This will not happen until the MSM has done all of the heavy prep work, leading the sheeple to believe that anybody against the law is the evil spawn of mass-shooters Cho and Loughner.
Posted on 02/11/2011 4:41:04 AM PST by marktwain
Now obviously I am an outsider when it comes to US gun issues. As a Canadian, I have a different perspective on the firearm debates, and some posters are right when they say that Canada is an over-regulated country-a nanny state with some restrictions on freedom of speech. Consequently some of the fight may have been beaten out of me because of my place of birth in a forgive-him-for he knows not what he-does (or says) kind of way. But the beauty of a Farago site is that even foreigners can enjoy a freedom of expression, as long as they don’t turn into name-calling a***oles. Anyway, the debate about mega-clips caught my attention. The concept of anybody outside of a war zone that actually needs a 30 round clip plumb evades me . . .
Sure I would like to be able to match capacity with a psycho with a big clip and an even bigger mentally unbalanced chip on his shoulder. That is a worst-case scenario that is a no-brainer. At a basic level, we are all survivalists in a fight or flight kind of way.
But the actual need for a giant clip is still a head-scratcher for me. Most of the posters on this site seem to be responsible and insightful gun owners. And I am not saying that simply because you are much better armed than me.
It also seems like most of you are pretty good with your weapons of choice. So why would you need a 30 round clip if your accuracy with a weapon would take out a bad guy in a regulation clip? My assumption is that most situations would not be against a small army of bad guys.
The answer seems to be that any ground given on gun issues is ground lost forever. The second answer seems to come from the Boy Scout mantra: Be prepared. Both answers have a certain degree of validity to them.
But if I saw a guy walking along with a 30 mag addition to his pistol, I would avoid that guy like a plague. That just seems like overkill to me in more than one sense.
My short response is: Sometimes the war zone comes to you; the government should not be deciding what you need; and there are many times when a 30 round magazine is very useful. The mere deterrent value alone is incredibly useful when faced with an unruly mob (such as in the Rodney King riots) or with multiple gang bangers.
This will not happen until the MSM has done all of the heavy prep work, leading the sheeple to believe that anybody against the law is the evil spawn of mass-shooters Cho and Loughner.
To the article author: Why do you need a computer keyboard to type? Why not an old-fashioned typewriter? Or, just a pencil and paper? Or, how about stone tablets and a chisel? I am SURE that such a regulation would NOT infringe on your right to free speech, would it? Why do you feel you NEED a computer, or the Internet, to communicate, my Canadian friend?
That assumption is likely to get the author killed some day.
That part of your response sadly needs to be pounded into some people's heads when it comes to a ton of subjects!
The problem I have with large capacity magazine bans is they are worded for all guns, not just pistols. I only have 15 and 30 round magazines for my M1Carbine. My son only has 20 rounders for his FAL. I just bought 25 rounders for my MAS49/56 because they were more available and cheaper than the standard 10 rounders. I was looking to buy the new KelTec PMR30 that comes stock with a 30 round magazine. Many 22’s have over 10 round capacities.
The basic disconnect....it's not about "need", it's about "freedom".
It matters not what the perceived need on the part of the "clip" owner is...even if it just not wanting to reload as often during target practice.
I am Canadian, and I think this author of this piece is a complete retard, if he doesn’t get it, then I can’t help. This is why I say Canada is a lost cause, people are all lost, I feel like I’m in an insane asylum. Folks I talk to everyday think our free healthcare is great, that government should pass more laws to ban phones (they are banning even talking on phones this summer in Alberta, and this is supposed to be Texas of the north). People just don’t get it, and it’s exasperating trying to explain it to them.
I don't need you to tell me what I need!
It's called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
This isn’t an argument about reasonable restrictions on magazine capacity. The real question being asked by those who would limit magazine capacity is why don’t we just outlaw all firearms? Why do some want to limit magazine capacity? To reduce the carnage in a situation like Tucson? OK. Using their logic, if reducing the allowed capacity to twenty is good, wouldn’t a reduction to ten be better? Wouldn’t five be even better? How about none?
Some people would say that a single shot muzzleloader is sufficient because one properly placed shot will put down any attacker. The same sort of people like to point out that the entire population of the Earth could live in Texas or some other such nonsense.
First, it's not a matter of need.
Secondly, the fact that a concept "evades" the writer has absolutely zero to do with the concept's validity.
What a stupid ass.
The problem I have with this whole argument is that the government shouldn't be deciding what we "need".
You shouldn't have to make a case for why you bought certain mags for your MAS49/56. It's nobody's business but your own. Similarly, I shouldn't have to make the case for why I CHOOSE to buy the 32-round mag for my Glock 19.
Regards,
Raven6
Exactly. A lot of people seem to not get this. High capacity magazines? Wouldn't touch them personally. Too heavy to lug around (I prefer to carry fewer rounds and hit what I aim at), may unbalance a weapon, and some are prone to jamming or feed problems.
So while I don't need them, don't want them, and wouldn't use them if you gave them to me... I absolutely need to have the freedom to obtain and use them if I ever change my mind. If I do not have that freedom, it means I have given up or lost yet another little piece of my freedoms to an ever more repressive and oppressive government.
Even more important than giving up a freedom I readily admit I'll probably never use and never miss... In doing so I've set the stage for the government to decide what freedoms I need, and which ones I don't.
That is a massive, life and society ending type problem. When you start letting the government tell you what you need and don't need, what you have and don't have, in terms of freedoms and liberties... Well, that's a problem in two areas. First, it flies in the face of the principles this Country was founded on. In fact it is supposed to be exactly the opposite - we tell the government exactly what delineated powers they have, not the other way around. Second, down the path of the government-knows-best lies oppression and misery on a huge scale. Look around throughout history and today - oppressive regimes have to fight to keep people in their Country. Why do you think people risk life and limb to escape them? We do not want to break with our Founding Fathers, and we do not want to subject ourselves and our fellow American citizens of the future to such deprivation.
Or taking that further why would he need more than 10 words to have freedom of speech? I mean he should be able to express himself in 10 words, eh?
Jerk lost me as soon as he started calling magazines “clips.”
He should just stay up there in Canaduh where he’s protected and safe.
No offense to the freedom-loving Canadian FReepers.
Good Point. Everyone should read the example of McCarthy’s bill HR 308.
The ban is for all 10+ round magazines. Not just pistols.
So tens of millions of Americans who own rifles would be included in that proposed bill as written.
If a ban went into effect, owners of 10+ round magazines (both pistols and rifles) would need fear jail time when found with them because the burden of proof would be on the person to prove it was pre-ban.
Like all his European brethren they were until recently "Subjects Of The Crown' and not really 'citizens' and did not have God Given Rights (or allowed to KNOW they had them). They were so inbred with the idea of being RULED by Kings, Queens, Emperors, Czars or Princes, they have no inherit idea of Complete Freedom.
They were told by their betters what they 'needed' and what they didn't 'need' and that was that. This goes back to the days Swords, Longbows and Match-Lock guns. (Can't have the peasants owning these, they may revolt dang it.)
As such, in America 'need' has nothing to do with anything. Generally, if we 'want it', we can 'get it' (natch if we can pay for 'it'). So if I WANT a 30 Round Stick Magazine or a 75-100 Round Drum Magazine I can get 'it'. Ditto for an 8 Round Capacity Handgun or a 15 Round one.
One of the matches that lit the fire of our Revolution was the Kings attempt to confiscate the Colonists firearms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.