Canadian [Not Shown] Perplexed by High Cap Mags

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Dp9Ht3qwU&feature=player_embedded

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.

84 Responses to Canadian [Not Shown] Perplexed by High Cap Mags

  1. You are making the unwarranted assumption that your opposition will only be one person.

    http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-would-anyone-need-30-round-clip.html

  2. avatarTCBA_Joe says:

    Jim, I’d ask, what’s a “regulation clip”?

    For a intermediate cartridge rifle (AR, AK) it’s 30 rds. For a “battle rifle” type rifle (FAL, AR-10) it’s 20 rds. A 1911 is 7-8 rds while a Glock 17 is 17 rds. A pistol caliber carbine is around 30 rds, and a PS90 is 50 rds.

    Tactics determine what’s acceptable magazine capacity. I can understand saying a pistol magazine that extends past the pistol grip may be excessive, however, if you’re carrying a pistol, one should not handicap themselves if there’s room in the grip for more.

    Excessive for practicality comes when it’s no longer feasible for THAT specific purpose. Concealed carry of a G17 with G18 mags is excessive. A bedstand G17 with a G18 mag is prudent. One can blather on about being accurate, but until one’s adrenaline is pumping and they must fire shots in anger, you can’t make an abstract judgement of mag limit capacity. Plus, how many aggressors are you facing? Will a 5-shot wheelgun be enough when 5 dudes kick down your door? You better be be so good you make head shots on every person.

    The whole arguement is moot however. People who wish to limit mag capacity don’t want you to have guns period, and cloak themselves in “sensible”. Those gun owners who conceed to 10 rd mags are compromisers. You can’t put abstract limits on magazines when limits are determined by weapon style, use, and situation.

    And, one more note, your “warzone” arguement. In addition to the self-defense arguements above, our 2A is purposed to give civilians the ability to own fighting weapons. The fact that one doesn’t see use outside of a combat zone is one of the best reasons to own (so-called) “high-cap” magazines. I have a constitutuional right to own a mortar or 40mm M203 as well, even though they have no self-defense purpose.

    • avatarMagoo says:

      “I have a constitutuional right to own a mortar or 40mm M203 as well, even though they have no self-defense purpose.”

      If you are referring to the United States Constitution, no, you don’t. You’re way out beyond the lunatic fringe of constitutional theory on that one.

      • avatarsupton says:

        You’re right–it’s not a right. It’s just not prohibited, Constitutionally.

      • avatarwillford says:

        @magoo you best do a little more reading. The 2 Amendment does say we are the MILITIA for the USA. We are not supposed to have a standing army. Adult males from 16 to 45 are the army. We are supposed to have what would be considered MILITARY type weapons. READ SOME MORE!

      • avataririshcoonass says:

        Right to own military weapons (or high-capacity magazines)? During the American Revolution, merchants risked their lives and their privately owned vessels (which were necessarily equipped with privately-owned state-of-the-art cannon, mortar, powder, shot and muskets) to run the British blockades. To suggest the Framers of our Constitution would have willing placed any restrictions upon the type of weapons/powder/shot/military accoutrements that private individuals might “keep and bear” in order to assist in this fight for survival against tyranny is patently ludicrous.
        Additionally, one might ask the Korean/American businessmen (during the Los Angeles riots), who found themselves and their buisnesses threatened by fire-bomb-weilding mobs, exactly what limitations they would be willing to accept on the number of live rounds their personal armaments should be able to contain. Needless to say, the police forces who were unwilling to enter the area to “protect and serve” the abandoned businessmen and their failies shouldn’t be given a voice in that decision.
        Note: SCOTUS has consistently ruled the police are not responsible for your safety…or mine.
        “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington, Commander Continental Armed Forces, U.S. President, British Traitor

      • avatarBobC says:

        Privately owned cannons figured importantly in the Revolutionary War. There is one on display (with the owner’s name engraved on it) at the top of the Bunker Hill Monument in Boston.

        That such weapons were in private hands was well known to the framers of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was written to preserve this right, not to create it — hence, it should apply to all weapons, period.

        People also had privately owned warships — that’s why Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal…”

        The Framers of the Constitution were, in the Second Amendment, trying to preserve the right of the people to be armed — not armed less effectively than the government, or armed for small game hunting, etc.

        The explicit purpose of the Second Amendment, according to many writings of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., was to keep the government “fearful of the people”, as they judged this to be the most effective method of maintaining liberty.

        While there may be a number of (currently) free countries that prohibit civilian ownership of firearms to one degree or another, there are no tyrannies that neglect to disarm the public.

      • avatarDennis III says:

        Magoo, you do not know the history of the COTUS or the wording of the Second Amendment . The 2nd, says nothing about personal defence not one word,What it does say is “For The Security of a Free State”, How can Freemen and Women stay Free without the tools to do so. Also the U.S. Government did sell and loan CANNON to the earliest Western Settlers when this country expanded to the Western Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and Indiana Setelments.

  3. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Anyone who doesn’t feel they need a hi cap mag should just buy standard mags, and those of us who like variety will buy what ever we please. There are to many gun grabbers who love telling us all how we should run our lives.

  4. avatarMagoo says:

    We have to start somewhere so let’s start here: Put the kibosh on extended magazines for the Glock. Standard capacity is plenty for civilians and 99.9 percent of all law enforcement applications. If you need more, your target acquisition skills should be under serious review. These mags are not even available over the counter in most of the civilized world; only in America and some third-world countries.

