Ugh.

They're the ones that are protesting sensible laws.

not mean they "support mass shootings"

I do not think anybody does. They support building a legal product and have the choice of where they build it. Kind of logical if Colorado does mot want their higher capacity magazines.

They also make many other cosmetic parts, not just magazines.

like the Clinton one, it's illogical for you to try to argue that point. The type of people that would own one of those things are inspired by the look of the weapon. I just look at their web site, and they make a lot of parts that inspire that sort of thing.

The crime rate dropping because of it is an extreme example of post hoc ergo prompter hoc. IOW, it is illogical for you to argue it. In fact, your post isn't logical. The Clinton one did nothing because:
They are rarely used in crime
there were plenty of them still in existence
gangs would get their guns anyway
minor cosmetic changes did nothing about the functionality.

And just how is it a sensible law? They could still manufacture hi cap mags and sell them in other states, and, because mags don't have serial numbers or manufacture dates, how is LE supposed to know if a mag is legal or not?

What does sensible actually mean, being a meaningless weasel word.
While the UBC is good in theory, but their mechanism to do it as currently written is a train wreck. Won't prevent gang violence, or mass murder. The law does prevent "buy back" schemes because even the cops would have to pay a licensed dealer to do the paperwork and the background check. At least Denver taxpayers are spared the occasional expensive, and useless, theater. That is what happens when NYC employees acting as MAIG lobbyists write laws about stuff they actually don't understand.
The 15 round magazine limit does what exactly?

the arbitrary 7 round limit that was just struck down. I think 30 could be sensible, since that is the standard magazine shipped with many new AR series rifles.

But no adjustable stocks or flash hiders, they are dangerous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172134923

who need guns?

Texas and Wyoming get the business and Colorado gets rid of them. I'm sure there'll be plenty of extra revenue from pot sales in CO to more than compensate, plus the image of Colorado just gets better and better. Texas OTOH, not so good.

As what? Granted pot should be legal, but so should the magazines.

As a more tolerant and peace loving state, for starters. I think they're tired of the mass shootings and negative publicity. I have family and friends in CO who see both the pot legalization and gun marginalization as being very progressive and I agree with them. People have a right to have pot and guns, but both come with restrictions like most things. No big deal.

We the People and grassroots can and do beat right wing billionaires and the propaganda ads on TV. Bloomburg and a California billionaire, who's name escapes me at the moment, wrote personal checks that amounted to more than what the recall forces spent.
Hopefully the faux liberals will be replaced by real liberals in the next election. I also hope Democratic women remember Joe Salazar's sexism in his rationale for opposing campus carry and primary him.
As for marginalizing guns? Not quite. Feel good and useless, but didn't do anything positive. The law did ban "buy backs" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/organizers-cancel-boulder_n_3642634.html

Walter Mondale said it best
"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Of course there is Cesare Beccaria in his opus On Crime and Punishments

And you think that magazine-capacity restrictions will stop mass shootings? Please explain how that will work.

But it might help reduce the numbers, so what's wrong with that? Do you want guns to be as deadly as possible? Is that it?

the most lethal mass murders, including an attack on a school in the US, did not involve firearms. Australia's worst mass murders outside of Port Author (where the guns were not legally owned and one was stolen from the cops) were by arson. Both of them were after Port Author.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

This strongly suggests that there course of action is aimed at stopping them.

When you say "numbers," do you mean the frequency of such incidents? I fail to see how a decrease in magazine capacity would achieve that. If you meant the number killed, it's just wild speculation that a decrease in magazine capacity will have or would have had any effect. Lanza ejected multiple magazines on the ground with rounds still in them, meaning he was engaging in what is called "tactical reloads," or "topping up." The only time a magazine change exposes the shooter to any real jeopardy is in a firefight or if he is foolish enough to wade into a crowd. The "tackle the shooter" scenario assumes far too many variables to be of any practical concern.


If I have a gun that is to be used in defense of self and home, yes, I want it to be as lethal as possible, or let's say as effective as possible, since stopping an attack does not necessarily involve the death of the assailant.

Is there something wrong with that?

Your fantasies about being attacked override everything else. You are more interested in being able to kill effectively, should the "need" arise, than in reducing the ability of the nutjobs out there who want to do exactly the same thing.

Nobody thinks mass killings will be stopped by reducing clip or magazine capacities, or by any other restrictive legislation, but there is a good possibility that the death toll from many of these events will be reduced. But we wouldn't want that to interfere with your ability to take out more zombies, would we?

