***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[zDragon]

You are a coward. Actually...That's being a little harsh on cowards. I don't even know what you call your extreme cowardliness.

Do you think that killing somebody else makes you brave?

I think protecting my family from men who mean them harm makes me brave.

This.

And you think the safest way to do that is to stay and engage the person/people directly, rather than getting out of the way as quickly as possible? Who wouldn't be proud to have a dead Darwin award recipient for a father! Coward vs. brave is an embarrassing way to frame something this serious. The name of the game is keeping your family and you safe, not looking tough. If you think the best way to do that is to engage them in a shoot-out, sending bullets flying all about your family, then my thoughts are with your family should that hypothetic ever happen. Which obviously it won't.

I live in quite a large house with family members on the other side. No, I'm not going to run like a coward, like you. I will engage the target and eliminate the threat.

Slingblade, he has the biggest balls of all FBG

Curious. In the scenario provided. A large house with family spread across it. To make it more specific the house is large with a Master downstairs and remaining bedrooms upstairs. What do you do when an intruder(s) comes in at 1am and everyone is asleep? Do you leave the house and hope the kids make it out? Do you expect then to climb out the windows? Do you go and try and help them get out of the house?I

 

[Apple Jack]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.

So with a population of 4,000, the crime rate of 4,000 per 100,000 means they had 160 crimes? Funny things happen when you use really small numbers to try to draw conclusions which is why most people don't do it.

What's worse is when people pull numbers out of their ### like 4,000.

You mean like your wicked awesome NYer alcohol consumption stats you obtained in the two days that you lived there? Have you ever visited the south?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.

So with a population of 4,000, the crime rate of 4,000 per 100,000 means they had 160 crimes? Funny things happen when you use really small numbers to try to draw conclusions which is why most people don't do it.

What's worse is when people pull numbers out of their ### like 4,000.

Oooooo.... you got me.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000).

So they had approximately 200 crimes over the course of a year.

Population of Kennesaw, GA, but please go ahead and continue being ignorant looking at 1 year out of 30.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.

So with a population of 4,000, the crime rate of 4,000 per 100,000 means they had 160 crimes? Funny things happen when you use really small numbers to try to draw conclusions which is why most people don't do it.

What's worse is when people pull numbers out of their ### like 4,000.

You mean like your wicked awesome NYer alcohol consumption stats you obtained in the two days that you lived there? Have you ever visited the south?

New York city has the 4th highest number of restaurants per population density, not 1 city on the south made the list. Please continue to argue with yourself on this tangent, it has nothing to do with the point of this thread.and FTR I lived in NYC area for 25 years and live in the south now for 2 years

 

[Hoosier16]

And finally, you never addressed my argument. You know, the one you said nobody would ever make.

I thought I did by refuting Cookiemonster.If you're referring to your earlier comment that the previous ban was ineffective, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I have cited evidence that the previous ban did reduce the use of these magazines. I have cited testimony from law enforcement that the high cap magazines make it easier for mass shooters to do a maximum of damage, and that their limitation saves lives. But beyond that, there is no way for me to "prove" to you that it was effective previously in saving lives, beyond common sense.

You don't have to prove it was effective. You just have to acknowledge that it was ineffective. The 10 round magazine didn't save any lives in Columbine or Virginia Tech. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge it or maybe you really can't see it. I don't know.But, forget the above paragraph for now. You can look at it later if you choose. For now, we'll focus on your question about the constitutionality of a magazine limitation. I'll narrow it down to one question at a time, so we can maintain focus. Considering the Heller decision pertaining to trigger locks, the same argument could be made against magazine limitations. Using a magazine limitation of one bullet, do you think it's reasonable to say that the restriction would make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a city that study must have missed...

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

prior to enactment of the law, crime rate: 4,332 per 100,000

national average crime rate at the time: 3,899 per 100,000

in 2005 (23 years after the law had been in effect): 2,027 per 100,000

I have to ask - how well do you think that idea would work in NYC? That town has a population of 4000...it shouldn't have any murders and very little crime to begin with.

You missed the part of my post that stated it had a higher crime rate than the national average prior to enactment of the law.

