arguing that Loughner could have just trained for hours swapping out clips when the fact is that there's no evidence he or any of these other spree shooters spent any time whatever on real firearms drills.

Back to reality, please?

184

Such legislation would not only be completely useless in preventing such crimes, but it would be completely useless in preventing 33-round magazines from appearing on the market. Remember, they TRIED this, and it DIDNT' WORK.

Ace, first rule of limited government is that you should justify your legislative need, not ask us why it SHOULDN'T be made.

185

No doubt that a .45 will stop a deer or even a bear.

But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Yes, just as some hunters go into the woods with nothing but a bow or muzzleloader.

I have a Savage Striker handgun (bolt action, 3 round capacity) in .308 Win that had a much longer range than a shotgun using slugs- at the time you could only use shotgun slugs or handguns in that zone.

186 O/T:  "Penn Station Being Evacuated Due to Suspicious Package"

187 But, the VT shooter had no extended clips and killed MORE people!?!  HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE@!!!!!!!!@!@!11111111ty!!!!!!!!

188 Why does anyone need so many children? They're *not* my children.

Let's limit the number of kids you can have at 10. That's plenty enough for anyone, and you can't possibly be supporting them all.

If that's too high, how about 12?

189 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

----------------

I don't understand the question.

Do I think people should have 33-round magazines? No. Just like I don't think people should have Fiesta Ware plates, stamp collections, Mission-style furniture, or kitchens painted robin-egg blue.

Do I think that people should be free to have 33-round magazines? Of course. Just like they should be free to own all of the above, plus sportbikes, swimming pools, sports cars or any other non-necessities that provide enjoyment along with a notable risk of killing someone.

I do not have to "advance" any argument in this regard. Those who curtail even the smallest freedoms are the ones obliged to advance an argument.

My God, what a question for a libertarian/conservative to ask.

190 What's all this talk of hunting with guns, bows and knives? I kill deer with my bare hands. Skinning them is the tough part.

191 "Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?"

Oh, sure -- why don't we pass another law that people can't be attacked by more than three zombies at a time? Sheesh! You'd think some people want to be eaten.

192

But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Yes

*Raises hand*

Posted by: Andy

I'd at least have boots on.

193

No matter what gun restrictions are passed or calls for so-called "public civility" there will always be another "Loughner" around the corner. There will always be a loner/loser whose pathetic life will climax through the death of others. 

 The gang and drug riddled neighborhoods in this country will continue to contain a stockpile of illeagal weapons.  Banned weapons will always make their way into someone's hands as long as the price is right.

This is all such a waste of time.

194 You know, Ace, you really don't need a political blog. I mean there are so many others out there already. So let's just ban yours.

Also, worship as you wish? Nah, religion has been the cause of centuries of death and destruction, right? So cross that one off.

Hey, the barracks at Parris Island are getting kind of crowded. Would you mind if we sent a few guys over to your place for the week?

Prohibitions on search and seizure? If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

...

195 My honest opinion is this.

The current regulatory scheme is illegal. Government cannot constitutionally outlaw the further manufacture and sale of machine guns into the civilian market.

196 BTW, hunting has fuck-all to do with the second amendment.

197 Home defense is a perfect application for a 33 rd Glock mag. Does anyone remember that home invasion last year of the wealthy couple with the disabled kids in which 8 bad guys participated? It is good to be prepared for multiple BGs.

Wasn't that carried out by Ninjas? It doesn't matter how many bullets you have, you ain't stopping no ninja attack

198
I have a Savage Striker handgun...

6" barrel?

199 All I can say is thank God that laughner did not really train with his pistol.

If he had, there would have been a lot more casualties.

Training trumps equipment in almost ALL cases.

200

33, right? Then he had to reload and was tackled.

Posted by: EmilyM. at January 19, 2011 01:50 PM (jVGvd)

Not what I heard. He never finished all the rounds in the magazine. I understood there was still three in it. The guy who originally tackled him also was shot and wounded.

201 If you like your 33 round magazines you can keep your 33 round magazines.

202 Before I gave them to some relatives, I had a Kel-Tec SUB-2000 rifle in 9mm that used Glock mags, including 33rd ones.  This is basically the same capacity of an AR-15, and significantly less than a Calico.  Kel-Tec also makes a pistol that holds 30 rds in a magazine that does not extend from the grip. 

Incidentally, I think a Glock 19 would make an excellent choice if you could only have one gun.  It's portable enough that you could carry concealed, but with the 33rd mags you could defend yourself against multiple home invaders.  Not every shot has to be meant to stop the intruder/assailant; using suppressive fire until the cops can arrive (and assuming you don't have thin walls) is an okay option, too.

203 It's a weak argument. Plus private citizens are waaaaaay out-gunned by the govt so it'd be a futile resistance.-Soothsayer

ummmm, yeah.

Having watched the SWAT training programs on the teevee and the programs on the military channel, I'm fairly certain that the gubmint wins any show-down situation, regardless of clip capacity.

A 33 round clip for fun, pleasure, so that you can load the clip on Sunday and shoot all week, whatever ... but if you ** really ** ** really ** think that when push comes to shove that 33 round clip will make a difference, Randy Weaver and David Koresh would like to have a word with you. -BumperStickerist

_________

Yeah, individuals with small arms can't stand up to a modern military. Remember that time those black pajama clad Asian guys were easily and quickly suppressed by the US military? Or the time that the ragtag bunch of Muslims with AKs tried to run an insurgency against the most powerful military force the world as ever seen?

Sarcasm aside, there are 100 million gun owners in the United States. How many would seriously take up arms in the event of a tyrannical government? Let's say one in ten. That's 10 million armed rebels, against a total of just under 3 million active duty and reserve members of the US military. So assuming that every single soldier, sailor, airmen and marines obeys the orders of this hypothetical tyrannical regime, they're still outnumbered three to one. That doesn't even get into the possibility of National Guard forces rebelling, or regulars refusing to obey unlawful orders.

The unorganized milita is not as strong as it used to be, but it's still plenty strong enough. You sneer at a militia, but there is a reason that Hitler invaded all of Europe, and Stalin's Russia, and North Africa at the same time but never even considered fucking with Switzerland. A nation in arms cannot be conquered. You can kill them, one by one, but you will run out of soldiers long before they run out of citizens.

204

It doesn't.  If anything, the weight of the additional rounds helps a little with recoil, at least at first.

I've had the opposite experience.  Muzzle jump magnified due to weight below the grip, until enough rounds are fired...say 5-10...then they become stable again.

205 yeah, like the mini Uzi and micro Uzi. Those are fun.

I have not had the pleasure. Just the Uzi. Which is awkward, unwieldy, and inaccurate.

206 But you're telling me that there are hunters who go into the woods with nothing but a handgun?

Or do some bring their handguns for short-range shooting along with their rifles/shotguns?

Posted by: Soothsayer at January 19, 2011 01:56 PM (uFokq)

Scoped .44 mags are pretty common in hunting for deer and pigs, inter alia.  I don't think it would be kosher to start blasting away Detective Riggs style during Rifle Season. 

207 I say deregulate. The Founders saw us having to fight a tyranny as almost inevitable. Hence the 2nd amendment. After all a tyrant is the greatest threat to personal property. Public citizens should allowed to own without license, stamp, limit or regulation any small arms used in the military. Grenades, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, machineguns, fully auto everything, extended mags, Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks... Risk is a byproduct of freedom but if we keep banning shit we'll be defenseless targets to any criminal out there who doesn't give a shit about anti-gun laws. They didn't let blacks own guns when they were slaves. And any society that can't defend itself becomes enslaved.

208 Why not ban high performance cars?  No one needs to drive 200 mph, and imagine how many people you could kill if you drove into a crowd.

209

"FDNY officials confirm Penn Station is being evacuated due to reports of a suspicious package.

They say the call came in at 1:34 p.m.

No further information was immediately available.

Check back with NBCNewYork.com for details on this developing story."

210 Posted by: spongeworthy at January 19, 2011 02:02 PM (rplL3)

The point isn't that Laughner, specifically, could have done it.  The point is that their argument doesn't hold water. 

Given that you can't stop the crazies, the only reason to ban something is to make it harder (certainly not impossible) for non-crazy badguys to get.  A non-crazy badguy would not be hindered appreciably by a ban on "extended clips."  Ergo, the entire point of banning clips over 2, 6, 10, or 15 rounds (or whatever number you want to pick next) is entirely moot.

Since the point is moot, it is then up to those who want to take away a current right/privilege to explain why it is that honest, law-abiding citizens no longer deserve said right or privilege.  It should not be up to those who merely wish to continue in their current rights and privileges to defend why they shouldn't be taken away (until those looking to take them away have made an actual point worth considering).

211

Also, why don't we just cut to the chase and ban crazy people? We could require that everyone undergo mandatory psychiatric screening on a regular basis to prove that they aren't crazy, and only those approved by the government would be allowed to live on their own. This could also be applied to criminal behavior too. Let's just assume that everyone is either crazy or a criminal and then allow them the opportunity to prove that they aren't. This will surely prevent any murders in the future.

212 Damn... didn't take the sock off.

213 DaveK, go ahead and tell the rest of the joke.

When Glocks were replacing big-frame S&W's, the line went, "At least with a magnum, if you miss six times you can throw the gun at him."

214 No, Uzi's are legal, but they have to be semi-automatic.

True in some states but you can have a full auto gun in Texas and several states if you comply with the National Firearms Act. 

215

I've never used a high capacity magazine in a pistol,but it seems to me that it would really screw up the balance of the gun and make it more difficult to control the recoil.And I do know for me personally when firing rapidly after my first few shots my accuracy goes way down.I think in cases like Tuscon a shooter with a minimum amount of practice could have done more damage using a standard magazine because in the few seconds it takes to switch out magazines you can collect yourself and reacquire targets.

The balance is not affected that much. The Glock 19 with 9mm ammo doesn't have that much of a recoil..

..and he was only a few feet away

216 Incrementalists always ridicule those who advance the slippery slope argument. Its part of the long term strategy.

217 Training trumps equipment in almost ALL cases. oh ..................... ......................... ......................... god. ~ whimper ~

218

The irony here is that the shooting might have been worse if he were using 15 round magazines.  The extended mags tend to be a bit unreliable; according to accounts he did manage to load a second magazine, but it jammed. 

Then again, if he used normal 15 round magazines, the left would be calling for a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds.

219 Cheney and Bush destroyed the republican party and served this country up on a silver platter to a smooth talking marxist community organizer. Yeah, lets take their advice!

220
You guys remember that shootout in L.A. back in the late '90's with those well-armed bank robbers who were wearing kevlar?

Amazingly, no one died except the perps. But they were kicking ass for a while...until the police brought in the 'big guns.'

221

You guys keep arguing that Loughner could have just trained for hours swapping out clips when the fact is that there's no evidence he or any of these other spree shooters spent any time whatever on real firearms drills.

Back to reality, please?

Fine, how's this for an argument. It can be used in any context, not just guns.

 

I don't want freedoms restricted because some idiot(insane person) did something bad exercising those freedoms.

As the father of the slain 9 year old girl said on tv, before his daughter was buried,  This is the cost of living in a free society and it is better than the alternative. I'm not appealing to moral authority here, it's just i couldn't have said it any better myself.

Simple enough? I don't want us to have to add more laws everytime a random act of violence happens.

Also, thanks asshole who drove away from the gas station after filling up and not paying.

222 ""The unorganized milita is not as strong as it used to be, but it's still plenty strong enough. You sneer at a militia, but there is a reason that Hitler invaded all of Europe, and Stalin's Russia, and North Africa at the same time but never even considered fucking with Switzerland. A nation in arms cannot be conquered. You can kill them, one by one, but you will run out of soldiers long before they run out of citizens""


yeah and there was that Japanese commander  who said he could never invade mainland America, because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

THAT...THAT was the result 2nd amendment in all its glory.

223 Cool ....shit is flying at the presser between a Manadarin-speaking journalist and Hu...and Ogabe has a retarded look on his face

224 Just the Uzi. Which is awkward, unwieldy, and inaccurate.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 19, 2011 02:05 PM (XVaFd)

If you hold the trigger down on most hand-held automatic weapons everything after the second shot is anti-aircraft fire.  Two-shot bursts.  I fired an Uzi once at the range and thought it was pretty nifty with a laser dot sight. 

225 This seems just like the debate over whether grocery stores could be allowed to sell 40oz containers of malt liquor. The group against the 40oz container said that it would encourage more drunkeness and DUIs. The response (obviously) was that people can just by two 20oz drinks. Duh. Same thing here. Oh, and by the way, the Government needs a reason to ban the extended mags, not the other way around.

226 um..the result of the second amendment

227 Posted by: Britt at January 19, 2011 02:05 PM (+lDY6) And we know where they keep the planes and tanks. All their base belong to us.

228

He[Ace] probably also interacts with non-conservatives on occasion and wants to sharpen his argument beyond conservative cliche-sounding responses. He was asking for strong arguments. It's a good exercise.

How about an exercise in not letting liberals take control of the narrative?  The Second Amendment is talking about the right to bear arms, not hunting tools, not home protection, ARMS.

As in what the U.S. Army is equipted with, in any given situation.  There should be no such concept as L.E.O., it's a violation of the constitution.

229 For those who may be new around here, every few weeks or so, depending on his health and such, The Proprietor feels the need to reboot his RINO credentials. Don't be alarmed. He gets over it. He's just scared to death of being mistaken for a llll...libert..can't say it. Paulbot.

I think it's his way of keeping the hilarious Connecticut Conspiracy Theory alive.  Either that or he really did go to the regatta at the Van Voorhees compound and consume finger sandwiches and appletinis with David Frum.

230

Not what I heard. He never finished all the rounds in the magazine. I understood there was still three in it. The guy who originally tackled him also was shot and wounded.

Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2011 02:04 PM (M9Ie6)

Oh, okay. I didn't know that.

231 They should ban 33 round magazines. From now on only 32 round magazines.

232 Sorry if someone mentioned it above, but extended magazines are used for target practice.

233 until the police brought in the 'big guns.' The police got those big guns from a local gun store since they didn't have anything high powered available at the time. A couple of cops ran in, grabbed armfuls of high powered rifles and ammo and ran out. .

234

Holy shit...that guy didn't let Hu off the hook..

...and meanwhile..the US press is still sucking Ogabe's dick

..

235 Your formula... used...
-- thus the argument becomes not that x (Alcohol Consumption) is so catastrophic, but x (Alcohol) makes y (Drunk Driving) more likely, and y (Drunk Driving) is bad, and (Drunk Driving) makes z (the Death of innocent victims) more likely, and z (the Death of innocent victims) is terrible.

But I can't avoid the implication contained in this argument -- So you're saying x (Alcohol), by its own terms, really isn't all that bad? Except to the extent that it makes y (the Death of innocent victims) possible? Well, can't we just stop y (the Death of innocent victims), then?

The argument, "No one needs." is a very powerful one. Because the term "needs" is so subjective, it gives unlimited power to those who will judge your "need".