    • avatarsupton says:

      Define “plenty”. Is six plenty and seven criminal; or is 17 plenty and 18 criminal, or …

      • avatarMagoo says:

        That’s a false argument, isn’t it? In nearly all issues of regulation, precise numbers are to some degree arbitrary. Why 18 to vote? Maybe 18 years, 9 months is better. A practical point to place a limit on pistol magazine capacity is with the standard magazine. As in no extended magazines permitted.

        What would be really great is if this could be accomplished without legislation. Like if gun enthusiasts rose up and said: We don’t want this antisocial garbage in our sport. We’re not buying it. It offends our standards of social responsibility and reflects badly on us among the general public, making us look like a bunch of infantile lunatics. Go sell that crap somewhere else.

        • Here’s a false argument…

          Because a line *could* be drawn, a line *should* be drawn.

          The correct argument is, line drawers bear the burden of proof to show the place they draw their line is appropriate, within the power of the government, and solves more problems than it causes.

          “I don’t like it” isn’t a legal argument and never has been.

        • avatarWes says:

          It’s not a false argument at all. Why do citizens only need “standard capacity”? Why don’t they only need 10 rounds? Or only 5? Or only 1? Next we’ll hear “Why does anyone need a semi-auto?” “Why does anyone need more than a single-shot shotgun?”

          If the goal is supposedly to keep big magazines out of the hands of criminals, then I’d have to ask how that ban on certain drugs and other things has been going.

        • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

          It offends you, and those of us who want hi cap mags don’t really care if your offended (or any other gun hater). You gun grabbers need to worry about running your own lives and leave us alone.

        • avataririshcoonass says:

          McGoo, that “…reflects badly on us with the general public” argument is a slippery slope of the worst sort. With friends like you, who needs enemies. Do me a favor: don’t be on my side!
          “When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose.” – Rep. Marie Parente
          “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” – Thomas Pynchon (Gravity’s Rainbow)

        • avatarJim says:

          So the standard magazine capacity for a Glock 21 is 13. The standard capacity for a Glock 30 is 10, but the G21 mag will fit in the G30 but extends past the mag well. Would this then be illegal in your misguided world. It is a “standard” capacity magazine after all.

    • avatarPatriot Henry says:

      We have to start somewhere so let’s start here:

      Where are you going with that limit? To hell in a handbasket.

      Put the kibosh on extended magazines for the Glock. Standard capacity is plenty for civilians and 99.9 percent of all law enforcement applications.

      So it’s okay with you if we have 30 round AR magazines? But a 30 round Glock magazine should get prison time?

      If you need more, your target acquisition skills should be under serious review.

      One can acquire the target in zero shots. However, paper targets need a great many shots before they are lifeless.

      These mags are not even available over the counter in most of the civilized world; only in America and some third-world countries.

      Since others are less free we should be less free too?

      There are some dry counties in America still – they don’t even sell that poison called alcohol – shouldn’t we all be as “civilized” as those who treat a beer like a mugging?

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Magoo (gotta love that handle…were you acknowledging that you can’t see the forest for the trees, or is it simply ironic?), let’s take this out of the firearms arena see if I can help you see the light of day, metaphorically speaking. Ever go house-hunting? I have. And the number one thing on my ex-spouse’s list was not a pool, a spa, a nice big room for my office, or even an efficient layout for the kitchen. It was…wait for it…closet space. It seems that you can never have enough of it. Cartridges are a lot like that. Let’s say you have to defend yourself. Only there’s not ONE guy coming at you and your family, but three or four. Are you seriously going to tell me it’s okay for me to have a gun to defend them, but limit how many rounds I can carry?

      Don’t like that metaphor? Here’s another. I do some home repair/remodeling work from time to time. I judge my success rate on how many trips I have to make to Home Depot to get the job done. The fewer the trips, the better I do. Let’s say I’m framing a wall. I know I need wallboard, nails, 2 x 4′s, a hammer, saw, tape measure, et cetera. If I run out of nails mid-project, I’ve got to stop what I’m doing, dust myself off, climb into the Jeep, run to the store (if it’s open…I work odd hours), buy the nails, then get back into the job. It’s a pain. The magazine capacity issue is much the same thing, the difference being, it could well be a life-or-death situation. Now I’m not going to claim that I would carry a 30-round magazine with my 1911. But I’m looking to buy a Springfield XD that comes with two “stock” magazines – a 10 round and a 13-round. By the “Progressive” definition, the 13-round should be illegal, even though it’s factory equipment. Why? An arbitrary and capricious standard, designed to make Liberals feel like they’ve Done Something® about gun control, while thoroughly inhibiting the usefulness of my weapon.

      Oh, and, for the record, I own a 30-round magazine – for my daughter’s Ruger 10-22 rifle. The 10-round, rotary magazine that they supply takes forever and a day to load, and really cuts into our range time. The 30 round magazine (or what you’d call a “clip”) lasts three times longer between reloads and makes for a lot more fun for my daughter at the range.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        Brad, I am afraid that our views on guns are diametrically opposed and will forever clash. I knew that when I first saw your blog photo with the Timothy Dalton impression. That is not at all what firearms represent to me and that is not how I visualize myself with a gun. Guns are not toys, gags, photo props, or signifiers of sexual prowess. Guns are useful and incredibly lethal tools.

        I was taught about guns by my father. If, when I was a boy, he had discovered such a photo of me, he would make sure I never touched a firearm again while under his roof. The photo would indicate to him that all the lessons he had taught were lost on me, that I just didn’t get it — in his eyes, clear evidence of impenetrable stupidity. Seriously: I would rather he found a photo of me with my head stuck up a cow’s ass so I could like less of an idiot to him. Guns are for our use and enjoyment, but the instant they become a joke, the fun often ends in useless and tragic violence. That’s what my father taught me.

