Home » Blogs » The Truth About Magazine Capacity

The Truth About Magazine Capacity

Robert Farago - comments No comments

One of our commentators recently emailed TTAG central complaining about our textless links to YouTube videos. He considered it lazy and annoying (some mobile phones don’t display the vids). Laziness has nothing to do with it. Sometimes the video says it all—save the comments that our Armed Intelligentsia add underneath the post. But, as always, point taken. So if you want some piercing insight into this particular video, I’ll say this about that: the battle over magazine capacity goes to the heart of the “debate” over civilian disarmament. A good guy can be trusted with a 30-round ammunition magazine or, for that matter, a flame thrower. A bad guy can’t be trusted with a pair of tweezers. Why should good guys’ self-defense be limited by bad guys?  [h/t Matt in FL]

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “The Truth About Magazine Capacity”

  1. I enjoyed this video, and it shows how little impact lower capacity magazines have. My only complaint is that they didnt fire the weapons until they were empty, then reloading and either cycling the slide or dropping the bolt. It could be argued that an active shooter would mindlessly fire until empty, not count his shots. I dont necessarily agree with that, but thats the first thing an anti gunner would point out.

    Reply
  2. I haven’t seen flip-flops like that since my last trip to the beach.

    It’s amazing to me that politicians can live with themselves. How do you exist like that?

    Reply
  3. Jim demonstrated another good point in his first string–when his two magazines were empty, he drew a second pistol. But good for both shooters here, counting their shots and leaving a round in the chamber when reloading.

    Reply
  4. i like the “NY reload” – shows how silly this is. it should be compared with the Biden shotgun with a pump or single shot. i wont be 25 yards away hiding behind a can trying to tackle them, though.

    Reply
  5. I have to admit I’ve felt a twinge of what the anonymous commenter thought about the textless video posts, but I agree with you that usually those videos stand for themselves just fine. Perhaps a compromise would be a 5-10 word description of what the video was about, for those non-compliant mobile devices? Especially when the textless video has a snarky headline that gives no clue as to the videos contents?

    Reply
  6. It is not illegal to posess unless you intend to use it for purposes outlined in current law. Same applies to AR pistols and SBR rules. You can have an 8.5″ upper for your pistol, but when you attach it to a lower with a stock, it becomes a SBR, thus making it a felony.

    Proving intent is difficult in a lot of cases, but when it comes to the BATFE, it is the default position, and you will likely have to prove othewise.

    Reply
  7. It’s actually illegal to attach any silencing device to your gun at all, even if you never fire it. Thus installing the ‘solvent trap’ when it’s known to be identical to the ‘econo can’ cannot possibly be legal, even if you only use it for the “intended purpose” (wink wink).

    Reply
  8. If I ever need to draw my weapon, I am not going to be particularly concerned about the noise. There will be greater issues to deal with, during and after the shooting.

    I certainly don’t want a legal silencer simply because I don’t want to “court” the Feds and I really don’t want to fire any of my weapons with an oil filter suspended oh so gracefully from the muzzle end.

    It is nice to know we can create these “field expedient” devices but we have always known that.

    Reply
  9. I understand their point, but they should make it clear that purchases by departments that support civilian disarmerment direct from the factory will be rejected. If individuals or departments that are pro-2A want to buy that’s fine, but they need to set some restrictions to help close the LEO loophole.

    Reply
  10. Personally, Im not angry about companies selling products to LEOs. Believe it or not, this is not a issue to me. they are businesses and have to operate like a business. If your state enacts draconian laws against firearms and magazines, MOVE. Get out. Do everything in your power to take your money and time away from that state.

    The issue we should be tackling is Class III firearms (i.e. SBRs, SBS’s, suppressors, select fires). We should be focusing this company bashing BS towards changing the laws in regards to citizen ownership of Class III firearms. Law enforcement doesnt get alienated (they still get their gear), manufacturers dont get alienated (not only do they not get alienated, but their customer base expands to the 80 million gun owning americans) and private gun owners benefit because they are given more equal firepower to the state (in accordance with the 2nd amendment). Everybody wins.

    We have to break ourselves away from this Hegelian dialectic of us versus them mentalities. Dont worry, the elite are far ahead of you and are using shit like this to manipulate you.

    Of course, keep up this bullshit if you decide to people. I could use less people in the lines and backorders so that I get my orders faster. Please extend your morality to ammo manufacturers too. This will also benefit me.

    Reply

Leave a Comment