So with a population of 4,000, the crime rate of 4,000 per 100,000 means they had 160 crimes? Funny things happen when you use really small numbers to try to draw conclusions which is why most people don't do it.

What's worse is when people pull numbers out of their ### like 4,000.

Oooooo.... you got me.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000).

So they had approximately 200 crimes over the course of a year.

Population of Kennesaw, GA, but please go ahead and continue being ignorant looking at 1 year out of 30.

It's the year that you're citing to for the "higher-than-average crime rate" so the only ####### year that's relevant.Protip: Rate stats are calculated with a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is the number of occurrences, say like number of crimes. The denominator is the base, say total number of people. If you're citing to a crime rate in a town from 30 years ago and you want to know how many crimes that was, it doesn't matter one whit what their population is today.

you think the original statement was past tense?

That town has a population of 4000

Furthermore my original post cited 2005 as well, get your head out of your ###

 

[zDragon]

I know some think hiding the closet and blowing snot bubbles into the phone to 911 seems like the play here... but I tend to disagree.

If only there were other options.

Please.. explain these options. Maybe offer them a cup of tea? A game of chess? Explain that you're not a mafia don?

So, in your mind, you can:1) have a firearm and use it2) blow snot bubbles and hide in the closet3) offer a cup of tea4) play a game of chess5) explain that you're not a mafia donI just want to make sure on that. I mean, having a monitored home alarm system which sounds off, using a baseball bat or a hatchet for home defense, retreating outside with your family to call 911, having a saferoom in the house which the intruders can't get into, or calmly calling 911 without blowing snot bubbles, these things don't even enter your mind?

1. Monitored home alarm. Everyone should have one. Very good point. What is the response time to get someone to your residence. Do you bet your kids lives that they will make it before the intruders take a family members life while fleeing?2. Not sure how effective a bat would be. That could be the factor that gets you and your family killed. Especially against multiple intruders.2. Machete. Much better defensive weapons but that gets back into the killing the intruder. It also gets into the getting your family killed if you are not effective.3. 911 should be the first call of everyone in the house and a great point.4. How do you guarantee everyone can get to the safe room prior to the intruder(s) being in their path? Pretty sure a safe room would be a very expensive option for most people and out of the question.Having a fire arm presents the same problems and could easily get your whole family killed. Regardless of how you handle it the best plan is to have a home invasion plan in place. Especially if your going to go the gun route. Most rounds will over penetrate the target and knowing where everyone is would be critical.Just making fun of someone for feeling they need to protect their family is weak sauce and i'm pretty sure most here have not even considered what they would do in the actual scenario of their own home.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Matthias did you forget to take your meds?http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=671486&st=6800&p=15231497entry15231497What comes first?11:43 AM10:59 AMInteresting how you omitted the original reference in your post, I'm done arguing with you.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

from the article I linked above:

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/#TcC4AOx1jLBw0XsQ.99

It's 27 miles north of Atlanta.

I wonder what happened to national crime rates between 1982 and today. I wonder...

 

[timschochet]

Hoosier, you raised 2 excellent questions in your last post to me, 1 about the constitutionality of a mag limit, and 1 about its effectiveness. I am out and about and typing this on my iPhone. When I get back to my office I will give you a detailed response.

 

[tommyboy]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

 

[badmojo1006]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

You are getting a boner over just the thought

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

You are getting a boner over just the thought

I think there some here that are getting a boner just thinking of the year 2063 when a leader emerges that decides to cancel elections, refuse to allow the peaceful transfer of authority, uses military force to keep herself in power or tries to defy judicial limits on its power.

 

[badmojo1006]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

You are getting a boner over just the thought

I think there some here that are getting a boner just thinking of the year 2063 when a leader emerges that decides to cancel elections, refuse to allow the peaceful transfer of authority, uses military force to keep herself in power or tries to defy judicial limits on its power.

I would be 105 in 2063. As long as I get my chocolate pudding, I don't give a crap who is in charge

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Oops

 

[boots11234]

Oops

"We've got to pass it to see what's in it."

