Skip to comments.How Much Firepower Do You Need?(CT)
Posted on 03/25/2011 5:33:10 AM PDT by marktwain
I don't really care if you have a gun for hunting or a pistol to give you some sense of protection at home. It's your right.
But what's the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip? I stopped by a legislative hearing Wednesday at which a roomful of gun enthusiasts was irate about a bill that would make it a felony to own a "large-capacity magazine" that uses more than 10 bullets.
The shooter in the Tucson attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this year that killed six and wounded 13 used a legally purchased semiautomatic Glock pistol with an ammunition clip holding more than 30 bullets. Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004, were used in the mass shootings in East Hartford, at Virginia Tech and in Fort Hood, Texas, to name a few.
Cops such as Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett see "no reason whatsover" for anyone to have these ammo clips. "The large-capacity magazines put not only the general public at risk, but especially the men and women of Connecticut's police departments," Gaudett told the General Assembly's judiciary committee in testimony Wednesday.
Banning these magazines isn't going to magically stop deranged killers. But it's an important start and it certainly might help police -- and prevent the next Jared Loughner from going into Walmart to buy a 33-bullet ammunition clip.
As I listened to opponents and read through their testimony, I realized how little I know about the violent wild-west-of-a-world some of these folks inhabit, a place that doesn't reflect the reality of Connecticut.
"Anyone who knows anything about firearm self-defense knows that you want as many bullets loaded as you can carry in a practical manner,'' Robert Crook, director of the Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance, said in his testimony. "He who throws the most lead wins."
A doctor from Guilford, Daniel Vining, said in his testimony that criminals will ignore the law while law-abiding citizens "will be hindered."
"As a practicing ER physician, I have seen many shooting victims with as many as 6 separate bullet tracks who are not seriously injured. Consider then, trying to defend your family with a 10-round magazine against two home invaders ... five shots per attacker, even with 100 percent accuracy might not be enough."
Michael Fifer, CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a gun manufacturer in Southport, explained further. "In defensive situations, magazines in excess of 10 rounds provide ... private citizens the ability to deal with multiple offenders ... one-third of aggravated assault and robbery victims are attacked by multiple offenders."
We should not let these views distort a sensible response to these recent mass killings. Instead of throwing lead at marauding home invaders, I keep thinking more what Dallas Green, grandfather of shooting victim Christina Taylor Green, said not long after the Tucson attack.
"Even though I'm a hunter and I love to shoot and love to have my guns, I don't have a Glock or whatever it is and I don't have a magazine with 33 bullets in it. That doesn't make sense to be able to sell those kind of things,'' Green said. "I just don't understand that."
Neither do I.
"Why do we want magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Ask a cop. The EXACT Same reason!!! Is his or her life more valuable than my childrens, my wifes, or mine? If a cop has a good reason for them, then so do we."
We are winning, and we need to keep fighting to restore the Constitution.
Hmmm...that's easy...to protect ourselves from hordes of people like you.....
They always blow it in the first few sentences where they feign empathy. The Constitution does not mention hunting or home only and nor do our lifestyles.
Irrelevant if you can't hit anything.
— moron alert —
Perhaps laws should require someone return an empty case before they’re allowed to purchase another one.
The issue is not the magazine - it is our government making a criminal out of everyone of us for your personal choices. Except if your are gay or muslim personal choices.
We need larger magazines more then the police.Afterall we’re more likely to be the victim of a violent assault.The police only get involved after the victim has been seriously injured or killed.
The majority of the time a police officer does’nt even draw his weapon.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for people to have weapons to hunt or even protect themselves, their families and their property from criminals. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from the U.S. Government. That fact was even acknowledged within the last year or two by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, commonly called the Ninth Circus.
Personally, I no longer hunt. I use a Remington 870 12 gauge and a S&W model 66 .357 for home defense. I also have long weapons which will take 20 and 30 round magazine; my semi-automatic handguns have 15 round magazines.
Why, you might ask? Simply put, I believe that no one can better protect me, my family, my property and my family’s interests than me. And each possible challenge might be better remedied with a different weapon than those I use for home defense.