Does anyone need a car that can reach a speed of 120 mph? How about 100mph? what about 55 mph? Should that be the limit? No more road signs? Less need for speed enforcement... more resources diverted to more serious crimes. But wait... what if I need to travel at a high rate of speed in an emergency? The government will tell me to call an ambulance? What if there is no time?


Don't we have enough knee jerk laws imposed as is? Do we really need to burden the honest gun owner with yet another law that a criminal will once again ignore.

236 Could they really not find a translator without an accent?

237 O/T:  " "Update on Penn Station: Amtrak police now say station not been evacuated; officers examining unattended package - NBC  via breakingnews.com"

238

6" barrel?

Nope; 14" barrel, no muzzle brake.

It's basically just a Savage 110 rifle with a short barrel and a handgun stock.  More accurate than most full sized rifles, though muzzle velocity is lower with the shorter barrel

239 Ban 1.75 liter bottles of liquor.

240 Ace, at this point I'd like to ask how big you think Category 3 is?

241 individuals be allowed to make that life and death decision on their own.

And, yet, they have no problem at all with allowing a woman choosing to kill her unborn children...


But if she wants chemotherapy, she has to submit her age, race, and ZIP code to a  federal "efficiency panel" and hope she qualifies.

242 High capacity magazines are a sop to belt fed ammunition. The only reason you want high capacity is to obtain fire suppression. The killing is still done one round at a time. Given we are talking about semi-auto versus auto, the high capacity mag for a pistol does not make it anymore lethal than it's intended capacity (15 rounds). Big whoop. Buy two 15 round pistols and viola you have doubled your fire suppression. The big question is can you put meaningful fire suppression while firing two pistols simultaneously. Answer is no. Only gangbangers, hadjis and loughners go this route. Manly men are quite content with a 7 round .45 semi.

243

I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

So do we!

244 Amazingly, no one died except the perps. But they were kicking ass for a while...until the police brought in the 'big guns.'

Indeed.  And most of those "big guns" were specifically CIVILIAN WEAPONS.  They were purchased (commandeered?) from a near-by gun store.

Just sayin'.

245 Ban 1.75 liter bottles of liquor.

Liquor!  Get your liquor here!

246 "people should be free to have...kitchens painted robin-egg blue."

Posted by: schizuki at January 19, 2011 02:03 PM (M+lbD)

Let's not go overboard.

247 A high-capacity magazine makes a semi-automatic pistol unwieldy, and increases the likelihood of a jam, defeating the purpose of using a pistol, imho. Only an inexperienced dufus Rambo wannabee would use a magazine that contains more rounds than can be contained within the handgrip, imho. 

248 I think AoSHQ uses to much bandwidth. Ace could limit his post lengths and the number of comments

249

Ben, that's a compelling argument to me, but I dress to the right. We need compelling reasons that compel everybody, not just us. AFAIAC, fuck off, Gungrabber is compelling!

Given that you can't stop the crazies, the only reason to ban something is to make it harder (certainly not impossible) for non-crazy badguys to get.  A non-crazy badguy would not be hindered appreciably by a ban on "extended clips."

Logic fail. We can make it more difficult for crazies to get. Non-crazies might be willing to train because they are not crazy, but how many shooters like this are we talking about? I see most of your spree shooters as nutsos who won't drill themselves on firearms practices.

Could be wrong there.

250 "More accurate than most full sized rifles, though muzzle velocity is lower with the shorter barrel."

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2011 02:13 PM (plsiE)

Care to join me at the range? I'll fire my Remington 700 with a 3x9 scope, and you fire that cute little 14" barrel pistol.

251 The argument, "No one needs." is a very powerful one. Because the term "needs" is so subjective, it gives unlimited power to those who will judge your "need".

Exactly.  To turn this around on libs, I'm pretty sure Al Gore doesn't need to consume more electricity than a Wal-Mart Supercenter at his house, but as long as he can pay the bill I'm not going to stop him.

252 There are plenty of universities right there in DC who have to have translators teaching.  Plus the people on K street have no one on staff who speaks Chinese and can translate? 

This is ridiculous.

54 billion trade agreement....has it been written yet or did they just sign it to find out what's in it.

253

How about an exercise in not letting liberals take control of the narrative?  The Second Amendment is talking about the right to bear arms, not hunting tools, not home protection, ARMS.

That works

As in what the U.S. Army is equipted with, in any given situation.  There should be no such concept as L.E.O., it's a violation of the constitution.

LEOs....as in police...are unconstitutional?

254 Speaking of CT, if we ban 30 round clips crazy people they will just find something else.  They will fart on everyone then stab them with a butcher knife.

What is it with CT people lately?

255 I think the extended mags are redneck anyway. They do not fit properly and jam frequently.

256 @239 The police got those big guns from a local gun store B&B Gun Sales it is actually also in the original Terminator movie

257 Wasn't that carried out by Ninjas? It doesn't matter how many bullets you have, you ain't stopping no ninja attack

I just watched "Ninja Assassin", and it turns out you can kill ninjas with bullets, but only if you first have put giant SUV mounted headlights. Similar to how the evil Australian poachers killed kangaroos in "Crocodile Dundee."

258

You know, there's no reason for a car to have than 150 horsepower, especially when people die from speeding.

There's  no reason to have a private swimming pool wasting thousands of gallons of water, people drown all the time in these pools.

There's no reason for a boat to have more than 50 horsepower, with people dying in boat accidents.

There's no reason why people are allowed to say things like "target, fire, ammo, crosshairs etc." People are dying from ugly talk.

There's no reason to smoke cigarettes.

No reason to eat fatty foods.

No reason to write useless blogs.

 

 

259

The law that expired in 2004 banned new manufacture of all magazines holding more than 10 rounds, not just pistol magazines. Even with the ban they were always available, legal to own and legal to purchase. They were just more expensive. The 2004 law would have done nothing to keep the magazine the nut used out of his hands.

If you and cheney are saying that sure the government should be able to confiscate your existing magazines I say no. If you can give me a good argument why we should give up the convenience of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds I'm waiting. The only argument made is that most rounds fired miss and therefore less rounds mean less hits. If that is the case it's an argument for high capacity magazines for self defense.

You may as well start combating drunk driving by limiting the size of fuel tanks.

260

Let's execute a series of unrelated meaningless steps in relation to an as-yet undiagnosed problem.

Public policy for the 21st century.

This is not to be confused with the "turn a national tragedy into a dysfunctional federal agency and/or combination of dysfunctional federal agencies as an excuse for pork spending" method of policy making. 

The two methods are not mutually exlcusive.

261 Dick "Oops - BANG!" Cheney is giving us advice on how to make guns safer?

Okaaay....

262 I guess that I'm against a ban as it is doubtful it would have made much of a difference in the Tuscon shootings.

But, in the end, it is a distraction.  We should all be concentrating on how we can keep guns out of the hands of these idiots.

How would you second amendment caucus members feel about requiring a person be certified through some state approved agency (perhaps a course run by local law enforcement?) before being allowed a permit?

I know that doesn't preclude someone who has a permit going nuts and using his quite legal weapon for murder, but it might stop the nutball who goes for his first gun specifically for a Tuscon type rampage.

263

Ben, that's a compelling argument to me, but I dress to the right. We need compelling reasons that compel everybody, not just us. AFAIAC, fuck off, Gungrabber is compelling!

 

Who are you trying to convince at this point.

It the whole "free society" thing isn't selling to said audience, will anything? Is it even worth trying at this point.

What's the saying Ace or someone used,  You can't argue someone out of an opinion they were argued into.

264 "Damn, the government banned mags over ten rounds. Now this 9mm has a bunch of useless space in the grip where the other 7 rounds were. Doesn't seem too efficient... Let's see... Oh, this 10mm takes a ten-round mag that does use all the space. May as well buy that, then."

I wonder if Giffords would be in the same shape today if that bullet were 1mm larger...

Lower the capacity, increase the caliber. Now each of those ten rounds is more powerful.

Laws have unintended consequences.

265 You know, if it will save even one life...isn't it worth it?

266 Care to join me at the range? I'll fire my Remington 700 with a 3x9 scope, and you fire that cute little 14" barrel pistol.

Yeah!  Range day!  I'll bring my 7mm Contender with the 14 inch barrel and 9x scope.

267

There Ogabe goes again with the Chinese government procurement. He wants to be able to sell more technology to them

268 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines? If we remove church and family and adulthood, if we grant the liberals their "expanded moral imagination" cityscape in which none of their charges is expected to have any responsibility or suffer any repercussion, depending on the exact grievance group to which they belong, then no. No, I can't.

269 196 What's all this talk of hunting with guns, bows and knives? I kill deer with my bare hands. Skinning them is the tough part.

..

Now I finally understand Cheney's position: He figures no one's going to bring him down with less than 50 rounds. So he'll kill his enemies while they're reloading.

270 Scoped .44 mags are pretty common in hunting for deer and pigs, inter alia.  I don't think it would be kosher to start blasting away Detective Riggs style during Rifle Season.

The people I know who hunt wild boar do so with pistols.  Heavy, powerful pistols, but pistols nonetheless.  I think there are .50 caliber pistols designed specifically for that purpose.

271 Did anyone else hear what I just heard?

"We gotta' create more Engineers and Lawyers."

heh.. HEH.. HAH-HAH-HAH

272 Hi Ace, member of the "Second Amendment Caucus" here with a few thoughts:

1. Magazines are not the same as clips. Clips hold ammo together in groups to facilitate loading; magazines generally include a feeding spring.  It's not *that* important, except it's a common mistake used to identify folks who know guns/gun issues from those who don't.

2. The real problem with banning 33-round magazines is that it continues the grand tradition of gun laws: what you do instead of something.  Banning a particular piece of metal in a particular shape or capacity doesn't do anything to address the elements of a homicidal shooting.  I don't have any 33-round magazines, but I could own 85 of them and it wouldn't make a difference -- I would never commit a violent (or nonviolent) crime. Putting regulations on a metal banana that has no will or power of its own ignores the real problem in favor of shiny headlines.

3. Believe it or not, there *is* a slippery slope argument here.  They ban 33 round magazines, because no one *needs* that many rounds.  Then they ban 11-round magazines (hellooo, Massachusetts!) because no one *needs* that many rounds.  Remember, do, that there are LOTS of people who believe no one *needs* *any* gun -- that's what the professionals are for! 

Any gun regulation that adds to the cost of manufacturing, purchasing or legally exchanging a firearm should be resisted.  It doesn't address the problem, it encourages those who think they can legislate guns out of existence, and it's stupid, to boot.

273

Care to join me at the range? I'll fire my Remington 700 with a 3x9 scope, and you fire that cute little 14" barrel pistol.

Sure.  At 200 yards I was easily out-shooting the guy next to me using a Rem 700 PSS.  Granted he was a lousy shot and I was using handloads, but I was shooting under 2 MOA at 200 yards and 1.5 MOA at 100 yards.

This was off sandbags, of course.

274 I'm pissed that I can't have a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

275

I have 'em, because I wanted 'em.   If some dumbfuck thinks he can break into my home and walk out again, I want to show him just how dead wrong he is.   I want more bullets than he has, hopefully, and either he lies bleeding on my floor or trailing blood out the door.

Plus, it makes for great fun at the range.   The more I can shoot at a time, the better.   

Although, I don't really need a reason for having them those are just two.   Those that want to take away my right to have them can DIAF.

276 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.


Just because you don't like the answer, Ace, doesn't mean it's not the right one.

277 I want what I believe is the best for my given situation.

If I am running around, my Sig with 7+1 Capacity with a second magazine on my person is good enough.

However, if I worked where my brother works, I'd want a handgun with 15 or more like a S&W M&P or a Springfield XD. I'd go with Sig but I heard their quality is starting to slip.

278 Here's an argument for extended magazines..   I think they would be a hell of a lot of fun to shoot at the range because I wanted too.

Good enough? 

279

What's the saying Ace or someone used,  You can't argue reason someone out of an opinion they were not argued reasoned into.

280

I think the extended mags are redneck anyway. They do not fit properly and jam frequently.

Sounds Yankee or gay to me.

281 @282 just what you see on the shelf buddy

282 Posted by: spongeworthy at January 19, 2011 02:15 PM (rplL3)

The point is, if you're trying to base policies on what crazy people might do, you're going to have an even crazier set of laws.  Perhaps better than "stop" I should have said "anticipate."

But the even more important point is that any law only applies to the law abiding.  Since you can't anticipate the crazies (and they're too low for real statistical analysis anyway), the ones you're trying to anticipate are the badguys.  Many badguys try to tread a line that makes their detection less likely: doing so means they are hindered (if only a little) by new laws.  This particular new law, however, would be even less effective than most, and disproportionately more harmful to the law abiding populace.

Would a 15 round magazine have stopped Jared Laughner short of his eventual casualty count?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  He's crazy, so there is no way to anticipate what he would have done had the circumstances been different. 

283

Barack Obama and the American Democrat Party star in

101 Obfuscations

284 Good thing I just picked up 2 100 round drums for the ars. Connecticut is an awb state but no magazine cap law and we can have a class 3 nfa full auto and or suppressed. You can buy a full auto belt fed m60 but can't have a bayonet lug on an ar15. Fucking genius.

285 2nd Amendment applies to ALL i even wack jobs

286 I find this whole argument hilarious.  We shouldn't be discussing the size of magazines, types of guns, etc., but whether or not we should be able to carry, either visibly or concealed.  I wonder how many people would have been killed in Tucson, or any other mass shooting for that matter, if there would have been two, three, or more people with firearms within reach.

287 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

Just because you don't like the answer, Ace, doesn't mean it's not the right one.

Posted by: Oedipus at January 19, 2011 02:21 PM (KIzJt)

Honestly, outside of gun rights circles, I have not heard this argument made so clearly.

Is that the one we're going public with?

288 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2011 02:21 PM (plsiE)

I'm impressed. I still think that I can beat you, especially with hand loads, but that's nice shooting.

289 Anybody that thinks restricting magazine capacity is going to slow a shooter down much has never seen Travis Tomasie reload his 1911 or Jerry Miculek shoot and reload a revolver.

290

How would you second amendment caucus members feel about requiring a person be certified through some state approved agency (perhaps a course run by local law enforcement?) before being allowed a permit?

A permit for what? Where I live I don't need a permit to purchase or own a firearm. Why should I need someone else's permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right?

291 2nd Amendment applies to ALL i even wack jobs

Actually not, dunce.  Due process and all that.

292 After reading The Ayoob Files in American Handgunner for the last couple of years, I've come to the conclusion that magazine capacity may be the single most important factor when it comes to surviving a gunfight.  Aside from staying out of gunfights in the first place, that is.

Of course, I still carry my 1911 with a measly 8 rounds on board, so I haven't acted on this newly acquired wisdom yet.  That's just because I'm slow sometimes.

Besides, limiting capacity doesn't achieve anything.  If I think I won't have time to drop a mag and insert another, I'll just carry multiple guns for a New York reload.

293 There is no reason for your vehicle to go over 45 mph. Anything over that is excessive and wasteful. If you can't get where you're going at that speed, you don't need to get there.