 

[tommyGunZ]

And finally, you never addressed my argument. You know, the one you said nobody would ever make.

I thought I did by refuting Cookiemonster.If you're referring to your earlier comment that the previous ban was ineffective, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I have cited evidence that the previous ban did reduce the use of these magazines. I have cited testimony from law enforcement that the high cap magazines make it easier for mass shooters to do a maximum of damage, and that their limitation saves lives. But beyond that, there is no way for me to "prove" to you that it was effective previously in saving lives, beyond common sense.

You don't have to prove it was effective. You just have to acknowledge that it was ineffective. The 10 round magazine didn't save any lives in Columbine or Virginia Tech. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge it or maybe you really can't see it. I don't know.But, forget the above paragraph for now. You can look at it later if you choose. For now, we'll focus on your question about the constitutionality of a magazine limitation. I'll narrow it down to one question at a time, so we can maintain focus. Considering the Heller decision pertaining to trigger locks, the same argument could be made against magazine limitations. Using a magazine limitation of one bullet, do you think it's reasonable to say that the restriction would make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"?

How do you know this?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And finally, you never addressed my argument. You know, the one you said nobody would ever make.

I thought I did by refuting Cookiemonster.If you're referring to your earlier comment that the previous ban was ineffective, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I have cited evidence that the previous ban did reduce the use of these magazines. I have cited testimony from law enforcement that the high cap magazines make it easier for mass shooters to do a maximum of damage, and that their limitation saves lives. But beyond that, there is no way for me to "prove" to you that it was effective previously in saving lives, beyond common sense.

You don't have to prove it was effective. You just have to acknowledge that it was ineffective. The 10 round magazine didn't save any lives in Columbine or Virginia Tech. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge it or maybe you really can't see it. I don't know.But, forget the above paragraph for now. You can look at it later if you choose. For now, we'll focus on your question about the constitutionality of a magazine limitation. I'll narrow it down to one question at a time, so we can maintain focus. Considering the Heller decision pertaining to trigger locks, the same argument could be made against magazine limitations. Using a magazine limitation of one bullet, do you think it's reasonable to say that the restriction would make it "impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"?

How do you know this?

TGunz you should probably just read the thread rather than jumping in at the tail end.My link

 

[tommyboy]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

You are getting a boner over just the thought

Blue steelie

 

[Henry Ford]

You understand that it'll be more like six of you, right? With three of the six likely unable to form complete sentences.

its not about me, I'm just pointing out, yet again, the idea that many of you think the gov't has some juggernaut over its citizenry that happens to be comprised of over 300 Million people with over 300 Million guns. it would be suicidal for the US gov't to turn on its own, heavily armed citizens, being outnumbered 25-1 at a minimum.

I thought this was about the citizenry turning on the government, not the other way around.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

The phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with what kind of restrictions can be placed on magazine capacity, or anything else to do with the weapons themselves. "Well regulated" modifies "militia" in the sentence, not "arms."

 

[timschochet]

Hoosier's other point is about the effectiveness of limiting high cap magazines. He accuses me of ignoring Virginia Tech, which to him is clear evidence that such a limitation would make no difference whatsoever on mass shootings (and I have argued that making an impact on mass shootings is the ONLY purpose for limiting high cap magazines.)I am happy to discuss Virginia Tech and Columbine. I acknowledge the fact that these are two incidents in which high cap magazines were not used, and it made little difference in terms of casualties. I acknowledge further that there are other mass shootings as well in which this was case. And I also acknowledge that some shooters are able to reload so fast that the notion that we can stop them while they're trying to reload (which is central to my argument) falls short in real life execution. Hoosier's conclusion is that therefore we should not ban these magazines, because it will be useless to do so.My response to this argument remains rooted in the following facts, which I have obtained from a variety of law enforcement sources:1. Since the AWB ban, which included a limit on high capacity magazines, was lifted in 2004, virtually all of these high profile mass shooting incidents involved high cap magazines (Virginia Tech being the only noticeable exception.)2. While Hoosier's point is correct that the absence of high cap magazines doesn't guarantee less casualties, law enforcement holds that the presence of these magazines makes it easier for the gunman to inflict more casualties. 3. Law enforcement insists that the easiest time to "take down" the gunman during one of these incidents is when the gunman is attempting to reload.Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know. I can argue that Aurora and Newtown would have been less, but I can't prove that either. I can point out the cases of Appalachian state and Jared Loughner, but those are anecdotal incidents (just as Columbine and Virginia Tech are) and anecdotes are never good vehicle for establishing law. But what I think is this: first, as stated above, I don't believe that limiting magazines violates the 2nd Amendment. Second, as I have previously argued in this thread, I don't believe that high cap magazines are necessary for home defense. Having removed these two qualifications, I believe that the only purpose of high cap magazines is the personal pleasure and use of their owners. Against that, I weigh the arguments of law enforcement and the possibility that more lives might be saved if a limitation is in place. Personal pleasure vs. saving lives? To me, it's not a difficult conclusion to reach.