... don't presume to tell me about my "fantasies" or what I am "interested" in. You are being entirely disingenuous if you are trying to pretend that 20 or 30-round magazines are the only issue here. The limit for semi-auto rifle magazines in New York City is five: less than a revolver. Andrew Cuomo just tried to foist a seven-round limit on all of New York State, down from ten, and California just tried to ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. Don't tell me that there is no slippery slope.


A "good possibility"? What's your basis for this supposition? Just a wild guess? The "tackle the shooter" scenario is a macabre joke in the wake of Sandy Hook, and isn't even close to an adequate justification for legislation that further restricts the rights of gun owners. Your argument is typical among controllers: "This might work, and I don't give a shit about rights or needs because I'm not a gun owner anyway." That's the standard definition of "reasonable" restrictions among gun controllers.

Snide condescension isn't a particularly effective rhetorical device, by the way.

And yes, it is a slippery slope. Good luck with keeping a foothold. You seem to confuse rights with desires.
Gun owners have the same rights as everyone else. They are not some special group with special rights. Be thankful you have the right to own guns, but be careful of what you wish for. It might come back and bite you in the ass.

And don't tell me what to presume or not to presume.

Then you think that a five, or four, or three, or two-round limitation would be justified? It sounds like that old song about having a right to firearms but not to ammunition. Good luck with that one.


Exactly. And anyone has the right to own an effective self-defense weapon, unless they have forfeited that right through criminal activity.


I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Condescension and vague warnings is what I'm getting from it.


Pardon me. Feel free to carry on with your baseless presumptions. Everyone has a right to be wrong.

I also think you should have a right to as many bullets as you want, but not the ability to fire them all at once. You may think that is some kind of right, but you would be wrong. Two should be just fine, 5 or 6 seems like a reasonable compromise. I guess it all depends how many people you want to kill within a short space of time.

does someone make a modern volley gun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

More absolutely unsupported contentions from you. Why is that not a right? Please explain.


You speak from a place of deepest ignorance. "Two should be just fine" -- for what? To defend oneself against two assailants? And what if one shot apiece doesn't stop the assault, or even two or three? This isn't a cowboy movie, where the hero can fire from the hip and stop the bad guy with one shot. What is one to do then? Go down with the ship? Take one for the team? Die for someone else's ignorant opinion of what "a reasonable compromise" is?

No one that has been put in a position of defending life and limb has ever said "Gee, I wish I didn't have so many rounds in my gun." Welcome to the real world.


Missed the point by a mile, as usual. I don't want to kill anyone. Self-defense does not require killing; the goal is to stop the assault. There is no reason to handicap any citizen's ability to do that. None whatsoever. One shot is hardly ever sufficient. It it were, police would carry barreled derringers.

You just get wronger and wronger as you go.

Who the hell do you think you need to defend yourself against? What fantasy world do you live in that you envisage needing to shoot more than 2 peoople every time you pull your trusted gun out? Hell, if you're that paranoid, build ramparts and a moat around your castle, booby trap your perimeter, do what you want. But please, when you walk in public, try thinking about others and how many you are really prepared to kill today.

What a pile of nonsense. Why should I do all that when I could simply add five or ten more rounds to my pistol magazine?


I have no intention of killing anybody, but if I should ever need to defend myself, I can see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have more than enough rounds to do it. Absolutely no reason. There is no demonstrable harm in it.

How many "thugs" or "zombies" do you anticipate attacking you? Are you really such a high profile target?
Personally, I don't care how you defend your home, provided you don't shoot beyond it's perimeter.
No hysteria from me, believe me. Just bemusement.

Not to kill, but to defend my life. The latter does not require the former.

I don't anticipate anyone attacking me. On the other hand, I see no demonstrable harm from carrying more rounds. If I'm going to carry a pistol for self-defense -- not something I do regularly, but something that I should absolutely have the right to do -- then why on Earth would I download to suit someone else's uninformed prejudices? "Time to load the pistol -- I think I'll only put two rounds in. More than that would be dangerous." Nonsense.

No hysteria from you? When you suggest that going beyond a six-round limit is equivalent to moated homes defended by landmines? Hyperbole is not your friend.

So in your world the possibility of being victimized outside one's home does not exist? More nonsense.

I didn't mention "thugs" or "zombies." I'm not sure why you're using that particular terminology, except as a feeble attempt to mischaracterize my beliefs and positions. More presumption. Clueless, arrogant presumption.

