Assault Weapons Bans: Are You Ready?

Depending on your age, you may or may not have been affected by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, the one that was allowed to expire in 2004. During the ban, sales of certain types of semi-automatic AR-15s and other scary-looking guns were limited to military and LE personnel. Even more restrictive, magazines were limited to a maximum of 10 rounds for just about any kind of weapon, pistol, rifle, whatever. Versions of this ban still exist in some states – notably California and Massachusetts – which still strictly regulate certain types of weapons and magazine sizes.

When the ’94 ban went into effect, everything that had been manufactured to that point was grandfathered in. So if you already owned a firearm covered by the ban or a large capacity magazine, you could keep it, sell it or whatever, but you couln’t purchase any newly manufactured magazines or guns that were covered by the law.

Manufacturers were required to mark newly made weapons and mags as ”For LE/Military use only” or words to that effect. As you can imagine, this drove up the prices of pre-ban weapons and magazines. Fortunately, things never got quite as ridiculous as they have with machine guns since the 1985 ban on full-auto went into effect. And once the ban expired in 2004, prices returned to more reasonable levels.

I was in the SIG Academy pro shop (I spend a lot of time and money there) the other day and one of the regulars there opined that if President Obama were to get re-elected, the assault weapons ban would likely be back.  Notwithstanding Obama’s recent reluctance to take on firearms in light of the fact that this is an election year, his feelings on the matter are pretty well known. As recently as 2009, he talked about bringing the ban back and shortly after his election the last time, he made a lot of promises to the anti-2A crowd (including Ms. Sarah Brady herself) to do things “under the radar”.

Once re-elected to a final term, you have to figure the pressure to avoid antagonizing the gun rights crowd will be gone and it’s very likely that he will feel to advance the Obama Agenda 2.0. We will likely see the same sort of damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead approach for his new agenda items (including gun control) that he used for healthcare, particularly if the Democrats retain control of the Senate and/or regain control of the House. Of particular concern is the comment he made to the the Soviet Russian President back in March that once re-elected he would have more “flexibility”.

All of which got me thinking…before we shoot a new AWB down as unworkable, let’s remember that seven states already have some version of an AWB on the books. It could also be argued that nothing in those bans technically runs afoul of the Second Amendment as all the amendment states is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s left to case law and legislation to define the specifics.

While many of us would be quick to argue that the right to keep and bear arms means that we have the right to keep and bear whatever the hell we want to keep and bear, whether we like it or not, a line of sorts has long ago been drawn. Currently, there are various classes of weapons that non-LE/Military folks simply are not allowed access to.

I can’t, for example, buy a stinger missile nor can I own a late model machine gun. (In my case, this is probably a wise decision. I hate traffic and it seems that whoever is in front of me on any given day drives like an idiot. Imagine me with a brace of stingers strapped to my hood and you can see that keeping those away from me is probably a good call.)  Unfortunately, there are very clear legal precedents that deny citizens access to certain types of weapons so to presume that we have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a legal challenge to an Assault Weapons Ban, if passed, is optimistic at best.

Add to this is the simple truth that the number of people who might really be opposed to such a ban is smaller than you might think. Let’s apply a reasonableness test for the moment. Can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Now, don’t get me wrong here – most of my guns have magazines larger than 10 rounds and I’m glad for it as it makes the number of reloads during range time a lot lower. Aside from this though, is there any real practical need?

One of the most popular pistols of all time, the 1911 is limited to a normal capacity of 7-8 rounds unless you buy a super-extended mag that still only holds 10 rounds. The popular compact and sub-compact pistol category is full of weapons that hold fewer than 10 rounds. And the revolver, a primary or backup weapon for many people, has always held fewer than 10 rounds.

The fact is a lot of people who carry concealed would not be impacted all that much by a magazine restriction. This means that there would likely be less pushback on a magazine capacity limitation from the majority of voters than one might think. If you want to carry more than 10 rounds, just bring an extra mag or two. One of the key selling points of the automatic pistol is to allow you to replenish your bullet supply quickly and easily.

You can argue that, in a gunfight, the more bullets you have before you have to reload, the better your chances of survival. This is one of those things that in theory seems to make sense, but I’m not sure if it does in reality. I’d like to see a legitimate study of defensive gun uses in which it can be shown that having a large capacity magazine made a difference.

Hollywood aside, my guess is that most DGUs are short affairs with a few shots fired by each party. In a DGU, I’d expect shootouts to be relatively short given the proximity between the parties – either you get the bad guy or he gets you with relatively few shots fired.

We also have to be somewhat realistic about the danger of high capacity weapons. Sick people who are bent on mass murder using guns will find their task a lot easier with a high cap magazine than if they are limited to 10 rounds before having to reload.  Unless you are really, really well trained, it will take you a lot longer to unload 120 rounds out of twelve 10-round mags than it would to empty four 30-rounders.

The argument that you ban guns and only the criminals will have them isn’t really applicable in this case. I’m not stupid enough to suggest that an AWB will keep high capacity magazines or assault weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. They will always have access to some really nice hardware. Instead, I’m focusing on the disturbed individuals who one day decide that the best way to right the wrongs that society has inflicted upon them is to go to their local restaurant/K-Mart/school/whatever and take out as many people as they can.

The sad truth is that while the vast majority of gun owners are careful, law abiding citizens, there will always be the odd nutball who simply snaps one day without warning and opens fire. While limiting types of weapons and magazine capacities may not have much effect on the career criminal, it could help limit the damage caused by the disturbed individual.

Now let’s consider the gun owners themselves. Let’s say that I already have more than one AR and enough high cap magazines to keep me fat and happy for a good long while. Assuming that a new AWB goes into effect with the same parameters as the last one, I’d be able to keep the guns I have and probably see a nice appreciation on my investment.

Perhaps I really can’t see wanting to acquire any more ARs. I might even be tempted to sell one or more of my ARs and make a tidy profit. Sure, the guy buying my guns might not be thrilled with the ban, but I’d be doing okay. In a similar vein, I would guess a lot of Class III guys would be pretty peeved if one day that ban were overturned and their $20,000 M-16s lost half their value overnight.

Let’s be clear – I’m not making these points in support for an Assault Weapons Ban. I reject any laws that seek to further restrict what I’m legally allowed to do as a firearms owner. That said, I am very concerned that the firearms community is not going to be able to muster the support necessary to stop a new AWB should our current (or some future) President decide that it would be a good idea to implement one.

Instead, I’m a realist (or as my wife calls me, a pessimist). I think that with an anti-gun Democrat in the White House aided and abetted by a bunch of anti-2A Congresscritters, some sort of AWB is not a question of if, but when.

My suggestion is that if you think you might want to own one or more modern sporting rifles military style rifles, now would be an excellent time to build up your collection as you have no idea how much longer you will be able to get the firearms that you want.

 

152 Responses to Assault Weapons Bans: Are You Ready?

  1. avatarAmuse Bouche says:

    This post is bad, and you should feel bad.

    The only thing more effective than magazine capacity restrictions in preventing active shooters, is adequate publicly funded mental health services, and the only thing that stops them is armed citizens. Cali’s AWB didn’t stop the active shooter in Oakland a few months ago. By your logic, is an active shooter armed with a 1911 less dangerous than an active shooter with a Glock 21? Is a pause in firing for 1 or 2 seconds to change mags really going to be a hinderance, when you face little to no opposition?

    In even the most primitive analysis of mass shootings world wide, the common thread is mental health. Either a lack of interpersonal networking leading to social isolation (Oakland shooter/Columbine), a lack of services allowing bad eggs to fall through the cracks (Port Arthur/VA Tech), or alternately political/religious extremism (Ft Hood/Norway). It’s the lesson we failed to learn in Australia – neglect mental healthcare for decades, then blame the guns when a series of lunatics go mad outside the asylum walls we failed to build.

    • avatarTim says:

      “This post is bad, and you should feel bad.”

      I don’t normaly do this, but +1. Let’s take it from the top!

      “Can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? ”

      Yes, because I want to. One of the biggest problems with getting the gun community to support legalizing hi-cap mags is most shooters don’t have a need for them. I own several of those evil “assault weapons”, so this matters to me. To the average CC/OC only crowd it doesn’t matter, so they don’t support it.

      “In a DGU, I’d expect shootouts to be relatively short given the proximity between the parties – either you get the bad guy or he gets you with relatively few shots fired.”

      Maybe or maybe not. Every situation is differant. Who has the right to limit my means of self defence, if I believe there is more I could do.

      “We also have to be somewhat realistic about the danger of high capacity weapons. Sick people who are bent on mass murder using guns will find their task a lot easier with a high cap magazine than if they are limited to 10 rounds before having to reload.”

      Careful now, that’s anti talk. Blood in the streets and mass murder.

      “there will always be the odd nutball who simply snaps one day without warning and opens fire. While limiting types of weapons and magazine capacities may not have much effect on the career criminal, it could help limit the damage caused by the disturbed individual.”

      More anti talk. I am by no means a disturbed individual, and I’m also not a carreer criminal, but I got my hands all kinds of stuff durring the AWB. And I was only a teenager. Banning something might drive the price up, but it doesn’t stop a determined person from getting something if they want it bad enough.

      “Now let’s consider the gun owners themselves. Let’s say that I already have more than one AR and enough high cap magazines to keep me fat and happy for a good long while. Assuming that a new AWB goes into effect with the same parameters as the last one, I’d be able to keep the guns I have and probably see a nice appreciation on my investment.”

      No garantee on that. More than likely there will be no “grandfather clause” in the new bill. It was only put in the first one to get couple of fence sitters to vote for it. With things the way they are now, they wouln’t need it this time. You’re guns would just be strait up illegal this go around.

      “I am very concerned that the firearms community is not going to be able to muster the support necessary to stop a new AWB should our current (or some future) President decide that it would be a good idea to implement one.”

