Should Democrats support a ban on high capacity magzines?

:hi:

Why exactly should anyone ban high capacity magazines? And what exactly does "high capacity" mean?

Democrats should choose liberty over "feel good" laws which do little to actually prevent crime.

What about laws restricting possession by felons?

:hippie:

But I'm okay with un-restricting personal autos. CSWs are another animal.

Crew served weapon...usually larger full auto machine guns, gatling guns...
An M-60 for example.

Since they are manually operated by a crank they are not a "automatic weapon". HOWEVER, if you attach a motor to it, whether air, electric, steam or water, then it becomes a automatic weapon, and the switch, valve or lever become the trigger.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

empirical justification. Absent that, Ds should be be on the side of liberty and choice...

Do you define a high capacity magazine as one which holds more than 10 rounds or as one which holds more rounds than the standard magazine sold with the pistol?

During the useless assault weapons ban any magazine over 10 rounds if manufactured before a certain cut off date was legal to own. The companies that manufacture magazines went into 24/7 production and produced an enormous quantity of magazines which they sold for inflated prices. There was never a shortage of magazines that would hold more than 10 rounds. They just cost more.

Standard magazines for pistols often hold more than 10 rounds. For example, the standard magazine for a Glock 17 holds 17 9mm rounds. Optional magazines hold 19 or 33 rounds.

Before the assault weapons ban, few shooters I knew were interested in owning an evil looking semi-auto black rifle that was a crippled clone of a real military assault rifle which has the capability of being fully automatic. After the ban most of the shooters I knew suddenly just had to have one of these firearms. Shooters became aware of just how versatile and accurate such weapons are and today they are very popular rifles and very common.

Concrete, defined concepts are sooo passe. Realpolitik is dead...

then 6. . .

then 5

Because that's really what you're advocating.

The gun control lobby is not proposing to outlaw, say, pistol magazines over 20 and rifle magazines over 30. They are fighting to ban magazines over 10 rounds (and sometimes 5 for shotguns), a limit which would ban popular civilian guns going back to the 1860's. Look up the standard factory capacity of the Henry carbine, or the Winchester Model 1873 rifle, or the Evans Repeating Rifle, or the Browning P35, or the Smith & Wesson 5906, or the Beretta 92, or the Glock 17/19, or the Springfield XD, or the Smith & Wesson M&P, or the AR-15, which happens to be the most popular civilian centerfire rifle in the United States.

And even some of your "Third Way" gun control advocates have pointed out that capacity limits are pointless:

Classic! I love that line, so true.

The key phrase being "statistically significant." You can find anecdotes to support any sort of ridiculous argument.

Girly pictures, gun pictures, or girly holding gun pictures are OK.

that you can get really sticky...

Buzzkiller.;)

Why the hell do they think I need fifteen of them?

It only takes 3 seconds to change clips.

Check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

If I could post this in GD - the result would be different

yup

Whatever helps you sleep. ;)

Or better yet, let DUers decide.


Q: What should the limit on magazine capacity be for firearms sold in the US? (exclude military and law enforcement)

A0: No limit
A1: 7 rounds
A2: 10 rounds
A3: 12 rounds
A4: 15 rounds
A5: 20 rounds
A6: 30 rounds
A7: Must fit flush with handgun's frame
A8: Must not extend more than 1" past handgun's frame
A9: Must not extend more than 2" past handgun's frame


Go for it!

Because we don't have enough Republicans in office.

Because the NRA doesn't have enough membership, money or clout.

Because there are still some hard working middle class gun owners who think that a serious percentage of the leadership of us Democrats aren't completely batshit crazy as regards anti firearms laws.

Because it 'feels good' to pass silly laws that serve no function.

The only people in favor of stupid crap like this must either be Republican plants or highly out of touch with Americans outside of inner-urban or ivory tower areas. Anyone proposing things that do no good, restrict freedoms, piss of law abiding citizens and empower our opposition must be either naive, outright stupid or doing to work of the Republican party.

No one NEEDS that much capacity. You can get from here to there in a Prius.

I've noted before that Cho at Virginia Tech killed and wounded more people using "Brady Campaign-friendly" magazines

than did Loughner in Tuscon, who used a so-called "assault magazine".