        So chances are I am never going to get you, and you are never going to get me. We operate from totally different frames of reference. As I get older I find myself more understanding of various points of view on many things. However, this is not one of them. This will be forever ingrained in me: Guns are not toys. Guns are not sexy. Guns are not jokes. Maybe I take the matter too seriously. Maybe you don’t take it seriously enough. But one thing for sure: guns mean something totally different to you than they do to me. And what guns represent to you, judging from your photo at least, gives me the impression that you might have a screw loose.

        • Wow. Kozak has a screw loose and is afflicted with impenetrable stupidity. Not only that, but he’s also under the impression that guns are either toys, gags, photo props, or signifiers of sexual prowess.

          And that’s all evident from looking at his avatar picture. It must be a heavy burden having such heightened powers of perception and intuition. How do you manage to get through the day?

        • avataririshcoonass says:

          Ooh, McGoo! When the best you have to offer is a personal attack, you might want to rethink the proposition.

      • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

        I love you Brad, you said it better than I ever could.

    • avatarBugei says:

      No, Magoo. We’re not starting anywhere. We “started” in 1934 and it’s all downhill on the slippery slope since then. I’m not in the mood to give another inch.

      The “need” for a 30-round or a 100-round mag is completely irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson is going to come out of his grave and start beating people with a shovel if they don’t get the concept that the Second Amendment does not contain any exceptions. Not any. If they wanted exceptions, they would have put them there. And any restrictions that were placed on that right by subsequent legislation are:
      a) completely without merit legally, a product of judges and their larvae, the lawyers.
      b) a symptom of a government that want to hold your arms while bad guys gut you like a fish.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        Thomas Jefferson had no role in writing the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He was in Paris in those years serving as U.S. Minister to France. But I guess I can sort of follow what you mean… must be like that bit in Animal House where Bluto says the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor.

        But in any case, Jefferson would be amazed to hear that the Second Amendment has no exceptions or is not subject to regulation. As would the rest of the founders, especially Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights. That would be genuine news to them.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          Again – the only limits are on ACTUAL abuses.

          Not things that COULD lead to abuses.

        • avatarMagoo says:

          Nope, we’ve had gun control regulations since the birth of the republic — or Jeffersonian democracy, as you prefer.

          Naturally, as firearms became more powerful and effective, the regulations have been formulated in reply. Essentially, the 1934 act was enacted in response to the Thompson Submachine gun. People don’t get any smarter or more responsible, on the whole, while firearms technology ever advances. If you think about it for a second, a Glock with an extended magazine and modern ammo has more effective killing power than the Thompson.

        • avatarBill says:

          What ARE you smoking Magoo? You have a very selective view of history, one that obviously clouds your opinions.

          The 1934 Gun Control Act was NOT in response to the Thompson, but in response to the criminals using them to murder other criminals during the immoral “War On Alcohol”, another government program that did nothing but give rise to organized crime. As a typical anti, you conflate the matter with an inanimate object instead of the unsocial behavior of a few.

          The 9mm Glock handgun with an extended (30 round) magazine has more effective killing power than a .45 ACP Thompson submachine gun with a 100 round magazine? Really? On what bizarro planet is that?

          Based on your postings, you are neither a gun owner nor do you know much about the history of these united States.

        • avatarMagoo says:

          Perhaps you haven’t really considered the comparison until now. Essentially, it comes down to 33 rounds of 21st-century JHP vs 20/30 rounds of 1934 ball ammo. There were drum mags for the TSMG (some models) but they had significant feed problems and eliminate any possibility of concealment.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          And yet the drum mags were still used by both federal and criminal elements…

          don’t tell me you’ve never heard of a violin or cello case…

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          Plus ammo technology hasn’t really changed much over the past century – a bullet is still a bullet and you wouldn’t want to get shot no matter what.

        • avatarDennis III says:

          Magoo, again you are WRONG the 1934 Lawabout what CRIMINALS were doing not what most people were doing. Why is it that gun grabers want to infringe on my rights for the actios of criminals.

    • avatarjk says:

      Fortunately, Mr. Magoo, it is not up to you. BTW, your terms are a bit mixed up: A “standard” capacity Glock 17 magazine is 17 rounds. A “limited” or “restricted” capacity magazine is 10. Your arguments reveal the despotism in your character as well as your lack of education. Given your comments, I find it impossible to assign any credibility to you whatsoever.

  5. avatarjustin says:

    High capacity magazine ban isn’t so much about the magazine itself but the potential segway that allowing it gives to those who seek to remove guns all together. It becomes a slippery slope once the gun control advocates start to gain traction with new legislation on guns. Since it is unlikely that a new brady bill will be allowed through a Republican house, they will try the death by a thousand cuts method and pick around the periphery of guns until there is nothing left.

  6. avatar67dodgeman says:

    How about a slightly different perspective. Fun. Guns are fun. The biggest kick for me isn’t self-defense, or 2nd amendment, it’s loading a 50 round extended clip in my Ruger 10-22 (.22 rimfire rifle) and mowing down the opposition in quick fashion. Of course the opposition consists of those fascist tin cans, pinko commie clay pigeons, dastardly paper plates, and the worst of the worst, that damn swinging pendulum thang where, if I time it and hit it just right, I can get it swinging end over end repeatedly. When faced with this onslaught, 10 round mags just don’t cut it.