      You and me both. Banning ARs or AK doesn’t effect someone who only owns a pistol for defence or a hunter with a bolt action. Likewise “assault weapon” guys don’t give much thought to law that only effects hunters, compotion shooters, or self defence people. People usally only vote for things that most effect them directly and miss the big picture. There is of course some overlap between types of shooters, but I don’t see it being enough to stop something like this. Remember, once they take my “assault rife” they’ll come for your pistol and hunting rifle. Don’t believe me, just look at how they did it in other countries already.

      • avatarJames says:

        Standard capacity, not high capacity. They want to sell us on (or inflict upon us) reduced capacity magazines.

        If you start using the terms approved by pro-State, big government cheerleaders like Jim Barret, the antis have already won.

        • avatarTim says:

          I personal don’t see any harm in saying hi-cap. Who defines what a standurd mag is. Is it a 8 round 1911 or a 20 some odd round glock or a 30 round AK or is it whatever mag came with your gun when you bought it. During the first AWB my AK came with a little 5 round mag. Hi-cap mags have already been established as 10 rounds or more by pros and antis alike and in the original AWB and covers just about any gun on the market.

        • avatarJames says:

          Case in point.

          Who defines what a “standurd mag” is? I would say the manufacturer of the firearm the magazine is designed to used in.

          My FNP45 came with a 15 round and two 14 round magazines. That is standard capacity according to the OEM. According to Sara Brady, Jim Barret, and you apparently, that is high capacity. But it isn’t – it’s standard capacity.

          My Rock River LAR8 came from the manufacturer with a 30 round magazine. That is it’s standard capacity.

          My Sig716 came from the manufacturer with a 20 round magazine. That’s it’s standard capacity.

          During the AWB, the first handgun I ever purchased was a S&W SW9V. It came with a ten round magazine. That was a reduced capacity magazine, because only the Only Ones™ were allowed to have the 15 round magazines made for it.

          See the point yet? If you let them redefine the terminology, they win the fight.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Technically your 15 round mag is high capacity, it a selling point for the Tacticals, untill FNH began to run out of stock of the 14s. And if you want to get even higher (17/18 rounds), Para P14 extensions and springs fit will fit your mags.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        If you read his comments on previous posts, such as yesterday http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-yes-we-do-edition/ , you’ll see he’s just an anti-gun troll. Why Rob keeps letting people like Jim and MikeB post rants as actual editorials I’ll never understand. I thought that this was going to be an intelligent post when I first started reading it – boy was I wrong.

        • avatarJim Barrett says:

          Tool-Boy You are confusing me with another poster. It was another guy named Jim who made the comment you refer to, but clearly the froth from your mouth got into your eyes and you could not see clearly.

          Since you have decided to label me as an anti-gun troll, which is laughable if you had taken the time to read some of my other 20-odd posts here, let me return the favor. If you could stop measuring out the fertilizer and fuel oil for a few minutes, and actually spend some time on reading comprehension, you would have determined that other than my question on the high cap mags, the point of this post was to show how something like the 1990′s AWB could return due to the feelings of many gun owners. It was more a call to action. As I clearly stated, I don’t want another AWB.

          To understand how to prevent something like this again, you need to understand why people might support it and do what we can to educate them.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Two trolls named Jim on the same board? I find it unlikely.

          Regardless – “It was more a call to action. As I clearly stated, I don’t want another AWB.”

          No, it wasn’t. You were justifying why it’s OK for us to have another one and why we should all shut up, bend over, and take it in the ass from people like you. You’re no different than all the anti-gun liberals who always say “I’m not a liberal” if anyone calls them one.

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      So, I don’t disagree that mentally incompetent folks should not have guns. It seems to me that we have three options:

      1. Require all gun owners to undergo regular mental competency exams to ensure that guns are not sold to potential nutjobs. This of course does not prevent someone in the family who is a nutjob from getting ahold of the gun and going postal. Also, I would humbly suggest that requiring mental competency exams would be less than enthusiastically embraced by the firearms community.

      2. Use some means to limit the damage that can be done when mentally incompetent people do manage to get a hold of weapons. Lower capacity magazines is one option, but as has been correctly pointed out, this puts an undue burden on the vast majority of sane people.

      3. Maintain status quo and continue to accept that mass shootings will happen and hope that its not our loved ones who fall victim.

      Don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of #3 and #1 sounds rather unworkable. Not wild about #2, either, but do you have another suggestion?

      You raise a problem, but fail to suggest a solution. Not particularly helpful.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        Here’s a way to limit the damage that can be done when mentally incompetent people do manage to get a hold of weapons: front sight on center mass, trigger press, repeat as necessary.

      • avataruncommon_sense says:

        There are two solutions to the problem of the mentally deranged person who “snaps”. First, we need better mental health treatment available. Second, if at least 1 out of 4 adults were armed, such deranged people would never manage to kill more than a couple people in a shootout.

        You have to remember that if a lunatic wants to kill lots of people and firearms with high capacity magazines are not readily available, it is pretty easy to use other methods to kill lots of people. The really scary thing is that it doesn’t do you any good to be armed if lunatics use a different method — e.g. truck bombs, setting fires to crowded public places, crashing a large vehicle into a crowd, poisoned water/food supply, etc.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        You’re quite wild about #2. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t ignore that less than one percent of gun owners murders someone and that you have better odds of wining the lottery than you do of being shot by a lunatic (well, unless you’re counting the police as lunatics – but then again, you wrote that rant the other day about why we need the SS kicking in doors and shooting the family dog for no reason). You want to restrict the rights of hundreds of millions of people because a handful – such a small percentage that statistically speaking, it’s equal to zero – of people do something stupid.

        As we’ve said countless times to gun-grabbers like you, punish the goddamn criminal – NOT the law abiding people.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        Just as we should require all laws to undergo a consitutional test.

        Just as we should require all journalists to tell the WHOLE truth.

        Just as we should require all priests to undergo annual testing for pedophilia.

        Just as we should require annual testing for police who kill, rape, assault, deal drugs, steal, etc, etc, etc, etc….

        Just as we should have all anti gun extremists under go a mental examination as they have a regular tendency to go postal and use a firearm to kill.

        Past experience with gun control leaders such as Annette “Flirty” Stevens (Illinois Million Mom March president caught with drugs and a de-serialized handgun), Sheila Eccleston (Mothers Against Violence, imprisoned for possessing a sawed-off shotgun), James Kelly (Seattle Urban League anti-gunner caught brandishing a handgun during an argument), Bart Stupak (champion of mandatory federal trigger locks whose son later committed suicide with dad’s unlocked gun), and Barbara Graham (DC Million Mom March activist convicted of a revenge shooting of an innocent person who HADN’T killed her son) suggests that frustrated gun control activists tend to go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

        The moral is, if you ever happen to come across Dennis Henigan, Mikeb’s, Blooming Iidot, Pelosi, Mc Carthy, Obama, Holder and the few remaining devout anti’s of this world take cover. You don’t want to be at Ground Zero when they go postal and its not a matter of if, its a matter of when!

      • avatarLegion7 says:

        We should ban vehicles and alcohol then, O wise Jim. Also, lets get rid of those pesky swimming pools and throw surgeons and doctors in there as well. You see, everything we do is frought with some risk, it’s just a matter of managing that risk. 10 rounds, sure, then it will be 5 etc. I would like to put a speed governor on your vehicles, set at 55, since that’s the “safest” top speed. How would you like that? Same thing as 10 round magazines…

      • avatarPP9 says:

        It is the right of every free person to own and carry a gun. If a person can’t be trusted with a gun (with full capacity mags), he can’t be trusted in public. It’s that simple. Guns are not the only means by which a person can cause mayhem, and it’s not possible to control criminal action by further criminalizing a selected few of the means of criminal action. The problem is not, and never has been, the gun; it is the person who thinks it is okay to kill people in cold blood.

        Advocating anything that would try to keep guns (or full capacity magazines, or certain types of ammunition, or anything else related to guns) out of the hands of “undesirable” people who are among the general populace validates every bit of gun control the antis want to throw at us. It validates the idea that owning and carrying guns is NOT a fundamental right of free people, but a privilege to be bestowed if the government thinks the person is worthy (and the definition of “worthy” can and will change according to the whims of those in charge). It validates the idea that it is possible to control murder by putting speed bumps in the way (which is all gun control laws are) of getting certain potential murder weapons.

        Given that, of the three options, #3 is the easy choice. Mass murders are quite rare, given the US population of over 300 million… and even if we completely ignore the fact that it is good guys with guns that stop bad guys with guns, we can make the observation that for each person killed in a shooting spree, tens of thousands die from “preventable” causes if we just had a little more tyranny in our lives. But it’s not the word “Safety” that is on our coins… it’s the word “Liberty.”

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        Well, Jim, you left out the most intelligent option, #4:

        Do away with all of the asinine, useless, and absolutely invalid restricitions upon where law-abiding U. S. adult citizens may carry their legally held firearms.

        If you look at all of the “mass shootings”, you’d have to dig REAL DEEP to find one that didn’t happen in a “gun free safety zone”.

        The ONLY thing that stops a nutjob with a gun IS A NON-NUTJOB WITH A GUN, PERIOD.

      • avatarConway Redding says:

        As a mental health professional (clinical psychologist) with 42 years of professional experience, let me offer a cautionary word or two about expecting that we mental health professionals can either reliably identify, beforehand, people who later go on to do horrific things, or treat such people once we think, often erroneously, that we’ve identified them. So I wouldn’t count on us to provide a whole lot of truly useful help.

        • avatarMikke says:

          Glad to see Conway’s comment. The glib supposition that it’s possible to identify mental competency or incompetency 100% of the time is just ridiculous. People snap for all kinds of reasons…and not all are “mental illness”; in fact mental health professionals can cause people to snap by, for instance, misdiagnosing a person or supplying them with the wrong pharmacological treatments.

          Go down the path of a “national database of the mentally ill” as NRA suggested today, and we will see abuses of freedom of a Stalinist/Maoist quality. (Who decides who is mentally ill? How does one get healthy, or get off the list if wrongly put on it? What incentives would Obamacare have for shunting people into this category as a way of stripping them of their RKBA rights?)

