Why do gun control advocates constantly prattle about "high capacity magazines"

You could have just said a 10 rd limit.

With a 10 rd mag a tactical reload is far easier since you only have to count to 9, switch mags with one in the chamber if needed for anyone choosing to charge, and resume firing with virtually no interruption. But you already knew that when you posted this. How could you not?

Depends what kind of 19 year old we're talking about. A 19 year old you, or a 19 year old me?

I grew up shooting guns and at 19 I was in the Infantry. Who were you at 19?

 

Another odd thing, that you describe a potential threat as being an inexperienced person. Weird?

 

You use them at the range...lazy
You hunt hogs...bad shot
Self defense....neighborhood zombies?

Moon clips? Duh

War like purposes? Do you live in Rwanda? I've not gotten into US v Miller but one court case referring to it allowing sawed off shotguns into NFA because they couldn't be used by militia but what about autos?

Not weird...I was referring to the 19yo turd that did the Indy shooting you were responding to. He doesn't sound like a trained gun nut. His previous gun was a shotgun that was taken away from him. I seriously doubt he was an expert in reloading....and I can run 20ft/sec.

 

20ft per second. Doesn't sound fast enough.

My fastest time on the 2 mile run is 11 minutes flat. Not sure how many feet per second I was going, how did you break it down per second?

 

5.5 minutes per mile is impressive for a 20yo.....you have to improve your attention, I said I could maybe do half of what Bolt does, 40ft/sec, with some motivation.

 

No no my question was how do you know? Or is it just something you feel like should be true?

 

Just because you have no use for standard capacity magazines doesn’t mean there are not legitimate uses for them.

 

I have had guns all my life which were passed on from my grandfather and I have my father’s 45 automatic pistol which he carried in the Pacific theater during WW II. I have a glock 9mm thatI used to carry whe I owned a couple downtown LA restaurants. My Grandfather left me a couple nice shotguns made in the 1920s and a couple deer rifles made in the same era. They are like works of art and also efficient for any good hunter.

I know several peope that I grew up with that are what I refer to as gun nuts. One has several high capacity cheap plastic guns and one that he has converted into a fully automatic weapon. Another guy took his wife and family up to Idaho and they live in a trashy looking compound with barb wire around it and attends some whacky right wing church and teaches his kids about white supremacy and ZOG, whatever that is. A couple of them are meth heads living around LA who are also pretty racist.

The one thing all of these guys have in common is that they were all ******* when we were growing up. They didn’t play baseball because they were afraid of getting hit with the ball or football because they were afraid to get hit. They never got any girls and they no doubt had very short peckers. I am pretty sure these are the same kind of weak sucks who are always crying about restrictions on weapons of any type. Fat 50 year old losers running around in fatigues playing army and running their mouths...

 

Was that an illegal conversion?

 

I assumed it was.

 

Your perception of need is not a sound foundation for a limit on the rights of the law abiding

In all of the mass shootings in the US - include those with revolvers and pump-action shotguns - its happened once.
300 people in the Pulse nightclub. One man with an AR. Multiple magazine reloads. No one did anything.

 

And he was using at least 30 round magazines on trapped people.
Perception is subjective. You can believe a law abiding citizen should have sawed off shotguns, automatic weapons, RPGs and exploding pens. Hey, they are law abiding people they will follow the law, so what's the problem.
Judging costs and benefits to society as a whole should not be left to obviously biased judges. I'm looking at you.

 

Did you base your assumption on profiling, or do you have direct knowledge of something that would keep him from being able to legally bear arms?

 

I went to grade school, junior high and high school with the guy. Knew him for years. I assumed he illegally rigged it based on the kind of person he was.

 

And NO ONE tried to jump him during a mag change. Not one out of 300 people.
Your 10 round limit is arbitrary and capricious; you cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, 10 rounds as a limit.
Your feeeeelings on the matter do not matter.

 

Or, more likely, he was lying about his full auto plastic high capacity gun.