The second reason is quite simple. The U.S. Constitution says I have the right to own them. Enough said.
But what’s the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip?
Dozens of bad guys?
Under the Second Amendment, I can own a first-rate naval vessel, a tank, a fighter jet, artillery, or even a large-capacity magazine for my personal defense weapon.
Do not infringe.
Why does the government need mags over 10 rounds then?
What wild west world does it live in?
Are they preparing for an eventuality the citizen would never encounter?
WOW I am surprised you even had to ask that. Of course the cops life is more important than miserable peon slave to the Fed life. /s
Has anyone asked if the governor of CT has instructed the police who protect him to use 10 round clips and nothing else?
Whenever a lefty asks,
“Why do you want magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?”
1) Shouldn’t a homosexual like Mathew Shepard be able to protect themselves from a ‘hate crime’ about to be committed by 15 angry gay bashers??
2) Shouldn’t a ‘person of color’ in the south be able to protect themselves from ‘rednecks’ about to tie the person of color to a truck bumper and drag them to their death like in Jasper Texas??
3) Shouldn’t a woman preparing to exercise her “reproductive rights” be able to fend off 20 Christian Taliban members led By Sarah Palin who are going to bomb a Planned Parenthood Clinic or commit violence??
To other readers: Travis and I have a little bet going about a possible federal ban of magazines of more than 10 rounds by citizens who are not police or military.
Travis McGee (AKA the famous author Matt Bracken of the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy and the upcoming Castigo Cay action thriller) forecast that magazines over 10 rounds would be banned by the end of this year, 2011. I am a bit more optimistic, and set up a wager that they would not be banned, because President Obama just doesn't have the political capital to do it.
If I am wrong, I will buy a case of Castigo Cay. If I am right, Matt will ship me a signed case of Castigo Cay free of charge. Either way, I get a case to distribute to family and friends this Christmas. I love to set up a win-win situation!
While I hope that Matt loses this bet, he is a strong intellect that I respect. If he loses, it won't be because the domestic enemies who want to destroy our Constitutional Republic won't be trying. Castigo Cay is a page turner that will keep you up all night, if you let it. I have read the excerpt that Matt has on his web site, and I am eagerly looking forward to the complete book.
Why? The 2nd Amendment is very clear that such a law would be unconstitutional.
Hey Rick! Tell me what is the limit specified in the 2nd Amendment?
Better question, why do you not want me to have additional firepower? The only reason that someone would try to disarm someone else would be to exert control over them.
As for how much firepower do I really need, all I have to say is this.
Indeed. Under such a law, the next deranged leftist psycho who wants to go on a shooting spree will just bring multiple guns.
There are alot of 33 round mag Glock owners and very very few of them go out and shoot people. However, mental people allowed on the street because it is too cruel to lock them up, have a very high potential for attacking and killing innocent people. That is the real issue with the AZ shooting. Furthermore, frequently kids are put on drugs for behavioral issues. Many of them end up attacking people or killing themselves. Going after a gun and its magazine capacity is not the solution, but dealing with dangerous mentally ill people and how doctors’ prescribe mind altering drugs to kids with behavioral problems is.
I must say I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a national push by the grabboids to ban “high capacity” magazines by now.
THEY SAY: Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You dont need a 30 round magazine for hunting deer. Theyre only for killing people.
WE SAY: We compete in DCM High Power with an AR-15 or M1A. You need a large capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle and Ive never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me wa wa wa wa wa (a la adults in Peanuts cartoons). This is FLAWED as you have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban your firearms with no sporting use. Eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade game substitutes.
WE SHOULD SAY: Your claim that theyre only for killing people is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people and these devices obviously serve different purposes than firearms. To be precise, a high capacity military pattern rifle, shotgun or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself, my loved ones, my freedoms, my liberty and my Natural Rights, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom, liberty and Natural Rights is that theyre good practice for when they need to be protected from the overreaching tyranny of our government officials.
“Too much ammo” is like saying “too much liberty.”
What else is there to say?
Why stop at 10 rounds? The old J-Frames with 5 rounds has served us well for many years. But we could go farther and go back to single shot pistols..........
My personal preference would be a pocket pistol in 600 Nitro, with 50 rounds and no kick.