294

The law that expired in 2004 banned new manufacture of all magazines holding more than 10 rounds, not just pistol magazines. Even with the ban they were always available, legal to own and legal to purchase. They were just more expensive. The 2004 law would have done nothing to keep the magazine the nut used out of his hands.

And the unintended consequence was that a lot of people (myself included) who ordinarily wouldn't have been interested in buying an "assault rifle" and hi-cap magazines went out and stocked up on them in response to the law.

295
BTW, you can go to Israel and see uzis openly carried all over the streets.  And by kids.  Who go drinking.





Heh. There's nothing like being an American soldier in a Tel Aviv nightclub, dancing with hot drunken Israeli Army chicks wearing skimpy sundresses and M16s across their backs. The dancefloor was a dangerous place.....because you'd get beaten to death by all the guns slapping you in the back. The Galils were the worst....those things are HEAVY.

Good times, good times.

296

Great,

Now the next time 33 ne'r-do-wells break into my humble abode I'm going to be forced to reload.  I hate that.

Seriously though, what's missing here is that the whole point behind the 2nd amendmant wasn't to make sure that we'd have guns to hunt with or even for defense against the criminal element.

We are supposed to be able to arm ourselves to prevent our own government from gaining too much power.  Our forefathers understood that if government could disarm the populace, most of the rest of our rights wouldn't be worth the paper they were printed on.

Sadly, it seems, they were right.

 

 

297 Late to the game Ace, and I don't feel like reading older posts...

Let's take your arguments, done in a spitball manner, on the extremities of extended clips, substitute the 1st for the 2nd, and change extended clips into eliminationist rhetoric or some other extreme form of speech that needs to be curtailed.

You still Jake with that?

298 156 .......he was a juggalo.......... http://tinyurl.com/5td7wxa Posted by: phoenixgirl at January 19, 2011 01:55 PM (Cm66w) All becomes clear. Those are some...unusual people.

299 How would you second amendment caucus members feel about requiring a person be certified through some state approved agency (perhaps a course run by local law enforcement?) before being allowed a permit?

That's basically how it works in Massachusetts for all firearms purchases. And there's no gun violence here at all.

/sarc

300 The "shall not be infringed" grouping of words seems kinda clear and direct to me.

301 I can be concealed.

302 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Good enough? No? Then let's start talking about limits on the First Amendment rights, too.

I love how the one goddamned thing no one's talking about -- expect for like a half day last week -- is the way we let fucking lunatics run around after they've shown themselves to be dangerous. Instead of trying to deal with the insane, we're instead back to talking about restricting the rights of the law-abiding, sane citizens.

303

a Tel Aviv nightclub, dancing with hot drunken Israeli Army chicks wearing skimpy sundresses and M16s across their backs

What's yiddish for 'Bunk'?

304

Whatever the penalty for high-capacity magazines, or any other instrument of murder, you are still going to be dealing with a relevant population already having motive to murder.  Which is of course always punishable by life or death.  So any gun law will never deter the people you want to deter.  Unless you believe disarming the law-abiding is the goal of course. 

The people who advance libertarian and unintended consequences arguments do so for guns or drugs, but rarely both.  They apply with the same force in both cases.  Serious criminals will always have guns.  A black market will explode in firearms.  And of course home invasions will skyrocket.      

 

305

"No, there is no reason for these large capacity magazines. Frankly, for home defense if you can't hit what needs hitting with what it holds, you need target practice not more bullets."

 I'd prefer a Mossberg for home defense. When it comes to intruders it is always better to hit and kill with one shot.

 I feel comfortable with my Glock, but I don't feel comfortable with my girlfriend using my Glock. She couldn't hit the broadside of a barn if she was standing five feet away. Sure more range time wouldn't hurt, but she's unlikely to commit to it and in a highly stressful situation she'd just jam the thing or fire wildly. 

306 Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at January 19, 2011 02:24 PM (JxMoP)

Just wait. Soon we will be required to have permits to speak in public about any topic that has the ability to inflame. But it will just be a stamp you can purchase at the post office after you fill out some forms. Really, it's not a big deal.

307 And the unintended consequence was that a lot of people (myself included) who ordinarily wouldn't have been interested in buying an "assault rifle" and hi-cap magazines went out and stocked up on them in response to the law.

*Raises hand again*

Damn, I'm getting tired.

308 Manly men are quite content with a 7 round .45 semi. Posted by: Tigtog at January 19, 2011 02:13 PM (Q5+Og) As God and John Moses Browning intended!

309 How would you second amendment caucus members feel about requiring a person be certified through some state approved agency (perhaps a course run by local law enforcement?) before being allowed a permit?

This is how it works in Massachusetts, where I am only permitted to carry a gun on my person for target shooting or hunting.  Because they didn't see 'why' I would need to carry a gun for anything else (self defense wasn't valid, they told me, unless I was a merchant).

Up north, in New Hampshire, they don't do this.  Oddly enough (and in spite of all protestations by the Massachusetts legislature) New Hampshire hasn't fallen into lawless disarray with constant accidental gun deaths.

310 President Reagan was shot by a revolver. President Lincoln was shot by a two-shot derringer. Robert Kennedy was shot by revolver. John Lennon was shot by a revolver. President Kennedy and MLK were both shot by rifles with less than five round capacity.

311 BTW, you can go to Israel and see uzis openly carried all over the streets.  And by kids.  Who go drinking.

And the result?  Five million armed drunks threaten a billion peace-loving muslims.  Or something.  I'm still working out the details.

312 I normally think of LEO as Law Enforcement Officer.  I guess its possible that he meant "LEO Only" weapons, or "Law Enforcement Ordinance," though.

Whatever he meant, I agree with his principle.  Assuming I can afford one, I should be able to put in my order for an M1A2 Abrams.

313 ace: "I really kind of hate the 'we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary' argument."

That's an even more incendiary comment than "I really kind of hate it when someone who studied law and knows better intentionally acts obtuse or who really doesn't acknowledge the primary - if not entire - entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

314 @255 We need compelling reasons that compel everybody, not just us.

Okay, you axed for it. Not pretty, and violates the CNN speech code:

"There may well be much in what you have to say. Prithee, do you care to put a number on how many million Americans you are willing to have die in order to implement your principle? Because that's how you'll have to do it."

Radical abolitionists never said, "Looking back on the Civil War now, it just wasn't worth the cost." Knowing the left, there is such a number. I just want them, like Ayers, to fix that number in their mind and put their name on it. It really makes the rest of Ace's pool party more...diverting.

315 This here is a very stupid post ,ace.

That's not really necessary and nobody uses it so let's ban it? How about your penis ?!?!?!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!!

316 We should all be required to bear arms at all times.

317 Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 19, 2011 02:26 PM (TAjuH)

The last time I was in a Tel Aviv nightclub I was with a cousin, whose incredibly smoking hot friend got plowed and danced on the table. And she wasn't the only one.

What's the murder rate in Israel and Switzerland, where pretty much everyone has access to high-quality automatic weapons?

318 This is how it works in Massachusetts, where I am only permitted to carry a gun on my person for target shooting or hunting.  Because they didn't see 'why' I would need to carry a gun for anything else (self defense wasn't valid, they told me, unless I was a merchant).

You have to love the arbitrariness of MA leaving it up to individual police chiefs to determine the extent to which you can exercise your second amendment rights.

*Lovingly caresses unrestricted Class A LTC*

319 Did you guys know that many pistols come in both 9mm and .40 (10mm) caliber?

And did you know that the frames are often identical?

And did you know that you can fit 17 or so 9mm bullets into the 10-round .40 caliber mags, and use them in the 9mm pistol?

So if you're going for a 10-round limit, for Heaven's sake, make sure you make it illegal to put 9mm rounds into a .40 caliber magazine, so that the crazy spree killers will know they're not allowed to do that.

320

First of all, it's a magazine, not a clip. Clips load magazines, magazines load firearms.

Second, I think that the government should limit Dick Cheney's and everyone's car to 40 horsepower. Any more and he might speed and and speeding might cause someone to get hurt. I don't care if he never speeds, somebody, somewhere just might hurt someone eventually so isn't it worth it just to maybe save a life somewhere?

 

321

Manly men are quite content with a 7 round .45 semi.

Colt Python .357.  Six-shot.  Wimp.

322 The Glock extended 33 round magazine was designed for the Glock 18, which looks a lot like the Glock 17 but has a switch on the slide that can allow the user to choose between fully automatic and semiautomatic operation.

Glock 18s are, like all fully-automatic weapons, heavily regulated by the ATF and require special permits to own.  They are not very common, and are rarely if ever for sale.  They would have had to have been registered before the 1986 ban on manufacture of new full-auto weapons.  There are maybe a handful in private ownership, and when it comes to use as a real weapon they are REALLY a handful, the slide is light and there is no rate reduction so they fire at a virtually uncontrollable rate.  The extended magazine is because you will empty a normal 17-round Glock 17 magazine in about a second of full-auto fire.

The 33-round magazine does fit into and function in all 9mm Glocks, the 17, the 19 and the 26.  I used one to qualify for my last CHL shoot, because it was about 15 degrees with the wind chill and with a 33 and a 17 round magazine I didn't have to take my gloves off and handle cold 9mm rounds to reload.  It affects the balance of the pistol to a minimal degree.  It is not the kind of thing you want for concealed carry, it doesn't even work well for open carry since you have 5-6" of magazine hanging out of the end of the grip.

The 33-rounder is more of a conversation piece than anything else, though there are a few carbines that can take Glock magazines (the Kel-Tec Sub 2000, for example) where it is used as a rifle magazine.

When there is a SHTF moment, longer mags are better.  This would probably explain why MagPul, SureFire and other companies are coming out with 60 and 100-round magazines for the AR-15, the 'regular' mag size for a .223 AR is 30 rounds.  MagPul and SureFire will sell as many 60-round mags as they can make, because anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice.  Particularly with a pistol or a 5.56x45mm rifle if your life is on the line.

I disagree (respectfully) with The Dark One on this point.  There is no need to make any concession in this regard, because, as previously noted, magazines don't kill people.

323

LEOs....as in police...are unconstitutional?~ CJ

I wrote that the concept of Law Enforcement Only, as in you can't buy a particular weapon(eg. switchblade) or optical sight or suppressor, is unconstitutional because the spirit of the Second Amendment is that citizens have the right to bear arms.(arms meaning equal in firepower, capacity, and capability to what the Army and Law Enforcement have)  

324

I'm hoping Darth Cheney is using the Jedi mind trick to get liberals to use him as their authority source in arguments. As in: lib is pushing for restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and cites Cheney as the reason. So you think Cheney's right about this? Is he right about other things? Why is your head looking like the poor sap in Scanners?

325 The problem in two recent high-profile cases was insane, violent people slipping through the cracks of the mental health system. There is no coincidence to the fact that the rise in massacres followed the creation of the policy of deinstitutionalization. Banning hi-cap mags is not the solution; making involuntary institutionalization easier (not trivial, mind you, just easier in a case like Loughner's) is.

326

I'm impressed. I still think that I can beat you, especially with hand loads, but that's nice shooting.

Thanks; took quite a bit of practice (and a 2x-10x scope) to get there though. The Striker (like most Savage rifles) is very accurate, but it's more difficult to shoot accurately and followup shots take longer to line up than with a rifle.

The first time I used it, I took 3 deer from a portable deer stand (equipped with a flimsy telescoping rest), with the furthest being 175 yards out.

They've since opened up my deer hunting zone to rifles (used to be slugs or handgun only), so I don't really use it anymore.  I do carry a Ruger SRH in .454 for close shots though.

327 44 >>>The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense. I want the most capacity I can have when I need it.

I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.   So does that mean you really hate the second amendment? What am I missing?

328 Hey were going to cut off the tip of your penis. Even an average sized penis can be dangerous and cause injury if used improperly. Due to this danger the government should create a law forcing penis reductions. I mean women have the most sensation in the first 2 inches so you only need 3 inches the way we see it. You don't mind us cutting off the extra inches do you? I mean it's not like you can come up with a better argument than that stupid slippery slope argument right?

329 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

Not something that will fit on a bumper sticker.  But I think there is an argument to be made that goes something like this:  We should resist the effort to turn every tragedy into a new law.  Not just because the worst legislation is crafted under these circumstances, but also because once you start giving in the new law becomes part of the ritual.  The chorus for government to do something becomes deafening to politicians.  We don't need more laws.  We have already have too many.

California has a magazine size restriction and it hasn't done a damn thing to make the place safer.  I used to have a gun with a 15 round magazine, now illegal.  The idea was if I were roused from a deep sleep and had to deal with an armed intruder the first four or five rounds would probably go off into the ceiling because of the adrenaline rush.   A 15 round magazine would leave me enough statistically to complete a gunfight, one way or another.

Now ten rounds is the max magazine size.  I'm in the market for a gun.  You know what I'm thinking?  I should probably use a more powerful round, on the theory every shot has to count more.

330 Sh*t.  Goodbye repulican party, I hardly knew ye.

331

Hey all you heavily armed guys over there trying to kill me and my family...play fair now...you have to quit after 10 rounds

332

I see Ace's comments as another step towards his Charles Johnsonization. Last month Ace asked why people were upset that TSA goons might want to grope their privates. After all, it was for our own safety.

Today Charles, I mean Ace, asks why people would be upset that the government might restrict their right to keep and bear arms. The answer to both questions is: F*ck you the governemt has no business puttings its hands on my gun or on my privates.

One lunatic empties a magazine and hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners must be punished. Great logic there Charles.

 

333 Are you trolling ace? "Usually that is just used with automatic pistols, right? Or like tiny machine guns like the Uzi? But automatic pistols are generally illegal, right?" 1) "Usually that is just used with automatic pistols, right?" You mean semi-automatic pistols? Yes 2) "But automatic pistols are generally illegal, right?" No, fully automatic pistols are not illegal, and semi-automatic pistols are not illegal either. Wtf are you talking about ace?

334 I think Time and Newsweek are too big.

335 So, the idea is that by banning >10 round magazines, it will force spree killers to reload more often and give potential victims a chance to rush the killer and restrain him, before he has a chance to complete the reload. But that requires those potential victims to be right next to the killer, within arms reach, and be physically stronger than the killer. A better solution might be to invent some sort of remote stabbing device that allows potential victims to be further away from the shooter yet still provide an effective resistance, and have a significant number of the general populace carry these devices around for protection of themselves and others. Oh wai

336 Maybe we should restrict politicians from how much they can steal?

Maybe the number of corrupt politicisans should be restricted.

Perhaps we should restrict elected officials from sealing school transcripts.

Maybe we need a restriction of the number of liberal assholes in America.  I think 1 would be enough and it can live in Berkley.  The rest get deported to North Korea.

337

Dylan Fucking Ratigan said that China is not the biggest debt holder of the US government..

...he said the biggest was the Social Security Administration

JESUS.FUCKING.CHRIST

338

Sarcasm aside, there are 100 million gun owners in the United States. How many would seriously take up arms in the event of a tyrannical government? Let's say one in ten. That's 10 million armed rebels, against a total of just under 3 million active duty and reserve members of the US military. So assuming that every single soldier, sailor, airmen and marines obeys the orders of this hypothetical tyrannical regime, they're still outnumbered three to one. That doesn't even get into the possibility of National Guard forces rebelling, or regulars refusing to obey unlawful orders.