 

it is a facade. they limit magazines to 10 rounds today-five rounds tomorrow. There was a picture of me once in some shooting publication at a big USPSA event. The first magazine from my EAA gold team race gun was at my knee, I was already shooting rounds out of the magazine in the gun. The brass in the air was from both magazines.

 

serious federal felony for that sort of thing-

 

Lazy: Opinion and also admitting I derive utility from them.
Bad shot: No, there's just no limit, they're in massive sounders, and they'll panic and charge you. Also admitting I derive utility from them.
Self defense: Are you not aware of the concept of suppressive fire, double tapping, or home invasions by more than one individual? Also admitting utility.

Moonclips: Opinion, and I've seen serious pros who love them and other speed loaders to include jerry miculek.
I'll take his advice over yours, thanks though.

No, I live in the United States of America where I am part of the militia by virtue of being an able bodied citizen. It is my civic duty, and my right, to keep and bear arms, in defense of myself, others, my property, their property, and the nation. Most especially those most useful for war see US v Miller, DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. Read US v Miller and then we can talk about it. Ok chief?

I bet you don't run 20ft a sec and haven't for some time.

 

Lazy: reloading is not easy?
Bad shot: you think you can get off more than 9 rounds at a charging boar?
Self defense: what's the problem with your belt-o-moon clips?

"Okay chief?" Odd question, about US v Miller, why don't you have easily available automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns both military ordinance at one time?

A person that thinks he needs to lay down suppressive fire, uses terms like double tap and fears gang home invasions is so immersed in gun culture that he is a poor judge of what is best for the general public.

BTW I am fast on my feet.

 

Your unlimited limit is arbitrary and capricious; you cannot demonstrate the necessity for unlimited magazines sizes.
Your feeeeelings on the matter do not matter

 

It is easy, that doesn't mean I don't derive utility from not having to reset when I'm practicing long distance shooting.
I think I can dump the entire 30 rounds into more than one at a charge, yes. You don't wander up to knife fighting distance first, and they're not the flash.
I prefer modern arms to designs perfected 2 centuries ago, and cylinders don't lend themselves to comfortable carry like stick mags do.

Are you asking why US v Miller is about short barrelled shotguns as they relate to the NFA? Because that's what miller had on him when arrested. As to why shotguns were turned down in that case: Miller's lawyer presented no evidence, and Miller was dead by the time it made it to SCOTUS. Miller's lawyer also got a cushy fed appointment directly afterwards. Nothing to see there I'm sure.
Either way, Miller lays out quite clearly that the 2a protects those arms most useful for warfare. Their reasoning was that they hadn't been shown that short barrels were such a thing.
Look at militaries now: All select fire issue, and generally the barrels of dedicated spec warfare units are short barrels. Cops like them too.
You'd get laughed out of court if you tried to say machineguns weren't useful in warfare.

Would you like links to home invasions that occurred in my area that fit that bill? Double tap: A common term for using an immediate follow up shot.
Suppressive fire: I mean I'm not just going to hop up and wander about when someone is shooting at me, I'm going to have cover.
I find myself unmoved by your pearl clutching, and guess what: So does my right to vote and so does the text of the 2nd amendment.
< Pictured here, my opinion of your opinion.

 

When Reality slaps you in the face.

Nicely put.

 

For the last 80 years or so the NFA has done an excellent job of keeping weapons that were not for "legitimate citizen use" off the streets. US v Miller did muddy the playing field a bit saying short barreled shotguns were not used militarily (they were military ordinance in WW1) and therefore not considered acceptable militia ordinance. Can that be said about automatic weapons? See, the ruling created a mess. The pretend soldier citizens (PSCs) picked up on the debatable "militia" part and went with it, but Heller held that apart from militias, citizens had a right to own weapons for "traditionally lawful purposes". The PSCs don't seem to be happy to leave it at that.

 

Again: you would be laughed off of the internet for suggesting that select fire rifles and automatic weapons which are standard issue for all militaries are not useful for militia purposes. Under Miller auto should not be allowed on the nfa.

The nfa has only ever been about making it more difficult for the poor to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.