    There simply isn’t a good enough reason to deny me this fun. It won’t make any statistical difference to crime prevention, it won’t make the police any safer, it won’t stop the mass murderers at all. Why limit me for nothing? I’m not facing the tin can army with a puny 10 rounder just so you can feel (falsely) safer.

  7. avatar2yellowdogs says:

    How about we start the discussion by getting our terms right? Unless you’re shooting a Garand or something similar, they’re magazines. It may be a minor point, but not knowing enough to use the proper name for the thing you’re writing about diminishes your credibility from the start.

    As for the, um, arguments you make against what I can only assume is any magazine that holds more than ten rounds, let’s take them one at a time, shall we?

    1) You acknowledge the need to match capacity with a potential attacker, then immediately dismiss it as “a head-scratcher” apparently because this is merely a worst-case scenario. True, most of us will never face “a psycho with a big clip” but does that mean no one should be allowed to adequately defend himself in that situation?

    2) Then there’s the accuracy argument. Because most of us seem to be “pretty good with (our) weapons of choice” we should apparently be able to dispatch attackers with no more than an accurately placed shot or two, then pause to blow the smoke from our barrels and mix another shaken-not-stirred martini.

    I’ve never been in a combat situation and it seems clear you haven’t, either. I’ve read enough to know, however, that humans under stress, no matter how well-trained, experience increased heart rate, tunnel vision and reduced hand-eye coordination. All of which blasts their otherwise Annie Oakley-like shooting skills all to hell. That means you’re not going to be able to shoot a fly off an ear if your home is invaded at three in the morning

    And what about the lesser-trained among us? Should the granny defending herself from the coked-up home invader be limited in rounds, too? Or would you impose a progressive ‘tax’ on firepower whereby shooters are limited to smaller magazines as their skills increase?

    3) Then you , er, address two of the pro arguments; the camel’s nose under the tent and the Boy Scout motto. Dismissively conceding that there’s “a certain degree validity” to both of them won’t have anyone pushing others out of the way in order to jump on the ‘reasonable capacity’ capacity bandwagon. These are, in fact, the two most prominent reasons those of us opposed to the limits fight so hard against them.

    Our second amendment freedoms are a constant source of wonderment and ridicule to those from other lands. They knowingly shake their heads and take comfort in their elevated, more evolved and refined societies. I have an idea. Why don’t you simply choose to live and be well in your violence-free utopia? Leave America and its neanderthal inhabitants to our barbaric, wild-west traditions. I’m sure, given our gun culture, we’ll soon kill ourselves off and leave all of this to sophisticates such as yourself who can then bring civilization to a country that has so sorely been missing it.

  8. avatarmiforest says:

    When you consent to ” need” the game is over. nobody “needs ” a motorcycle, we have cars and busses. nobody “needs” a boat, leave the fish alone and stay on dry land , lots of people drown while boating. Once you allow somone else to decide what you “need ” they are in complete control. Nobody “needs ” alcohol,tobacco, fast cars, snomobiles, motorcycles, or silicone implants.

    Look at Virginia tech or the tuscon tradgedy , have you ever noticed that there are a couple of common threads in these events.
    1. clearly the Prerp. was a paranoid schitzophrenic that was Very well kown to be a menace but Never in treatment .
    2. because None of the agencies that had delt with them had bothered to file the report they were not on the lists the FBI checks when doing a background check. If they had , the existing laws would have prevented a legal purchase of a firearm .
    3. any police agency can detain you and ask a judge to have you remanded to a mental health facility for a manditory evaluation if they believe you are a threat to yourself or others. Judges almost NEVER refuse these requests. This was never done evev though these guys have long history of run ins with police.

    So you tell me, why is the focus of the argument always ONLY gun laws ?

  9. avatarBen Shotzberger says:

    Here’s a simple comment… how about convenience?

    I regularly shoot a .22 semi-automatic rifle for fun and sport (Anniversary Ed. GSG5). It’s truly a blast to shoot. My one complaint – it takes longer to load the magazines than it does to expend the ammunition (at a completely reasonable rate of fire in a controlled manner for sporting purposes).

    Why should anyone care how many rounds of .22 I’m carrying in each magazine? Why is it anyone else’s business? .. Don’t use the answer “well, .22′s can be an exception because they’re .22..” … .22 is perfectly capable of killing..

    Completely ignoring the “psychopath” issue, and focusing on the sporting aspect (ie: “no sportsman needs 30 rounds”) .. “sport” doesn’t ALWAYS mean trudging through the woods after game animals..
    ..

    Also, in lieu of information published by the NTSB regarding “tired” driving and the number of car-related deaths each year that result from driving tired, I insist that we legislate restrictions on the size of gas tanks. No vehicle should be able to travel more than 50 miles without refueling. The added stops will help to keep our drivers awake, reduce “tired” driving.. and save lives. .. To hell with convenience of long-distance driving without refueling stops, the lives of our citizens are more important!!

  10. avatarGus says:

    What miforest said.

    Basically this comes down to that its no business of the government or anyone else to tell me what I need or should need. If you don’t want a 30 round magazine for your Glock, don’t buy one. If you do, go ahead and knock yourself out. But never allow the politicians, the ATF, or anyone else try to define what you need in a firearm or firearm accesssory. After all, the final position that these folks will arrive at is that no one needs a gun.

  11. avatarPatriot Henry says:

    What would be really great is if this could be accomplished without legislation. Like if gun enthusiasts rose up and said: We don’t want this antisocial garbage in our sport.

    What is anti-social about target practice and home defense?

    We’re not buying it. It offends our standards of social responsibility and reflects badly on us among the general public, making us look like a bunch of infantile lunatics. Go sell that crap somewhere else.