          What we know works to keep predators in check is taking away their sense of being the alpha beast in any situation. Gun-free zones are the equivalent of little birds herded into a barrel for shooting.

          It would also help for all males and females to be required to do three to five years of mandatory national service–military or non, they can decide–prior to being issued driver’s licenses. Families these days are too pathological and wimpy to provide kids with the needed boundary-setting and energy-channeling they need.

      • avatarGerald says:

        I have a solution…
        I feel a licensing requirement for the purchase of firearms is in order. We all; that drive a car legally, had to be educated and pass a test to get a license. People need to be educated on gun safety. While I grew up in a time where guns were not displayed on TV and in games as they are now and I was taught to respect guns and life, many people today look at a firearm as a toy or a game. This needs to be addressed. Lets face it, a lot of parents come home overworked and give in to TV and computer and would not take time to go out and teach their children how to safely handle a gun.
        What I have in mind is to first be required to purchase a form that starts the whole process of purchasing a firearm. To get the form, you pay a fee for background check and submit to mental health questions…Do you take meds for a,b,c, etc… Are you being treated for depression…etc…etc…The fee for the form and background check raises funding to help pay for better background checks, licensing, and title transfers of weapons such as Class 111. The questionnaire( and yes people can lie but I have solution for this) will help flag potential unsuitable people. One form is obtained, a gun safety class must be taken that includes concealed carry. Once the course passed, instructor signs, paperwork and fees submitted, and license is applied for. Once license is obtained, you present all paperwork and license to FFL to purchase gun. Yes, this is a royal pain in the butt but it is worth it if it allows me to be able to keep and purchase any gun I like. Now, as for the people that would lie on form regarding mental health, the extra time this process creates allows of better background checks. If you have been treated for mental health issues, this information should be submitted to the feds by the treating physician or hospital so that when background check is ran, this info will be available. No it is not ideal for those with mental issues but it is necessary if we wish to propose actual solutions that work. Obviously there should be certain distinctions between someone that is being treated for something that would not cause them to be more likely to become a mass murderer and someone that has no business even handling a rubber knife. I also believe people should be held accountable for their weapons. If you leave one unattended as the Mother of the Sandy Hook shooter did, you should be help accountable. I would propose criminal charges and loss of gun rights. Face it…it you own guns you better be willing to be responsible. If more people were responsible, such as the shooters mother, a lot of these crimes would not have taken place. You need to be responsible for your kids that want to use guns. No parent should allow their kids to posses numerous guns if they are not themselves responsible and educated on their use and safety. Just taking responsibility would stop much of the gun accidents and violence.
        Back to license. This is a workable solution that will stop those on a whim to purchase a gun. Many people do not want to be inconvenienced and this type of wait, classes, etc…will stop those that rally do not want one at heart. Also, requiring the fees and classes raises money and awareness at the same time. It also makes it a one time process, if you will, because the class and license covers concealed carry and class 111. Taking it further would then require the $200 fee to transfer a class 111 weapon to the new owner.
        I hope this helps. I submitted this to the NRA and congress. I would suggest everyone who has any concern for their rights…be it gun or otherwise, support some real solutions and fight the ridiculous notion that banning anything will actually help.

        • avatarBrett Recen says:

          Bingo, treat guns like cars and shooters like drivers, it’s a great idea.

  2. avatarJoe Grine says:

    “Had a ban on high capacity magazines been in place, it’s very likely that most of these folks would not have had access to them.”

    I disagree with this statement. Even during the dark days of the AWB, you could buy all of the “grandfathered” high cap mags you wanted – you just had to pay more for them.

    • avatarJason says:

      Exactly. Like most gun controls, it doesn’t inconvenience the criminals – who really only need one or two hi-cap magazines anyway – it’s just an expense for honest folk who want to spend a whole afternoon at the range without much reloading. It’s a punishment, a sin tax, a monetary dig by a mostly urban, mostly liberal class against mostly rural, mostly conservative shooters. Hi-cap bans are nothing less than passive-aggressive class warfare.

      • avatarJim Barrett says:

        Jeez, does no one really read anything anymore for content, or do we just skim it and then start commenting? I specifically noted in my post that none of these restrictions would have any effect on criminals. The will always get what they want. With respect to the hi-cap mags, I was not referring to true criminals, but rather to disturbed individuals who snap and go on a shooting spree.

        You can disagree with me all that you want – that’s what comments are for, but do me the courtesy of at least disagreeing with what I wrote, not with what you want to think that I wrote.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          With respect to the hi-cap mags, I was not referring to true criminals, but rather to disturbed individuals who snap and go on a shooting spree.

          Which, for all intents and purposes, never happens. Yes, you might get one person a year who does that – one person out of 315 MILLION in the country. That’s 0.00000003% of the population.

          Again, you want to use something so rare that almost no one will ever encounter it to justify restricting hundreds of millions of law abiding people.

  3. avatarBLAMMO says:

    Versions of this ban still exist in some states – notably California and Massachusetts – which strictly regulate certain types of firearms and magazine sizes . . .

    ‘EY!! Ya fuhgot about Noo Yawk!!

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      You also forgot the Dirty Jerz. I guess the politicians were “gracious” enough to let us keep 15 round magazines (which, btw when it comes to rifle mags, nobody manufactures, but you can get permanently sealed 20 rd mags that were modified to accept 15 rounds).

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      At least in CT we can have out full-sized Mags. I don’t really mind the lack of a bayonet lug (in 10 years on the Army, I think I fixed a bayonet maybe 5 times for ceremonial), but I do hate that my folding stock does not fold.

  4. avatarJames Grant says:

    My issue with your statement that (statistically) most people don’t need more than a few round for CCW is that it flies in the face of why people carry a gun in the first place. We carry “just-in-case” which is exactly why you should carry as many rounds as humanly possible. If we’re essentially carrying a contingency plan for something that rarely happens, why carry the average amount of ammunition needed per DGU?

    My biggest qualm with any regulation on firearms is that the people who regulate them will never need them in their lives. They will always have the money to hire armed guards who will have access to weapons and technology the average Joe does not. Allowing politicians to set firearms regulations is like having Bud Selig rewrite the rules for Wimbledon.

    The reason we cannot admit that any regulation is reasonable is simple, to the opposition, destruction of every privately-owned firearm is reasonable. Give an inch, they’ll take a mile.

  5. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    I know plenty of people who carry, and only a handful of them carry mags that hold more than 10 rounds.

    • avatarLance says:

      Well I carry 13 plus 1 plus two 13rd back up mags. Just shows you and your friends are not perpeared well ;-)

    • avatarMikke says:

      I carry 15, plus a spare mag. In my part of the world it is a not-uncommon scenario for packs of predators to attack a single elder female such as myself. Some of those predators are canine, some are human. The human predators have been known to use their state-supplied cell phones to call for backup among their buddies.

    • avatarAdam S. says:

      My brother is an officer with Cook County. His Glock came with two 17 round clips if I remember correctly and they are very popular guns to carry.

  6. avatarRalph says:

    Initially, I thought this post was written by mikeb.

    The question is not whether we “need” magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The real question is whether we need to roll over and piss ourselves while the government takes and takes and takes and takes, a little here and a little there, until we have nothing left to lose.

    • avatarnonnamous says:

      Yeah, I double checked to see who the author was. And yes, I mean that as an insult to the actual author.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Ralph, your use of the phrase, “until we have nothing left to lose”, may be the key to why a new AWB is not likely to occur in the near term of the next Administration. More and more the public feels that they do indeed have very little left to lose and more and more the public is determined to retain what little they feel that they have left. The public hue and cry, were such a thing to be proposed, would be enormous. Time will tell.

      Further, though I’m not terribly good at political prognostication, my sense of the coming general election is that the Republican majority in the House will expand moderately and that there is a very good chance that the Senate will flip. Whether or not the White House changes hands is fairly irrelevant in regards to a major swing in firearms policy. As to the States, except for the few remaining idiotic outliers, I fully expect to see 2A rights further expand. And even with the current outliers, the cases presently working their way through the courts may well force them to mend their evil ways and get them back on the path of virtue and righteousness.

      Short of a series of catastrophic black swan events, like a narco/civil war and failed elections in Mexico, a complete collapse of the EU and the global banking system, another Great Depression in the US or major civil unrest and revolution in Asia and the western Pacific, I don’t expect that the general trend here in the US will alter course all that much. In fact, one could probably make a fair argument that were any or a number of black swan events to occur, those events could well accelerate the expansion of 2A rights here in the US. One of the key tenets of the American psyche is that we take care of ourselves and our own, come hell of high water.

      May you live in interesting times.

  7. avatarGary says:

    It’s posts like this that make me wonder why I ever visit. Such baloney. We fought hard to get that stupid law twilighted and we don’t need ninnies like this stabbing us in the back. High capacity magazines are not a problem and they certainly would be a help to me if I ever needed to defend myself in the event of civil unrest, ala, LA riots.
    With “friends” like this who needs enemies. If I see yet another posting for gun control again, I am flat gone. There have been too many like this here. There is no virtue in having this kind of post.

    • It’s the honest opinion of one man, looking to have a conversation on the issue. If you want an echo chamber where the only thing people do is validate your existing beliefs then this isn’t the place for you — we look at all viewpoints and entertain all possibilities. Except the ones that are factually incorrect. Which this is not.

      • avatarBob says:

        I think you make a good point Leghorn. To blindly follow the dogma that all gun-control legislation is wrong “just cause” is backward and in the long-run unproductive in some respects.

        I have often asked myself “Do I really need the right to equip a small army out of my garage”. This would be nice, I have nothing against it, but, is it neccesary? I am a college student and I get asked about my views on gun-control and how far they extend. While I have no problem with lax limits on guns +paraphernalia, when someone asks “Is that really neccesary?” it is very hard to come up with good arguments that it actually is.

        I admire your journalistic honesty and will frequent this site often, looking for a reasonable answer.