 

[tom22406]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

The phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with what kind of restrictions can be placed on magazine capacity, or anything else to do with the weapons themselves. "Well regulated" modifies "militia" in the sentence, not "arms."

Have we looked at what "well regulated" might have meant to the framers?Could it be it meant that it referred to the property of something being in proper working order? Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected?

Looking back at how that phrase was used back then it is very confusing because I believe it could have been viewed this way but I am clearly no Constituional scholar so I really have no idea.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

The phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with what kind of restrictions can be placed on magazine capacity, or anything else to do with the weapons themselves. "Well regulated" modifies "militia" in the sentence, not "arms."

My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that "militia" refers to the public, and that is why private ownership of firearms is legal in the first place. If "militia" refers to our military forces (such as the National Guard) then the 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect ANY private gun ownership. I don't think the Supreme Court views it that way. Therefore, if militia means "public" then "well-regulated" absolutely has bearing on gun restrictions, so far as I can see.

 

[timschochet]

But even if I were to accept that "well-regulated" has nothing to do with gun ownership, it still stands to reason that a 1 bullet restriction would be an infringement upon the rights of the people to bear arms, while a 10 bullet restriction would not.

 

[Hoosier16]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

I don't think the well regulated portion applies either. But, they certainly could decide that a 10 round limit doesn't prevent a person from using a gun in self defense and therefore is constitutional. Maybe we'll see a test on the NY law with a limit of 7.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

The phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with what kind of restrictions can be placed on magazine capacity, or anything else to do with the weapons themselves. "Well regulated" modifies "militia" in the sentence, not "arms."

My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that "militia" refers to the public, and that is why private ownership of firearms is legal in the first place. If "militia" refers to our military forces (such as the National Guard) then the 2nd Amendment wouldn't protect ANY private gun ownership. I don't think the Supreme Court views it that way. Therefore, if militia means "public" then "well-regulated" absolutely has bearing on gun restrictions, so far as I can see.

I have a feeling you're equating the National Guard and the National Guard of the United States.

 

[tom22406]

Anybody else want to take a crack at this?Since it was attached to one of Tim's novels it may have been missed.Have we looked at what "well regulated" might have meant to the framers? Could it be it meant that it referred to the property of something being in proper working order? Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected? Looking back at how that phrase was used back then it is very confusing because I believe it could have been viewed this way but I am clearly no Constituional scholar so I really have no idea.

 

[Henry Ford]