    Why would we suffer from your delusions?

  12. avatarPatriot Henry says:

    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.

    And if you saw someone at the range with 30 round magazines for their Glock, SKS, or AR?

    • avatarMagoo says:

      I’ve been around firearms all my life. There was a time when extended magazines and suchlike were considered nutcase hardware at the range or the gun clubs. They were the idiots, and folks tended to keep away from them. However, today that junk and the infantile mindset that goes with it is increasingly the norm. Traditional shooters — hunters, outdoor sportsmen — are aging and dying off, replaced with a new wave of gun enthusiasts obsessed with self-defense and wingnut politics. For the most part, these people can’t shoot, can’t think for themselves, and have a poor understanding of weapons science and firearms history. I am thinking of a word… wankers.

      • avatarsupton says:

        I wonder what the single shot musket guys thought about the repeaters, when they hit the scene.

        • Same as the “Fuds” think today.

          “Damn those young whippersnappers! In my day we had one shot, 2 minutes of horsing around reloading, and then it probably didn’t shoot again! And we liked it!”

          Magoo’s argument isn’t an argument about utility, nor about law, nor even about morality. It’s an argument about class. If you were the “good sort” like him, you wouldn’t WANT those terrible modern gun things. You’d be perfectly happy with a nice expensive wood stocked hunting rifle. He, like many on the left, believes that “High” capacity mags and “Assault Weapons” are signifiers of your innate moral and social corruption.

          ” a new wave of gun enthusiasts obsessed with self-defense and wingnut politics”

          He’s like many other old farts pissed off that the younger crowd isn’t looking to him for direction.

      • avatarPatriot Henry says:

        I’ve been around firearms all my life. There was a time when extended magazines and suchlike were considered nutcase hardware at the range or the gun clubs.

        I’ve been around phones all my life. There was a time when cell phones and such were considered drug dealer hardware.

        They were the idiots, and folks tended to keep away from them.

        No, actually they were the “early adopters”, the people who saw a great product and realized it’s value well ahead of the mainstream.

        However, today that junk and the infantile mindset that goes with it is increasingly the norm.

        Yes, that’s how the technology adoption curve works.

        Traditional shooters — hunters, outdoor sportsmen — are aging and dying off, replaced with a new wave of gun enthusiasts obsessed with self-defense and wingnut politics.

        To a certain degree – but there are also numerous reports of traditionalists trading in one of their hunting rifles for a black rifle.

        For the most part, these people can’t shoot, can’t think for themselves, and have a poor understanding of weapons science and firearms history. I am thinking of a word… wankers.

        What word would you use to describe an old person who rejects new technology solely because it is new and unfamiliar to them?

      • avataririshcoonass says:

        Hmmm? Since the definition of “infringed” remains the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, one wonders exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” remains beyond your comprehension, McGoo?

  13. avatarRalph says:

    Recently we saw a video of a shootout at a police station. The bad guy was armed with a shotgun. The four police who were involved were armed with their service pistols. I have no idea how many round were fired, but it took all four of those guns to bring the bad guy down. So, please, don’t tell me what I need to defend myself, because it insults my intelligence and make you look stupid.

    • avatarWes says:

      You brought up that example before I could. Man, that’s some crazy video. If “highly-trained officers of the law” needed that many rounds to fight One Guy At Point-Blank Range, then regular citizens should probably be carrying 50-round Glocks to be safe.

  14. avatarBen Shotzberger says:

    Laser sights should not be allowed on weapons either! They can cause blindness!! (gasp!!)

    … let’s wisen up a bit people.

    Does anyone legitimately believe that make high capacity magazines illegal is going to deter someone hell bent on doing something … ILLEGAL.. from using them?

    “Ohh I better not use a 30 round magazine to rob this bank .. they’re illegal! I wouldn’t want to break the law!”

  15. avatarLance says:

    Jim, I just want to say thanks for opening yourself up to this discussion. We don’t often have people who ask why we want/need 30 round mags who aren’t actively pushing an agenda to take them away.

    One possible use is breakdown of law and order. For those who say it can’t happen in this country, I point you to Katrina and its aftermath. Or a situation like what is taking place in Egypt, where when the police abandoned their posts, neighborhoods banded together to form their own militias/police force. Or one of the big riots that has happened in major cities across this country. In such cases I would like to have the chance to persuade any mobs/looters to seek an easier target.

    Home defense. Home invasions are rare, and ones with 3 or more bad guys even more so. However, they do happen and they are pretty high up on the list of things that don’t want to be unprepared for. And no one comes out of these situations wishing they didn’t have any extra ammo.

    Sports. 3-gun, IDPA, etc. may not be recognized by the ATF as sports yet, but their own shotgun study points out that their popularity rival that traditional sports like clay shooting. Many more people use these magazines for sport instead of spree shootings.

    And last, but what may honestly be the most common is fun. Loading mags isn’t really fun. Sending 30 rounds down range in a single string is. 67dodgeman is on to something. Against the hordes of tin cans and other plinking targets, nothing beats a big mag. Except a lot of big mags.

    And these reasons intermix with one another. I believe that the reason many of us get so riled up against so-call “common sense” measures is that guns are a passion for us. To many of us they represent a major source of fun, a way to challenge ourselves in a sport, a way to defend your way of life and your beliefs, and your last line of defense against the unthinkable.