I do not question your right to SD or your right to carry, or your right to have more than 2 bullets. I question your choices, that's all. I think the choice to carry for no specific reason, beyond the remote possibility of a random attack, is irresponsible and contributes to the overall fear which the NRA and the gun peddlers like to spread. But if that's the kind of society you want to live in, I wish you the best.

Using words like hysteria, is both hyperbolic and sexist, btw.

Do you have a fire extinguisher? Why are you so afraid of fire?

I carry a firearm sometimes. When I'm not carrying one, I don't really feel any different than when I am. No quaking, no shivering, no nausea: no fear. On the other hand, my carrying one presents no credible threat to me or to society, so why shouldn't I do it? Because you don't like it? That's not persuasive. Sorry.

Despite your repeated assertions that carrying is "irresponsible and contributes to the overall fear," you have yet to provide one shred of support for your claim. How would my concealed carry of a firearm contribute to anyone's overall fear? Certainly not mine. You persist in the mistaken belief that all gun owners are cowering in their living rooms, afraid to set foot out into the terrifying world. That's just nonsense.

When you start taking about moats and castles and booby traps as the practical equivalents of standard-capacity magazines, I'm going to call it hysteria, a word that, despite the connotations of its Greek roots, is gender-neutral in contemporary usage. If you wish to remove the word from the lexicon, I suggest you take it up with the Thought Police.

I don't feel the need to carry it around, though. Fires happen all over the place, but I figure I can avoid them. Same reason I don't carry a gun or a knife in public.

My fear of fire does not induce quaking or nausea. So, why should your fear of potential attackers cause such reactions? I have no idea how your fear manifests itself beyond the need to carry a concealed firearm. My fear of fire is manifested by either my distancing myself from the fire, or by extinguishing it.

I make no assertions that any gun owners are cowering in their living rooms. On the contrary, I have many friends who keep guns for home defense and I have done the same. There is an enormous difference between guns at home and guns in the street. The fact that your gun is concealed does not diminish the danger to the public that the gun poses. Guns have no business in public areas, without a helluva good reason.

Standards change my friend. Apparently, Colorado has decided to implement some changes in it's standards.

What danger to the public? Can you provide evidence? There isn't any. Facts become facts when they are proven with empirical evidence. Opinion is just that.
Actually, Colorado didn't decide. At least not the citizens of Colorado. Bloomberg poured money and sent NYC employees, on the city's dime, to lobby for it. I predict the laws will be repealed within three years. One of the questions must be asked is why these "standards" changed. While there are misguided idealists like Carol McCarthy, the gun control movement in the US has more than its share of Tim Sullivans.

Here is a question I have been grappling with:
I have mentioned before that I support a UBC using Michigan (which is really a US version of the Swiss system). Of course, that was before I learned the history of it. Here is the problem. My motivation is to at least put a speed bump of keeping guns out of the black market. My problems is that that wasn't the motivation of the people who lobbied for it in 1925 (or North Carolina's in 1919. Long story short, the KKK lobbied for it when Dr. Owen Sweet defended himself from some local racists who didn't want "those people" in their neighborhood.
When California passed a gun and ammo registration scheme, I'm guessing you supported it. In 1954, Mississippi's house of reps passed a similar law, but it died in the state senate. Would you have supported it then even though most likely you wouldn't like the people who supported it and why?

I believe the law should be the same for everyone. If gun ownership is legal, then everyone should be able to own a gun, unless they have been deemed by a court to be dangaerous to themselves or others. If carrying a gun is legal, then it should be legal for everyone, with the same caveat as above.
Personally, as much as I enjoy shooting guns, I prefer living in a country where handgun ownership is not legal. But that's my choice.

The discussion, for me, is purely academic. The US is the only country where guns are a hot topic. I wonder why.

they can be in Canada and a few other countries. To answer your question, we are the most successful experiment that tested the Enlighenment's social theory.

Having a fire extinguisher is good. Living in fear is not. Perhaps you could get some therapy for that.


You don't "carry it around"? On your boat or in your car? That's kind of irresponsible, don't you think? As for just walking around, you're right that random encounters with fire tend to be avoidable. Criminals tend not to like being avoided, though. Should you encounter a determined one, just walking away may not be a viable option.

If there were a fire extinguisher that I could easily and conveniently carry in my pocket, I would certainly carry one.