        • avatarRabbi says:

          All gun control, other than against minors and criminal having guns IS wrong. Just because you don’t need or want something does not make it right to ban others from having it.

          Self-defense is a human right. The 2nd amendment is what protects our freedoms and is what makes this country the best and most free in the world.

        • avatarTim says:

          Let’s talk about needs and wants for a second. Do I really need a 75 rd drum mag for my AK? Probably not. Would I hand it over to someone just because they think I don’t need it? Hell no. Do people now a days really need a flat screen TV in every room of thier house? Probably not. But they want it. Would it be right for someone to walk into your house and take the TV and say “you don’t need this, so I’m taking it”? No. No one has the right to decide what another persons needs are or to limit what they want. This isn’t just about guns, it about the right to own whatever material goods you want without someone you don’t even know telling you no.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          Interesting comment(s), Bob. Let me make an analogy:

          On my way home from work this morning, I happened upon a vehicle that was on fire. It had just started, but by the time I was able to stop my truck, it was way too late; I didn’t need a fire extinguisher, I needed a FIRE TRUCK.

          Same in a SHTF scenario: I’d rather have a 10 lb extinguisher than a 5, and I’d much rather have 4 30 round mags than 12 10 rounders.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Nick, you cannot seriously believe that trolls like Jim and MikeB want a “serious discussion”. All you have to do is look at their comments (which I know Rob and others at TTAG do each day) and you’ll see that they don’t give a damn about facts, they have their religious anti-gun view and they’ll stick by it to the death.

        We all know the real reason that you allow posts like this, but Rob and I have already discussed it before and he’s threatened to ban me if I publicly talk about it and risk driving away other readers, so I’ll leave it at that.

        I’m truly disappointed that you let such and utterly unintelligent piece of anti-gun crap like this on your site.

      • avatarJim Barrett says:

        Nick, I’m glad that some people on this board have the intelligence necessary to understand the point of this post. Setting aside the foolishness of some commenters, )one in particular who seems to think that Jim is a unique name and that there couldn’t possibly be more than one person with that name on this board), the purpose of this post was not to advance the agenda of the anti-gun crowd but rather to propose a thought experiment that shows how we could find ourselves at another AWB even with firearms ownership at a record high.

        I am against any AWB and like my hi-cap or standard-cap or whatever the hell we want to call them magazines, but the simple fact is that too much in this country gets foisted off on the people by politicians who couch it in terms that seem “reasonable” to Joe Sixpack. If we don’t want to see history repeat itself, we need to come up with some good arguments that we can use as a community to argue against the politicians and other lackeys who hate guns.

        For those who really think that I am an anti-2A person in disguise, I ask again that you re-read the post carefully. The questions I ask are legitimate ones and they will be ones that your friends and neighbors are likely to ask around the water cooler if you talk to them about 2A issues. Keep in mind that average Joe or Jane does not get the need for large capacity magazines and “military” guns because all that they hear in the popular media is how these things are bad.

        To suggest that the answer we give them when they ask why we need them is to simply say. “Because I want to” is idiocy. That is the kind of answer I get from my 7 year old and it does not fly. There are better answers – when someone asks why you need a military style gun, you can talk about collections, you can talk about appreciation for history, you can talk about how many of them are better guns for target shooting and hunting, etc. There are many good reasons that non-gun people can understand and accept. This is the path that must be taken if we are to keep our rights.

        • avatarTim says:

          Or I could be honest and say “because our founding fathers believed that one day our government would become corrupt and have to be overthrown”. Yeah that’ll go over real nice at the water cooler. Unemployment line her I come.

          Your 7 year old is not an adult, so of course when he/she wants to eat ice cream for breakfast “Because I want to” doesn’t cut it. We are talking about adults here. Most adults understand that the government already interferes to much with their life already. So saying “because I want it and as a legal law abiding citizen of a free nation should be able to have it” is usualy more than enough for most people. Or to at least getting them thinking about it.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Because they are afraid doesnt fly either, yet that is the only arguement the antis have.

          They are afraid of the mythical boogeyman, a creature created from their own subconscious, of which they can not prove to exist in the real world.

          So explain again why any sane person should argue much less negotiate with children or the mentally ill whop cant prove in any logical data or facts to their unsubstantiated fears?

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Take it as a preview of the arguments that will be made, and use it as a chance to work on your counters.

      Many of his arguments make sense if you are only concerned about a utilitarian approach (except that criminals will get full-sized mags even if we can’t), but for most of us here, it’s not JUST the utility of having a fully functional firearm that matters. It’s about a Constitutional Right that is itself merely a legal manifestation of a more ancient right to defend oneself, including the right to the necessary tools to do so. It’s about giving a presumption that government should be allowed to intrude unless you can show why it shouldn’t (which is, of course, bass-ackwards). It’s about slippery slopes, which are very real.

  8. avatarvirtualjohn says:

    The 2nd Amendment is not about sporting weapons, nor is about home or self defense weapons. The 2nd Amendment is about the people’s right to keep and bear arms to defend against tyranny by their own government. The founders foresaw that all government tries to grow and become more and more tyrannical. The Constitution is an effort by the people to limit government and the 2nd Amendment is a recognition that sooner or later the people will need arms to do that.

    • avatarDavid White says:

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of tyrants and patriots.
      Thomas Jefferson.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Exactly right. Just look to what’s happening in Syria for reference.

      If we’re concerned about psychos who one day snap and open fire, the solution is simple: we draw our guns and shoot them. The fact is, if the people in that cafe here in Seattle had taken full responsibility for their personal safety, then the guy would have gotten one or two shots off, then have been dropped with several shots to center mass.

      Otherwise, I rather like the idea that the government has to be nervous about the troops safety if they decide to send them door to door. That’s as it should be. It’s unfortunately not true enough.

  9. avatarMike Lief says:

    If, in fact, a 10-round magazine is sufficient for nearly all conceivable DGUs, and the time needed to reload another magazine is so short as to make larger magazines unnecessary for civilians … then why should there be an exception for law enforcement?

    If the number of confrontations that require more than 10 shots being fired are statistically insignificant, then what’s good for the citizen goose should also be good for the government gander.

    The laws — all laws — should be applicable to all Americans, especially those who enforce them.

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      Cops need the large cap mags because most of them can’t hit the side of a barn, so it would only be fair to give them a fair shot in a gun fight. I’m only kidding cuz I know several police officer who are actually really good shots and they practice every week, but there’ll always be a few who need the extra firepower.

  10. avatarMike in NC says:

    I don’t think the French could ever surrender any faster than this!

  11. avatarassault weapon says:

    What makes me an “assault weapon?” Its because I am black, isn’t it? (racist liberals) I bet if I was pink and called myself “breast cancer survivor protection tool” every planned parenthood would give me away with every mamogram. If I was rainbow and called myself “anti gay-bashing weapon” obama would have “come out” for me this week. AWBs= racist.

    • avatarMikke says:

      My AR *is* an anti-gay-bashing weapon.

      Not sure what your point is, but you live in an interesting alternative universe–discussion of AWB leading you to bash Planned Parenthood. Fascinating, captain!

  12. avatarsdog says:

    @ Jim Barrett

    “Aside from this, though, is there any real practical need?”

    1.) this post is absolute nonsense, between this and the lovely commentary of my fellow citizens in the deluge of TM posts….

    2.)who are you to judge what i, or anyone else “needs”? if i want to get mags over 20 rounds i have to go out of state. This is because of the stupid laws in my home state (MD). If a person is going to shoot up a place and they have the motivation, what the difference between a 20 and 30 round mag? more mag changes. Seung-Hui Cho did not have a chain gun when he attacked innocents at VA Tech, and yet look at the terror that he imposed on that campus with his “standard capacity” magazines, and then took the cowards way out after inflicting the damage.

  13. avatarThe Stig says:

    I was reading on another forum a thread concerning the possibility of a new AWB. One of the moderators said that he was stocking up now in the event that one was passed so that he’d have everything he needed. The trouble is that he was still stuck in the ’94 AWB mindset. He firmly believed that any “ban” in the US sense could only be prospective, and that everything purchased before must be grandfathered in. He thought that any other result would be retroactively making something a crime, which is unconstitutional.

    However, the crime would be possession. There is nothing to stop Congress from passing a law making possession of an item banned regardless of when you bought it or when it was made. The ’94 AWB “preban” solution was a compromise. It, however, only served to make the ban look foolish because many people pointed out that two magazines that looked identical, but one was legal because it was manufactured before ’94, and the other illegal because it was manufacturer after ”94.

    The next ban will not involve firearms, but magazines. Another major criticism of the ’94 AWB was the fact that it banned cosmetic differences between rifles that largely functioned identically. On top of that, in a post Heller world where weapons that are in the “common use at the time” are protected, it seems unlikely that a ban on the ubiquitous black rifle would survive. As an aside, this is how the Supreme Court threw machine guns under the bus. It seems that they didn’t consider the fact that they weren’t in common use was because the supply was artificially constrained in ’68 (foreign machine guns) and ’86 (all machine guns).

    So to sum up, I think the next ban will be on any magazine over 10 rounds, regardless of when it was made. There is the possibility that to avoid any constitutional challenges, the bill will need to address the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. It may not need to address it however, as generally bans on items that are injurious to the community usually don’t receive compensation, and they are going to argue that this ban is to protect the community. Second, they could argue that magazines are disposable items and therefore have no value so there is no takings issue. They could also submit evidence in the record that many magazines are easily converted into 10 round magazines with a rivet, etc. Finally, although very unlikely, they could fund the bill to repurchase magazines for $3 to $5.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      That makes a lot of sense – and they’d use the Giffords shooting and others as ammo, pardon the pun. Tough to really enforce though – Canada did this in the early 1990s (no compensation of course) and there are still tons of mags out there, though of course you can’t take them to the public range.