It'd be worse than that.  With as many competent engineers and hobbyists running around, and I've known a few guys with serious fabrication shops set up in their garages.  Any general insurgency would be cranking out anti tank weapons and anti-aircraft missles in a year or two. 

339 What would Christine O'donnell do?

340 Banning hi-cap mags is not the solution; making involuntary institutionalization easier (not trivial, mind you, just easier in a case like Loughner's) is.

Can't talk about that, though. Probably because a hefty percentage of the Democrats' activist base is certifiable, and just imagine what easier institutionalization would do to their GOTV efforts.

341 Posted by: Alex at January 19, 2011 02:37 PM (J2ejK)

I don't think it would take that long.  With as many amateur rocket enthusiasts as exist, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't cranking out something that could at least take on a Bradley within 6 months.

342 Nothing says "shot at me and you die" like a short (18'', of course) double-barreled 12 ga. shotgun.

343 Another thing that bugs me, exactly when did we have to start giving reasons to keep our constitutional rights?

344 I'd like to see a modern version of the Militia Acts of 1792.

Everyone should be required to own.

345 shot = shoot

346 Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2011 02:33 PM (plsiE)

My Remington is in 30-06, which I chose mostly because the bullet weights of commercial loads run from 120-220gr. So I used it for coastal deer in California (small -- about 75-125 pounds) all the way to wild pigs.

Now that I can afford more hunting rifles I don't have the access to unlimited hunting. Oh, to be young.

347 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines? I'll bite. Because we are free citizens, not stupid children or serfs with a Euro-peasant slave mentality?

348

I wonder if Loughner would have shot himself if he had time. I think not, judging by his glee in the mug shot. He got what he was after, fame.

This is not the fault of a society that allows weapon possession, it is the fault of a society with a low-life-fame-based media beamed into our homes 24/7.

From Charles Manson to Son of Sam to Jerry Springer to Balloon Boy to Jared Loughner. A complete loser can become famous in America, and it is so easy. That's why they stay alive, to drink the nectar of noteriety.

And not that I think Sarah Palin is a loser, but how powerful would she be if the media had just ignored her after her failed vice-presidential campaign and truncated governorship? 

349 Because we are free citizens, not stupid children or serfs with a Euro-peasant slave mentality?

Heh.

350

It's basically just a Savage 110 rifle with a short barrel and a handgun stock.  More accurate than most full sized rifles, though muzzle velocity is lower with the shorter barrel

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 19, 2011 02:13 PM (plsiE)

Roll your own with fast burning powder.

As for Cheney, he's done stupid stuff before. As SecDef under Bush 41 he shelved the SR-71. Clinton brought it out of retirement briefly when his ass was in a bind but Cheney was the guy who killed it. Maybe Cheney did it as part of the "peace dividend", maybe he did it so one would never get shot down. Maybe he did it because he thought satellites were less risky and more cost effective. Anyways, I think it was a dumbass move by Cheney.

351

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think we forget that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide security for the State... the "We" in "We the People..." Firearms for the protection of the State is explicit in the right and the right to self-defense is implicit. 

I think we've gotten a bit off track when we use the "But it's good / not good for hunting," debate. I don't need to justify my right to own a firearm, in whatever configuration I deem necessary, on whether or not I might be able to use it for hunting as well. Hunting is not a right.

Again, I have the right to protect myself and to protect a free State. Anything else is a bonus. Based on this logic, I'd say that I have more of a right to own a submachine gun or military grade assult rifle than I do a turkey gun. Just sayin...

352

I don't think it would take that long.  With as many amateur rocket enthusiasts as exist, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't cranking out something that could at least take on a Bradley within 6 months.

A Bradley in 6 months, definately.  I figure that within about 18 months they would be threatening military aircraft such as helicopters or transport planes, as well as an Abrams tank.

353 Everyone should be required to own.

Posted by: Holger at January 19, 2011 02:40 PM (YxGud)

 

....and be allowed to carry.

354 I see Ace's comments as another step towards his Charles Johnsonization.

LOL

355 This is what pussified city living gets you. Although you'd think ace would remember that Colin Ferguson killed six people and wounded 19 others on the Long Island Railroad with a 9mm pistol. He didn't have a 33-round magazine. He had two 15-round magazines. What the hell are you doing soliciting "strong arguments" against high capacity magazines? How about IT'S A STUPID FUCKING IDEA? Plus the whole "nobody needs [insert whatever item YOU don't like here]" is the weakest kind of liberal pussy claptrap extant. Because I want one. Because it holds down papers on my desk. Because I hate loading magazines. Because I like the way it feels against my penis. BECAUSE I FUCKING CAN. Snap out of it, lad!

356 If we are going to have limits, it needs to be on government intervention. If the good people of Tucson had been carrying, then maybe not so many rounds would have been squeezed off. I am for limiting unstable people from carrying guns, or voting for that matter. But then again, it was a lefty event.

357 I had a symbolic logic professor who claimed the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Real-world experience tells me this isn't so: the slippery slope exists, and we see it at work whenever the government seeks to regulate anything. About extended magazines: If an extended magazine gives me a few precious seconds I would otherwise not have in a deadly force situation; that is, the time it takes to reload, then an extended magazine is an altogether good thing. If I owned a Glock, I would also own the extended magazine. I have a carry license, and I usually carry two small and easily concealable weapons for convenience (a .380 and a .22 mag, respectively). If, however, I know beforehand I'll be going through a rough part of the city--to see my brother, for example, who lives in a bad neighborhood, then I carry my S&W .38 Special Target Masterpiece, an impossible revolver to conceal, really, but moderately powerful and extremely accurate, with sweetest trigger of any handgun anywhere. I feel somewhat ridiculous doing it, but I practice using the speedloader, doing it over again until I can do it without looking and without thinking about the movement of my hands. The purpose of a handgun is to defend one's life or loved ones by incapacitating the attacker as quickly and completely as possible. One shoots the attacker until the magazine or cylinder is empty. Then one quickly reloads and--if the attacker is still moving--shoots him again until he stops moving. No fooling around, not when lives are at stake.

358 Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2011 02:40 PM (vNzc/)

Mossberg 500. First round is 3 inch hollowpoint sabot, 2nd round is 3 inch 00 Buck, third round is 3 inch hollowpoint Sabot, 4th round is 2 3/4 inch 00 buck and the fifth round is 2 3/4 inch slug.

Anything infront of my shotgun gets destroyed.

359 >Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

That's not the fucking point. A free society is not predicated on the citizens justifying the reasons their actions should be legal, but rather the state justifying why their actions should NOT be legal.  Do you want to live in a country where everything the government doesn't allow you to do is forbidden?  Because if so, this type of slave logic is the way to get there.

So let me flip it for you Ace, do you think there's a shred of evidence that a ban on extended magazines would save lives?

360 How would you second amendment caucus members feel about requiring a person be certified through some state approved agency (perhaps a course run by local law enforcement?) before being allowed a permit?

----------------------

I really can't think of any drawback to having a state bureaucrat decide on a case-by-case basis whether I should be allowed to exercise a constitutional right. Those folks tend to be exceptionally impartial and Solomonically wise.

I mean, look at concealed-carry permits. Those are never issued arbitrarily. Whether you live in New York or Texas, your chance of being approved if you're a law-abiding citizen are excellent, and in neither case will you be subjected to prohibitive legal hurdles.

(Do I really need the /sarc tag here?)

361 for some reason, Steinbeck's "The Moon is Down" comes to mind. .

362

Oddly enough, #111 seems to be serious. (http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/) 

363 I see Ace's comments as another step towards his Charles Johnsonization. Last month Ace asked why people were upset that TSA goons might want to grope their privates. After all, it was for our own safety.

It's a thought exercise. We'd better damned well be able to make the case clearly against the left and the MFM (but I repeat myself).

No need for invective against the head Ewok for just asking the question.

364 345

Dylan Fucking Ratigan said that China is not the biggest debt holder of the US government..

...he said the biggest was the Social Security Administration

JESUS.FUCKING.CHRIST

Posted by: beedubya at January 19, 2011 02:37 PM (AnTyA)

Actually I think Britain is Number 1, China is Number 2.

Dylan Ratigan is also a type of Number 2.

365 Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?

I worry when we have to argue about what I "should" own and what I "should not" own. Again... do I have to have state approved reason? One that is written down on a form? I have committed no crime, no injustice to another... yet I am forced to bear another burden for someone else's sick, twisted crime?

When I buy a 60" LCD TV... should I give a just reason to the "Green Police"? Should they inventory my home to see how many TVs I already own?

Do I then have to justify how often I want to watch it? I'm sure there are many extreme environmentalist that would love to be in the position to approve and disapprove of all my other choices I am to make in my life.

No more remote controls maybe? Do we really need them? Don't they lead to obesity?

There is something evilly seductive about being able to be in control of another person's life. With a pen stroke force your morals and beliefs on another without having to provide facts, raw data or reasoned logic.

366

Handguns aren't used for hunting, period, no matter what their capacity

Spoken like a true Northeastern urbanite, come out West for a while if you want to discuss gun ownership in a logical manner.

 

367 Ace, I have one of these, with a 30 round clip.  The ammo is not much bigger than a 22.  Good for defense, nothing else. 

http://tinyurl.com/6gcv6be

I also have it's big brother, which have 50 round clips.

http://tinyurl.com/4h5myjs

Don't be coming over without an invitation.

368 "...as well as an Abrams tank."

Maybe from side or back.  Most other Main Battle Tanks don't pose a terrible threat to the M1A2.

There's also (as mentioned earlier in the thread) the fact that a fair number of current military personnel would refuse the orders of any tyrannical government against which rebellion was necessary.  And they'd probably bring their toys with them.

That even happened, some, in the Revolution: British soldiers who had "gone native."

369
President Reagan was shot by a revolver. President Lincoln was shot by a two-shot derringer. Robert Kennedy was shot by revolver. John Lennon was shot by a revolver. President Kennedy and MLK were both shot by rifles with less than five round capacity.

Not to mention Presidents Garfield and McKinley. And the attempted assassination of Teddy Roosevelt. None of which involved semi-auto firearms.

Don't forget that Squeaky Fromme's attempt against President Ford failed......because she didn't understand how to operate a semi-auto 1911 pistol, which is somewhat more complex to operate than a revolver.

370

double-barreled 12 ga. shotgun.

How about a short barreled (18 sure) semi auto 12 gauge that holds at least 8 shells?

2's not a lot.  A pistol gripped pump makes the neat sound too.

I've got a 14+1 .40.  That's a lot of lead.  One mag change and I'm in 30 rd territory.

I stand by my criticism of 30 rd pistol mags as being tactically useless.  Maneuverability, reliability, and weapon balance (especially index shooting) are all thrown off.  You're far better to go with teh laser/light combo on the frame rail than try to shoot so much that the bad guys run away.

A single mag change delay with 14 rounders is more than made up for by these other factors. 

371 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.

372 Big winner:  the NRA, for being proven right after backing Harry Reid on single-issue reasoning.

Big loser:  Liz Cheney for elective office or cabinet appointment.  (Until and unless she throws him under the bus and kneels to kiss the ring, she's been broadly in her father's school of thought politically, so she's tainted by association.)

Runner-up loser:  RINOs who get to reveal just how loyal they are to a motivated political group who are generally on their side.  (NRA's Reid endorsement, for example, pissed off many of their own members, including myself, but now I see they were right.)

I know there's a cultural divide here even on the right.  I think our betters in polite society conservatism do not understand how seriously 2A advocates take this issue.  Even though its not going anywhere, this is an unforced error when Alan Gura and others are moving the ball down the field in the courts in a very methodical way.  Why voluntarily give cover to your backers' political enemies?

Also I should mention that the slippery slope argument is a lot stronger to those who know the issue.  Gun confiscation in Britain and Australia would never have been accepted out of the blue.  It worked, politically and practically, only after gun registration had been in effect for some time.  And registration worked politically only after regulation had been tried and mysteriously proved ineffective - thereby apparently proving more needed to be done rather than showing the original regulations were ill-considered.

Even here in the US, where infringements of the second amendment appear unlikely in this generation, the history is that regulations advance with a ratchet effect on roughly generational lines.  The 1934 NFA was understood by even its a backers to be a pretty big assumption of federal power, but was taken as the baseline starting point for the 1968 Gun Control Act and 1986 regulation of new manufacture of already taxed and heavily regulated machine guns.  The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took all those for granted and asked for a lot more, and it was only then that the public really got outraged.  And it's still the only major gun control legislation to be rolled back, and that only by a sunset clause, not an active vote of repeal.  That is the simple history, that the slippery slope argument is already proven to apply to this issue - so when our supposed political allies start offering to trade away even minor, seemingly plausible points, we know that any deal made will never be enough, it'll just be the baseline for new demands made in 20 years when everyone's used to the new normal.

373

Oddly enough, #111 seems to be serious.

Yeah; she shows up on occasion and makes with Teh Crazy. 

 

374 I GET MORE AND MORE INRAGED AS MARCH 5 GETS CLOSER!  THE HORRIBLE ANNIVIRSARY OF WHEN YOU NEOCONS PIOSININED MY JOE!

Mar 5, 1953: Joseph Stalin dies

Nice.

375 I wonder if Loughner would have shot himself if he had time.

I think he was going to based on the "goodbye" messages he left in various places (MySpace, friend's answering machine, etc.).

376

380 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.
 

The best safety is to keep your finger off of the bang switch until you are ready to fire.......

377 Manly men are quite content with a 7 round .45 semi.

My Glock 30 has 10 round mags. Most really large capacity magazines foul before registering empty quite frequently unless of really good quality and properly maintained. On the range it is easy enough to clear the foul but IRL you need to keep shooting. For self-defense, I'd rather shoot 10rd mags (or 15 round mags if 9mm) just for enhanced reliability. 30 rd plus mags are too heavy anyway. That said, it isn't the government's or anyone else's business if someone wants to use large cap mags.

378 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.
-------------------------------

If you're a cop, an NFL player or a Vice President of the United States, I'd avoid it and go with something with a positive safety.

379 173 I read that and thought it was satire. When the headline said limit "magazine" sizes, I thought we were no longer talking about guns, but instead "Newsweek," "Time," etc.

Ah, now you're on to something here. I suspect limiting "Time" to about 16 pages would make discourse a lot more civil. Environmentally friendly, too!

380 Just take the damn tanks. In a civil uprising the Fed won't be able to defend all its bases. Especially since a good portion of the military would join us.

381 Andy, RTFP.  "I am not a member of the Second Amendment Caucus."

That is not a god-damned thought exercise.  And it's not a question.

That's the piss running down the proprietor's leg.  He is a politician.
Wannabe.

382 380 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.

Posted by: Holger at January 19, 2011 02:49 PM (YxGud)

It's the split trigger safety thing.
Gotta watch where you put your fat finger.

383

Although you'd think ace would remember that Colin Ferguson killed six people and wounded 19 others on the Long Island Railroad with a 9mm pistol.

