I just ordered five pmags from Otiswild's link back on page 1. While I own an AR-15, I don't have much use for 30-round magazines. But still.

This wouldn't only ban a lot of magazines, but handguns period since many come stock with 10+ round magazines.

During the 1994 ban, handgun makers switched to 10 round mags for sales to the public. "Pre-ban" Berreta 92 14 rounders were fetching $80. Gun dealers were convincing police departments to buy new guns and trade in their old ones in order to get the hi-cap mags that were only sold to law enforcement after the ban date for resale.

Quote:

I'm not saying I support a ban on magazines... Also I couldn't support anywhere CLOSE to a 10 round limit.... My issue is that I can't come up with much of a "dual use" defense for something like a 70rd rifle mag.

As Karl pointed out what part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood. The problem with "dual use" thinking is that it is NOTHING but a ploy to ofusicate the hidden agenda and the true argument via a false logic. It is the tool of vipers used to pretend 'intelligence and sensitivity' to the issue. Persons promoting "dual use" as the arguement immediately reveal a lack of critical thinking ability.

Once precedent is set the bureaucrats always want a little bit more. They never admit their 'laws' were the cause of the problems. The quest for total power is an endless hunger.

The Constitution does not need a dual use to be employed or obeyed. It is what it is. If one does not like it - tough! You are free to go. Be glad you still have that option but even that right is now being infringed via excessive taxes.

The problem with a republic and bureaucrats is that the bureaucrats eventually believe they are the government. When this occurs we get laws contrary to the rules of the republic. When proper redress does not correct the issue only 2 alternatives are left - enslavement by or rebellion against self-appointed masters. Only the 2nd amendment can guarantee a republic of the people, for the people, and by the people as intended by the framers.

Its a shame that so much of the Jewish population are in league with the gun banners. It seems a type of self-denial.

So many forget the British plan to disarm the colonist to crush any rebellion against them. "Listen my children and you shall here of the midnight ride of Paul Revere".

Quote:

IMO a fascist government and a well-armed crook are the same thing, ergo self defense and protection from tyranny are the same thing.

The actions and defense are the same. A government that refuses to recognize its limitations is much more dangerous - especially one with a propaganda machine and a populace that has been so dumbed down that is has lost its critical thinking ability.


We also have too many modern day "Tories" that have no appreciation of their freedoms.

The number of people killed or wounded in Colorado is not even a statistical rounding error. It may sound like a lot but this is a country of over 300 million people. If some nut job goes off and kills 20 people every 10 years that only works out to 2 per year. And for this we need a new law? It looks like an acceptable risk verses infringing on the rights of the other 300 million.

It has nothing to do with risk. It's all about justification for the volunteers literally kill you. Power.

97% of the people will go along with it.

If one person in the other 3 percent objects they will be universally condemned by the 97%, and probably 97% of ticker forum too

how many veteran suicides per day in the USA?

"The VA estimates that about 18 veterans commit suicide every day, but this statistic is based on limited data. "

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/02/....

Lowbeyond wrote..

97% of the people will go along with it.

If one person in the other 3 percent objects they will be universally condemned by the 97%, and probably 97% of ticker forum too

I agree, except that I don't think 97% of Ticker Forum members would go along.

The problem is that a vanishingly small percentage of the population reads websites like this. It will be easy to round us up when the time comes.

The way things are going in this country with the deep divisions and beliefs when it comes to gun control, I think I may actually see secession of states in my lifetime.

No, folks, we will not do this voluntarily.
We'll do it the hard way. - Karl Denninger

Since I first read this I could apply it to almost every issue raised on TF. In fact its my litmus test for what I read here. Its the most honest thing I've ever read.

market pirate

balkanization of the us?

could be...that would be something

When the shooting starts (and I think that is all but inevitable at this point), it must be absolutely clear that those like us who believe in freedom are reacting to some action on the part of the Feds that is so bad, that there is no way that our response can be painted as anything other than a reaction.
Do not give them a Ft. Sumter to hang around our neck.

Flaps, I understand that this slope could get slippery real quick, but the horse has left the barn for a fundamentalist interpretation of "shall not be infringed". Like I say, silencers and full-auto are already effectively banned. The NRA and the GOP have been silent on that. Maybe that's their fault, but sadly they are the "opposition" on capitol hill right now. Karl may not be a hypocrite but these guys are going to look like hypocrites if they won't agree to at least some limit on magazine sizes.. I don't want to see ANY stock magazines banned, as you might as well ban the whole gun and that's flagrant infringement. The 10 round limit being discussed is clearly unconstitutional, but if they win the propaganda war they just might get it.

I say the GOP should tentatively agree to a limit, different for pistols and rifles, that would allow EVERY stock magazine in current production. The DNC probably wouldn't be satisfied anyway but it would prevent gun control proponents from painting caricatures so easily.

I can easily agree that a magazine ban won't really do any objective good. For example this shooter in Colorado had time to go back to his car and wait for the cops, I don't think a few more reloads would have made any difference given that time was not of the essence. Hell, I read somewhere his AR-15 mag jammed on him, he might have killed MORE people if he wasn't relying on an aftermarket magazine.