Either way, yes, rules about armaments for the militia can be set. I concede that if that's where you're going. But the term "well-regulated" is about the people and the body of the militia, not about regulating arms per se.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Hoosier's other point is about the effectiveness of limiting high cap magazines. He accuses me of ignoring Virginia Tech, which to him is clear evidence that such a limitation would make no difference whatsoever on mass shootings (and I have argued that making an impact on mass shootings is the ONLY purpose for limiting high cap magazines.)I am happy to discuss Virginia Tech and Columbine. I acknowledge the fact that these are two incidents in which high cap magazines were not used, and it made little difference in terms of casualties. I acknowledge further that there are other mass shootings as well in which this was case. And I also acknowledge that some shooters are able to reload so fast that the notion that we can stop them while they're trying to reload (which is central to my argument) falls short in real life execution. Hoosier's conclusion is that therefore we should not ban these magazines, because it will be useless to do so.My response to this argument remains rooted in the following facts, which I have obtained from a variety of law enforcement sources:1. Since the AWB ban, which included a limit on high capacity magazines, was lifted in 2004, virtually all of these high profile mass shooting incidents involved high cap magazines (Virginia Tech being the only noticeable exception.)2. While Hoosier's point is correct that the absence of high cap magazines doesn't guarantee less casualties, law enforcement holds that the presence of these magazines makes it easier for the gunman to inflict more casualties. 3. Law enforcement insists that the easiest time to "take down" the gunman during one of these incidents is when the gunman is attempting to reload.Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know. I can argue that Aurora and Newtown would have been less, but I can't prove that either. I can point out the cases of Appalachian state and Jared Loughner, but those are anecdotal incidents (just as Columbine and Virginia Tech are) and anecdotes are never good vehicle for establishing law. But what I think is this: first, as stated above, I don't believe that limiting magazines violates the 2nd Amendment. Second, as I have previously argued in this thread, I don't believe that high cap magazines are necessary for home defense. Having removed these two qualifications, I believe that the only purpose of high cap magazines is the personal pleasure and use of their owners. Against that, I weigh the arguments of law enforcement and the possibility that more lives might be saved if a limitation is in place. Personal pleasure vs. saving lives? To me, it's not a difficult conclusion to reach.

So you state clearly that you cannot prove removing high capacity magazines will limit casualties from these shooting sprees and yet you hold the pro-gun crowd responsible for proving that high capacity magazines has already saved lives for home defense and not if they CAN save lives? If the latter was sufficient you would have accepted the two examples I have already posted, where the equivalent of THREE 12-round magazines was barely enough to incapacitate a criminal and just because of the "setting" i.e. it was from the firearm of a police officer instead of a home defender you discard it as if the criminals the police face are supervillains wearing armor compared to the criminals that participate in home invasions?

 

[Henry Ford]

Anybody else want to take a crack at this?Since it was attached to one of Tim's novels it may have been missed.Have we looked at what "well regulated" might have meant to the framers? Could it be it meant that it referred to the property of something being in proper working order? Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected? Looking back at how that phrase was used back then it is very confusing because I believe it could have been viewed this way but I am clearly no Constituional scholar so I really have no idea.

It means disciplined and capable of acting as it should have. "A group of people who can defend the States is really important to us"

 

[tom22406]

Anybody else want to take a crack at this?Since it was attached to one of Tim's novels it may have been missed.Have we looked at what "well regulated" might have meant to the framers? Could it be it meant that it referred to the property of something being in proper working order? Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected? Looking back at how that phrase was used back then it is very confusing because I believe it could have been viewed this way but I am clearly no Constituional scholar so I really have no idea.

It means disciplined and capable of acting as it should have. "A group of people who can defend the States is really important to us"

Thanks for clarifying that.The reason I asked was because I see that phrase thrown around a ton and can see where the confusion lies in what it meant then and now.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

OK, I finally have time to respond to Hoosier's 2 excellent points. First regarding the constitutionality of limiting high cap magazines:

I want to commend Hoosier because he is the first person I have read, here or elsewhere, to attempt a specific argument as to why limiting magazines would violate the 2nd Amendment. Everyone else has argued that it violates the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, which is an ambiguous notion which could be used to argue against ANY gun restrictions (in fact, that is the whole purpose of that argument) but which can never be used in an actual court of law, much less the Supreme Court. Hoosier, however, argues that magazine limitations contradict the Heller decision, in which trigger locks were deemed to be unconstitutional.

Now let me say first that I think that trigger locks are a stupid idea, that they do nothing to increase public safety, and are a prime example of government overreach. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision that imposing such locks are unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices opposed to it are people whose opinions I respect very much. But in any case, it was a decision, and Hoosier asks, if we limited magazines to 1 bullet, would it be the same as trigger locks? And if my answer is yes, presumably this principle means we cannot place any limitation on magazines without also violating the 2nd Amendment. A strong, direct challenge to my position.

