Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

[Al68]

Mech, if you think that a well armed civilian militia stands a chance in hell against the US military, you're as crazy as those poor bastards in Montana.

LOL, I think you are missing the point there. The U.S. military will never be willing to engage in a bloody war with American citizens, even in the unlikely event that politicians would.

But the point remains that the burden is not on a free person to justify why he needs anything. No such burden exists in a free society.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Mech, if you think that a well armed civilian militia stands a chance in hell against the US military, you're as crazy as those poor bastards in Montana.

We don't stand a chance, so just give up all the guns?

If you need 30 rounds in a clip to hit someone... get rid of your gun. These are common sense issues that should be part of a gun owner's repertoire, or frankly they shouldn't have guns.

That isn't the point. The point is that you can't just ban it without a good reason (your opinion doesn't count).

The rest is just a mess of your rhetoric... I mean, you think I'm justifying sub-machine guns in civilian hands?! Talk about missing the damned point. Oh, let me guess, you use that AR-15 to hunt ducks, and the Uzi is for quail.. right.

Irrelevant.

For a person, what more do you want than pistols, rifles, and shotguns? Hell, why not just put down mines and concertina wire if you feel like it...

All irrelevant.

although if I were in a gang, and knew that the crazy mechanical engineer down the road was alone, and packing an arsenal... I'd kill him and take the arsenal. How are you safer with 30 rounds in a pistol clip, than 17? or 12?!

Your point?

Have you even fired a pistol at something other than a target in your entire damned life?

You'd better take a chill pill before you get this thread locked. And take a look at the posting requirements for this forum.

 

[WhoWee]

I see this issue in the same framework as a debate on a motorized vehicle designed to exceed the speed limits by 100 mph (or more). It's legal to manufacture, market, purchase, and own the product. The use is restricted.

In the case of the guns - what are the manufacturers specifications? What are the design capabilities and limitations. If a poorly made semi-auto is fitted with a 30+ shot clip - will it overheat and cause injury to it's user? Will the extended length provide more or less control - a balance and control issue.

As far as I know, it's illegal to modify a weapon to make it fully automatic? Would a clip purchased from a source other than the manufacturer and outside the manufacturers specifications be comparable to the removal of a restrictive device?

 

[nismaratwork]

LOL, I think you are missing the point there. The U.S. military will never be willing to engage in a bloody war with American citizens, even in the unlikely event that politicians would.

But the point remains that the burden is not on a free person to justify why he needs anything. No such burden exists in a free society.

Oh... so then when is it you need or even WANT that 33 round clip?

not really an edit: Well, I couldn't reach PF, and this seems to have posted the first sentence of my post.

In the meantime, WhoWee has said it better than I was going to.

Mech_Engineer: I can no longer take you seriously on this issue. I offer you something to eat however...

 

[WhoWee]

When it comes to concepts like common home defense, civil chaos following a disaster like Katrina [recall the cops that almost lost control of their own building to roving bands of thugs!], an oppressive government out of control, or foreign invaders, it is counter-productive to limit the effectiveness of weapons. Citizens should be able to band together to form an effective army. You don't do that with rabbit guns. You need big poweful guns designed to kill people, and lots of ammo.

my bold

Careful Ivan - this debate started over an event in AZ.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I see this issue in the same framework as a debate on a motorized vehicle designed to exceed the speed limits by 100 mph (or more). It's legal to manufacture, market, purchase, and own the product. The use is restricted.

This is a good analogy.

In the case of the guns - what are the manufacturers specifications? What are the design capabilities and limitations. If a poorly made semi-auto is fitted with a 30+ shot clip - will it overheat and cause injury to it's user? Will the extended length provide more or less control - a balance and control issue.

None of this matters from a legislative standpoint. As it is, a Glock pistol operates perfectly well will 30+ round magazines as long as the spring in the mag is in good shape.

As far as I know, it's illegal to modify a weapon to make it fully automatic?

True, unless you have a Class 3 permit for automatic weapons.

Would a clip purchased from a source other than the manufacturer and outside the manufacturers specifications be comparable to the removal of a restrictive device?

No. Aftermarket magazines are available for many guns.

Oh... so then when is it you need or even WANT that 33 round clip?

Again, the perceived NEED is irrelevant.

 

[drankin]

Drankin: Thanks, now I know who can hit the broad-side of a barn in this conversation, and who can't.