Sadly, while he was a black man who targeted only white victims, he was clearly mentally ill, yet Republicans and the national media spent the next week accusing Al Sharpton types of pushing him over the edge with their heated rhetoric.

Oh, wait. They didn't.

384

yea, becasue 2 - 15 round regular mags would have been impossible for the guy to handle ...

the Virginia shooter used regular magazines I believe ...

385 Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 19, 2011 02:52 PM (6ftzF)

Not as directly, but that had been mentioned a couple of times up-thread.

Yes, the greatest advantage an American Citizenry pushed to rebellion would (likely) have is that much of the military would side with the civilians.

386 What about hi-capacity ice cream cones?  Shouldn't those be banned as well?

387 Maybe from side or back.  Most other Main Battle Tanks don't pose a terrible threat to the M1A2.

Meh.  You're a sitting duck in a tank.  Even from improvised weapons - bury enough explosives in the road and no tank in the world survives the blast.

388 ""Because I want one. Because it holds down papers on my desk. Because I hate loading magazines. Because I like the way it feels against my penis. BECAUSE I FUCKING CAN.""


Thats funny shit.  lol

The second amendment is not about hunting, period. That's how people ate back then, there were no fucking supermarkets. To even suggest that the founders put their ass on the line to overthrow tyranny and give birth to a new country so they can put the right to eat right under free speech is insanity. The fucking libs brought this hunting thing into the argument, and it needs to be taken out, because its just more lib twisting of a document they hate anyway.

389

Actually I think Britain is Number 1, China is Number 2.

Dylan Ratigan is also a type of Number 2.

Posted by: Meremortal at January 19, 2011 02:46 PM (8/Uyb)

China is number 1, but the point is that that fucking idiot Ratigan was trying to counter the criticism by saying the biggest debt holder of the US government....was the fucking US government.

This is the same as when Ogabe says SS is solvent because it has IOUs from the rest of the federal government

390

There's also (as mentioned earlier in the thread) the fact that a fair number of current military personnel would refuse the orders of any tyrannical government against which rebellion was necessary.  And they'd probably bring their toys with them.

 

Yup.  I know a few NG people who wouldn't think twice about bringing their "toys" to fight against the likes of this current regime in DC.

391 Meremortal: "I wonder if Loughner would have shot himself if he had time."

I'm guessing suicide by cop. It seems logical he went in with a plan to create as much chaos as possible starting with his primary targets the Congresswoman and her staff (those closest to her) and then, secondarily, shoot until killed. With his paranoia about the State, it makes sense that he "knew" he wouldn't come out alive if he took on the bulk of his imaginary enemy.

392 What about hi-capacity ice cream cones?  Shouldn't those be banned as well?

Now that would help Michelle's fat children.

393

"Is that the one we're going public with? "

 

From a legal point of view that is why the 2nd Amendment exists. Sic Semper Tyrannis. From a practical point of view, the next (or should I say the first) Civil War will not be fought in a conventional way. It will look very much like the "Secret War" in Chile. Men dressed in suits, driving Ford Crown Vic's will politely knock on a door, present credible ID and then enter and go about eliminating the residents of the abode. The targets will be selected based on their threat to interested order. The days of conventional ground army of patriots fighting it out are over. Anytime a group could mass the Government would just order up a couple of Predator Drones and finish the task toot sweet. I know this revelation ruins the militias fun, but it is the most likely template.  

394

I read that and thought it was satire. When the headline said limit "magazine" sizes, I thought we were no longer talking about guns, but instead "Newsweek," "Time," etc.

Ah, now you're on to something here. I suspect limiting "Time" to about 16 pages would make discourse a lot more civil. Environmentally friendly, too!


Now if only Newsweek and Time were to be as considerate as The Nation, by avoiding that slick, non-absorbent  magazine paper. The newsprint that The Nation uses is much more efficient in its primary role, and less likely to irritate your butthole.

395

The best safety is to keep your finger off of the bang switch until you are ready to fire.......

I never understood the criticism of the Glock "safety"...

...there is never a reason to have your finger on the trigger unless you were going to shoot anyway

396 Posted by: Ace's liver at January 19, 2011 02:55 PM (XIXhw)

Yeah, but then you've denied that road to your own forces, too.

One of the main reasons "civilized" countries abandoned land mines was that they were denying that land to the people who planted them, too.

If I have to sacrifice mobility to stop a tank, I will.  If I can build the capacity to take out that same tank on a mobile basis, I think that's better.

OTOH, I don't really think it will come to that in my life time.  I certainly hope it doesn't.  But it's a good thought exercise to make sure when it does happen (and it will, eventually, if History is any guide) that those who follow already have some idea of what to do.

The Revolution was only able to be successful because the Colonies had witnessed the French and Indian war up close, and were able to learn from the natives' tactics.

397 As I understand the state of modern jurisprudence, everything is assumed to be illegal unless expressly permitted by the government. It's in the ninth amendment I think. Or maybe its penumbra.

398 Posted by: City Boys Rolled Up Newspaper at January 19, 2011 02:53 PM (EL+OC)

My Sig has no safety other than the one I was born with. Nothing will stop the gun from firing if I put enough pressure on the trigger. But that stupid trigger within a trigger makes me think the gun is safe when it isn't.

399

But the right to self-defense was more than just implicit, though it was that.  It was absolutely basic and fundamental and easily known to all.  The second amendment was more a call to the population to be armed and for States not to be able to disarm them for transient reasons that would put the State, itself, at great risk in the long run.

Yup, the guys that wrote the Second Amendment were mindful of the fact that:

a) they had just had to overthrow the government(British Crown)

b) that government they had just overthrown didn't want the American colonies manufacturing muskets and cannon(among other things)

400

Meh.  You're a sitting duck in a tank.  Even from improvised weapons - bury enough explosives in the road and no tank in the world survives the blast.

 

All one needs to do to cause a major reduction in the effectiveness of a tank is fuck up the track. 

401

Anything infront of my shotgun gets destroyed.

Posted by: Holger at January 19, 2011 02:43 PM (YxGud)

Good deal. How are things in Piney Flats?

402 380 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.

I don't like it.  I don't chamber a round until I plan to fire it. Somewhere there is a video of the Mossad pulling their Glock's and chambering them in one swift movement. I'll look for it.

403 My Sig has no safety other than the one I was born with. Nothing will stop the gun from firing if I put enough pressure on the trigger. But that stupid trigger within a trigger makes me think the gun is safe when it isn't.

99% of all double-action revolvers agree.

404 So what do the Second Amendment guys get in exchange for this concession? If we are horse trading, what is the other side giving up?

405 Posted by: Soona at January 19, 2011 03:01 PM (vNzc/)

That and destroy the Commander's and Gunner's Thermal Viewers. Do that and the crew goes back to the WWII way of searching for and engaging targets.

406


a[n] uncivil spirit of divisiveness and intolerance


New favorite nickname (with proper grammar).

Well-played, moron!

407 Limiting handgun clip size will not be effective for its purported purpose, and will be detrimental to the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 19, 2011 01:34 PM (8y9MW)

Indeed, and further consider Article 1, section 8, clause 11 on letters of Marque and Reprisal.  It allows the government to sanction an individual the power to act as a military force.  Implied in that power is the ability of said private indivudals to raise and arm a military force or warship.  (The last letter of Marque was issued in to the Goodyear blimp Resolute was operated as an anti-submarine privateer based out of Los Angeles in 1941).

The second amendment is all about the capacity to resist tyranny. 

(If you want to forbid swords to pheasants, move to Japan...)

408 Not as directly, but that had been mentioned a couple of times up-thread. Yes, the greatest advantage an American Citizenry pushed to rebellion would (likely) have is that much of the military would side with the civilians. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 19, 2011 02:54 PM (8y9MW) Yeah. While I agree making stuff to take out tanks is something that will happen quickly if a tyranny rises (hell I could probably google it right now) our best bet would be taking their stuff. A proper guerrilla effort always appropriates the enemy's stuff. I honestly believe a new War of Independence the odds would be on our side. Not sure a Fed could win a sustained civil uprising. It would be brutal and bloody and I pray every day it never happens but we have the numbers. Not to mention home field advantage and a shit ton of guns. Where will the govt get food? What will they defend? How will they pick out resisters in a crowd of civilians? How do they bomb cities without gaining our side foreign support? It is a logistical and tactical nightmare for them. It would end with a bunch of leftist govt types hiding in a bunker somewhere while we control the land from coast to coast. I'm tired of hearing how impossible us fighting a tyranny is. It always sounds like people saying Leonidas should give in to Xerxes. It tastes bad. It reeks of the inevitable slavery and death that comes with giving in to government. Hopefully we never get there. We still have a voice and a vote. Lets work to keep them.

409 Posted by: Kemp at January 19, 2011 03:02 PM (JpFM9)

That is nothing, Spetsnaz has a holster they use for their pistols that chamber a round when the pistol is drawn.

410

Posted by: Tigtog at January 19, 2011 02:59 PM (Q5+Og)

 

One thing you've forgotten that's been mentioned several times upthread, is that there would be a major mutiny in the ranks of the military if that order was ever given. 

411

re: the Glock safety

I use a Blackhawk SERPA holster for concealed carry for my 19 which makes it impossible to depress the trigger until the weapon is drawn..

...but at the same time it allows for an easy, fluid motion from the release to the trigger once it is..I highly recommend it

412

It's pretty simple, when the oppressive government becomes too tyrannical to protect our liberties it is our duty to cast off that government.  If in the process of casting off that government we are required to take up arms, then it will take more than 33 round clips in order to protect the ideologies expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Whether or not we need 33 round clips for home defence or hunting is immaterial.  IMMATERIAL.  Quit buying into the long lasting left wing acid trip.

413 Oh, Ace to answer your orginal question.  Extended clicks are available for semi auto and auto guns.

A semi auto only means it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, which is pretty damn fast when you need to fire.  Jared was a good shot, even with a 30 round clip a 9mm has barrel rise which makes hitting something not that easy after the first shot.

414 I carry a 19 in a Serpa as well. Great combo...

415 Doug: how tyrannical is too tyrannical?

416

The days of conventional ground army of patriots fighting it out are over. Anytime a group could mass the Government would just order up a couple of Predator Drones and finish the task toot sweet.


The days of a conventional insurgency are long dead, too.  Destroying infrastructure to destabilize the effective order is the order of the day.  Heavy handed pacification steps are unlikely to work well in a nation of armed citizens.  Even getting the nutters and leaders first, the rest will quietly go about their business until the ability to sabotage arises.  And the threat of internal dangers to our infrastructure are overwhelming. 

The only reason our Republic survives is because we haven't pissed off the majority of the population.

417 Ace: 0) Magazine limits are IMHO not Constitutional. Soldiers use 30-round magazines in combat all the time (in an M-16, not a handgun, but still). 1) Magazine limits cannot prevent violence from an attacker and might hurt a defender. The attacker decides where and when the attack occurs, what equipment he will bring, how many buddies he will bring, etc. The defender must deal with the attack where and when it occurs. It is no problem for an attacker to bring multiple magazines, indeed multiple loaded weapons, indeed multiple buddies each with multiple loaded weapons. If you imagine a small gang (of drug dealers, say, or hobos) attacking someone's vacation home out in the countryside somewhere, I would like to imagine the defender having high-capacity magazines available to help repel the attack (preferably an AR-15 or similar with 30 round magazines). 2) Hunting doesn't enter into it. I am fine with hunting laws that limit the capacity of a magazine that may be used for hunting; I think it's a silly point, but I don't care. For all other uses, magazine capacity may not be limited. 3) This is a very minor point, but losers often buy cheap weapons that look scary and don't work well. I have read several incident reports where a loser bought a cheap "Mac 10" pistol or similar, and then had a jam caused by the cheap extended magazine. Needless to say, said losers haven't practiced how to clear a jam, so the shooting sprees stopped abruptly. It would be actually worse if said losers had simply brought about four revolvers, and had gotten off 24 reliable shots. You can't count on this sort of thing happening, of course. 4) Besides, the folks who want to ban the guns are trying to get a total ban, one piece at a time. They will take any ban they can get. If, in the name of "compromise", we keep giving them stuff, eventually we will have nothing left. Ban military-looking "assault weapons"; ban "sniper rifles" such as deer rifles; ban "close-in assault weapons", i.e. any shotgun; ban "saturday night specials", i.e. any inexpensive handgun; ban "military pistols", i.e. any expensive handgun; etc. etc. We don't need to speculate about slippery slopes; we can just look at the history of attempted and achieved firearm bans. A poster higher up in the thread said something about the saddest possible thing being to lose a loved one to gunfire. I can think of something worse: to lose loved ones to violence, to watch it happening, while being a trained gun owner who was not carrying a weapon to comply with the law. Consider Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp, who lost her partents at the "Luby's Cafe Massacre" in Killeen, TX. She had a pistol outside, in her car, because there was no legal way to carry at the time and she was law-abiding. (This incident prompted her to get involved in politics, and in part thanks to her, Texas changed its laws about concealed carry.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

418

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Yeah, but better investments are stocks, bonds, CDs and real estate, even in today's economy. Hate to get to be 65 and look back and wish that  hadn't wasted my money on guns and ammo. which are overpriced anyway. Just say'n. 

419 We need to ban scissors long enough in length to clip a newborn's neck.  - And put rounded points on them too.

But serially, wouldn't a killer, who has premeditated murdering his victims, just carry more magazines?

420

Crazy shthead uses 30+ round clip in gun to kill people.  People respond by trying to ban 30+ round clips.

What Cheney SHOULD have said:  How about instead making it legal for any law abiding gun carrying citizen to put 33 bullet holes in any nutcase who so much as threatens to kill anyone.  Not only make it ilegal but give that law abiding gun carrying citizen a pre-approved Presidential Pardon and get out of civil court free card.

421 Now, Ace, does anyone really *need* to read your blog?

What a stupid fucking argument. I've long argued that people who don't "get" the 2nd Amendment just don't "get" freedom. They think freedom is about income or abstractions or standards of living. It's not. It's about choices and consequences.

As far as not buying the slippery slope, that's about the most ignorant thing I've ever seen Ace post. Come on, you know better than that. The history of state control is largely a history of the slippery slope. Did the US get to where it is now regarding spending, taxes, entitlements and regulations in one step? Seriously? Did it all stop at some point when I wasn't looking?

Fuck, what do you *need* alcohol for? Ban it, it causes harm sometimes. You don't really *need* a knife to open boxes, cut bread or eat a steak. Oh, red meat, forgot, we banned that.

What the fuck?

Extended Clip? 33-round mags are extended clips, right? That is, they extend well below the grip of the gun.

Usually that is just used with automatic pistols, right? Or like tiny machine guns like the Uzi? But automatic pistols are generally illegal, right?

Pretty much every time someone advocates or excuses gun control, you almost immediately discover that they don't know what they're talking about. Well, there you go.

I'm disappointed. I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, and I don't disown people because they disagree on something. But I thought you "got" freedom, and you seem to have missed a lesson or two.

Maybe it's a New York thing, I never did "get" the East Coast.

422 Ammo doesn't cost, it saves!

423

My extended clip holds 15 rounds and extends the grip about 3/4" which is huge for a sub-compact as makes it a far more comforable grip. The gun case came with a big ol' sticker "Not legal in California".