    Some people look at a gun and see a harbinger of death and sorrow. Others look at a gun and see another tool, like a drill or saw. And there are many of us, who look at a gun and see an incarnation and symbol of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

  16. avatarRalph says:

    We recently saw video of a shootout at a police station. The bad guy was armed with a little .20 gauge shotgun. The four police involved in the shooting were armed with their service pistols. I don’t know how many shots were fired, but it took all four guns to put the bad guy down. So, pretty please, don’t tell me what I “need” to defend myself, because it insults my intelligence and makes you look stupid.

  17. avatarbobevans says:

    Here’s a thought, why not focus our efforts on the criminals, rather than the tools they use?

    Theoretical argument: let’s say absolutely every firearm of any type, every “destructive device,” every magazine of any size, every clip (can’t forget those clips!), every bullet, every shell casing (this is starting to remind me of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!) ….even every gun accessory (yes, even my beloved UpLula! :-) was confiscated and destroyed …for our safety. There! That should do it! No more crime!

    But aren’t we forgetting something …oh yeah, gotta get the knives off the street …and out of grandma’s cupboard (you know, the one we use to cut the turkey every year …that one too! ….and don’t forget those electric knives …criminals can be pretty crafty sometimes!). Okay, so we repeat the same process for knives that we did with ATFE stuff in the preceding paragraph. There! That should do it! Now, we’ll have no more crime on our streets!!! :-)

    “….uh ….excuse me sir, do you have a license for that putting wedge???” Really, stop the insanity !!! Will baseball bats be next??? Sheesesh!

  18. avatarWes says:

    “But the actual need for a giant clip is still a head-scratcher for me.”

    Start here: The main purpose of The Second Amendment is not about sport shooting or self-defense.

    Here’s another example: during WW2, the British government put ads in U.S. magazines asking private citizens to ship over their private firearms because Britain feared invasion and didn’t have enough guns. U.S. citizens responded, and were promised their guns back. After the war, the British government destroyed those guns and went back to keeping its citizens defenseless. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  19. I agree that the “need” argument is not a good one. If the larger magazines are banned it will be because of those increased lethality arguments. I’m not big on the either, but I can see that it’s not about needs it’s about wants.

  20. avatarPT says:

    What does need have to do with this? If you don’t need a standard capacity magazine, why doesn’t Canada lead the way and ban all magazines? Why not just use revolvers and single shot rifles?

    I have to get back to linking .308 for my M1919 BMG. I’m up to 175 by hand. My thumbs hurt.

  21. Why do the hoplophobic gun grabbers get to decide standard capacity? For the Glock 17, a 17 round mag IS standard. For the G19, a 15 round IS standard. These ARE NOT large capacity magazines.

    Let the market decide. Let me decide for myself.

    • avatar2yellowdogs says:

      Silly. How could a simple, bitter clinger like you possibly make an intelligent decision about what what you want and need? Leave it to your betters. They’re much more urbane and educated (or credentialed, at least) and therefore are in a much better position to make those kinds of decisions for all of us.

  22. avatarrybred says:

    i already posted this on the last hi-cap discussion, but i am surprised that being from canada you wouldn’t understand MY reason for wanting hi caps. although nobody should NEED any justification, here is another reason that hasn’t been brought up here:

    “i go hiking & climbing in remote areas sometimes and am more concerned about the 4 legged threats than humans. last time i was out there were 3 wolf/dog have breeds (beautiful creatures btw) that ran within 100yrds of us & i was definitely worried because i had a dog with me. if they DID threaten our safety, would i have felt safe with ONLY 10rds in my mag? that would leave me with just over 3 rounds per, and you WILL miss if they are charging. I know that i would not have time to reload. what if there are 4, 5 or 6? SCREWED is what i’d be…

    now the only reason i don’t carry a 30 rounder is because it is too unwieldy but you better believe i have more than 10, in fact i have double that.

    what about hunters gathering their kill? they need a sidearm for protection and wolf packs have been known to threaten and attack if hungry. you’ll need as MANY rounds as you can get against a pack of them or feral dogs. unfortunately many of those guys are not on this website to provide you with their reasons for needing adequate protection in the wild, but it IS a need.

    what about putting that 30 rd mag in a pistol caliber carbine? truth is very few people have been murdered with these hi-cap (30 plus) mags because they make it difficult to conceal the pistol in the first place, yet there are many who actually DO benefit from having that capacity.”

  23. avatarTravis says:

    It’s nice to not have to spend too much time reloading when you’re at the range that charges by the hour.

  24. “Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine?”

    “Why does anyone need a car with more than 100 horsepower?”

    “Why does any woman need the ability to get an abortion?”

    “Why does anyone need indoor plumbing?”

    “Why does anyone need a TV larger than 32-inches?”

  25. avatarRich says:

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, etc. Its about we the people( and in 1790′s that meant all able bodied people), able to defend against a tyranical government. That means we the people should have(keep) all the weapons to be carried(bare) that the Federal military has. It is estimated that Governments after citizen disarmament has killed 140,000,000 in the 20th century. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. Yes and you think it can’t happen here. Your wrong. You just don’t understand the full range of human abilities.

  26. avatarRich says:

    Thus the military has 100 rd beta mags, I have 100 rd beta mag. Its never been used for anything but fun. Never will be unless the drug gang that lives about 1 mile away breaks into my house. Thenn who knows how many rds we may need.

  27. avatarJohn says:

    “The concept of anybody outside of a war zone that actually needs a 30 round clip plumb evades me . . .”

    Does anyone really NEED 42 brands of toothpaste? Does anyone really NEED 14 brands of coffee? Does anyone really NEED 30 brands of automobile? Does anyone really NEED 18 airlines? These things all do basically the same thing so why don’t we just have the government tell us what we really NEED and have done with it? Sure would be easier having the “experts” tell us what we NEED and not having to decide for ourselves.
    /sarc

  28. avatarhomobangbangamus says:

    People who have been convinced by their educators, government and media, that the government should always be in charge, make all decisions, and always be consulted about everything, have at best, only a rudimentary understanding of freedom and liberty.

