LOL I know that having large clips make it far easier to kill kids when they are running or get the body count up when shooting into a crowd but other then that there is not reason for that kind and manner of firepower. You know the worst thing pro guns people can do is be completely unreasonable about some mild restrictions on firearms. I have a few firearms and a carry permit myself but if the choice is giving up my firearms or seeing one group of children after another year after year gun down by some nut using a weapon that have little use but to do mass murder I will give them up including my pride and joy 357 SW model 19. So your choice is going to be some mild restrictions on firearms or going to the UK model of no firearms. Must be nice to send children off to school without worrying if they will come back alive or not.
Nothing more than mindless hyperbole and a fallacious appeal to emotion. Explain precisely how limitations on magazine capacity are constitute as being mild restrictions, when anyone found in possession of a magazine holding even one more round of ammunition above the limit faces felony convictions and a prison sentence. More fallacious appeal to emotion. Come back with something that is actually relevant and factual, or remove yourself from the discussion. Or those who support greater firearm-related restrictions can simply accept that they are not going to get what they want, and nothing is going to change. An absence of legally-accessible firearms does not guarantee children will not be killed, either in schools or elsewhere. Nor does such even make mass shootings less likely to be carried out.
You know, it just exasperates me that gun control advocates can't be bothered to meet even the most basic standards of knowledge about firearms, but they'll spout all kinds of crap about them nonetheless. Using the term "clip" to describe a firearm's magazine is to expose one as uneducated about firearms. And there is no such thing as a "large clip". This line of argument is likewise offensive in the extreme. Gun control won't save kids lives. Proper security measures in schools will. What you propose is not "mild restrictions", but fundamental destruction of a Constitutional right. I will NEVER give up my firearms. EVER. No matter how much grass-eating prey animals bleat angrily at me that I should.
The M-1 Garand ammunition clip only holds 8 rounds. The majority of the other ammunition clips are stripper clips holding five or ten rounds.
So rather than answering my question, you divert. Go ahead and give up your guns. It is about the same as getting castrated because you read that some rapist is on the loose. I love you gun banners who claim that if we don't give up some rights, we will have to give them all up. I guess you cannot fathom that giving up some rights now is nothing more than a slide towards giving them all up. The fact is, you cannot guarantee that an honest person will never need more than the arbitrary number of rounds that you anti gun advocates claim is ENOUGH. and you haven't quite figured out that someone who plans on killing children doesn't give a rat's ass about a law against normal capacity magazines.
Does anyone with an IQ above 50 think that someone who plans to commit mass murder of children, will somehow obey a magazine restriction?
Lets see, a mass murderer who intends to commit multiple capitol felonies will be deterred by a law that makes possession of a high capacity magazine a mid-level misdemeanor, now that is some truly upside down logic, which could only be proffered by someone who truly doesn't understand the thought pattern of an evil mind, nor less tries to apply even the most basic logic to an idea.
I am not an advocate of magazine limiting laws, but I'll play the Devil's Advocate: I believe that gun grabbers think that by outlawing a particular item, that item, through attrition, will become harder and harder to acquire, making the likelihood of it being used in a crime that much less. Look at it this way: We put considerable restrictions on gasoline engine designs in the 1970's, and in the process eliminated an entire category of gasoline. I refer to "leaded" gas, which is no longer generally available to the public. And, having done that we cleaned up the environment by eliminating many of the toxic fumes emitted by leaded gas, thus improving public health, and yet we still have cars. And those cars are arguably much better than the ones that they replaced.
I understand your point, but unlike leaded gasoline, those who wish to ban high capacity magazines have zero research to back up their claims with.
I wouldn't say that they have "zero research". What they have is cherry picked, and anecdotal, research that resulted in this unconstitutional law in the first place. I don't blame the legislature for writing a ridiculous law. Both sides do that on a daily basis. No, I blame and ignorant constituency for falling for it. I'm willing to bet that upwards of 99% of the people who voted for this bill are not firearms owners.
That, and magazines are not a consumable item - unlike leaded gas, the current supply will not run out for, well, centuries.
I believe our State legislators have the most to blame. We have a Second Amendment which expressly declares what is Necessary to the security of our free States.
Except for the simple fact the same logic has not panned out for illicit narcotic substances, such as heroin, opium, cocaine, and a variety of others. There are no legal sources for acquiring such substances, and yet thousands of individuals are dying as a result of overdoses every single year.
But it DID work for gasoline engines. All I'm saying is that is what drives them. That is their logic behind banning standard cap magazines while seemingly preserving the 2A.
Calling them names doesn't really advance your cause in any constructive way, to be honest. They aren't bad people, and they aren't idiots. They genuinely believe that limiting magazine capacity will reduce the carnage during mass shootings. And that IS a worthy goal. They just don't seem to understand how that limit also affects 99.99% of lawful gun owners who have never gone on a shooting rampage, and never will. Nor do I think they really care. Like I said, 99% of the people who approved this bill are probably not gun owners, and so cannot fathom how this ban would actually infringe on those who are.
If certain individuals refuse to understand the shortcomings and logical failings of their own assigned positions, and demonstrate neither willingness nor ability to engage in independent critical thinking, there is nothing else to refer and classify them as being.
Except unlike leaded gasoline, 1) magazines are easily produced with simple instructions tools and basic materials available in any hardware store. They're also easily smuggled. 2) they're also not easily used up. They're reusable for thousands of uses and then you just replace the spring. 3) there is massive demand for them. A closer analogy would be drugs: easily produced and portable, high demand.
plus the military and the police will continue to buy millions of those normal capacity magazines. During the clinton gun ban, a friend of mine, who came back from the sand box, was an armorer. Lots of the M16 magazines in his supply chain had become shiny as the parkerized finish had worn off. Normally, he would just junk these as trash. Instead he brought them back. He gave me a bag of them, he had saved from the dump. They were made before the "ban" they worked fine even though they no longer met military specs.
I have a couple dozen of Vietnam-era GI 20rd M16 mags in the same condition. I think I paid $5 each. If they ban 20-rd mags again, I can retire by selling my M14 mags.
Wait until 3d printers get just a little bit more streamlined, advanced, and therefore more commonplace. We'll have more **** like that than we know what to do with.