      • Wow, you are all thinking one dimensionally here. There is no need for ANY AWB if you can put ammo at a price that makes its unaffordable to the average joe. Ammo is not covered in the constitution so there are no legal bans required. Just tax it so high that most or all , can not afford it and you have rendered ALL weapons obsolete.
        On the same note, is anyone else finding popular ammo hard to find? My local stores can’t seem to stock the primary calibers in any meaningful quantity. Every time I head to the store ,there are empty or mostly empty shelves.

      • There is no need for ANY AWB if you can put ammo at a price that makes its unaffordable to the average joe. Ammo is not covered in the constitution so there are no legal bans required. Just tax it so high that most or all , can not afford it and you have rendered ALL weapons obsolete.
        On the same note, is anyone else finding popular ammo hard to find? My local stores can’t seem to stock the primary calibers in any meaningful quantity.

  14. avatarST says:

    Looking to history, this post is making assumptions which will be woefully inaccurate in the event of another AWB being enacted.

    One, there will NOT be a grandfather clause in the next one. The liberals know all too well in retrospect how that passage essentially neutered the last AWB. The goal of the policy, contrary to stated belief about it reducing legality of crime, was to make gun ownership among civilians of AR15s and 10+ round handguns prohibitively expensive. The fewer people who own 10+round handguns and military type rifles equates to a lesser number of voters who will oppose tighter gun laws in the future. This goal of blocking civil ownership of AR15s backfired on account that pre-ban weapons & magazines legally could be traded and sold regardless. That’s one loophole the statists will ensure is closed on the next bill: Id expect that there will be a “90 day amnesty” where people who own prohibited magazines and weapons are allowed to turn them over or register them with Law Enforcement. Once the 90 day window closes, game over. No transfers will be permitted or new registrations allowed after the deadline, and if one gets caught with an unregistered rifle or 30 round magazine after the amnesty period they go directly to jail.

    As far as distinguishing magazines , that’s what RFID tags & printable barcodes are for. The Feds will send registration kits to the local police stations, who will happily affix an RFID tag to the inside of the magazines. Removal after the fact will of course be a crime. New companies would be mandated to comply with adding them to new guns:Unlike microstamping, its a system already in common use today. Walther uses the same tech on European PPQ model handguns.

    Two,the second path the government could go down is the same way Australia went during their disarmament period. Their constitution IIRC mandates due compensation from the government anytime the latter takes private property, so the powers that were jacked up the heath tax to fund a bribery system for the purpose of buying out gun owners. Remember, the goal is cultural change to breed acceptance of a gun ban among the voting base, so the more ways civil acess to guns can be reduced the better. Australia literally paid gun owners and competition shooters money to hand in their weapons and permanently quit shooting.As far as my reading states a lot of people in that country looking at an onerous set of regulations folded their chips and took the money. Rather than fund an expensive enforcement system, ObamaRomney may go down this road instead.AKA, gun owners are exempted from ObamaCare participation or they receive a tax credit of $500 per assault rifle on their next return, if they file a surrender document from their local police agency with the typical 1040. Much as I dislike saying this, that would be an effective way to reverse all the numbers of new gun owners out and about today:families who bought one or two “assault” weapons and magazines will be very tempted to hock the things for a cash handout ,especially if it looks like such weapons and accessories are going to become legal equivalents of plutonium. Not everyone is OK with the thought of spending a night or two in jail on a bogus firearm charge. Some folks in certain professions, like the military and contractor work with high end security clearances, literally cannot afford to be arrested for anything. Others just won’t like the idea of unwanted attention from the Five-Oh.

  15. You write:

    “But the idea of a new ban got me thinking. Before we shoot it down as unworkable, let’s remember that seven states already have some version of an AWB on the books now. It could be argued that nothing in the ban runs afoul of the Second Amendment as all the amendment states is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s left to case law and legislation to define what that means.”

    With ‘truth’ like that we don’t need “Liberal”(commie) lies and mainstream newswhore bias.

    Then you go here:

    “Let’s apply a reasonableness test: can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Don’t get me wrong here – most of my guns have magazines larger than 10 rounds and I’m glad for it as it makes the number of reloads during range times lower. Aside from this, though, is there any real practical need?”

    Is this website a front for gun controllers?

    The Second Amendment, the entire amendment that mentions a well-regulated(trained) militia and the defense of a state(nation state) reads thusly:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Common sense, as rare as it is nowadays, tells one they(those who demanded a Bill Of Rights be attached to what they perceived as a dangerous document, and history has proven them right for it is full of loopholes) meant by ‘free state’ a nation state where the people are free and thus armed and able to exercise their most basic right, that of self defense, and in this instance the primary evil they were concerned with was tyranny in government. This is well documented despite the endless attempts by our domestic enemies, our greatest enemies who aren’t hiding in caves on the other side of the world, to argue/lie otherwise.

    To put it bluntly it’s so we can kill government employees when they overstep their bounds. All other considerations, crime and hunting and plinking are secondary.

    The tree of Liberty is dying of thirst in this country where millions are armed yet so cowardly they cannot muster the resolve to use their Liberty teeth as they should be used and current events demand they be used, and should have been long ago. This web page is another example of such cowardice or possibly willful ignorance.

    As far as the ‘legality’ and SCOTUS rulings go I’ll remind you of this:

    “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

  16. It seemed as if it would post but hasn’t shown up… still testing.

  17. It’s way past time to repeal all of the ‘gun laws’ including GCA ’68 and the NFA. It’s way past time to shut down the evil BATF Nazis and try them for treason, and murder where appropriate and distribute their retirement funds among their victims. Then repeal the rest of the ‘gun laws,’ beginning with Illinois licensing requirements and New Yawk City’s Sullivan Law which only disarms the victims, then commiefornia’s ban on certain magazine and weapon types.

    Millions will dig the ditch they are told to dig then piss their pants when the machine gun bolts slam home and die stupidly wondering “How did this happen to me?” The tiny minority will have to do what will be required.

    It’s time to stop arguing over the culture war. It’s time to stop hunkering down for the apocalypse. It’s time to stop waiting to get beamed up. It’s time to start thinking Normandy.

    If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.

    The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.

    What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?

    Don’t understand? Start here: http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

    Then read my column ‘Prepping for Slavery’: http://www.willowtown.com/promo/blogfpprepslvry.htm

    • avatarmatt says:

      “stood up like men and they killed government employees”
      +1, start with the LEOs cause they’ll be the first to come for your guns

    • avatardevheart says:

      So what are you going to do with all the “liberal” and “progressive” gun owners who fully support your civil and constitutionally protected rights?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        No such thing. You can’t have their agenda without violating the Constitution as well as personal property rights.

    • avatarRicky says:

      I’m reading a lot of empty words….

      When the first AWB came down, the same people said the same things about “from my cold dead hands.” Now we have the “oathtakers” and the Sipsey Street Irregulars running their mouths about the next AWB and how the people that don’t fight deserve what they get, etc. Every last one of them is full of crap. They always manage to put the point at which they take up arms somewhere in the future, or at some imaginary line that they keep moving so they don’t have to live up to their promises. Total nonsense. They throw out quotes about the founders or talk about the men lining up at Lexington to fight, yet none of them have shown themselves to have the balls to do the same thing. New York? California? New Jersey? Mass? Haven’t heard of any fighting going on there. Instead, its “the voters there deserve what they get” on and on and on. Well, if Congress passed another AWB, do the voters still deserve what they get?

      Am I wrong? Prove it and do what you claim you are going to do. None of this “well, you’ll see when they cross that line” nonsense. Do it now. Put up or shut up.

      Another AWB isn’t going to happen, simply because Obama may want it, and may be in his last term (if reelected). Congress, however, want to keep their jobs, and they have learned that voting for gun control laws means they will find themselves packing their offices. Obama has nothing to lose, but the members of the House and the Senate do.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Gearing up for war, Ricky, or are you just tubthumping?

        • avatarRicky says:

          Chumbawumba references aside, I am not gearing up for war because I don’t think there will be a war. We won. Evidence of that is in the news everyday. Now we just need to maintain it. All this “um a gunna fight the gummit” stuff is just noise.

          I take that back – I am willing to go to “war” over one thing – I am white, but our biggest enemy is the OFWG, and I am willing to do just about anything to marginalize them, make them feel unwelcome, and humiliate them. I despise the fat-assed bigots at the gun show, the gun shop, at the range (like the one I had to listen to at the range two weeks ago) and on the forums. They hurt out side and make us look like idiots. I will probably stop giving money to the NRA, who doesn’t need it, and start giving it to the Pink Pistols, because that one of the demographics we should be courting.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        yet none of them have shown themselves to have the balls to do the same thing.

        Because unless it’s a LARGE group (probably 20,000+ minimum), you’ll just be demonized as “crazy”, then you’ll be summarily executed and they’ll use it to justify taking away even more rights. The sad thing is, most of the citizens of the US are just as much of trembling cowards as the citizens of Germany who just sat their pissing their pants while they let Hitler take over and start murdering millions of their fellow citizens for no reason. The US would do the same thing if Mitt Obama or Barack Romney instituted concentration camps – they’d just cower and say nothing because they’re afraid of someone yelling at them.

  18. avatarC. Walther says:

    I’d just like to point out that the VPC published a top 10 list of U.S. massacres to support a magazine ban renewal. The irony that they showed but didn’t mention? Three of those massacres (including Columbine which you so lovingly referenced) happened DURING THE PREVIOUS AWB.

    Yes, those were grandfathered magazines, but do you honestly (*honestly*) think some unscrupulous bastard wouldn’t keep or sell unregistered stuff to those who would do ill?

    Find me a gun control law that will *actually* *stop* *crime* without sh!tting all over law-abiding citizens, and I’ll be the first in line. Until then, don’t bother.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      but do you honestly (*honestly*) think some unscrupulous bastard wouldn’t keep or sell unregistered stuff to those who would do ill?

      Every gun owner I personally know plans on going Irish and burying (metaphorically or literally) their collection and claiming that they sold it at gun shows and such if they ever try to start confiscations.

