Magazine Ammo Limits

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by canebrake, Feb 20, 2011.

  1. canebrake

    canebrake New Member

    Magazine Ammo Limits

    Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America / 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.

    Depriving the public of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided because it cannot work. It puts you at risk, and at its core, is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines -- in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals.

    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.

    The Crux

    By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shooters
    you jeopardize everyone's safety.

    Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic.

    Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two?

    Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense.

    Would you make police obey the same limit? Why not? This is key.

    Parity with Police:
    The public faces the same criminals police do.
    Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use.
    The public is always first at the scene.

    If you can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits,
    you cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.

    What's needed to stop rampages is not another law written on paper,
    but speedier law enforcement, or any armed people who can respond.

    A criminal can't have a magazine of any size. A law restricting size adds nothing.​

    None of these arguments matter.
    People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll,
    using the Tucson assassinations for momentum.
    They want any kind of gun bans they can get, regardless
    of crime fighting, public safety, logic or reason.
    Magazine size is merely the soup du jour.
    They are emotionally compromised.

    Limiting the amount of ammunition a person has for self defense is dangerous.
    Standard magazines in modern pistols like the police use hold 17 rounds or more.

    The only way to stop a lethal attack is with countervailing force.

    The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public,
    but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible.

    People are always the first responders.
    Police are second responders.
    We face the same criminals.
    We both need the best tools we can get.

    We know that laws banning murder and armed criminals don't stop criminals.
    Why would you want to do more of the same when you know it doesn't work?
    (Because it's a hoplophobic response, not a rational one.)

    An infringed-capacity magazine violates your civil rights.

    Confiscating or banning normal magazines you already own
    is a direct violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

    Infringing on the size of a magazine doesn't stop crazy people.
    Imagining that it somehow will, now that's crazy.​

    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.

    Will it prevent swapping out magazines? How do you propose controlling that?

    Infringing on magazine size has no effect on the millions of magazines already out there.

    Limiting the public doesn't limit criminals. It just limits the public.

    Trying to stop crime or crazy people by limiting magazine size can't work.
    In fact, we tried that, for ten years under president Clinton's size ban.
    It's a proven failure. The NY Times admitted this.
    New York Times Describes Bogus Reports.

    Resurrecting a proven failure reveals that the magazine-size debate
    is about bans, not about public safety.

    The public should have at least as much ammunition as police can have.

    Because people face the same criminals police do,
    we have an honest need for equal gear.

    Attacking the right to an uninfringed magazine because of one assassin
    is a political game, not a meaningful solution to homicidal rampages.

    Using a tragic homicidal assault for leverage against civil rights is reprehensible.

    Using tragedy to advance a political agenda
    aimed at incrementally disarming the public
    is the ugliest underbelly of politics. It's shameful.​

    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 - 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
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2011
  2. gregs887

    gregs887 New Member

    Excellent post, I especially liked this quote.

  3. CA357

    CA357 New Member Supporter

    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:
  4. dnthmn2004

    dnthmn2004 New Member

    Good read. Maybe some politicians in MA should read the augmentative points. Then I wouldn't have to pay $25 for pre-ban mags.
  5. Polygon

    Polygon New Member

    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.

    Great thread!
  6. JonM

    JonM Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    the public has more right to high capacity magazines than the military or police does.
  7. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    Well done Cane!! A well thought out response, as usual. Thank you for posting it.
  8. spittinfire

    spittinfire Active Member Supporter

  9. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    As the man said, gun control ain't about guns.
    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.
  10. Car54

    Car54 New Member

    Good read, thanks for posting it Cane.

    IGETEVEN New Member

    Good read Boss, words of wisdom and points to ponder indeed. :cool:
  12. Benning Boy

    Benning Boy New Member

    "Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two?"

    This has been gnawing at me for a long time....

    How did 10 become a magic number?

    For that matter, how do people come up with capacity numbers at all? A 16 round mag? A 33?

    If a higher capacity means a greater chance of mechanical failure, aren't they "safer" the higher you go?

    The maniac who gets the 75 round magazine will likely have a failure first, so shouldn't 75 round magazines be mandatory?
  13. dnthmn2004

    dnthmn2004 New Member

    I see no problem with 30 round magazines, but I can't justify a 75 or 100 round drum. There is no point to those unless you attend Knob Creek gatherings.
  14. Polygon

    Polygon New Member

    I just don't see it that way. Perhaps I'm missing something? I can see a need for the military to have a large magazine for a handgun as there is a possibility of dealing with a lot of targets.

    I don't see that need with for civilians.
  15. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    You should be allowed any mag you want. Just because you don't like or see a point to them doesn't mean someone else shouldn't have them. That line of thinking is what has got us into this mess in the first place.

    Wait till the greens start on us. I can hear it now we don't like gas guzzling corvettes so nobody should have one.

    I don't see any point to spending thousands more for an under powered Harley but I don't give a damn if someone else wants one, it's their business.

    I don't like spinach so what now we don't let anybody eat spinach. Come on guys you are falling for the same old tired crap these libs believe in. It's suppose to be a free country but they are brainwashing us slowly but surely.

    I'm currently living in a previously commie country and I swear these people have more freedoms than we do in the states. Nobody cares if they play with firecrackers cause it's their damn fingers if they want to blow them off that's ok with everyone else.

    Personally as long as nobody is stepping on my toes they can do what they want to themselves it's none of my business.
  16. Polygon

    Polygon New Member

    I would agree with most of your post but it's comparing apples to oranges. I can't stand the whole green movement with a passion. I have two cars which have no other purpose that driving obnoxiously fast. They aren't practical in any way. However, guns have a pretty singular purpose. They are intended to be used to kill other things. While cars are intended to get from point A to B. One is pretty benign, the other isn't.

    I will also agree that I'm sick and tired of the liberal agenda. But the problem we have is that nobody is willing to find a middle ground. One side feels they have the right to do whatever they want while the other feels you have the right to nothing. I'm not supporting banning these, as I have stated, that will do nothing. Both sides are thinking in absolutes, all or nothing. Neither will work in the end.

    JMO, I could be wrong.
  17. Benning Boy

    Benning Boy New Member

    Pretty narrow view of the purpose of the gun.

    I fire a couple hundred rounds a month, without killing anyone. For sporting hunting, competition.
  18. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    Automobile accidents kill more people each year in the US than people shooting each other. Speed is a decisive factor in many auto accidents. I think there is no need to have a car that goes over the speed limit, but that does not mean I don't think cars should be governed to that limit.

    Several states have magazine cap limits and that does not stop the criminals from getting them and using them. If I want to get a 30+ round magazine for any firearm I have, then why should I not get one. More shooting time at the range and less reloading.

    Most states already have cap limits on hunting firearms. Game is what firearms are used to kill by a vast majority. I have guns that I use to hunt and guns that I have just in case I need to protect myself and my family. So, your "guns have a single purpose and that is to kill" agruement null and void.

    Excellent pose, Cane. :D
  19. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    I don't know where everyone is buying all these "killer" guns and ammo and magazines and knives and swords and "stuff".

    None of mine have ever killed anyone.

    My .308 took down a couple of hogs as part of a controlled hunt a few years ago, but it didn't do it by itself, as a matter of fact I had to do all the friggin work.

    The hell?!

    I got to start shopping at better places apparently.... :cool:
  20. gregs887

    gregs887 New Member

    None of my guns has ever killed a living creature, unless you count cardboard zombies and clay discs. I only ever use them at the range to target shoot, does that mean I'm using them wrong?