My answer to Hoosier is yes, imposing a magazine with 1 round only would be, per Heller, a violation of the 2nd Amendment. But that does not mean there can be no limitation whatsoever. The principle here, under the 2nd Amendment, is the phrase "well-regulated". Meaning that we can apply some common sense to regulation. Placing a 1 bullet limitation on guns is beyond "well-regulated" and infringes on gun rights; however, placing a 10 bullet limitation on guns is well within the limits of "well-regulated". If we argue that NO limitation can be placed on magazines, then what is the purpose of "well-regulated"? It becomes meaningless. And, I know we have brought this up before, but if we argue that no limitation can be placed on magazines, then the logical inference is that no limitation can be placed upon any kind of firearm, including fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended? I don't think so.

Therefore, my position is that the "well-regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment allows to place REASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 10 round limit on magazines, but does not allow us to place UNREASONABLE limitations on guns, such as a 1 round limit on magazines.

Go back to the Federalist Papers, your post has nothing, absolutely nothing to with the reason for "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment. Good grief your whole basis of argument is totally flawed.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Hoosier's other point is about the effectiveness of limiting high cap magazines. He accuses me of ignoring Virginia Tech, which to him is clear evidence that such a limitation would make no difference whatsoever on mass shootings (and I have argued that making an impact on mass shootings is the ONLY purpose for limiting high cap magazines.)I am happy to discuss Virginia Tech and Columbine. I acknowledge the fact that these are two incidents in which high cap magazines were not used, and it made little difference in terms of casualties. I acknowledge further that there are other mass shootings as well in which this was case. And I also acknowledge that some shooters are able to reload so fast that the notion that we can stop them while they're trying to reload (which is central to my argument) falls short in real life execution. Hoosier's conclusion is that therefore we should not ban these magazines, because it will be useless to do so.My response to this argument remains rooted in the following facts, which I have obtained from a variety of law enforcement sources:1. Since the AWB ban, which included a limit on high capacity magazines, was lifted in 2004, virtually all of these high profile mass shooting incidents involved high cap magazines (Virginia Tech being the only noticeable exception.)2. While Hoosier's point is correct that the absence of high cap magazines doesn't guarantee less casualties, law enforcement holds that the presence of these magazines makes it easier for the gunman to inflict more casualties. 3. Law enforcement insists that the easiest time to "take down" the gunman during one of these incidents is when the gunman is attempting to reload.Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know. I can argue that Aurora and Newtown would have been less, but I can't prove that either. I can point out the cases of Appalachian state and Jared Loughner, but those are anecdotal incidents (just as Columbine and Virginia Tech are) and anecdotes are never good vehicle for establishing law. But what I think is this: first, as stated above, I don't believe that limiting magazines violates the 2nd Amendment. Second, as I have previously argued in this thread, I don't believe that high cap magazines are necessary for home defense. Having removed these two qualifications, I believe that the only purpose of high cap magazines is the personal pleasure and use of their owners. Against that, I weigh the arguments of law enforcement and the possibility that more lives might be saved if a limitation is in place. Personal pleasure vs. saving lives? To me, it's not a difficult conclusion to reach.

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

 

[Henry Ford]

I know it's been mentioned here before, but a good example of why AK47s aren't a great idea for home defense:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html?1358451869&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009When firing an AK47 for fun, managed to put a bullet through a neighbor's exterior wall, into the kitchen, and into the microwave. The house across the street got one that pierced two walls. Among other stray shots which went where they shouldn't.

 

[Henry Ford]

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

This is like saying that a McDonalds Value Meal has an appropriate amount of calories because you didn't buy the Super Sized version.We're not talking about the terms in the way that the industry has chosen to define them.