Makes the rest of the article irrelevant. It doesn't matter what your opinion is about what I do or don't need. It's none of your damn business.
A person’s needs is not something for the government to assess and dictate.
And why do they carry multiple mags, and practice changing mags as quickly as possible?
We might be surrounded by Obama forces and need the extra ammo!
IOW, we should be only allowed enough firepower to protect ourselves in a situation where everything fits the liberal template?
This is just Monday morning quarterbacking. How in the world can anyone predict in advance how a dangerous situation will play out? Total hubris.
Another point, which everyone is too chicken to say out loud. Our gun rights are to protect us from our government as well as criminals. What capacity mag do I need to defend my family and property from government thugs when they come? Can anyone spell Ruby Ridge?
Because the Second Amendment was never really about hunting or protecting your home from common criminals.
...it was actually about something much more important.
His cred drops to zero when he links the 2nd Amendment to hunting. Asking us civilians to do what police chiefs loftily ask us to do is also as arrogant and mindless as many of them are.
I too no longer hunt but I didn’t sell my guns. My only objection to hunting is that’s it’s gotten so #$&!! expensive! Love the ESPN hunting shows, though.
I always recall former (thank goodness) Sen. Bob Kerrey during the AWB debate holding up a Ruger Red label O/U and crooning “Beeeautiful gun!!!!” He then held up a semiautomatic AK and growled, “UUUgly gun!!!!”. adding that the AWB would have no effect on the freedom of owners of Beautiful Guns.
My Browning HP takes a 13 rd magazine, so I guess I’m one o’ dem `gun crazies’.
Another article where the left gets to set the premise that there is some ground where they get to start setting and tightening limits on our guaranteed freedoms. The bottom line is there is no argument. Your limit in personal armament is your pocket book and your ingenuity.
Lets try the argument that any government strong enough to give you security had to take it from someone else.
Trying to decide today between .40 with 13 rnd capacity, or a .45 that will only hold 10 +1. I’m thinking the .45 just because its a .45. Then hope for less than 11 zombies.
Actually, I think they are on to something here that can spread well beyond guns. For instance, I have three pair of shoes, two for daily use and one for dress. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone really needs more and it would save the live of countless cows if everyone were limited to three pairs of shoes. PETA would be pleased as well. Legislation couldn’t be that difficult. Think of all the money this would free up for necessary government programs.
And I am SO READY to read Castigo Cay! The teaser at Matthew's website is so good. I will buy several copies as soon as it comes out.
AND PLEASE: come out with a Kindle edition quickly!
When are these clowns going to finally recognize that if someone wants to do harm they will find a way...
Restricting anything to do with guns has NEVER changed crime. It only allows government to take more power.
I agree with your statement if you’ll allow me to say it this way. The 2nd Amendment is our God given right which the consittuition and bill of rights spell out as an individual right. It is a personal God given right like the first, which guarantees we can speak or worship as we(indivuals) choose.
Here are some questions for you Rick:
How much Free Speech do you need?
How much Freedom of the Press do you need?
How much Freedom of Religion (or freedom from religion) do you need?
How much Freedom of Assembly do you need?
How much right to property do you need?
How much Privacy do you need?
How much Freedom from Unreasonabl Search and Seizure do you need?
How much Freedom from self-incrimination do you need?
How much right to legal representation do you need?
How much right to a trial by jury do you need?
I could go on, but if you don't get my point by now you are a helpless idiot.
People need to keep pointing out the elitist attitude of our would-be “rulers”.
I’ve pointed it out to some hardcore, yet very shallow thinking leftists with some interesting results.
They AFFIRMED the right of the “ruling class” to have different rules than everyone else.
Well, at least I got down to the nub of the issue - now we can talk about if that is the right view of things or not instead of arguing about surface issues that are just the symptoms of the worldview problem.
I don’t hunt. I don’t like putting bullets in animals. No problems with people, though, which is why I can reach out a hand anywhere in the house and come back with a handgun :)).
rick green has a small, marxist penis...
Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004...
Blatant lie. About what we've come to expect from the Left.
They're preparing to encounter the citizens.
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.