    That corrupted understanding, influences everything they think, do and say for the rest of their lives. That is the intent of those who succeeded in corrupting their thought processes. They then become WILLING servants. Willing servants are so much easier to control and predict.

  29. avatarJeff Dege says:

    The question isn’t whether I need a 30-round mag, the question is whether the government is justified in telling me that I can’t have a 30-round mag. And the fundamental principle is that the government is only justified in telling me that I cannot own a 30-round mag if it has specific evidence that my possessing a 30-round mag would present a threat.

    That is, not that there’s some statistical threat if “people” were allowed to own 30-round mags, but that I, as an individual, would pose a threat. The idea that one person’s freedoms can be restricted based on vague fears about what someone else might do should be anathema to everyone who cares about individual liberty.

    The debate over the 2nd amendment in the US began with the ‘The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents”, December 12, 1787. Which includes:

    “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals”.

    The only justification for limiting the right to keep and bear arms of any individual, in any way, is that that specific individual poses a threat.

    • avatarStarscream says:

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      This.

      And as a further to it; there’s generally only two reason why a government will generally try to enact further and further restrictive gun laws.

      1) Publicity in order to stay in power.
      2) Because the government see’s the people as a threat.

  30. avatarImaggio says:

    LEt me ask U a question, Canadian: Why the preoccupation with an object? and THIS object at that?

    Were u this way as a child? seriously… no pun. ‘Fixated’ & obsessed… {anal-retentive}.

    Why not fixate on REAL issues, like the advance of socialism in your country (& AMerica); Why O’ cant show a Birth certificate, or why the 2nd Amendment -a CIVIL not ‘gov’t-granted’ Right- REALLY EXISTS!!
    {Hint: Its not for Sporting reasons}

    As we say in AMerica: GET A LIFE!! : )

  31. avatarRob says:

    Guns are not all about “Defense” and “Combat Training”, they are also about (get this) fun. It seems pretty silly to deny law abiding citizens the thrill of unloading 30 rounds in a row, when obviously a criminal will not abide by these laws. So, essentially the government is denying a non-criminal, tax payer his or her way of enjoying his or her time. I’m not going to go tell a hobby photographer to limit his photo roll to 5 exposures. It’s a freedom issue. A Law abiding citizen SHOULD be trusted, until the individual proves otherwise. Once again, a gun owner is not a criminal, and if you look at the actual numbers, almost all gun owners are outstanding citizens that are simply enjoying a hobby. Criminals are criminals (What a crazy concept?), and they don’t care about magazine limits. It’s a fairly simple concept and it’s incredible Canadian politicians have missed this point.

  32. avatarNightmare says:

    As a Canadian? I am ashamed at my fellow countryman succombing to the disease of pussification, lackatestes and lackogunknowledgeitis.

    He also doesn’t speak for me.

    • avatarABgunner says:

      Right on Nightmare. I am saddened and sickened whenever I read such utter stupidity coming from another human being.

      Definitely, does not speak for me or mine.

  33. avatarShortandlong says:

    here are a few things to consider when reading the above article/drivel
    Mag cap restrictions DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 1991!!!!

    Does that mean in 1990 “hi cap” mags where Canadian?
    Social engineering at its finest!

    Also I thought intent was everything not ownership.

  34. avatarMr Kilroi says:

    This twat is the net end result of 40 years of Liebral progressive educational system. Our erstwhile Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau eradicated the teaching of English History in our schools. He was a card carrying Communist that seduced a nation and hijacked a National Party. The damage is done and today we are fighting to regain what we lost at the hands of his minions.

    We in Canada have the English Bill of Rights as part of our Constitution which the poobahs have worked over time at keeping a secret. We also have a Country full of people that just don’t get the concept of Freedom and individual rights that are inherent and self evident. Its not their fault they just were not born to the idea like we that come from British stock or that grew up in freedom and democracy.

    The twat blathers on about mag capacity yet unbeknown to him we can legally own grenade launchers, if he did I’m sure he would wet his pants.

    Frankly there are those of us more than a little concerned about the spread of socialism in our Country and the absolute “silliness” that pervades the political landscape of our land. We could use about 10 million more immigrants. Immigrants from the U.S. :) “sales pitch” we have lots of land and plenty of jobs :)

  35. avatarOnanDaLibrarian says:

    Magoo states:
    “Guns are not toys, gags, photo props, or signifiers of sexual prowess.”

    What’s your point? All gun owners know they are not toys. The construct about sexual prowess is a moot one as well: anyone would be willing to concede that point as they would about cars. “A Lamborghini is not an indicator of sexual prowess.” Sure. What’s your point?

    Gun owners don’t think these things either, so mixing in this little bit of straw-man bigotry to your argument doesn’t do it any favours.

    The jist of your article seems to be, “I don’t know anything about firearms, but I’m more than willing to restrict people that do, based on the following ill-considered preconceptions. Ill-considered because, well, I can summon up the will to pen a notioned article about “clips”, but obviously can’t be bothered to do any research on magazines.”.

    • avatarOnanDaLibrarian says:

      Whoops. I think I’ve mixed up Magoo with the author of the OP. Apologies for that.

      Correction:

      The jist of the article seems to be, “I don’t know anything about firearms, but I’m more than willing to restrict people that do, based on the following ill-considered preconceptions. Ill-considered because, well, I can summon up the will to pen a notioned article about “clips”, but obviously can’t be bothered to do any research on magazines.”.