To be fair, the Supreme Court uses the term "unusual" when defining what kind of weapons can be banned. It's a pretty tall order to call magazines over 10 rounds "unusual."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

This is like saying that a McDonalds Value Meal has an appropriate amount of calories because you didn't buy the Super Sized version.We're not talking about the terms in the way that the industry has chosen to define them.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Those are not "hi cap" magazines. They are standard magazines that come with the weapon. What you are referring to are "lo cap" magazines that DO NOT come with the weapon almost anywhere in America except states that don't allow them because the people ignorantly think that "lo capacity" magazines will automatically cause less deaths.

This is like saying that a McDonalds Value Meal has an appropriate amount of calories because you didn't buy the Super Sized version.We're not talking about the terms in the way that the industry has chosen to define them.

No it is more like saying McDonalds Value Meal ONLY comes with Super Sized version, but you have to throw half of everything away. Do you buy a 55 inch TV so you can only watch 40 inch pictures on it so that you can save energy?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I know it's been mentioned here before, but a good example of why AK47s aren't a great idea for home defense:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/mark-bornino-daniel-volpone-ohio-alcohol-ak-47_n_2496990.html?1358451869&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009When firing an AK47 for fun, managed to put a bullet through a neighbor's exterior wall, into the kitchen, and into the microwave. The house across the street got one that pierced two walls. Among other stray shots which went where they shouldn't.

That's why I use a 20ga shotgun or a .410 revolver for home defense. My 9mm's would be as a last resort.

 

[Ranethe]

Found this tidbit in an article by law professor Robert Spitzer:

Myth: The Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government.

This canard is repeated with disturbing frequency. The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections," not cause them. The Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III, and the states can ask the federal government for assistance "against domestic Violence" under Article IV.

Our system provides peaceful means for citizens to air grievances and change policy, from the ballot box to the jury box to the right to peaceably assemble. If violence against an oppressive government were somehow countenanced in the Second Amendment, then Timothy McVeigh and Lee Harvey Oswald would have been vindicated for their heinous actions. But as constitutional scholar Roscoe Pound noted, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted" because it would "defeat the whole Bill of Rights" — including the Second Amendment.

bump

The second amendment is the law put into place to allow freedom loving Americans to be armed against a tyrannical government that lies, taxes, cheats, steals, deceives, corrupts, scams, detests freedom, grafts with dirty rats for their own good, bilks Americans out of their hard earned wealth, forces fiat money on the American classes, creates a complex military force that stretches the globe, uses the FDA, USDA, DHS and many other rougue groups to harass and force statism on the American people as well as uses the crummy east coast news media to spread lies as well as using Hollyweird and its perversion, filth, ulta demonic and utterly violent media to corrupt and decive and rob Americans. When the smoke clears fools like Timmy will be lying in a fetal position trying to wish it all away...

Love this guy.

 

[Blick]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

 

[Ranethe]

So... I think I've got it straight now.. The federal government can give rocket launchers and full auto assault weapons etc., to extremists that will turn around and blow us up as soon as we could blink.. And military grade assault weapons to drug cartels so that they can use them against our citizens, government employees even..

But I can't own a 20 round clip for a pistol..



Got it..

As Wesley Snipes would say from Demolition ManEXACTMUNDO!!!

Fitting movie for this thread. Seriously lefties, you got your legislation, lets just hope that the bans on magazines and weapons doesn't come to fruition, because that will do nothing to quell gun violence as there are already more than 300 million guns in America. Banning high capacity magazines will do nothing either, as one can reload many magazines very quickly

Don't taint all of us lefties. I'm a lefty...these guys are authoritarians.

So you weren't the guy who always posted "Liberalism is a mental disease"?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

Those were my first weapons purchased, so I cannot compare them to other brands. My wife loves her 5.25 competition XDM and has a surefire light and laser on it. The M is just an upgrade to the XD line. There is no XM line.The XDS line is a single stack carry weapon that only comes in a 45ACP for now but at the SHOT Show they made the announcement that the XDS 9MM will be out in March. That will be my carry weapon. If you can afford a little extra the XDM line is a very good quality weapon. XDM TechnologyIf money is an issue Glock is a great choice. Kimber is a step above Springfield Armory.