Good thing I don't live in California, huh?

Cheney, Rove, and the lot of them need to keep their friggin traps shut if they cannot support even the most basic elements of conservatism, which is to say, the unemcumbered right to self-protection.

In the dark of night, when I'm half-asleep, and sweating bullets from the knowledge that a stranger has entered my home, I want to know that the odds are with me when I pull out my weapon and start firing. I want to know that, statistically, I stand a better chance of hitting a moving target with 15, rather than just 8 rounds.

I want to know the bastard is going down and each shot that hits him will slow him a little more.

424 Sometimes I think Ace throws these "raw meat" posts out there every now and then just to stir every one up. He knows that any attack on the 2nd Amendment will get a loud reaction from 99% of the conservative Morons.

425

"One thing you've forgotten that's been mentioned several times upthread, is that there would be a major mutiny in the ranks of the military if that order was ever given."

DADT and McNamara's 100K may offer a differing outcome. While you and I would disobey the order, we both know plenty of active duty careerists that would follow it. Remember the DoD establishment has plenty of rice bowl holders who will do anything to be promoted. It all depends on the leadership. Do you remember any Union combatants failing to follow orders?

426 I am in CA so I already live with the small magazine restrictions.  Nothing over 11 rounds here for me.    Truth be told though, it takes about 2 seconds max to drop a clip and insert a new one.   These limits are a nuisance and I don't think they are really effective at saving lives.  Criminals intent on killing will eaither use illegal magazines or get proficient at killing within the small magazine regulations. 

427 380 Anyone have experience with the Glock Safety Action? I am sort of phobic about it.

Are you afraid of revolvers? They don't have safety switched to prevent you from pulling the trigger either.

Ultimately, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

428
Imelda my dear, please explain to me why you need all of those shoes? You only have two feet.

429 First, off.

MAGAZINE

Say it with me, M A G A Z I N E.

Clips are something else entirely.

Second, I don't have to justify anything. The Government has the obligation to show how making possessing a magazine over X capacity does what they say it will do. Judging from the results from the last time around (no measurable reduction in crime what so ever). They can't.

Lastly, Cheney just became the poster child for the pragmatic big R republican party, may they rot in hell.

430
Do you remember any Union combatants failing to follow orders?



The vast majority of the senior commissioned officers in the Confederate Army were US Army officers who resigned upon secession.

431

...there is never a reason to have your finger on the trigger unless you were going to shoot anyway

Never.

The safety on my Springfield assures that I can't pull the trigger and fire without assuming the proper grip. I have to be prepared to pull the trigger when I do pull it. That's safety enough for me. Even then, I'm not putting my finger on the trigger until I know I'll need to fire.

I've practiced pulling it out of my nightstand to assure I get the right grip, right away and, frankly, with the proper grip, I stand a heck of a lot better chance of hitting my target, so it works out all around.

432
Jay, why in the hell do you need another sports car? The damned warehouse is already full of 'em.

433

@427,

What constitutes too tyrannical?  There is a good list that was written by Thomas Jefferson to compare to.  Of course that list was specific towards a King, a new list would have to be directed towards Government action of an executive, legislature, and judiciary that act as a group rather than a check and balance.  Too tyrannical for the citizens in this country to revolt, would necessarily have to be when the government frequently acts in a manner that is contrary to our Constitution.  The Kelo decision was a prime example of that government (with inclusion of the judiciary) taking a step that would have been listed in the grievences at the time.  A significant number of  more like individual actions that become ongoing, for example KELO on steriods plus other things, and viola, it becomes our duty to take down that structure of government.

434 Do you remember any Union combatants failing to follow orders? COUGH*COUGH - Robert E. Lee - *AHEM*COUGH-COUGH*

435 Ultimately, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 19, 2011 03:18 PM (bxiXv) 

Nevermind, S&W M&P pistols are coming out with a thumb safety as an option.

436

DADT and McNamara's 100K may offer a differing outcome. While you and I would disobey the order, we both know plenty of active duty careerists that would follow it. Remember the DoD establishment has plenty of rice bowl holders who will do anything to be promoted. It all depends on the leadership. Do you remember any Union combatants failing to follow orders?

 

Most of those "rice bowl holders" are in the Pentagon.  Most people in the military hate that place.  It's where the big balls of shit start rolling downhill.  I know for a fact that most, certainly not all, but most leadership in the line units would refuse to carry out any such order.

437 Posted by: Tigtog at January 19, 2011 03:17 PM (Q5+Og)

Personally?

Actually, the North and South traded warriors during the Civil War on a not-irregular basis.    Sometimes a Union soldier (even an officer) would come to believe that, however bad Slavery was, the answer was not to revoke the rights of the States.  Just as, on the other side, Confederate soldiers (including officers) would come to see that, whatever their leadership said about States Rights, and "consent of the governed," what they were doing, in fact if not in name, was protect the right of some people to deprive other people of their most basic rights.

I don't know of any whole units that defected from the one to the other, but individual soldiers did so occasionally.

438 384 I wonder if Loughner would have shot himself if he had time.

I think he was going to based on the "goodbye" messages he left in various places (MySpace, friend's answering machine, etc.).

Posted by: Andy at January 19, 2011 02:50 PM (5Rurq)

I think he was covering the possibility that he would be killed during the act., as another poster noted above.

Something tells me we are going to see more gun-related threads around here, judging by the comment count.

I've got to head over Berthoud Pass, which has been closed off and on for 2+ days due to snow, avalanches, etc.  Wish me luck, I'll report in later when I get to Sin-Town for my rock gig.

439 For those of you who are sure about mass mutiny in the armed forces should the SHTF, you may want to read this short essay on that, and do some thinking.

440 As people have mentioned, ext. mags are good for the range and plinking. And in the event of a SHTF scenario (major hurricane, earthquake, asteroid strike, the volcano under Yellowstone explodes, etc...anything that could essentially cut you off from civilization and maybe put you in the middle of some kind of civil unrest) they'll be nice to have.

I understand being uncomfortable discussing the idea that the 2nd amendment is about the citizens ability to resist the government. I don't know why it isn't pointed out that the founders saw an armed citizenry as asset to face all enemies foreign (in the event of invasion) and domestic (in the event of civil unrest). It seems as likely to me that the citizen militia will find itself allied with the government (at least local if not federal) as opposed to it.

I think that would be better PR than "we may have to shoot the revenuer."

441

@44: "I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument."

Hear, hear!

442
I am in CA so I already live with the small magazine restrictions.


Lucky for me, I already owned my normal-capacity magazines before the current CA ban went into effect, so they're grandfathered in. Not that it matters, because the CA ban is TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. A common thread on the Calguns forum is folks asking if anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted for violating the ban. I've never seen anyone cite a conviction in all the years the ban has been in place.

The CA high-cap magazine law bans importing, offering for sale, manufacturing, transferring, lending, or giving away magazines above 10 rounds. Possession is NOT banned.

Purchase is NOT banned, although, here's the goofy part. The guy who sells you the magazine is guilty of a felony, but the purchaser is totally in the clear. Only one side of the transaction is illegal.

There's no requirement that the magazine be marked with a pre-ban date. There is no requirement that you keep proof of pre-ban purchase. A lack of a pre-ban receipt or a date marking on the magazine is not sufficient proof that the law has been violated.

It's perfectly legal to purchase magazine parts both in CA and out of state, to be used to repair your pre-ban, legally owned magazines or to modify for use in manufacturing a 10 round or less magazine. If you assemble them into high-cap mags, it's a felony, but it's pretty much impossible to be convicted because the burden of proof is on the DA, not on the owner of the magazine.

443 Posted by: Kemp at January 19, 2011 02:47 PM (JpFM9)

Bastard. I have some serious weapon envy now!

444 You miss the point, Ace. This isn't the Soviet Union. You shouldn't have to /need/ something in order to be able to legally get it.

445 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 19, 2011 03:26 PM (bpP/w)

Speaking of REL, today is his birthday.

446

We talk about open rebellion as though it's something that will happen in the future.  I say we are now experiencing an open rebellion against the fed.  The Tea Party, Sarah Palin (and friends), the states submitting lawsuits against Ocare and basically telling this regime and congress "no way" to other intrusive legislation.  This last election was not just a repudiation of dems in congress and Dear Leader's ideaology, but the dem. party down to the local dog catcher (as Rush says). 

It won't take too much more shoving by the fed. for this to start becoming really ugly. 

 

447 Gun control is a proven losing issue for Dims. It was a big factor in a lot of races in 1994. Maybe Cheney is trying to bait them into doing something that will result in another 65 Dim Congressional retirements in 2012.

It's a trap !!!!11!!1!!

448 Oh, and Cheney? There are two kinds of people in this world. People who have NDs into a lawyer's face because they didn't identify their target, and people who get to talk about gun control.

449 So some maniac kills people, therefore I must be limited to load one bullet (or ten) at a time when target shooting?  Stupid.


Hey, what happens when a guy with two handguns with 10 round mags kills people?  Do we ban law abiding people from having more than 1 handgun?

Gun laws don't affect criminals, by definition they don't care about the law.

450 Magazines don't kill people. People kill people.

On second thought, after the article on Salon, maybe magazines do kill people- or at least their brain cells.

BTW. It is really a silly argument. Ask yourself- what is the goal and on what premise is it based? Do you think based on what we have seen for the past two years that Democrats intention in taking away extended magazines is simply a matter of public safety? Yeah, I am not willing to make that leap of faith just yet. How about they give us a few rights back first and then we can talk?

Also, I could probably shoot and reload 3 -10 rounders faster than that moron emptied 30 in a single mag.

451 Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 19, 2011 03:41 PM (TAjuH)

To follow up, there's a 3-year Statute of Limitations on that.

But it's almost impossible to prosecute, because you can legally replace ANY part of a legally-owned magazine. So even if every part has last month's date stamped on it, they have to prove you didn't have one before.

Unless you were born in 2001, that's pretty hard to do.

Not encouraging people to break the law, just sayin' it's a God-damned stupid and probably unconstitutional law (tell me it's not a fucking infringement, I God-damned dare you).

Half our laws are probably unconstitutional, though. We really are boned.

452

@70: "Having watched the SWAT training programs on the teevee and the programs on the military channel, I'm fairly certain that the gubmint wins any show-down situation, regardless of clip capacity. "

Um, so the initial ATF assault at Waco was a resounding success?  The ATF guys retreating, out of ammo, with their hands in the air was a triumphal procession?

The LEOs didn't do too well at the Kansas City Massacre, North Hollywood bank robbery, Little Bohemia, 1986 Miami shootout, etc.  At best, they "won" simply because they had more guys.

453 Cheney: Sure, Maybe We Should Limit Magazine Sizes

Capital idea! I respectfully suggest that Time, Newsweek, The Nation, TNR and all the other leftist yellow sheets be reduced to printing on napkin size stock and limited to sixteen pages each ... or was he talking about something else?

454 Do you remember any Union combatants failing to follow orders? Actually besides the obvious answer, there was a very real fear Lincoln and others in the capitol held that Gen McClellan might disobey orders and turn the Army of the Potomac around and march on Washington

455 I can see where a limitation to something less than 33 rounds in a magazine may be considered reasonable.  It's not like you're actually reducing anyone's ability to defend themselves, are you?  You're just doing something reasonable.

And in that same vein of thought, I'm thinking that behind every large atrocity of the 20th century there was a book.  Mein Kampf.  The Communist Manifesto.  Mao's Little Red Book.

Seems that lots and lots of words can compel people to commit atrocity.

I don't know of millions of people going to war over a simple phrase.

So, wouldn't it be reasonable to limit the printed word, be it in books, magazines, newspapers, and even the internet, so something reasonable like 100 words or so? 

And it's not like your 1st amendment freedoms are being repressed.  You can still put your thoughts out there.  This is a reasonable restriction.  There's no compelling reason to let anyone use more than 100 words, is there?

It's for the children.

456 Molon Labe.

457 It does not matter of what use a thing is or if it has a use at all. The government has no right to tell a citizen what they may possess. The government does have a right to go after people that hurt others. The government is way out of control. More than all of its out of control citizens combined.

458 1. Of course they have uses. Otherwise people wouldn’t buy them. 2. It’s not a compromise if the only thing we get is having allowed them to push us that much further down the slope. I’d be willing to ban anything over 32 rounds. But only if we get something out of it—say, full reciprocity across all states and cities no matter their local laws. You know, a reform that might actually have helped stop this nutcase and pushes back bad laws. This is what angers me about the beltway Republican party; another poster mentioned it at the end of the last session. Repealing DADT? I have nothing against repealing it. I actually kind of support it. But why not save it for next year when you can actually get something in return? When the left compromises, they get something in return. When the right compromises, they just get to say they weren’t pushed so far down the slope they fell off the cliff. Meanwhile, their feet are dangling and the root they’re clinging to is getting weaker.

459 @188: "Loughner, the Columb-idiots, all these spree shooters couldn't be bothered to train or practice or make elaborate tree stands for skewering pedestrians and students with frikkin' arrows or Buck knives. That's not what they do.

You guys keep arguing that Loughner could have just trained for hours swapping out clips when the fact is that there's no evidence he or any of these other spree shooters spent any time whatever on real firearms drills."

Phillips and Matasereanu did.  There have been several gang shootings where gangbangers used mil-style tactics.  It does happen.

460 There is no compromise, just pushing and sliding.

461 If by automatic you MEAN semi-automatic then please SAY semi-automatic. The gun grabbers and their witting fools in the Media conflate the two all the time for a reason: automatic weapons are scarier.

They are also CURRENTLY ILLEGAL TO OWN unless you pay a fee and get a background check and approval by local law enforcement or pay the fee for a license as a gun dealer and even then there are restrictions on use and types of weapons that can be owned. Different types require different licensing.

If one takes the stance that guns are for sport then no, there is no real pressing reason to have a larger magazine than say 10 rounds. (some Law Enforcement are equipped with the large magazines that do NOT extend past the bottom of grip. I think they go to like 16 rounds.)

If one takes the stance that guns are for self-protection/defense then YES THERE IS A REASON TO HAVE A LARGE MAGAZINE.
A larger magazine weapon has a 'scare' factor to it. Many of the instances of an owner of a firearm repulsing criminals amounts to them only SHOWING THE WEAPON and the criminals are GONE! Also in the case of 2 or more assailants; as we've seen, even a semi-automatic can chew through ammunition quite quickly. If there's any distance involved, a lot of shots will be misses. (think the Amadou Diallo shooting in New York where 3 cops fired 41 times and hit him 19 times at fairly close range. I'm referring to the amount of shots per hits not the error in judgment by the police and their lack of weapons control or too make light of his death.)

If one takes the stance that guns are to protect the citizenry from a predatory government and/or it's employees gone rogue, then HELL, YES I WANT EXTENDED MAGAZINES. AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND A GRENADE LAUNCHER AND SOME REALLY, REALLY GOOD ARMOR. (The kind you have to be rich to afford or get a license to have. Yes boys and girls the government in some places has decided that YOU don't have the right to protect yourself with a bullet proof vest.)