Bah, I've hit plenty of barns. Even the narrow sides.

 

[nismaratwork]

Bah, I've hit plenty of barns. Even the narrow sides.

Yes, but were you aiming at them when you hit them?

 

[nismaratwork]

BTW... suppressors... should they be legal?

 

[drankin]

BTW... suppressors... should they be legal?

They ARE legal. Requires a special, expensive premit. They are expensive to purchase and to maintain the licensing. States have additional laws. In my state it is legal to own one but illegal to pass a projectile thru it. I would have to go to Idaho to use it.

 

[nismaratwork]

They ARE legal. Requires a special, expensive premit. They are expensive to purchase and to maintain the licensing. States have additional laws. In my state it is legal to own one but illegal to pass a projectile thru it. I would have to go to Idaho to use it.

You see the absurdity in parsing it this way, and then NOT answering the question?

 

[drankin]

To answer your question. Yes.

 

[nismaratwork]

To answer your question. Yes.

Which? You recognize the absurdity, or you support legal suppressors? I'm kidding, I know you mean legalizing suppressors. I'm curious, what POSSIBLE civilian application is there for anything more than a muzzle-brake and flash-guard? If you're hunting, your bullet is there before the sound is, and if you're not... you PRESUMABLY don't care about the sound or flash. They are strictly a means to reduce the rate of detection by sentries in a military context, in HR situations, and by criminals wishing to murder. There are vanishingly few uses for a suppressor, so I'd love to know why you think they should be legal for anything but the SWAT-type organizations on up?

Follow up: Should an American be allowed to buy any weapons system they can afford? i.e. Can Bill Gates buy some B-2's?, or to be less absurd, can he buy any weapon system the US would sell to a friendly foreign nation?

edit: Forget "because you can", and rights... man to man, what POSSIBLE need could you have for currently banned suppressors?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Mech, if you think that a well armed civilian militia stands a chance in hell against the US military, you're as crazy as those poor bastards in Montana.

...

Hey at least the cows are sane here in Montana.

Let the ban go through, I can still buy any size clip I want for my hand guns, box clips for my assault rifles, silencers for each of my guns, and any other assorted accessories for my guns. I happen to live in the state that originated the Firearm Freedom act.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To answer your question. Yes.

Of course. That way you can defend your house against all comers without waking the neighbors.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hey at least the cows are sane here in Montana.

Let the ban go through, I can still buy any size clip I want for my hand guns, box clips for my assault rifles, silencers for each of my guns, and any other assorted accessories for my guns. I happen to live in the state that originated the Firearm Freedom act.

...Which is ironic, as nobody is rushing to invade Montana; Red Dawn was a movie. It's also ironic, because it's just that attitude and behaviour that's made an otherwise unremarkable state a HUGE blip on the federal radar! Oooohhh, that last bit never gets old, I always laugh at the absurdity.

edit: I'd add it seems that the cows are the only sane creatures in Montana. Maybe they should be given the vote?

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course. That way you can defend your house against all comers without waking the neighbors.

Nana needs her 8 hours or there's hell to pay.

 

[turbo]

You see the absurdity in parsing it this way, and then NOT answering the question?

Depending on state/local laws, it may be the most honest answer. Machine-guns, silencers, etc, are NOT illegal according to Federal law. They are legal to own but each has to be registered and individually licensed. You can't buy a "Class 3 license" and get blanket permission to own such weapons or accessories. The law is quite complex and there are a lot of existing exemptions for short carbines, smooth-bores etc.

The owner/editor/publisher of Small Arms Review is a very nice guy, and before he moved from Maine to Nevada, I was privileged to be given a private tour of his huge vault. He owns many automatic weapons that have been used in movies (including an AK47 that one of the actors carved his name into in the movie Red Dawn) and a mini-gun used in Predator. Racks and racks of class 3 weapons arranged in aisles so narrow that we could not pass one another between the racks. He also has huge displays of the automatic weapons currently in use (or awaiting approval) by the armies of the world.

I had to transfer weapons to him from time to time when a consignor would ship in an unregistered class 3 weapon. Any licensed firearms dealer can deal in class 3 weapons, but you can't legally transfer/sell them unless you pay a yearly occupational fee of $500, and since my department dealt almost exclusively with antiques, we didn't pay that yearly tax.