And what is that difference, exactly? The potential for harm to bystanders? It exists in the home too -- ever hear of overpenetration? On the other hand, an out-of-the-home encounter doesn't necessarily involve bystanders at all, especially in a rural area. Your gross generalizations are unsupported and meaningless.

Tell me about the danger that my gun poses to the public. Please be specific.


Yes, standards do change. Colorado is about the impose some arbitary, pointless, and punitive standards on its citizens.

I do not carry a fire extinguisher in my car and never have. Fortunately, it has doors. I carry 3 on my boat, because it is my home and it is a boat. Think about that.

When it looks like rain, I carry rain gear or an umbrella. Why? It makes sense.
My lifestyle encourages me to carry a lot of things for a myriad of possible emergency situations. Fortunately, a gun is not one of those things.

You say you would carry a pocket sized fire extinguisher, if one were available. I think that explains a lot. I grew up on a farm and remember cases of spontaneous combustion, especially where straw or hay were wrapped or wound very tightly.

Your gun may or may not pose a danger to the public. I don't know, but as I have said before, it is not guns that pose a danger, but the carrying of guns that increase the likelihood of someone being shot. Otherwise, what would be the point of carrying ?
Look at the facts. Thousands of people are shot in the US every year by people carrying guns. The more guns carried, the more people get shot. Now, I'm sure you will argue the "good guy" versus "bad guy" meme, but the facts don't change. The guns all start out in the hands of you "good guys" and then miraculously transition to the "bad guys". How does that happen? And what's the solution? More guns of course. Now, how moronic is that?

You and the rest of the "good guy" elite are part of the vicious cycle. That's why you pose a danger to the public and society as a whole. Can you really not see that?

This isn't about rights, it's about those who carry indiscriminately, being blind to their own stupidity. It's about those who want bigger ammo clips for their plinking, thinking that's more important than people getting shot in theaters and schools. It's about getting over themselves and growing a social conscience.
And last, but not least it is about refusing to be shills for the NRA, firearms manufacturers and other fearmongers who peddle this crap.

... in one post.

I asked you specifically how my carrying is a threat to society. You came back with some vague crap about guns starting out in the hands of "good guys" and ending up in the hands of "bad guys" because of "those who carry indiscriminately." Are you suggesting that everyone disarm so that the "bad guys" will have no weapons to steal? Yet you support being armed in the home? Perhaps you weren't aware that guns are stolen from homes too. I hesitate to use words like "moronic," but since you opened that gate, I'll go through it.

You have no valid arguments. Just a bunch of vague presumptions couched in a lot of name-calling. Weak. Very weak.

Did I say "disarm"? No! Did I call you names? No!

Did I say that guns end up in the hands of bad guys because you carry? No!

Did you infer that I am a moron? Yes!

What gate do want to go through now?

What I did say is that many shooting deaths occur by people carrying guns. Ergo, if nobody carried guns, then shooting deaths would decrease. When I say nobody, I mean NOBODY! Like nobody gets to piss in the street without consequences. So that anyone caught carrying has to have a helluva good reason and is prepared to give that reason in a courtroom and if the court disagrees, be prepared to serve some serious time. Now, you don't have such laws, but you do have the opportunity to set an example.

Most of us draw a line, in terms of what we do at home or in private and what we do in public. That's what being a responsible member of society is all about. Protecting one's home is one thing, carrying a gun to protect one's Rolex is another.

Convince me that your carrying is in some way improving public safety and societal well-being. Convince me that your motives are in some way altruistic and not all about you and your need to defend yourself and/or your shit against some unknown enemy.
Go ahead, convince me and I'll congratulate you for your civic duty.

"Blind to their own stupidity" -- you're talking about people who carry, me included. Disingenuous? I'd say so.

And you claim that you're not an authoritarian. Your scenario requires people to be able to forecast the future in order to justify carrying. You have put all the cards in the hands of the state.


I'm not talking about protecting "one's Rolex." That's presumptious and offensive bullshit. I don't own a Rolex, nor would I ever own one. I'm talking about defending life and limb against violent assault. You can put your fingers in your ears and blather about civic duty all you want, but defending one's person against violent assault is a primary right. I believe in civic duty, but I don't believe in the "take one for the team" mentality that says that I should put my life on the line for someone else's vague notion of what the social order should be.

Saith the poster who mentioned landmines and moats when the prospect of someone
carrying more than two rounds in a firearm was mentioned...

I would have gone with 'overwought', myself.

I can't. Damned HOA restrictions.