You pick which suits you, but that slippery slope EXISTS whether you believe it does or not.

462 Of course, I am not really a member of the Second Amendment caucus. With all due respect, then, WTF are you? If you think the GOP can just ignore the civil rights of the American people in general, and its own base in particular, think again. The Rich Man's War Party has a very, very limited appeal. I am far from a Ron Paul supporter--but when the national security wing of the GOP sells us out, do you honestly think we will just forgive you and go on living in a police state?

463 Also, unless you're a scary originalist and you believe the surrounding documents o the evil founders matter, hunting could be banned tomorrow without violating the 2nd Amendment. 10th yes, 2nd no.

Hunting has fuck-all to do with this. Even hunting hobos.

464

At root of this kind of "ban x/y/z" talk is the simple refusal to accept that shit happens.  People die.  It's horrible, but inevitable.  It's the cost of modern life, which in terms of overall safety is way superior to the olden days, even with all our nutball shooter types roaming around. 

It's bad and horrible, but there's nothing to be done about it.  This primal urge to DO SOMETHING is killing us.  Especially since our sense of proportion is out of whack.  The mental energy fruitlessly applied to "solving" this issue could be way more produtively employed thinking about stuff we can actually change.  Heck - we have a religion tolerated in this land that openly preaches the need to kill/enslave those of us who don't belong to it.  And they're making preparations to do just that.  Why not freak out about that problem, rather than this one-off?

Oh - and when the war against the Muz does come here, and it will, I want the biggest friggin magazine made, with the largest available caliber I can handle.  As Europe is proving - the police and military will do nothing to protect us.

 

465 MSNBC is already lying about what Cheney said:

“Cheney, an avid hunter, said he is "willing to listen to ideas" on how to better control the purchase and use of firearms.”

http://tinyurl.com/47pgpmt

I watched the entire Cheney interview at the Hot Air link.  Nowhere did he say he'd be willing to listen to ideas about how to better control the purchase of firearms.  All he talked about was magazine capacity. 

466 Gun control is a proven losing issue for Dims. It was a big factor in a lot of races in 1994. Maybe Cheney is trying to bait them into doing something that will result in another 65 Dim Congressional retirements in 2012. That's only true if there's a difference between the two parties on the issue. Gun control helped the GOP in 1994, because the Dems were front and center on the issue, and because most (although unfortunately not all) Republicans were opposed. Once the GOP got in power, they refused to repeal the AWB--Dole refused to even bring it to the floor--and, worse yet, passed the blatantly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment. As a result, the GOP lost in 1996 and 1998. Only in 2000, with Clinton once again pushing gun control in the wake of Columbine, was the GOP able to win again--and just barely so, due to Bush II's equivocation on the issue. If the GOP even passively allows this to become law, they will be over as a party. That means a ban on all firearms within this decade.

467
Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 19, 2011 03:52 PM (bxiXv)



Yeah,  I'd originally typed in the 3 year statute of limitations, but I was afraid that my memory was a bit shaky on that so I left it out.

But in other good news on the 2A front, the CA Handgun Ammunition Purchaser Harassment law, AB962 was declared unconstitutional yesterday.

I'm still buying handgun ammo online this week. Bite me, CA Dems.

468

MSNBC is already lying about what Cheney said:

They aren't lying, that's what the heard when Cheney said,  "Maybe we should limit magazine sizes."  That's why Cheney shouldn't have said it.

And everyone who said this was one of those genuine slippery slope examples was absolutely right.

469 A journalists' guide to firearms.

470 Um, so the initial ATF assault at Waco was a resounding success? The ATF guys retreating, out of ammo, with their hands in the air was a triumphal procession? The LEOs didn't do too well at the Kansas City Massacre, North Hollywood bank robbery, Little Bohemia, 1986 Miami shootout, etc. At best, they "won" simply because they had more guys. @70: "Having watched the SWAT training programs on the teevee and the programs on the military channel, I'm fairly certain that the gubmint wins any show-down situation, regardless of clip capacity. " Um, so the initial ATF assault at Waco was a resounding success? The ATF guys retreating, out of ammo, with their hands in the air was a triumphal procession? The LEOs didn't do too well at the Kansas City Massacre, North Hollywood bank robbery, Little Bohemia, 1986 Miami shootout, etc. At best, they "won" simply because they had more guys. If you think you're going to get through Societal Armageddon or any armed standoff anti-governmental action because you have a 33 round clip, you're delusional or a John Dillinger wannabe So, okay, per the 2nd Amendment you can have the clip.

471 Posted by: andycanuck at January 19, 2011 04:29 PM (2rOwc)

I needed that laugh.

472
Well, the pot-head lunatic lied on his 4473 (questions about mental health and drug use), which is a felony. Maybe we can pass a law to make it illegaler......

473 This reminds me of an episode on F&F a few days ago. The blond dumbo had just made a snarky comment about the extended clip and she was pushing gun control.

Shortly after they played a clip of a 911 call of some terrified woman hiding in a closet screaming because home intruders had broken into her house. The point of the call was that it took 30 minutes for the cops to get there.

The cops of course said budget cuts caused the problems. I have never heard a government agency yet that didn't offer up budget as an excuse for their failures.

But my point is simple, 30 min wait for cops, 30 seconds from the closet to the drawer with the gun in it. When thugs are breaking down your front door a 30 min wait for cops is 30 damn min too long.

474 Posted by: Vic at January 19, 2011 04:35 PM (M9Ie6)

I've said before that Cops don't prevent crimes, they just (try to) clean up the mess afterwords.

475 There is some truth in the slippery slope argument,...

Then you never, ever allow the opposition to get a foot in the door. Every little tactic they try to get the ball rolling needs to be stomped on hard, until it's so damaged that it's useless.

476 I hate everyone against the Second Amendment.

477 127 "Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?"

I think that question is just a little ass-backwards.

Prohibition on weapons ownership, like taxation, is not a normal state of nature.

Therefore I think the proper question here is "Can we advance any strong argument, other than the potential actions of lunatics, that people should not have 33 round pistol magazines?"

Furthermore, since there are so many fewer lunatics than there are guns in this country, I think we should concentrate our government's limited resources on lunatic control rather than gun control.

x1000

It is not and never has been the role of government to decide what any citizen can or cannot own. If eliminated that Second Amendment, the argument that I can buy whatever I damn well please without government interference (so long as it does not screw with interstate commerce or eminent domain) would still stand.

The best that the Federal government can do, within Constitutional limits, is tax the gun that I buy from another state or otherwise regulate trade, even without the Second Amendment.

Ace, I respect that you don't like the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument, but, like it or not, that is clearly the intent of the Second Amendment and it corresponds perfectly with the historical context from which our country was founded, the reasoning at the time it was written, the context and intended limitations of the Constitution as a whole, and the necessity in more modern times (see Battle of Athens-1946).

Arguing what someone "needs" or "does not need" is explicitly un-constitutional. Further, any attempt to limit the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment does nothing to limit or impede the actions of criminals and results only in protecting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from others and from their government.

At the end of the day, We The People are the government and the military of the United States. We the People are exclusively responsible for our Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and National Defense. Any argument that alters this fundamental fact is unconstitutional.

478

We all know where the Left is going with this.

If a gun with 10 is safer than 30, then 6 then 2 then Zero is even safer. See UK and Australia for recent western democractic governments' histories.

The Left believes that government agents should have an exclusive monopoly on the application of deadly force.

479 Ace, why did you never learn what "begging the question" meant? ... just askin' ...

480 How many rounds did Cheney need to bag his attorney?

481
Hey Nielsen, why do you need so many damned guitars? You only have the two hands, and Surrender isn't that hard of a song to play.

482 Net Neutrality and Fairness Doctrine.  What's wrong with Fairness?  What's wrong with neutrality?  What's wrong with a gun-control bill that would likely have a zillion amendments attached to it?  Dick Cheney doesn't care, he's lived in Washington DC for nearly his entire adult life.  Plenty of gun deaths in DC and how many of those guns were equipped with extended magazines?

One thing to be said for the Ruling Class - they know how to take care of their own.

483 Sorry, folks, you can now only plead the 5th amendment ten times.

Sorry, folks, the government can now quarter 2 soldiers per 500 sq. feet of your home.

Sorry, folks, they only have to issue a warrant the first three times they search your property.

484

I question the usefulness of the 33 round mag on a Glock 19, simply because it would make the gun so heavy and out of balance.  I would think anyone other than someone with really strong hands and arms would have a heck of a time controlling it in rapid fire, that it would climb on repeated firing like a Thompson with the 50 round drum mag. 

9 to 15 rounds is plenty for me -  I have an FN 5.7 with a 20 round mag and I have to rest after firing 15 rounds or so. 

 

485 The proper way to change a 'Low Capacity' magazine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJVoc5uJ2e4

486 Soothsayer, handguns are legal for hunting in some states. And they are used to do so. North Carolina allows hunting with handguns.

However, when you are hunting game, a 33 round magazine isn't going to be useful simply because the game will usually disappear long before you fire even 10 rounds.

A 9mm XDM comes with a magazine that holds 17 (or 19, I can't remember) rounds. It fits IN the gun without overhang and that handgun is concealable. Studies have shown that in shootouts something like 17% of rounds hit their target. In a 20 round magazine that means you might get 4-5 rounds ON TARGET. In a 10 round mag, that is 2 rounds. There is no guarantee that those 2 rounds, or 4-5 will stop the target.

Let's examine the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is for both PERSONAL defense, hunting, and for defense of the state. In hunting, one could argue you don't need large capacity mags (ie, > 20 rds). For self-defense, a 31 round mag would be difficult to carry.

For defense of the state, however, a 31 round mag COULD be useful. remember, the 2nd Amendment treats personal defense and defense of the state EQUALLY.

Further, just because you don't see a use for it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't. If our reason for banning something is because 'I don't see a use for it', then don't piss and moan when your ox gets gored, and I won't waste my breath defending your right.

You don't believe in the slippery slope argument, but how do you think we got to the point where the Commerce Clause means the government can also regulate people who aren't engaging in commerce and force them to buy whatever the government deems 'necessary?'

Restricting magazine capacity does not and DID not make a difference in the crime rate. Blood has not run in the streets since the AWB (which banned manufacture and importation of magainze > 10 rds) expired. Instead of a 30 round magazine in a glock, the shooter could have easily brought 3 glocks with 10 rd magazine and switched guns when one emptied.

This whole thing read like a driveby done by the NY Times. Next time, ASK some of us who actually own guns and shoot them. This post (and Cheney's comments) make both of you look like statists AND elitists (only stupid rednecks want a gun with a 31-round magazine).

487 WHY do we have to go over this again and again. Have you ever seen Red Dawn? WOLVERINES! The 2nd Amendment does not exist to protect Hunters or Sportsmen. It's to prevent TYRANNY. Period.

488 Interesting. The guy who shoots lawyers with a 2 shot over/under wants to limit the rest of us. Maybe he has a point? Make the first shot count and you don't need a 33 round "clip."

489 "This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands..."

Shit Madison Said, Federalist 46

490 I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.

Posted by: ace at January 19, 2011 01:36 PM (nj1bB)

Battle of Athens. Wikipedia. Read.

491

Make the first shot count?  Yeah, say that when the federal marshall comes with his troops to illegally sieze your farm, right after the EPA brings their armed brownshirts in to confiscate your air that the Federal Health Authority forcibly made you purchase in order to ensure your health.  I imagine when the black helicopters arrive to arrest you for potential discriminatory language after muttering under your breath the words "blood libel" while illegally cleaning your pistol without the proper pistol cleaning permit, while in the comfort of your own house - it just might take more than one shot to defend yourself, yeah a 33 round clip would look pretty good about then.

492
No, there is no reason for these large capacity magazines. Frankly, for home defense if you can't hit what needs hitting with what it holds, you need target practice not more bullets.

Indeed. And if the homeowner is that poor a shot with a pistol, may I suggest switching to a 12 or perhaps 20 gauge shotgun instead? something in a Remington 870, perhaps? the simple sound of jacking a shell into the chamber has been known to convince miscreants to flee.

I've been eyeing a Glock Model 36, which comes with a 6 round clip. I figure if I haven't solved the problem with 6 rounds of .45 ACP...well, it would just suck to be me.

493
Make the first shot count?  Yeah, say that when the federal marshall comes with his troops to illegally sieze your farm, right after the EPA brings their armed brownshirts in to confiscate your air that the Federal Health Authority forcibly made you purchase in order to ensure your health.

Dude, if it comes to that point, a 33 round clip won't matter a hill of beans. Not if they shove a Hellfire up your ass while you're out driving. And even if they don't, whatcha gonna due when the AC-130 starts orbiting your house?

494

What if, like that gay guy getting attacked by a throng of black kids at the metro station in d.c. 2 weeks ago, you are being set upon by more than a standard-capacity magazine's-worth of attackers?

And if you don't know that pistols are COMMONLY used for hunting you have no clue what you're talking about...

Cheney: RINO then, RINO now...

495 Dude, if it comes to that point, a 33 round clip won't matter a hill of beans. Not if they shove a Hellfire up your ass while you're out driving. And even if they don't, whatcha gonna due when the AC-130 starts orbiting your house?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at January 19, 2011 05:59 PM (1hM1d)

Yea sure, as if they're gonna have any service members still with them when the SHTF.

496 this is technical and will annoy some people but it is a "magazine"


not a clip.

a clip and a magazine are not the same thing.

a semi auto handgun has a magazine, a semi auto rifle with a mag well takes a magazine.

a clip is a a half moon flat stamped piece of spring steel that fits around multiple rounds of ammo so it can be inserted en mass into a revolver that fires a rimless round.

a clip is also a steel stringer that is shoved down into the open breach of a rifle with a fixed box magazine and then you shove the cartriges in "stripping" them from the clip.

or is shoved whole into a fixed box semi auto rifle and at the last shot is thrown free ala the garand rifle.

so~~~  to re-cap evferything that is being talked about is a MAGAZINE.

NOT A CLIP.

so uless you plan on reffering to your rifle as your penis and your penis as your gun, words mean something.

497 Do I need a high capacity magazine...? Well, do I need a 400 horsepower engine in my truck? Do I need porn? Do I need caviar? Do I need a 2TB hard drive in my computer? Do I need a 52" television set? Do I need the government deciding what I need? It's been said that it's what you know about yourself that makes you afraid. And if you ask the lawyer Cheney shot, he'd say Dick Cheney has a lot to be afraid of. And if there is one thing that would be even more of an act of political suicide for a Democrat than advocating gun control, it'd be picking up Dick Cheney's rallying cry for gun control. That dipshit can go fuck himself.

498

@412: "All one needs to do to cause a major reduction in the effectiveness of a tank is fuck up the track."

Or just follow Tito's advice - when asked how his partisans were going to stop tanks with nothing but rifles, he said they'd just shoot the crews when they got out to piss.

499 Also, there WAS an armed citizen, on the scene, and here is what he did.

Noticed the line for Gifford's event and was mildly interested but decided that he would rather purchase a pack of smokes from Walgreens first, before checking things out.

When he heard the gunfire, he knew exactly what it was and rushed out to help.

