Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Manitou During a home invasion, I don't believe a homeowner is going to want to depend on ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 10:26 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,053
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 5,607 Times in 3,443 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
During a home invasion, I don't believe a homeowner is going to want to depend on that one single shot .22 rifle and with only one round needed to be able to hit the target every time.

Marksmanship my ass.
I get Shiva's point. A well placed shot does far more damage than spraying the walls with a dozen shots. That does not mean that I would be comfortable with a single shot .22 as a defense weapon.

The typical home invasion involves one or a couple thugs entering the home in the middle of the night. Since a reasonably well fit male teen can cover 20 feet in less than a second, you are typically going to get one shot. Possibly two. From the hip. In the dark. You better learn to make it count.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:05 AM
MRAPP's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 439
Thanks: 627
Thanked 362 Times in 193 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

I am opposed to magazine capacity restrictions. Just like all gun control measures it is a piecemeal attempt by the left to ban all firearms. Their strategy is to eliminate the Second Amendment one step at a time, this is just another step. Ultimately they need a disarmed public to completely implement their totalitarian system
__________________
HILLARY FOR PRISON 2017
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:13 AM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,920
Thanks: 171
Thanked 4,961 Times in 3,606 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
I get Shiva's point. A well placed shot does far more damage than spraying the walls with a dozen shots. That does not mean that I would be comfortable with a single shot .22 as a defense weapon.
I get Shiva's point as finding any type of excuse to push limited capacity on the population. If his type wants to have for example one of those fancy electronic guns that require voice activation, fingerprint, sphincter-tightening factor, fart detector, bullet limiter, et cetera, they are more than welcome to spend their money on that contraption. They do need to butt out of trying to convince people that less bullets mean better accuracy and finer specimen of sharpshooter marksman.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:40 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,053
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 5,607 Times in 3,443 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post

One thing I always find interesting is that "gun control" advocates seem to worry a lot about "magazines" while completely ignoring belt fed ammunition systems like used on the semi-automatic version of the M-1919 where a hundred rounds or more can be hooked together in the belt.
The lack of interest in belt fed loading systems undoubtedly stems from the lack of the weapon being desirable. I'm fairly knowledgeable about firearms and had to look it up. It appears to be a commercially dumbed down version of the 1919. Totally unsuitable for any purpose other to say you own one.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:48 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,053
Thanks: 6,911
Thanked 5,607 Times in 3,443 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
I get Shiva's point as finding any type of excuse to push limited capacity on the population. If his type wants to have for example one of those fancy electronic guns that require voice activation, fingerprint, sphincter-tightening factor, fart detector, bullet limiter, et cetera, they are more than welcome to spend their money on that contraption. They do need to butt out of trying to convince people that less bullets mean better accuracy and finer specimen of sharpshooter marksman.
Manitou, I didn't get that from the post.

Arguably true but then I've always considered large magazines to be an indicator of poor marksmanship. I was taught to hunt as a boy with a single shot .22 rifle and with only one round you need to be able to hit the target every time. That's marksmanship.

I don't see anything advocating for or against large capacity magazines.

I happen to agree that if you are going to possess and carry, you should perhaps learn to operate.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 01:01 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,920
Thanks: 171
Thanked 4,961 Times in 3,606 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Manitou, I didn't get that from the post.

Arguably true but then I've always considered large magazines to be an indicator of poor marksmanship. I was taught to hunt as a boy with a single shot .22 rifle and with only one round you need to be able to hit the target every time. That's marksmanship.

I don't see anything advocating for or against large capacity magazines.

I happen to agree that if you are going to possess and carry, you should perhaps learn to operate.
Yes, learn to operate. It is very stupid to handle a firearm without having a clue, and then shooting yourself in the balls, the ass, the foot, et cetera. But I don't fall for that thing about large magazines being an indicator of poor marksmanship. People do not get to tell me how many bullets my magazine is allowed to hold, whether or not I can, at 200 yards, shoot a flea's ass one time, 20 times, 30 times, how ever many times I pull the trigger.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:21 PM
Mellon_Collie's Avatar
Species 5618
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Eastern Oregon
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,388
Thanks: 966
Thanked 1,823 Times in 1,106 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Arguably true but then I've always considered large magazines to be an indicator of poor marksmanship. I was taught to hunt as a boy with a single shot .22 rifle and with only one round you need to be able to hit the target every time. That's marksmanship.
IDK, I like to hunt with black powder rifle, and that is something you truly have to be a crack shot with, but taking my AR to the range and unloading a 30 round clip is just a lot of fun.
__________________
They say there is
NO MONEY FOR SCHOOLS, NO MONEY FOR HOMELESS, NO MONEY FOR VETERANS ..

So how is there ALWAY MONEY FOR WAR?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2017, 04:44 PM
300 H and H's Avatar
newer isn't always better
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Western Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,533
Thanks: 6,729
Thanked 3,773 Times in 2,418 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

For many years my Coyote rifle was any of several 5 shot bolt action repeaters. I did respectably well on moving targets, near and far. Most of the time 2 or some times 3 shots would be fired if needed. Usually on one was required..

One winter a decade ago, I dug out the AR15HB A2 and took it along. I did fine with it at first. But soon I found that I was wasting ammunition and my time. Back to the bolt actions and back to doing well, with little ammunition use..

The AR15 rides now days exclusively in my Snow Trac ST4. It is the only gun that fits well in the rack it has...

I guess I proved it to myself.

Regards, Kirk

Last edited by 300 H and H; 03-03-2017 at 04:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 300 H and H For This Useful Post:
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-04-2017, 10:10 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,461
Thanks: 618
Thanked 731 Times in 482 Posts
Default Re: Thoughts on Arms Ammo Magazine Capacity Legislated Restriction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Starting a thread to discuss people's opinions on legislation on Magazine Capacity Restrictions...

What are your opinions on this matter?
Do you agree with such legislation? Disagree?
Do you think it's constitutional?


While I personally have not given the issue too much consideration, I don't like where the "line" is currently drawn in the few states described below. It's too stringent IMO (if one has to be drawn).
As far as establishing a limit in the first place, I don't agree with that either.
A high-capacity magazine ban is a law which bans or otherwise restricts detachable firearm magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits regarding magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity. States that do have large capacity magazine bans or restrictions typically do not apply to firearms with fixed magazines whose capacity would otherwise exceed the large capacity threshold.

The federal ban of 1994 defined a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Likewise, the state of California defines a large capacity magazine as "any ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds."[1] Such devices are commonly called high-capacity magazines.[2][3][4] Among states with bans, the maximum capacity is 10 to 15 rounds. Several municipalities, such as New York City, restrict magazine capacity to 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns.[5] The state of New York previously limited magazine capacity to 7 rounds, but a District Court ruled this ban to be excessive and could not "survive intermediate scrutiny".[6]

Most pistols sold in the U.S. are made and sold with magazines holding between 10 and 17 rounds, in reality making this the normal magazine capacity, not "high."[7] In November 2013, the National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco over an ordinance banning possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. At the time, no court had overturned a ban on high-capacity guns or magazines.[8] In March 2014, the Supreme Court refused to halt a similar ban by the city of Sunnyvale, California.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-c...y_magazine_ban


What are your thoughts?
I think high capacity magazine bans are stupid and its false term. Because a 20 to 30 round capacity magazine is a standard capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle.And what is standard capacity with other rifles and hand guns varies. All the anti-2nd amendment trash did was redefine what high capacity is so they can scare monger into supporting bans on these standard capacity magazines.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
ammo, arms, capacity, legislated, magazine, restriction, thoughts

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0