  19. avatarDyspeptic says:

    Here we go again. One more time folks, the “Clinton Assault Weapons Ban” didn’t ban assault weapons, IT WAS A SEMI-AUTO AND MAGAZINE BAN. It’s hard to figure out where to start when criticizing this article. It’s full of so many hypotheticals and dubious assumptions, there isn’t much here that you can really sink your teeth into.

    For me this article jumped the shark with this statement “It could be argued that nothing in the ban runs afoul of the Second Amendment as all the amendment states is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s left to case law and legislation to define what that means.” That ladies and gentlemen is a sentiment that is somewhere between Orwellian and completely absurd. Why do I get the impression the author isn’t just stating a hypothetical here?

    Whats particularly strange about that statement is that he seems to assume the constitutionality of a future gun ban about which the particulars are not known. Is that the outlook of someone who thinks we are dealing with a fundamental civil right?

    At the end of course we get the obligatory exhortation to go get us some guns and ammo while we still can. Strangely Mr. Barrett seems to argue in favor of the legality of the ban while at the same time encouraging us to circumvent it by stocking up on those baby killer guns ASAP. Don’t know about the rest of you but I am getting real tired of the assumption that we just have to bend over and take it again.

  20. avatarJoel says:

    I’m 16. I’m not old enough to own guns, period. and I live in California, and I don’t have plans to move into another state (specifically Arizona) until I’m 20, in 2016. I want to own several AKs and ARs. So how should I “prepare”, smart-ass? magically become 18 and live in a state 500 miles away?

    All I’m saying is, as the anti’s like to put it, think of the children. Think of the future of firearms sport.

  21. avatarJohn says:

    The bad part is, we can do nothing about it, short of full blown rebellion. (Which I do not advocate)

  22. avatarST says:

    “Assuming that a new AWB goes into effect with the same parameters as the last one, I’d be able to keep the guns I have and probably see a nice appreciation on my investment.”

    This assumption that a new AWB will be just like the old one is false.

    Liberals, like a Roundup resistant weed plant, evolve with time and changes to the environment. The disarmament lobby is well aware that last time around the Grandfather clause invalidated the AWB’s purpose to limit arms availability to Joe and Suzy America. Should such a ban come around under a renewed Obama term-or under Romney’s administration-the leftists will be certain to adress the disposition of magazines and weapons currently in circulation. Exactly what measures they’ll take is pure specualation-perhaps a mandatory surrender of magazines, potentially a registration scheme requiring Law Enforcement to document in a locally centralized database the pre-ban items in legal possession *, or some kind of amnesty period of sale/surrender followed by a hard ban. Either way, if an AWB comes back the liberals will ensure that our 15 round mags and AR/AKs are strictly accounted for or seized outright.

    *from Illinois’ proposition to enact its own AWB in January 2012, HB1294.Its a useful idea of what a future Federal ban would look like,and its far more comprehensive than the old bill was in 1994. Link here:

    http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=1294&GAID=11&LegID=57470&SpecSess=&Session=

  23. avatarmatt says:

    Everyone here should feel lucky that they don’t have to deal with Chicago’s or Cook County’s AWB… well except for maybe Californians.

  24. avatarWes says:

    Dumb and alarmist post.
    If anything, given the body of SCOTUS rulings (Miller in combination with Heller), I would think we have an excellent chance of winning an AWB case as “assault weapons” are exactly the kind of weapons the Miller decision said were protected. So now we have SCOTUS stating that the second amendment applies only to military type weapons and that it is an individual right. Am I misreading things?

    • avatarmatt says:

      Except that it would take ~10 years for the SCOTUS to repeal the ban.

    • avatarJoe Grine says:

      Wes, that’s a lot of wishful thinking on your part. Miller is a quirky case from the 1930s and is for all intensive purposes meaningless to any contemporary legal debate on the 2AD. The real bottom line is this: if Obama gets to replace one of the current sitting conservative Justices with someone from his team, you will see Heller limited to its facts and any AWB would be affirmed. Hell, I don’t have much confidence that the SCOTUS as currently configured would overturn an AWB. Heller practically gives a green light to such a ban.

  25. avatarTom jones says:

    Nothing’s gonna happen its all just hype.

    • avatarmatt says:

      Plenty will happen, gun stores will make a killing this year along with anyone with a cache of magazines. When the Kel-Tec RFB was first in development, FAL mags were $1 – $2 each, when the RFB came out and I finally got mine I was paying $20-$30 for 30-40 year old mags, some of which were covered with rust on the inside.

  26. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I’m not going to insult the author personally, because he’s entitled to his opinion. He says, “I reject any laws that seek to further restrict what I’m legally allowed to do as a firearms owner.” However, this post has a vague smell of hypocrisy.

    I realize that a lot of what was written was done so as Devil’s Advocate, and the things said are not the personal opinions of the author, but the problem is your willingness to let the opposition frame the argument. Comments like “Can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?” are an example. I don’t need to give you or anyone else a good reason, and I’m not going to get into an argument about it.

    My problem is that you seem willing to entertain arguments about what is or is not reasonable, engaging in a kind of horse-trading of letting them have something in return for keeping something you want more. The problem with that is twofold: first, those two things, both the one you’re willing to sacrifice and the one you’re not, are both things to which you’re entitled, so you should be unwilling to give either of them up, and second, it’s the old camel’s nose under the tent adage. A little here, a little there… As such, I am completely unwilling to discuss the “reasonability” argument.

  27. avatarJohn D says:

    “Practical value of high-cap mags”? I don’t need to define a lot of my possessions in “practical” terms, but since you asked, I have noticed that after an afternoon of a dozen or so 30 round rifle mags, 10 or 15 17 round pistol mags, and assorted 10 round .22 pistol mags, my booger hook has more strength, and just works that much better!

  28. avatarSanchanim says:

    I am just cutting to the end…
    I think we all seem to point out, some better than others that a ban is just not really needed.
    I live in California. Any sporting rifle I own is much different than the rest of the country and that really isn’t fair. Also Manufacturers need to pay my state quite a bit of money for each model they are going to sell. This is nothing less than extortion.
    The laws at least hear need to change, and certainly I don’t want any new laws, unless they wipe out our stupid laws from the federal government.

  29. avatarSmaj says:

    If this criminal cabal retains power in 2012 there will be no assault weapons ban. They will, as they always do, overreach and go for full-on gun confiscation.

  30. avatarracer88 says:

    “I can’t, for example, buy a stinger missile nor can I own a late model machine gun. (In my case, this is probably a wise decision. I hate traffic and it seems that whoever is in front of me on any given day drives like an idiot. Imagine me with a brace of stingers strapped to my hood and you can see that keeping those away from me is probably a good call.)”

    I don’t think this is funny, if it was supposed to be funny. And, if it was serious, then I don’t believe your comment fits in with the “The Truth About Guns” meme.

    This passage plays RIGHT into the confiscatory hands (literally and figuratively) of the gun-grabbers. It supports their “blood running in the streets” claims.

    If the presence of “stinger missiles” would tempt your seemingly irrepressible violent urges, then I suspect you shouldn’t own ANY sort of firearms or weapons.

    Just sayin’.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Exactly. It’s the person, not the weapon. Give a peaceful man any weapon at all, and you have nothing to fear. An evil person will find a way to do harm, even if unarmed.

  31. avatarRalph says:

    Can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds?

    Yeah. “A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

    Judge Benson Legg in Woollard v. Brown

  32. avatarTotenglocke says:

    Let’s be clear – I’m not making these points in support for an Assault Weapons Ban.

    Bullshit, Jimbo. Your anti-semi-auto pistol rant yesterday and how “no one needs more than a revolver” argument show that you’re very much in favor of grabbing any guns that you personally disapprove of.

  33. avatarstompahippie says:

    agree or disagree on the points I have to say I appreciate that you are able to see multiple angles of the issue.
    To often we get wrapped up in the total don’t tell me what I can or can’t have to be able to look at it with any objectivity.

    • avatarQajaqon says:

      “Hold it right, sir. Your sword is to long and I must shorten’ it by 10.5 inches. Ok, you are free to go sir.”

      Free!! ?

      Freedom is no place for giving a hand so the rest of your body can move ‘freely’ about.

      All freedom is held in check by a firm stand and a firm hand. To do otherwise is the end of freedom.

  34. avatarstompahippie says:

    sorry . should have said “Too often”

  35. avatarChuck says:

    Not very becoming of a leading firearms blog to have the authors insult commenters who disagree with there positions.

  36. avatarMark says:

    I agree that if Obama is elected to a second term, everything, including anti firearm laws, that we have not seen during his first term will be seen in the second. As a lame duck president he will have no incentive not to trot out his fascism. Personally I have no big deal with using a 10 round mag for serious social work. 9 rounds in a 1911 with reloads is fine with me. If you can do El Presidente in 7.04 with a 1911 at zero down a reload is not a problem. Be that as it may, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist and should not be addressed. Evil features have never hurt anyone. The responsibility sits squarely with the shooter.

    • avatarRicky says:

      He may propose new laws – and it will get nowhere in congress. He can’t be elected for a third term and that could give him the cajones to suggest a new AWB, but the congress members that have to vote for his proposals want to retire from congress, which means they can’t piss off any groups that have a habit of punishing congress wholesale for anti-gun legislation.

      Look, if the whole “our guns are making Mexican streets run red” thing didn’t work, not much will. Even more so now that everyone knows that his buddy Holder was the reason our guns were there. They have lost the high ground.

  37. avatarGL Kohler says:

    I think the OP’s position on this matter is actually pretty moderate considering the overall populace. And that’s exactly why its so upsetting. Its the slow creep of reason that threatens our rights, not the impassioned speeches of fascism. The masquerade is unconscious and well-intended. There are those who feel that needs and rights are mutually constitutive–a position that presupposes that one man is capable of deciding another man’s needs. In this case, the absolute most fundamental need: self-preservation. I for one am pleased that RF allows these posts. They draw out the ire of a group of Americans who haven’t forgotten the meaning of our entitlement to our rights. They are not to be determined by any body save the individual who would exercise them.

  38. avatarRicky says:

    “Pot, meet kettle.”