"I had my hand on my gun and was looking for the shooter but I wanted to be careful so then--"

"You had a GUN sir? Why? If you were just going to the store to buy some cigarettes?"

"Oh, I always carry a weapon but about that day--"

"You ALWAYS carry a weapon? A gun specifically? Every day?"

"Yeah, of course!"

Anyway, THIS solid citizen saw someone with a gun in their hand and tackled the bloke and pinned him to the wall.

Turns out the gun wielding dude was NOT Jared Loughner but someone who had just wrested the gun away from the shooter.


Joe Zimudie, adrenalin pumping in his veins, confused and alarmed, hand on his weapon, decided to act on imperfect information and tackle the fuck out of the one guy he saw standing and holding a gun.

(Wrong guy, but still..)


Here is what did NOT happen...

An armed citizen did not, I repeat did NOT, start shooting up the joint, though he was armed and ready to help.

He didn't SHOOT the man he saw wielding a gun, even though he "had his hand on his weapon" he elected, instead, to physically tackle this threatening figure as the best way to most quickly neutralize the threat.

Kudos to Joe Zimudie for not only being a brave lad but also, for putting to rest one of the gun grabbers' favorite hypotheticals.

What if the average citizen has a gun in a crisis situation? They will end up shooting innocent bystanders and likely get shot by the police as well!

Doesn't work that way.

Joe Zimudie proves that.

More significant than his physical possession of a gun that day, was his reaction.

He was armed.

He was mentally prepared to do whatever it takes to protect others.

Are some young men just borne that way?

I find it a marvel.

500 You know, we also have a problem with car chases. If we limited all cars to two gallon tanks, then we could make sure that no crazy can run from the cops for more than thirty miles or so.

501

I think there should be a ban on Charlie Sheen having more than one hooker at a time.

*Why does he NEED MORE THAN ONE?

502 The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting or self defense against criminals. It is to be the emergency reset button on the Constitution, or to make us citizens scary enough to government officials that a reset isn't needed.

Whenever some 'tard asks "Do you really need that?" and points at something really scary ... well then, that is exactly the something the Second Amendment was drafted to protect.

The attempt to ban a firearms confirms that firearm as one meant to be protected.

503 One more thing, Ace: fully automatic machineguns are perfectly legal out here in most of the red states.

Regulated, but legal.

504 Sort of like beer.  If some idiot drinks a 12 pack, drives and kills a busload of kids, do we need to limit the number of cans of beer anyone can possess at one time?  We normally don't use the actions of insane people or idiots to limit rights of the rest of America.

505
A couple questions for Ace: Why just pistols? Surely rifles with a 30 round capacity "aren't used in hunting, and probably not in home defense"?


Also why cap at 30 rounds? Why not 10?


As for your dismissal of the slippery slope, see the previous questions. If a law passes that just limits pistol magazines to X then it becomes far easier to limit all magazines to Y<X.   And then you get to Assault Weapons Ban territory, where "bad" guns are categorically banned.


Also contrary to what you say, the slippery slope is exactly how England's gun bans were put into place.  Someone goes on a killing spree and the politicians "do something".  And then a few years later they do something again. Sound familiar?



The slippery slope / ratchet effect is also exactly what the gun banners over here want. Why accommodate them for no real effect?


Given Ace later says: "[N]or do I think it will prove to be terribly effective at all; it's mostly (mostly) symbolic pap that can only have the most trivial effect on things either way."


And this touches on effectiveness and enforceability. Such a law would really do nothing but hassle the law abiding. Why cede this ground to the gun banners?  It has no upside to the 2nd Amendment folks, and a great very likely downside.

506 I should probably keep a shotgun around if I were serious about personal defense but I just like my little 38 revolver soo very much.

It's a wonder of technology!

Autos strike me as kind of cheap and somewhat tacky, if you don't mind my saying, so I don't spend too much time thinking about magazine loads.

Meh.

If it ever comes down to it and I can't defend myself with just 6 hollow-points aimed at center mass?

I am just well and truly fucked then, aren't I?

Other people really do seem to enjoy autos though, and I say more power to them!

They aren't hurting me!

(Which is more than Harry Whittingdon can say.)

507 ok, putting aside the slippery slope side, which in and of itself is historically proven (California), tell me this... will you always be attacked by only one enemy? you do realize that wolves travel in packs right? usually, so do gang bangers. oh, and the arbitrary limit of 10 rounds doesn't make sense on it's face, when most modern full frame pistols "standard" magazines hold 15 rounds.

508 Oooohh!! Can I play? Howzabout" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" , F#(KWIT??!! DD

509 "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of 'shall not be infringed' is unclear to you?  'infringed'?  Lemme help you.  This is a lot like 'Congress shall make no law' in the previous amendment.

Only lawyers can take a clear prohibition and trample it.  And Shakespeare had the solution for that.

510 Given that cars and even swimming pools kill more people than guns each year, perhaps we should ban cars.  It's for the children...

511

In true moron fashion I like being able to scratch my balls while also shooting from the hip.

On a serious note, if I want to have a large magazine what business it it of anyone else?

512

Also, I don't have a shotgun so it might take me more shots to hit my lawyer friend when we are out hunting.

Perhaps we should limit the buckshot count in shotguns and make sure they can't have a spread beyond x.

513 44 >>>The second amendment is mainly about protecting yourself from your government and not just home defense. I want the most capacity I can have when I need it. "I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument....Ace" It's not about what you fucking like. It is about the 2nd amendment. Do you even read American History between your other books? How about banning more than 15 blog posts? Same goddamn thing asshole. Dumbass....

514 Never underestimate the cowardice of Republicans. Anyone who was paying attention on Clinton's watch saw the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban pass (note the R's who voted "aye": House / Senate), which helped to sweep Newt's bunch into power. The Republican voters who were riled up about this, Hillary's first attempt at nationalized health care deform, and all the other Democrat shenanigans fell for the unfulfilled promises in the Contract with America, kind of like the tea party types who fell for Boehner's promises to roll back ObamaPelosiCare, etc.. (I'm betting those who voted GOP in November who are young enough to last a few more decades will probably die in some NHS-style hellhole, regretting being such chumps for these politicians.)

"But that was before Cheney, a member of the strong conservative wing in good standing (despite his understandable ambivalence about gay marriage), offered this up." I'll never understand why so many conservatives seem to think that two people committing to a lifelong monogamous relationship is morally worse than those same people just shacking up.  There's so much pointless cruelty underlying opposition to "gay rights".  I'll never cease to be amazed how grownups will twist themselves in knots to justifying clinging to the stupid playground prejudices they learned as a child and should have grown out of.  But I guess it's worse in Muslim countries or in Medieval Europe, where the queers were just outright murdered.

515 Greetings: I think that you have fallen into the guns are for...... trap. My understanding of the Second Amendment is that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from, not only their fellow citizens but also the oppressive forces of government. Nowadays, it seems pretty much every "peace" officer around has access to a fully automatic weapon. When the "assault weapons" ban succeeded, gun owners in California were reduced to 10-round magazines for their semi-automatics. So, the forces of the government have the citizenry totally out-gunned.

516 Ace,

1st off they are called magazines, not clips. Using clips shows that you already do not know what you are talking about. Nothing personal, but it like calling a pump, a cross trainer, sure both are shoes but different designs altogether.

California has had a high capacity limit of magazines for almost 2 decades, has there been a reduction in the number of deaths, shoot outs w/ the police... Nope

Lastly, because that a-hole used a home manufactured 33 rounder, which jammed on him, he was subdued. People were alive because he didn't train properly using basic reloading/magazine replacement techniques.

I'll consider limiting magazine sizes when we decide that we should be limited to the number of words used to maintain Free Speech. The Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd Admendment directly relates to an individual's right, are you seriously suggesting that the government has the right to lessen a right that the Government has already determined belongs to the individual?

Personally I suggest that you spend sometime becoming properly acquainted w/ firearms or just try purchasing one & see how really free you are.

517 @44 "I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument." rly? *deep breath* The point is: if the citizenry is capable of, and resolved to shoot gubbmint tyrants *if* needed, it is *less* likely to happen than if the citizenry is not. Yanno -- kinda like if we have enough nukes to make China real real nervous -- too nervous to actually hit us -- it is *less* likely to happen that they will. Same principle. WTF is up with you today, Ace? Ya just tryin' to get the morons aroused?!? [aww, dang. that visual just made me throw up in my mouth a little. sorry.]

518

Ace,

When will you buy a bike and post pictures of your bike rides?

519 "There is something evilly seductive about being able to be in control of another person's life. With a pen stroke force your morals and beliefs on another without having to provide facts, raw data or reasoned logic." Beautifully said. ...now close your tags. and check your zipper.

520 "Manly men are quite content with a 7 round .45 semi."

My Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 only holds 6. I've never "needed" more than one. Of course I load the other five because empty chambers are unseemly.

521 But aside from personal viewpoints:

The best t-shirt I ever saw was a picture of a Red coat officer talking to an American Colonial. The American was holding an AK.

The caption was the Red coat saying "What does a farmer need with an assault rifle?"

*My thoughts were and are: Asked and answered you tory puke!

522

-I really kind of hate the "we need to be able to shoot government officials when deemed necessary" argument.-

Your sounding more and more like a sissy faggot boy each passing day, ace.  Maybe we need to find you some skinny jeans and some thick rimmed glasses and send you over to Portland OR....  No wonder I have been visiting this site less and less... 

523 Simpler argument, assume high cap magazines are banned.  Does anyone really think a NEW law will stopo a bad guy or a crazy guy from getting one and using it?

also, didn't the Virginia Tech nut use " regular" cap magazines, like 15rd ?  and look at the damage he did.


and last buy not least, think North Hollywood Bank Robbery, both those bad guys had weapons that have been illegal for year (full auto).  Did the California Assault weapons ban stop them from shooting the place up?

524

#378

I'd say Squeaky Fromme's 1911 didn't work to assassinate President Ford due to the divine intervention of John Moses Browning

PBUH

525 Dick established his firearms credentials when he shot that guy in the face.

526

...and if y'all think "all this is going nowhere" you better recognize that we've had two school shootings here in l.a. in the LAST TWO DAYS...

"never let a crisis etc...etc..."

And more especially, those who are so convinced about the U.S. military refusing orders to fire on civilians better read "When to Shoot the Colonels"

Please Google this MUST-READ-

527 "33 round pistol magazines aren't used in hunting, and probably not in home defense, either" You total fucking retard. 1) Yes, they are used in home defense. 2) It is not for you, or Dick Cheney, or Sheila Jackson-Lee, to decree what weapons the people should or should not employ in a cause they judge necessary. (Incidentally, one of those causes is that of reminding the government that it is the servant, not the master - but I realize that is a concept that makes no fucking sense to you) You utterly useless excuse for a human being. A decade or two down the road, you are going to be surrounded by the results of your accumulated stupidities, and you are not going to have the slightest clue how it happened.

528 If agents of the government get to have 33 round clips, then so do the rest of us.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't to make it easier for hunters or prevent home invasions, but to arm the people against TYRANNY by the state.

A 33 round clip is overkill for a burglar, but just about right as a STARTING POINT for defense against a squad of stormtroopers.  (Remember, aim for the head.)

The only thing more despicable than a leftist is a "conservative" enabler of leftists. 

Dick Cheney can eat shit and die.

529 I am far from a Ron Paul supporter--but when the national security wing of the GOP sells us out, do you honestly think we will just forgive you and go on living in a police state?

And the biggest irony of that?

The police state will still have no borders. *LOL* (in a pathetic way)

530

#536

Ace doesn't NEED a bike...

531 In after the spam

532

Freemen get to choose.  Slaves are told.

 

 

533 The right to self defense, of which the right to own, use, and possess any weapon is a part, is not subject to arguments of utility nor to the democratic process.

It is a right, therefore the discussion is over.

534

Extended Clip? 33-round mags are extended clips, right? That is, they extend well below the grip of the gun.

Usually that is just used with automatic pistols, right? Or like tiny machine guns like the Uzi? But automatic pistols are generally illegal, right?

Just asking.

---

WTF?

You, kind sir, are a dumbass.  And this from a supposed defender of liberty, a defender of the Second Amendment, a so-called conservative, a smart military blogger?  And the hunting analogy again.  Ugh!

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!

And to your argument that the magazines are not used in home defense, I think you are speaking out of your ass.

Might I suggest that you been living in leftyland long enough that your brain has turned to mush?  It's a good thing that I did not see this at the time as my blood would have boiled causing my head to pop off again. 

If you are ever in Western Washington for a time and desire to understand this whole so-called 'extended' clip thingy, then drop me a line, and we can go to the range free of charge.  My real email address is used in this form, and if you don't keep them, just ask.

As with all things on the left, it is about controlling the argument by controlling the language.  Extended sounds abnormal or excessive, and thus, BaaaAAADDD (in your best sheep impression).  I refer to the so-called 'extended' clip thingy as a standard capacity magazine and anything less as a reduced capacity magazine.   Think critically.  It is about control.  It is always about control with the left.

You, sir, have fallen victim to a classic blunder.

535 "Can we advance any strong argument, besides the slippery slope, that people should have 33-round pistol magazines?"

---
How about this: Making them illegal only prevents law-abiding citizens from having them and putting them at a distinct disadvantage against criminals, who by definition, are not affected by such ill-conceived laws, thereby thwarting one of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment (self defense) that purports to contemplate such allegedly "reasonable" regulations.

And to you other morons who say pistols are not used for hunting, kindly STFU.  You do not know what you are talking about.

Like it or not, and willing to discuss it or not at inopportune times, the other purpose of the Second Amendment is to thwart the proliferation of tyranny, either by an actual shooting war or by the threat thereof.   It is and has been the insurance policy for all other rights, because as the founders wisely contemplated (having just thrown off the chains of bondage), it is also a God-given right to defend one's self against this threat as well.  Its primary threat to an over intrusive government is that its agents will be called to account for tyrannical behavior.  And in that threat, it creates limits for political behavior and legislative folly beyond which the agents should not go.

You can stick your head in the sand about this latter purpose and pretend it does not exist, or you can man up and accept history and the understanding that it carries with it that we bear the responsibility to preserve liberty and the republic against tyrannical incursions.

Limiting the liberties of millions of law-abiding citizens for the acts of a mad man (who was and would not even be affected by such limits) is ludicrous to the point of madness.  Agreeing to do so or expressing understanding about such a position just illustrates how easily swayed you are to the left's lunacy.

536 I think the size should be limited too.  To as big as you can friggin carry.

537 262 @239

The police got those big guns from a local gun store

B&B Gun Sales it is actually also in the original Terminator movie

---

Probably still did not have any phase plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range either.  I hate that store!

538

regarding britt, at entry 209.....WELL SAID, SIR, WELL SAID.  JASONJ, TUCSON...STILL ARMED AND PACKING.  Fuck the pussy liberals, I carry everyday, all the time, and am aware of my situation. piss on the so called MEN who will not defend their loved ones.....

539 Simpler argument, assume high cap magazines are banned.  Does anyone really think a NEW altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı law will stopo a bad guy or a crazy guy from getting one and using it?