 

[nismaratwork]

Depending on state/local laws, it may be the most honest answer. Machine-guns, silencers, etc, are NOT illegal according to Federal law. They are legal to own but each has to be registered and individually licensed. You can't buy a "Class 3 license" and get blanket permission to own such weapons or accessories. The law is quite complex and there are a lot of existing exemptions for short carbines, smooth-bores etc.

The owner/editor/publisher of Small Arms Review is a very nice guy, and before he moved from Maine to Nevada, I was privileged to be given a private tour of his huge vault. He owns many automatic weapons that have been used in movies (including an AK47 that one of the actors carved his name into in the movie Red Dawn) and a mini-gun used in Predator. Racks and racks of class 3 weapons arranged in aisles so narrow that we could not pass one another between the racks. He also has huge displays of the automatic weapons currently in use (or awaiting approval) by the armies of the world.

I had to transfer weapons to him from time to time when a consignor would ship in an unregistered class 3 weapon. Any licensed firearms dealer can deal in class 3 weapons, but you can't legally transfer/sell them unless you pay a yearly occupational fee of $500, and since my department dealt almost exclusively with antiques, we didn't pay that yearly tax.

Fascinating... and yet you need them to, well... not quietly... 'less noisily' discharge a firearm?

edit: We both know it's crap for accuracy at range, so... "discharge a firearm" is a very generous appellation, when, "kill someone", would still be fair.

 

[nismaratwork]

@All: Don't get me wrong, this isn't a slippery slope thing either. I realize that when it comes to rifles and scopes, you can make a decent argument for virtually anything and really... if you want to hunt quail with a PSG or a Barret and that's all you do with it... OK... that's freedom. Realistically, that seems a little extreme, but then, I'm not hearing about a lot of sniper killings (real snipers, not media-appointed snipers. By sniper I am using USA military (lets say marine) sniper school(s) standard(s) so no true scotsmen here)

 

[WhoWee]

Follow up: Should an American be allowed to buy any weapons system they can afford? i.e. Can Bill Gates buy some B-2's?, or to be less absurd, can he buy any weapon system the US would sell to a friendly foreign nation?

I would think that would depend upon the application. If a wealthy individual owned a very large boat (for example) that might be subject to attack from pirates or other threats in open waters - perhaps. If the weapons systems might be used to fire at fellow citizens - no.

 

[WhoWee]

edit: I'd add it seems that the cows are the only sane creatures in Montana. Maybe they should be given the vote?

If the ACLU files - it's YOUR fault.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would think that would depend upon the application. If a wealthy individual owned a very large boat (for example) that might be subject to attack from pirates or other threats in open waters - perhaps. If the weapons systems might be used to fire at fellow citizens - no.

I actually agree, but then, I would say it should be highly regulated and be owned by a corporation, not an individual person.

 

[nismaratwork]

If the ACLU files - it's YOUR fault.

I take nooooooo responsibility for people who are so COMPLETELY amoral.
I mean... NAMBLA?! REALLY??

 

[Jasongreat]

Why is it that only when the right to own guns is involved does 'need' ever get brought into the discussion? I thought in a free society we can get get things we want, in communist society they only get what they need. There are people who own P-51 planes and sherman tanks do they need them? I don't think so, but they wanted them, they were available, so they bought them. Why are we able to buy armani when a mens warehouse suit works just as well? Both are just clothing. Why can we buy a mercedes when a ford will do the same thing? Both will get you from point A to B. Its called freedom, anything less is oppression.

If we start, well continue, to make things illegal just because they can be used for nefarious reasons, what's next? Nuclear engineering, chemistry?

Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man that would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature upon a supposition that he may abuse it. - Oliver Cromwell

 

[drankin]

Which? You recognize the absurdity, or you support legal suppressors? I'm kidding, I know you mean legalizing suppressors. I'm curious, what POSSIBLE civilian application is there for anything more than a muzzle-brake and flash-guard? If you're hunting, your bullet is there before the sound is, and if you're not... you PRESUMABLY don't care about the sound or flash. They are strictly a means to reduce the rate of detection by sentries in a military context, in HR situations, and by criminals wishing to murder. There are vanishingly few uses for a suppressor, so I'd love to know why you think they should be legal for anything but the SWAT-type organizations on up?