And the media.. It's hard to object to CNN honoring the dead, but how many of the dead people in gun control zones like D.C. and Chicago does the media go out of its way to honor? How many black kids were shot DURING the CNN coverage of the Trayvon shooting and NEVER mentioned even ONCE? 1,000 hours of coverage for Trayvon, 0 seconds of coverage for all other dead youths put together? There's certainly a propaganda war being waged, I just don't want to see the opposition walk right into a trap.

Supressors are not effectively banned they are under the nfa.

Machine guns have been effectively banned, at least post 86 samples. But that is only because of the states refusal to accept a tax. Ie you must pay a 200 dollar tax and so sorry we won't accept it

Anything under the nfa is blatantly unconstitutional as since when do you pay a tax to exercise a Right?

Oh yea in amerika where showing an id is a poll tax but requiring a tax to purchase a gun is OK because we'll because we say so. You can add in the onerous training and registration feed in places like dc that add up to 400 bucks or so just to buy a gun.

But thats ok too because they say so. How is this enforced? Though common sense no one can disagree for the children licensing.

It all does start with that worthless piece of paper that the volunteer in govt are more then happy to kill you over not having it

**** the ATF

Quote:

The way things are going in this country with the deep divisions and beliefs when it comes to gun control, I think I may actually see secession of states in my lifetime.

I agree, and that factored somewhat into my relocation.

Quote:

When the shooting starts (and I think that is all but inevitable at this point), it must be absolutely clear that those like us who believe in freedom are reacting to some action on the part of the Feds that is so bad, that there is no way that our response can be painted as anything other than a reaction.

http://www.baenebooks.com/p-403-a-state-....

Ding! Payday today. I absolutely detest most kinds of shopping, like for clothes and household stuff. But there is one kind of shopping I really enjoy.....

Jota, check out centerfireguns.com (no affiliation) for pmags...the best prices I've found online with fairly low shipping charges and appears to be pretty quick...my order should be here tomorrow. :)

Wow...nevermind, their prices went up almost a buck a piece since last week...

Cool, thanks MP. I'm more on the hunt for some Glock and Sig mags right now though. I do actually need some and theoretically those would show some pretty incredible inflation too.

Quote:

I'm not saying I support a ban on magazines... Also I couldn't support anywhere CLOSE to a 10 round limit.... My issue is that I can't come up with much of a "dual use" defense for something like a 70rd rifle mag.

A couple problems with that: First, as KD mentioned, what part of "...shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Second, AFAIC, the 2nd Amendment isn't about something so trivial as hunting, whether for sport or food, nor about target shooting, nor even the somewhat less trivial ability to defend yourself against street crime - it is about defense of the Republic against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. If the .mil can have weapons and accessories, then the militia (i.e. the whole body of the people capable of bearing arms) can as well - and any restriction of that right is nothing less than treason. Remember, the Founding Fathers believed that the militia would be able to take on and defeat any armed force that could conceivably be raised by the federal government, unlike the people in Europe. Read Federalist #46 by Madison, the principal author of the Constitution.

Third, weapons don't matter, the morality and sanity of people does. You could hand me a loaded machine gun as I was boarding a plane, and while I might spend an inordinate amount of time looking at it and fiddling with it, I can guarantee that I wouldn't shoot anyone with it unless they were trying to hijack the plane - because I'm sane and pretty moral (though I'll always be imperfect in this regard). But don't give an immoral person even a sharp pencil, or someone's going to get hurt or die if that is what's motivating that person at the moment. Did you know that the biggest massacre in all of American history occurred at the Happy Land Social Club: a nut who was ticked off at his ex-girlfriend threw about a gallon of gasoline near the entrance and murdered 87 people in 1990. A dollar's worth of gas and a match, that's all it took - no guns involved at all.

Fourth, once you say that any particular number of rounds in a magazine is "too high" then you've adopted the argument of the other side (and thereby lost the argument). If 70 is too much, then what about 50? 40? 30? 20? Pretty soon you'll be down at 10 (because, after all, "who NEEDS more than 10 rounds to shoot at one time?").

I am SICK AND TIRED of having my most basic right defined down because of the actions of a very few lunatics. I don't blame the lunatics, I blame our so-called representatives (who are mostly power-hungry tyrant-wannabees), the bleeding heart media and the hysterical pants-wetters who don't know a thing about guns and yet think that they can tell the rest of us what to do. Let's stop with the calls for weapons or accessories bans, and the weak-kneed acceptance of the same from those who don't know what true liberty means, and let's concentrate on how we reduce the ability of nuts to murder a lot of people. Let's start with nationwide carry, and making those that prevent lawful carry on their property responsible for their protection (because, by implication that's the responsibility that they've assumed - but make it explicit).

I, too, am concerned with my safety, that of my family and of everyone else who isn't a threat to me. But I refuse to adopt the anti-liberty arguments of those who would disarm ALL of us if given the power and the chance. Put THEM on the defensive. NO COMPROMISE!!!! We've been doing that since 1934 and the National Firearms Act, and it hasn't reduced crime one bit, it has only made the people of this country less able to defend themselves and their liberties, while at the same time turning a right into a government-granted privilege. ENOUGH of that crap, THIS is the line in the sand.