    Ralph, your accusations of hypocrisy are misplaced. I don’t claim to be ready to gear up and fight the man. It is a mental exercise that I don’t have to engage in because the fight will never happen. Sure, there are isolated cases of peoples guns being seized like during Katrina, but it is becoming less and less common, and the courts are coming down on the side of the gun owner. All these armchair patriots feel comfortable claiming they will channel the spirits of the Founders because deep down they know they will never get called out. It is no different than drunk guys in a bar stroking one another’s egos about whether or not they could take the MMA fighter that just looked at their girlfriends. I’m calling them out. I stopped taking them seriously when they said they would take up arms if the original AWB passed and then rolled over like the rest of us. In the meantime, while the “oathkeepers” sat around and got even fatter, all of us “sheeple” gave money and time to GOA, NRA, et al, and punished the politicians in ’96. We have been stomping them ever since, and not a single shot has been fired.

    We won, its over. Now we are just mopping up. Dude, the gun controllers don’t even talk about bans. They want them, but they know they can’t have it, and that’s why the cry about Stand Your Ground. 10 years from now, Cal, Ill and NY will be issuing CCWs the same as everyone else. State AWBs will fall because of court decisions. It won’t happen because the states want to do it – the courts will order them to do it. Instead of getting our panties in a wad over whether or not there will be a ban, we should be concentrating on bringing more people from different walks of life in to the fold and solidifying our victory. That includes the antis – we need to extend the olive branch by taking them shooting and showing them that there really is nothing to fear. These Walter Mitty commandos make the rest of us look like losers, and they need to be marginalized so they go back to hiding in their basements. Be paranoid, just do it somewhere else so the rest of us can get on with the business of expanding our base.

    • avatarmatt says:

      “It won’t happen because the states want to do it – the courts will order them to do it.”

      Chicago has done a good job of side stepping the courts. With it’s AWB most hand guns except revolvers, pocket pistols and 1911s are banned. Cook County’s ban is almost identical to Chicago, but for the most part seems unenforced. Go in to any Cook County gun store and tell me how many guns you can find which dont have 10+ round magazines.

      • avatarmatt says:

        Poorly phrased paragraph, in regards to side stepping courts, see the ban on ranges, even though there is a mandatory training requirement, etc. The stuff about the AWB was just me b1tching.

    • avatarWilliam T Sixgun says:

      You just made me sick!

  39. avatarwlflwr says:

    Jim Barrett; thank you for putting your opinions out there and dealing with the ranting of commenters that do not demonstrate basic reading comprehension skills.
    Nick Leghorn, thank you for standing up for thoughtful discussion. I regret that most of the responses do not met that definition.

  40. I think Thunderstick says it best.

    Today I’d like to address the issue of need. As in the constant whine of “Why do you NEED x? What are you going to use X for?” in regards to personal weaponry. This is a common question among Gun Owner Butts (as in “I’m a gun owner, but…”) who wail and gnash their teeth because you don’t use night vision scopes to hunt Bambi. Put quite simply, this question is some bullshit, and I’ve always got an answer. So here goes.

    Q: “Why do you NEED high capacity magazines?”

    A: “Because sometimes you have to kill a whole bunch of motherfuckers.”

    Q: “Why do you NEED armor piercing rounds?”

    A: “Because sometimes you have to kill some motherfucker hiding on the other side of a wall.”

    Q: “Why do you NEED a fifty caliber sniper rifle?”

    A: “Because sometimes you have to kill some motherfucker from a kilometer away.”

    Q: “Why do you need a night vision scope?”

    A: “Because sometimes you have to kill some motherfuckers in the dark.”

    Bitches I can go on all day like this. Why do I NEED this shit? Well I dunno, genius, why were these items developed? Almost all of them had a purpose when they were developed. They designed AP to penetrate barricades. They designed night vision for killing motherfuckers in the dark. They developed standard (“high”) capacity magazines to lessen the need to reload.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      You’re crazy, and I wouldn’t want you giving speeches about this on television, but I like your style nonetheless.

    • avatarpeter says:

      I have similar logic, only more… socially acceptable:

      Q: Why do I need a .50 Semi-Automatic AP?
      A: YOU try shooting a concrete slab (with said gun) from 1/2mi and tell me you don’t think it’s at least slightly enjoyable.

      Everything else is more/less the same

      • avatarpeter says:

        Edit: never shot AP, so I don’t know if the effects on concrete would be better or worse, but you see the point.

  41. avatargunfighter 2012 says:

    How is this post in any way helpful. It’s not a warning to be vigilant for another AWB. It’s more “Why can’t we all get along” bullsh*t. It’s okay mister gummint man, you can have my gun and my land and my money I don’t need all of it and Thank You for your help. Way to cave in you f-ing pus*y.
    Lets just roll over, play dead and give up now.
    Here I can’t think for myself anymore, YOU tell me what I need.

  42. 100% foolproof method to overturn the MG ban.

    1- Find whoever is in charge of the law.
    2- Show them the video of the Hughes amendment being vetoed.
    3- ???
    4- PROFIT!

  43. avatarDJ says:

    “For those who really think that I am an anti-2A person in disguise, I ask again that you re-read the post carefully. The questions I ask are legitimate ones and they will be ones that your friends and neighbors are likely to ask around the water cooler if you talk to them about 2A issues.”

    I have, and I have reached the conclusion that only an anti-2A person could use the anti-gunner’s terms and present their arguments as smoothly as you do. Those that understand the root issues mock these terms rather than embrace them, and rightly so. To give weight to their language choices, to use only the approved terminology as the anti-freedom forces would have all of us do, is the only proof I need as to your true intentions.

    Your proposals/concerns are all variations on the tired “If it only saves one life…” theme. None of MY gun-owning friends/acquaintances are constantly worried about other law-abiding guns owners “snapping” and shooting up the mall or town square; the only people who are constantly projecting these concerns onto others are the unstable gun-control advocates who can’t control their own feelings/emotions, and therefore don’t understand how others can do it.

  44. avatarIan says:

    The president doesn’t pass laws, so how is this gonna happen?

    • avatarWilliam T Sixgun says:

      Wow ! Really? are you that much in the dark, or Just a Obuma supporter?

    • avatartheaton says:

      Ian, and the President can’t start a war without Congressional approval but he did it in Libya. I don’t see were Congress passed a law requiring that multiple long gun sales need to be reported in four Southwestern states but we have just that. He’s stated several times that he doesn’t like dealing with Congress and he’ll get around them anyway he can.

  45. avatarJohnny says:

    Somewhere, mikeb is smiling and laughing.

  46. avatarKory says:

    I support “full” capacity magazines because I don’t want some bureaucrat to eventually mandate that I can only purchase health insurance from Company “A”. You give them an inch and they will stretch that a mile. I support “full” capacity magazines because it is not the “right” of a bureaucrat to infringe on my ability to defend myself with my chosen variety of arms. My right to defend myself predates the bureaucrats’ rights to enact laws and to try to infringe upon my rights. I support “full” capacity magazines because I may need that extra round or 10 or 20 rounds to defend myself or my family.

  47. avatarThomasR says:

    Whether Jim Barret is a secret anti- freedom nut is immaterial, this is the way anti’s think; “it’s a good thing I don’t have a stinger missle, because I might just use it in a moment of anger!”
    This is typical of most anti- self defense people, “if I can’t be trusted with a lethal weapon like a shoulder fired missle or a gun, then no one else can be trusted.”
    The corralary to this thought pattern is the inability to concieve of standing up against and fighting a human predator/s.
    If thier only response to an attack is to scream and beg for mercy or to run away and hide under a desk, then of course, they could never understand the need for a high cap mag or a rifle with 30 round magazines to deal with multiple attackers and if someone says otherwise, then your just compensating for a “small package.”
    Fortunately for us, more and more Americans are remembering thier heritage and aquiring the tools that defend life and liberty and the people that Jim Barret represents are becoming more of a minority.
    Ultimately, the way I do my part to counter these people is to OC to normalize the carrying of a weapon, vote for pro-2nd amenment canidates, be a member of the NRA, GOA and SAF and to take out people to the gun range, because I definitely prefer the ballot box.

  48. avatarEric says:

    The articles author said:
    “Can anyone think of a really good reason to have a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?”
    Yes, it’s the same reason the police and military have.
    BTW, have you ever heard of flash mobs???
    How about the FBI felony stop shootout in Miami?
    It took multiple rounds to stop both those guys.

  49. avatarEl Duderino says:

    Hmm all I read was, “You don’t really need this privilege that used to be a right, it serves no good purpose, so it’s totally OK if it gets taken away from you.”

    The Founders made it pretty darn clear that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about defense from petty criminals and purse snatchers. It’s to create a standing army of fighting men to deter invasion (of dubious use now) and to keep the government in check and unable to wholesale repress the people (of great use now).

  50. avatarTwinkie says:

    What the hell is this crap!? I thought it was blindingly obvious that more rounds = better. The author’s experience with normal capacity mags is at a range? Whopee! The expert has spoken.

  51. avatarBHirsh says:

    “[M]y guess is that most DGUs are short affairs with a few shots fired by each party.”

    Enter the flash mob hell-bent on kicking your white butt to the curb. Still think hi-cap mags aren’t a “necessity”?

  52. avatarJoe Doakes says:

    While I would not want anyone to stand at ease on any issue regarding the Second Amendment . . . on this score . . . we are in real good shape . . . in time though . . . a generation from now we may be in trouble. But, the media environment that was present then is not coming back . . . thanks to blogs like this.

    :)

    • avatartheaton says:

      If we can’t purchase every weapon available on the market available to the state soldier then we are not in good shape. If we can’t purchase those weapons without government permission then we are not in good shape. The fact that there are people that believe we are in good shape shows what compromise and public education gets us.

  53. avatar230therapy says:

    They are using the Commerce Clause in order to restrict the Second Amendment. SAF has a lawsuit in place now that challenges the ability of the government to restrict 2A rights in this way.

