Magazine Ammo Limits
Magazine Ammo Limits
Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America
gunlaws.com / Bloomfield Press
The lamestream media told you:
30-round magazines are too dangerous for the public to have. There is no legitimate use for large magazines. If this Tucson murderer had smaller magazines he would have done less damage. Magazines over ten rounds should be outlawed. Banning magazines over ten rounds will make you safer, even if the New York Times said, after the last magazine-size ban, that it had no impact on crime whatsoever. Just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again. Anyone can see that small magazines make you safe.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The 30-round magazine debate misses a key point.
Talking points for the 30-round firearm-magazine-size debate
Several legislators (state and federal) asked me for talking points
so when they face the media on the latest anti-gun-rights barrage
they have clear, cogent, common-sense responses. This is my reply
to their requests.
By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shootersNone of these arguments matter.
People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll,Will magazine-size bans feel good, as if you're really doing something? Yes.
Will they actually do something? No.
Will a magazine limit stop a murderer from carrying several guns? Of course not.Killing Is Fun!
Someone has to say it --
With constant Technicolor promotion of “the thrill of killing”
from Hollywood and TV, we can expect another homicidal rampage.
We must be ready to stop it when it inevitably occurs.
They're not deranged, they're imitating --
With Hollywood and the networks glorifying immoral behavior,
portraying killers as heroes to be emulated, and mourned when put down,
it's false to classify copycat crimes or killing sprees as mental disease.
The proper response to the recognition that people can go berserk
and cause mayhem is to foster a culture of marksmanship.
From army posts to grocery stores, homicidal attacks take place
in make-believe gun free zones. Paper signs do not deter murderers.
A phony gun-free zone made by posting a sign may feel good,
but it has been repeatedly proven to be extremely dangerous and negligent.
A person who posts a no-guns-allowed sign should be liable
if it causes any harm. See the model legislation at gunlaws.com.
gunlaws.com - Gun Free Zone Bill and Review
Murderous carnage has nothing to do with magazine size
and everything to do with opportunity. Crowds of unarmed people
offer murderers a field day.
If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any.
Laws do not stop crime.
Law enforcement stops crime.
Politically Corrected Glossary
Always frame the debate as pro rights vs. anti rights,
never as pro gun vs. anti gun, which yields ground to the antis.
This is a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights.
Always talk about discreet carry, a cultural and civilized norm,
never about concealed carry, which sounds like you have something to hide.
Always refer to personal sidearms, a neutral and non-inflammatory term,
never to handguns, a word that has been vilified beyond usefulness.
Remember that assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.
The media loves that word because it spins the debate to their liking,
and makes firearms automatically bad, instead of true focus on bad actors.
Assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.
Always ask a person who questions assault-weapon possession
what guns they're talking about exactly. They do not know.
Any weapon you can own is an ordinary household firearm,
the type you might find in any American household.
Don't waste time and audience attention correcting ignorant reporters
who talk about clips or bullets. Let them remain self-evidently ignorant.
See the entire Glossary at gunlaws.com.
Excellent post, I especially liked this quote.
Very well thought out. Thanks.
As long as they're banning things, they need to ban paper because it makes those nasty paper cuts. :rolleyes:
Good read. Maybe some politicians in MA should read the augmentative points. Then I wouldn't have to pay $25 for pre-ban mags.
Well, the issue isn't banning them. The issue is making them unavailing to anyone, including criminals. Otherwise they're just wasting time. I agree that there is no need for the public to have access to a 30 round magazine. Banning things doesn't solve anything.
the public has more right to high capacity magazines than the military or police does.
Well done Cane!! A well thought out response, as usual. Thank you for posting it.
It IS about control.
Some years back, a State representative introduced a law baning anti-tank guns here in VA. So...... what's not to love? Just a common sense thing, right? Hell, nobody NEEDS and anti-tank gun- right?
Problem- bill defined anti-tank gun as "capable of firing a round of ammunition that will penetrate an armored vehicle." Okay...........but failed to define "armored vehicle". Oh, say, there's one over there- an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier. Aluminum armor. Intended to stop artillery, mortar, and grenade fragments- not direct fire weapons. Standard military rifle loaded with AP bullets will zip right thru it.
Now, could we have a word about your anti-tank rifle? All of you that own a .308, 30-06, 8mm Mauser, Moisin-Nagant, SMLE, or Arisaka, line up over on the left.
We'll be back for the rest later.
Good read, thanks for posting it Cane.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 AM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.