 

[jamny]

Hoosier, you raised 2 excellent questions in your last post to me, 1 about the constitutionality of a mag limit, and 1 about its effectiveness. I am out and about and typing this on my iPhone. When I get back to my office I will give you a detailed response.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

Hey are you a stable person with no record? I might be selling my 9mm XDM with the 3.8 inch barrel (19 +1, not the compact). Just joking Tim, I am going to give it to my grandson for his birthday. He is pretty stable and is family.

 

[Blick]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

Those were my first weapons purchased, so I cannot compare them to other brands. My wife loves her 5.25 competition XDM and has a surefire light and laser on it. The M is just an upgrade to the XD line. There is no XM line.The XDS line is a single stack carry weapon that only comes in a 45ACP for now but at the SHOT Show they made the announcement that the XDS 9MM will be out in March. That will be my carry weapon. If you can afford a little extra the XDM line is a very good quality weapon. XDM TechnologyIf money is an issue Glock is a great choice. Kimber is a step above Springfield Armory.

Yeah, I meant XD. I think the main differences are that the XDM comes standard with a match barrel and upgraded sights. The extra mag capacity makes them a little bigger. I want something a little lighter, maybe a 9mm, that my wife can shoot.

 

[nephilim]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

Those were my first weapons purchased, so I cannot compare them to other brands. My wife loves her 5.25 competition XDM and has a surefire light and laser on it. The M is just an upgrade to the XD line. There is no XM line.The XDS line is a single stack carry weapon that only comes in a 45ACP for now but at the SHOT Show they made the announcement that the XDS 9MM will be out in March. That will be my carry weapon. If you can afford a little extra the XDM line is a very good quality weapon. XDM TechnologyIf money is an issue Glock is a great choice. Kimber is a step above Springfield Armory.

Yeah, I meant XD. I think the main differences are that the XDM comes standard with a match barrel and upgraded sights. The extra mag capacity makes them a little bigger. I want something a little lighter, maybe a 9mm, that my wife can shoot.

have a xdm 9mm 4.5 and a xd 9mm sub-compact. the xd points/shoots fine. it appears to be every bit as accurate as the xdm (from 5-7 yards). the wife loves hers (carry piece).

 

[Blick]

I'm sure readers are all too drearily familiar with the demands of gun-banners, including their wish for a ban on what they call 'high-capacity' magazines (which are really 'standard-capacity' magazines - those originally provided by the manufacturer for use with the weapon). In the case of the ubiquitous AR-15 rifle, 'standard' magazines were originally 20-round capacity (as supplied with the first generation of the rifle in the 1960's). One is shown on the left below. The size was increased to 30-round capacity (shown on the right below) in the 1970's, after combat experience in Vietnam, and has remained at that capacity to the present day. It's what our armed forces are currently using in their M4's and M16's.'High-capacity' magazines for the AR-15/M4/M16 pattern rifle would include examples such as the Beta C-Mag, holding up to 100 rounds, or the Surefire MAG5-60 or MAG5-100, holding 60 or 100 rounds respectively.

My 9mm XDM's both came with 2 "standard capacity" 19+1 magazines. I have never bought a "hi capacity" magazine.

Not to change this exhilarating discussion, but how do you like them? Are they worth the extra $ than the XM? I've been wanting one for awhile.

Those were my first weapons purchased, so I cannot compare them to other brands. My wife loves her 5.25 competition XDM and has a surefire light and laser on it. The M is just an upgrade to the XD line. There is no XM line.The XDS line is a single stack carry weapon that only comes in a 45ACP for now but at the SHOT Show they made the announcement that the XDS 9MM will be out in March. That will be my carry weapon. If you can afford a little extra the XDM line is a very good quality weapon. XDM TechnologyIf money is an issue Glock is a great choice. Kimber is a step above Springfield Armory.

Yeah, I meant XD. I think the main differences are that the XDM comes standard with a match barrel and upgraded sights. The extra mag capacity makes them a little bigger. I want something a little lighter, maybe a 9mm, that my wife can shoot.

have a xdm 9mm 4.5 and a xd 9mm sub-compact. the xd points/shoots fine. it appears to be every bit as accurate as the xdm (from 5-7 yards). the wife loves hers (carry piece).

Great, thanks!