  36. avatarMagoo says:

    I don’t know why gun nuts are so captivated by the whole clip vs. magazine thing. Seems rather juvenile to focus on such a relatively trivial matter of semantics — makes one suspect that might be all you have.

    I wouldn’t feel so superior to the anti-gun crowd based simply on a grasp of the nomenclature. There is just as much bad information and outright bullshit regarding firearms inside the gun culture as outside it. For sheer volume, undoubtedly more so.

  37. avatar1MOA says:

    I am a Canadian sport shooter and here is the reason why I would prefer to be able to use my 30 round magazines in my CZ858 rifle instead of having them pinned at 5 rounds.

    A couple of weekends ago I went on a tac shoot day at the range. I shot approximately 500 rounds. This means that with 5 round magazines I had to change magazines and reload 100 times. This takes allot of fun out of the sport.

    One of the practices we do is to go through a course and shoot 28 targets twice each. Instead of changing mags once I have to stop and change over 10 times. I now have to carry pouches of spare magazines all over the place instead of just two. I spend much more time changing mags and reloading than I do shooting. This is in one short timed course. This is just ridiculous and makes the sport very frustrating.

    If the purpose of the pinned magazines is to prevent someone going on a rampage then the policy makes no sense either. The mags Canadians use are high capacity mags with a small aluminum pop rivet stopping the follower at 5 rounds. To convert my mags from 5 to 30 rounds will take literally two seconds. All you do is pull out the pin. The only reason I don’t do it is because I am a law abiding citizen. Do you really expect someone planning a mass killing to not pull out the pin?

    They are already breaking the law that says do not kill people, do you really think they care about the law that says do not remove the pin from your magazine?

    All this law does is frustrate legal shooters like myself and give people ignorant of how magazines and firearms work a false sense of security.

  38. avatargerald lemoine says:

    I enjoy the shooting , and hunting sports.Let me tell you a little story, 1995 I met my wife’s great uncle in Moscow WII VET , lucky because broke his leg , he did not serve in the front . Became a Communist professor MOSCOW UNNIVERSATY. While having a nice meal with his wife and son he mentioned something very funny to me. He said Canada is a Cummunist Country, he even showed @ give gave me Five paper back books he wrote about communism. My wife hates guns , I have all the tools I need if anything should arise. EXAMPLE US PHONY drug war , more people use more drugs 40000 dead America, Mexican border , mostly mexican. Secret treaties the world is going crazy. I think your crazy not having what you need living in this dream world screwd up Cop’s @ Military personnel.` Keep our powder dry and have a nice day.

  39. avatarSteve Jackson says:

    I am also a Canadian sport shooter, collector, hunter, & I generally just really like guns. A lot of good replies on here about the non-sense of pinned mags. I have used both pinned and un-pinned mags… and un-pinned mags are clearly more fun, practical, economical, safe, and above all has nothing to do with public safety.

  40. avatarAaron says:

    Citizens who are “scaaaweeed” of the big bad gun with the 75 drum magazine should feel safe that as HONEST citizens anyone can buy a 75 drum magazine as long as it has been capped to 5 rounds………..because yknow only CRIMINALS or would be MANIACS would pull out that capping pin or remove that modification which also doubles the cost of all magazines for good honest Canadian citizens. It’s also great to know what by “sometimes” preventing these pesky people from removing the pins/caps we also make these magazines un-repairable. That’s ok…. many of these anti’s are also Smart phone users, they enjoy shelling out hundreds of dollars on junk that only will last a year. I’m also sure that these nasty Criminals won’t just make their own magazines or buy them in the USA then just bring them over to Canada via the black market which is BOOMING lately……I wonder why.

    If an Honest law abiding citizen wants to shoot their semi-auto anything at the range, why should we allow them to have fun, instead we should make them painfully make every shot of those 5 count before they have to tediously change magazines……..all the anti-gun/never fired a gun/will never own a gun feel good about themselves types should FEEEEEEEL SAFE in their “gun free zones” knowing all those law abiding criminals will stay away because they are so law abiding, just like all the crazy nuts who went on a shooting rampage in a Gun Free Zone racking up huge death tolls. When they take their last gasp of precious air, they should FEEEEEL good knowing all those “creepy gun owners” an their 5 round magazines are safe FAAAAARRR away on some field way outside the city, on a farm, at a shooting range plinking away at paper targets & tin cans with their SAFE/boring 5 round magazines

    An it should be nice for anti’s to know that all these laws & regulations that carry insane hefty fines & prison sentences now make all law abiding citizens one “slip” away from a possible 20 year sentence by any Cop/Judge & the thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight it. Cause you know all cops & judges are nice people who are always going to give you a free pass once in awhile, they are never the angry types who would abuse their authority to give people they don’t like maximum prison terms if they so choose to do so. All police love to know that is the nasty domestic terror…..uhh I mean fellow citizen has a magazine pin break like they commonly do that the police will be ever so understanding an let them off with a warning, cause yknow cops are all about giving free passes.

    Thank you anti’s, keep up the good work, if all goes well then only Government, Police, & the Military will have guns. I’m sure as a Ukrainian all my fellow Ukrainian citizens who obeyed Stalins anti-gun laws are alive & well today with their property intact…….ooops, their not, they all got robbed an shipped to some Siberian Gulag (all 6 million of them), silly me, Canada is special, won’t happen here.

  41. Nice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon on a daily basis. It’s always useful to read content from other writers and use something from their websites. |

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.