  54. avatarM1 says:

    “It could also be argued that nothing in those bans technically runs afoul of the Second Amendment as all the amendment states is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s left to case law and legislation to define the specifics.”

    No, that’s why “shall not be infringed” is there.

    infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

  55. avatarMike says:

    Who posted this crap… Another wasted ten minutes of my life that I will never get back.

  56. avatartheaton says:

    Many gun owners couldn’t stand the 1994 AWB, a ban that had an expiration date. Many of those same gun owners are now more than willing to vote for a man who signed a permanent AWB. Those gun owners are cowards!

  57. avatarWilliam T Sixgun says:

    Any Ban on anything gun related is bad! If you give them a inch they will take a mile! I must be in that ” small percentage of people who really care about it”! You should be ashamed of posting that left wing garbage! That’s it, just wave the white flag, then bend over! Nothing you say from this point forward will I read, including any reply you my make to this post!

  58. avatarCrate Kicker says:

    2nd Amendment – written in dumby so even the politicians could understand it.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    There is nothing to be left to the lower courts and law writers to decide.
    And “arms” was just not muskets. That included knives and canon.
    Any gun owner who supports any type of gun control is a hypocrite and blatant idiot.

  59. avatarLarry says:

    Wow lots of responses. I’m going to add mine: No how, no way. Too many gun supporters and most see though foolish arguments against “assault weapons”. Many of my friends have graduated from non-gun owners to buying their first pistol or shotgun. Then most have moved on to the evil black gun. There are a LOT of ARs and AKs out there and not just owned by “gun nuts” like myself. But, hey if scaring people into buying more ARs, AKs, and high capacity magazines are your thing, then by all means full-steam ahead. I will do my part and order another 10 or 20 high capacity magazines or maybe another AR. I will use your argument to convince my wife. Thanks.

  60. avatarBob says:

    I’m curious how all you people would answer this hypothetical scenario. Since most of you advocate that anyone should be able to arm themself anyway they please, how would you feel if everyone owned a nuclear bomb?

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Bob asks: “…how would you feel if everyone owned a nuclear bomb?”

      That question gets thrown at us all the time, so we’re used to it. You hear it on the “news” a lot, from people like Piers Morgan and his ilk, spoken along the lines of, “So if you think you should be able to have whatever weapons you want, then what about rocket launchers, and tanks, and nuclear weapons?”

      The answer is simple: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The important word in there for purposes of this conversation is “Arms.” Arms is a word traditionally used to refer to weapons with two main characteristics: first, that they are the individual weapon of the common soldier, and second, that they are “discriminate fire,” in that you aim them at a particular target and they generally hit that target to the exclusion of other things around it.

      There is another term, one that I can’t scrape out of my brain right now, that refers to the other class of weapons — to which cannon, artillery, tanks, and yes, nuclear weapons belong — which has the characteristics of being “crew-served” and/or “indiscriminate.” These are weapons that “don’t care who they hit.”

      Another argument that often accompanies the “nuclear option” is the “they were only referring to muskets when they wrote that” argument. For the purposes of this answer, I’ll agree with that statement, because it helps reinforce my point. They wrote it to refer to muskets because that was the weapon of the common soldier, and the weapons that the common soldier would face from the other side (aka “Arms”). This draws a distinction between the discriminate weapons of the day (muskets) and the indiscriminate weapons of the day (cannon, bombs, etc). Bring that forward 200 years, and the discriminate weapon of the common soldier (“Arms”) is now the M4-style rifle, while the indiscriminate weapons (“not Arms”) are now artillery, land mines, tanks, and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

      So there you go. In my opinion, the answer to this stupid, stupid question that people like to throw at us way too often is “No, everyone should not be able to own a nuclear bomb.” But the reason we shouldn’t have a nuke (“not Arms”) has as its obverse the exact same reason that ownership of M4-style rifles (“Arms”) should not be restricted from the general populace.

      The beauty of the way the Constitution is written is that in another couple hundred years, when the M4 has been replaced by the M41A Pulse Rifle as the individual weapon of the common soldier, and the pocket neutron bomb has replaced the nuke, the Second Amendment will still apply, just like it did when it was written, and just like it does today.

    • avatarMikke says:

      Nice job parroting an off topic anti-RKBA talking blip. I’ll bet you thought you were making a helluva point when you emitted it.

      No, I take that back. Parrots are smarter than that.

      Let me ask you one in return about your lack of analytical consistency. You are implicitly suggesting that the evolution of toolmaking renders the Second Amendment irrelevant. (And that all weapons are categorically the same both in 2A intent and praxis…which Matt already er disarmed.)

      What about the other Rights? We’ve evolved technically on all fronts, not just firearms. Shouldn’t that render the Bill of Rights obsolete in its entirety? Why have a Fourth Amendment, when we have so much better locks than in 1791–the founding fathers couldn’t have foreseen swipe pads and data encryption, so obviously we have no need for the Constitution to establish those protections as so inborn that government cannot mess with them?

      Why have a First Amendment? People use the internet to destroy others’ lives by stalking them, stealing their credit rating, stealing their identities, abducting their children or engaging them in criminal sexual behavior. Clearly the First Amendment never intended to protect such a powerful communications medium/tool by common citizens! Back to quill pens for everybody! And only the government can own a printing press!

      Reasoning like this is how come I no longer call myself a liberal. Liberal used to mean standing up for the dignity of the individual, like Tom Paine. Now it means the lowest-mentality form of nose-ring-led collectivist utopianism. Which in fact is elitism, because it does not trust “the people” to exercise our inborn rights responsibly. Funny, how today’s progressives are like that, isn’t it? They sound almost like royalty in that respect.

  61. avatarBPeterson says:

    You are missing a very important point. The 2nd amendment was designed to give the people the ability to protect themselves against criminals and a corrupt government. Read the Federalists papers ‘Shall not be infringed” means I have the same weapon capability as the bad guys. It would not do me a lot of good to try and protect my family against a gang carrying semi auto rifles with 30 round mags using my handgun. So any law restricting my weapons is an infringement. I am not talking about rocket launchers and so forth, just what criminals and the police carry. Just about every cop car has a AR-15 style carbine in the trunk, there fore I have the same right regardless of what some anti gun liberal judge says. The Constitution overrides many of these cities that restrict AR style carbines.

  62. avatarAlec Web says:

    I can give you a very good reason for high capacity magazines. Here in Philthadelphia, we have recently had to deal with “wolf packs” (10 – 20 boys between 13- 20 years old). These little bastards are running around mugging and beating people to death as a group. If I had to be down in center city ( don’t go there if ya don’t have to) and one of these wolf packs started stalking me, you damn well better believe I would likely need more then 10 rounds to get the hell outta dodge. I would also tell you that folks out on there farms dealing with foxes, wolves and whatever other varmints frequently have to fire allot more then ten rounds to protect their family and their business. Open your minds folks, these gun laws affect everyone, not just these douche bag city dwellers and politicians.

  63. avatarbarry says:

    will the ban also be applied to body guards of the rich and famous hell no they will not the rich will continue to rule the world as it does now how did we ever get to where some idiot from hollywood sets the trend for america rosie you know who ellen rupaul are now our spokepersons for the down and troten people of america i would rather listen to puntin adn chavez over this queer(yes it is a word)bunch of characters who are pushing their agenda down our throats when you mingle with sinners and criminals that is what your world will become somehhow someway we must find a line in the sand and say no more

  64. avatarJoseph Davenport says:

    WELL HERE WE ARE THE DAY AFTER AND SCREWED ALL BECAUSE OF CUOMO.

  65. avatarbbbb says:

    Here’s your study to needing more than 10 rounds.my friend went to 7-11 and brought his five shot j-frame.3 dudes come in and hold the place up my friend shoots as they kill the clerk.two shots take one Guy out then two more a 2nd bad Guy gone.he misses with his last shot.bad Guy walks up and is going to pull the trigger.friend is dead…..no more ammo.but….police are in the area and hear the fire of shots and save him….

  66. avatarJim says:

    Drunk driving deaths kill millions of people, one of whom was a good friend of mine. The number of deaths far out way all shooting deaths combined. If those who support a bill to out law “assault weapons” feel so strongly the way they do, because their intent is to reduce deaths, I suggest they think about proposing a bill that would make it mandatory for any vehicle have a breathalyzer in order to start, and continue to drive upon random breath samples. Oh you don’t like that law… Give me one good reason why you shouldn’t have one in your car. Because its an inconvenience? But just think of all the people you’ll save by passing that law.
    This all sounds like a ridiculous idea, but is based off of the same concept. Yes we have rules that are enforced while driving and safety standards the car manufactures must follow, but some rules can be pushed so far as to impede the freedoms we have by over regulation. Just as a driver shouldn’t need to explain why his car doesn’t need to be drunk proof, nor should a free law abiding citizen need to explain why he or she needs or wants to own a certain rifle. To those who try to compare an AR-15 to an automatic rifle or some RPG, please realize that what your arguing about is a pistol grip and bayonet lug. Even if you cut off the bayonet lug (which I guess makes sense, because before long knives will be illegal as well), and remove the pistol grip, what you are left with is your standard hunting rifle, which by the way shoots a smaller bullet then almost any hunting rifle. The only way to take it a step further is to ban all hunting rifles and guns. Ask your self… is this really all about a pistol grip??? The next time you hear someone talking about banning assault weapons, substitute the words assault weapon with gun, and you can see how easy the argument they are using could be applied to any gun, and if the general public can accept that the tool used is at fault, its only a matter of time before that tool is banned.

  67. avatarjoe says:

    Now your going off the deep end. Why is there always the urge to look for someone else besides the actual person who commits the crime to be held responsible. “You did do enough to stop that other person from committing a crime”. This whole line of thinking is asinine. We still don’t know the all the facts of Sandy hook. You don’t know that the mother didn’t have the guns locked up. Locks have keys. They can be opened. The only person responsible is the person who committed the crime. If we go in any other direction trying to assign blame that is a slippery slope that I don’t want to go down and no one else should either.

Leave a Reply

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