The Denver Post had a poll question whether "weed" was hurting CO's image.
No, that would be the state that had two mass shootings.

how very humane of those people
to allow residents of other states
(but not their own state)
to purchase high capacity magazines
manufactured in Colorado

Or are you suggesting they should ban the manufacture of these devices in Colorado? The latter definitely makes sense, but it seems the manufacturers have decided to leave, of their own accord, and peddle their wares elsewhere.

they had no qualms profiting from sales to the other 49 states.

Why do you care? You can still shoot as many "thugs" as you like, just not in Colorado. Dissuading is always preferable to banning, IMO. Helping people see reason and overcome their fears is a more positive approach than draconian legislation.

This law did not take a single one of the streets. And there is nothing stopping CO residents from acquiring all the new ones they want - they just have to drive a couple of hours or have out of state friends/family mail them.

Your instinct is draconian legislation - you can barely hide your contempt for gun owners that disagree with you so don't try to convince me that you prefer a conciliatory response.

Why do you think I want to shoot thugs? I don't own guns for protection - I live in a safe town with little crime. I am a competitive target shooter.

Never needed more than 6 bullets at a time for target shooting. Can't imagine why you'd need more.

AR-15s are the standard - and ten rounds are the minimum for most firing strings.

And of course, larger mags make practice easier as you spend less time reloading.

I shoot with 20 rounds mags.

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Why should you ever want to do something that Starboard sees no reason for?

Why use an AR-15 for target shooting?

it is ideally suited, for example, for women shooters.

Not everyone can shoot larger caliber rifles comfortably.

High Power Rifle is one of the most popular shooting events in America and goes back decades.

What is it about semi-automatic rifles that bother you so much? They have been around for a very long time - the AR-15 is a 50 year old design.

What bothers me is how people use them. Guns are not a problem. Fools with guns are the problem. Unfortunately, as small a percentage of gun owners who fall into that category as there are, they manage to cause a lot of damage. I don't like the idea of many suffering for the actions of the few, but unfortunately, that's often the only solution. One way to avoid that is for gun owners to voluntarily curb their enthusiasm for more and deadlier. It might help keep the wolves from the door.

If I wanted deadlier, I would move up to a bigger caliber rifle. 5.56 is perfect for punching holes in paper.

No. Criminals and killers with guns are the problem. The crusade against the AR-15 wasn't motivated by accidental shootings, I assure you.


Such tortured logic: "If you don't stop buying those things, they're going to make them illegal." Yet you say, "Nothing bothers me about them, or about any other gun." Of course you don't; you just have a problem with people actually owning them.

Own your prohibitionism. Anything less in intellectually dishonest.

and technology evolves. Bolt actions, once typical of most military rifles in the world until the 1950s (and still used by Royal Danish Navy Sirus patrols and the Canadian Rangers), for the same reason people use laptops as portable typewriters instead of mechanical portable typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A6depatruljen_Sirius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Rangers

FWIW, there have been semi automatic sporting rifles before the military used them. The US military was the first to use semi auto rifles in the late 1930s with the M-1 Garand. Hunters and sport shooters around the world have been using them for 40 years already.

Another reason is the rifle's adaptability. One gun can serve multiple purposes with different accessories and upper receivers. Put an upper receiver with a longer and thicker barrel, you have a target rifles. Change the .223 upper and the 20-30 round magazine with a .308 upper and a five round magazine, you can legally hunt with it in Wyoming. You can even get a crossbow upper for it.

Reflexive contempt for the unfamiliar? Sounds like bigotry to me.

The AR-15 is the quintessential modern rifle. High-power rifle competition has always used whatever was the state-of-the-art. In the 19th-century, it was single-shot percussion cap rifles. In the early 20th century, it was the Springfield or Enfield bolt-action rifle. In mid-century, it was the Garand or M1A1. Now it's the AR-15.

Maybe you're not such an elitist, after all?

The AR-15 is the state-of-the-art service rifle, which is what is used in high-power competition.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/06/shooting-usa-covers-camp-perry-centennial-this-week/

There are all kinds of competition and all kinds of target rifles, but why would I expect you to know anything about any of that? Silly me.

to find out about HighPower before condemning it as"quite ridiculous". Or did you just assume that it was. I shoot HighPower, but I also shoot Palma. Palma is very popular in Great Britain and Europe.


If you are too lazy, or arrogant, to look it up it says a lot about your real ideals.

Quite true, but you forget how strong the love of security theater tends to be
in the ranks of gun control advocates...