Follow up: Should an American be allowed to buy any weapons system they can afford? i.e. Can Bill Gates buy some B-2's?, or to be less absurd, can he buy any weapon system the US would sell to a friendly foreign nation?

edit: Forget "because you can", and rights... man to man, what POSSIBLE need could you have for currently banned suppressors?

One use, the use I would have for a suppressor, is the ability to practice without hearing protection. It is entertaining to shoot with a suppressor. There is a lot of youtube vids on this. Hearing the bullet impact the target, whatever it may be. It's more for fun than anything else, if you can afford it. Why have a street legal sportbike that can go 160mph? Fun on a race track.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is it that only when the right to own guns is involved does 'need' ever get brought into the discussion? I thought in a free society we can get get things we want, in communist society they only get what they need. There are people who own P-51 planes and sherman tanks do they need them? I don't think so, but they wanted them, they were available, so they bought them. Why are we able to buy armani when a mens warehouse suit works just as well? Both are just clothing. Why can we buy a mercedes when a ford will do the same thing? Both will get you from point A to B. Its called freedom, anything less is oppression.

If we start, well continue, to make things illegal just because they can be used for nefarious reasons, what's next? Nuclear engineering, chemistry?

Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man that would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature upon a supposition that he may abuse it. - Oliver Cromwell

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription! Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection! As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

 

[drankin]

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription! Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection! As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

Is it possible to have a discussion with you without the condescension? You ask a question then berate the answer. There is no perfect analogy to owning a suppressor. But there is no good reason to ban them. The current laws are adequately restrictive. There isn't an epedemic of murders, outside of the movies, to where a suppressor was used. Until I'm personally being an *** towards you, be nice. :)

 

[drankin]

Here is an interesting and current opinion article on the proposed state amendment concerning suppressors in my state: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/a-proposed-gun-law-for-wa-that-makes-sense

 

[turbo]

edit: We both know it's crap for accuracy at range, so... "discharge a firearm" is a very generous appellation, when, "kill someone", would still be fair.

Not true. Supressors with disks or fibers that contact the slug can effect the ballistics. Supressors with baffles, etc that do not contact the slug do not degrade accuracy. Early in the 1900s, many major gun manufacturers offered threaded barrels with matching "silencers". You need to pay $200 to the ATF for a permit to possesses one, and still some states won't allow you to use it, even if you own it legally.

 

[Al68]

Oh... so then when is it you need or even WANT that 33 round clip?

What are you referring to? I haven't made any claim concerning "need" or "want".

BTW, what does "copypasta" mean? Should I be embarrassed by my ignorance?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Nis- the method in which I answer is designed to show sepcific responses to specific statements of your own. It is commonly used across this forum, especially in the P&WA area where very large posts contain several points and are most easily answered in pieces. You would do well to answer the content of my posts rather than the method in which they are presented.

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription!

What more fundamental justification is there if not a constitutional right?

Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

There's a difference between "being checked" (already done with FBI firearm background investigations) and preventing the purchase of a product in the first place. Currently, no background investigation is required to buy a magazine, but an actual firearm (or certain operating parts of one) require a background investigation, which I'm 100% for. Still, the point was mentioned that a background investigation cannot find a record which does not exist...

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

You had better look up the definition of a militia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection!

You find it absurd- is that reason enough to legislate it away?

As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

It's a valid comparison- why should a vehicle be capable of breaking the speed limit? Are we <gasp> trusting people to obey the laws of the road??

 

[BobG]

I don't know about the need for high capacity magazines, but the demand is sure there.

Since the Arizona shooting, sales of high capacity magazines have risen about 300 to 500 percent. Overall, sales of the Glock model used in the shooting have risen about 5 percent since the shooting with some places (Arizona, Ohio) reporting increasesover 60 percent in sales and others (Illinois, New York) having increases over 30 percent since the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13guns.html?src=twrhp
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html

 

[Evo]

I don't know about the need for high capacity magazines, but the demand is sure there.

Since the Arizona shooting, sales of high capacity magazines have risen about 300 to 500 percent. Overall, sales of the Glock model used in the shooting have risen about 5 percent since the shooting with some places (Arizona, Ohio) reporting increasesover 60 percent in sales and others (Illinois, New York) having increases over 30 percent since the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13guns.html?src=twrhp
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html

People are afraid they'll be banned and are stocking up.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

People are afraid they'll be banned and are stocking up.

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.