Magazine Restrictions

[pocketfullofshells]

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a natural outgrowth of the right to self-defense.

Michael Cannon from the CATO Institute spells it out pretty well in my opinion:


That said, the issue then seems to be "what is a foreseeable threat... and what is a proportionate defense." I think that line gets somewhat blurred with assault weapons (and I would not favor banning those), but in terms of a tank/nuke etc, I think he has a pretty good point.

ok so in some other thread, Gipper agreed with me ( about banning the anti Semite dude for spamming) and now I am agreeing with the CATO Institute...its clear, its the end of times!

 

[GenSeneca]

you can't see how a random limit of 30 words per post I make by the government...is not the same as saying someone can't have a ICBM..

You can't see how letting people own nukes for there own private arms...is insane to say the least..

but you claim I can't use logic?

This is why people look at many on the right who are pro 2nd amendment as completely nuts and a perfect example why they agree we need some sane limits...Even when you have pro 2nd liberals like me, you look like a crackpot extremist because your Semi Auto AR-15 with a 30 round clip , is just not enough for you....

Whoah there sparky! That's WAY more than 30 words.... This is why people look at many on the Left who are pro 1st amendment as completely nuts and a perfect example why they agree we need some sane limits... Even when you have a pro-1st amendment guy like me, you look like a crackpot extremist because 30 words per internet post is just not enough for you...

Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need a larger clip in the first place? really poor aim? Your a big drug dealer needing to lay down heavy fire on your turf for deffence? Your scared the big bad Obama Army will come after you and plan to take them on? trying to over compensate for something? you just think they are cool and want to have one...really the last one is the only logical one I could see...

Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need more than 30 words in a post in the first place? Really bad wordsmith? You like to blather? You're scared the evil Republicans will come after you and plan to take them on? Trying to over compensate for something? You need a large volume of words to hide the fact that you have no legitimate points to make? Really the last one is the only logical one I could see.

Seriously.... You can't see how a "random" limit of 30 words per post is analogous to a "random" limit of 30 rounds in a magazine? You do I'm sure but it would kill you to admit that I have a valid point.

BTW, I was never making an analogy to ICBM's, that's entirely your delusion. Part of that delusion seems to be claiming that fear of people owning ICBM's is somehow a "logical" reason for why they also shouldn't have more than 30 rounds in a magazine.

The only necessary limit placed on rights is barring individuals from violating the rights of other individuals. Now whether or not you agree that is the only necessary limit - do you - or do you not - agree that is a necessary limit?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Whoah there sparky! That's WAY more than 30 words.... This is why people look at many on the Left who are pro 1st amendment as completely nuts and a perfect example why they agree we need some sane limits... Even when you have a pro-1st amendment guy like me, you look like a crackpot extremist because 30 words per internet post is just not enough for you...



Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need more than 30 words in a post in the first place? Really bad wordsmith? You like to blather? You're scared the evil Republicans will come after you and plan to take them on? Trying to over compensate for something? You need a large volume of words to hide the fact that you have no legitimate points to make? Really the last one is the only logical one I could see.

Seriously.... You can't see how a "random" limit of 30 words per post is analogous to a "random" limit of 30 rounds in a magazine? You do I'm sure but it would kill you to admit that I have a valid point.

BTW, I was never making an analogy to ICBM's, that's entirely your delusion. Part of that delusion seems to be claiming that fear of people owning ICBM's is somehow a "logical" reason for why they also shouldn't have more than 30 rounds in a magazine.

The only necessary limit placed on rights is barring individuals from violating the rights of other individuals. Now whether or not you agree that is the only necessary limit - do you - or do you not - agree that is a necessary limit?

my point was that almost all sane people agree there is a limit to right to bear arms...clearly you see no limit..but your a very small number...the question is, where do you draw the line...you say, never...most draw a line at some point...

And you can keep crying about your need for more then 30 rounds...but I already said I don't really care..I have no idea why you need it, maybe makes you feel more manly what ever.. you have issue with it, take it up with your local cops, I am willing to bet they are strong backers of the law...as item them who get shot at with b the guys with 100 round clips on full auto....not you (see LA bank Robbery for example)

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a natural outgrowth of the right to self-defense.

Michael Cannon from the CATO Institute spells it out pretty well in my opinion:


That said, the issue then seems to be "what is a foreseeable threat... and what is a proportionate defense." I think that line gets somewhat blurred with assault weapons (and I would not favor banning those), but in terms of a tank/nuke etc, I think he has a pretty good point.

The concepts of "foreseeable threats" and a "proportional defense" are entirely subjective but let me go back to what you said earlier...

If you grant that a "right to bare arms" is in fact a right, then the onus on why it should be limited falls on the one trying to limit it...

It would be like saying "Yes, you have the right to freedom of religion, just not on Tuesday because you don't go to church that day." Then when questioned on it, telling the person to explain why they need that right to begin with.

If the right exits, the onus is on the person trying to limit it to explain why, not the other way around.

Like Pocket, you are saying that a person must establish a "reasonable" need to exercise a right before the government will grant them permission to actually exercise their right.... Do you not see that?

If it is a right, then we need no government permission to exercise it BUT if it is not a, right then we do. Rights are not based upon "need", entitlements are... If you must prove to the government there is a "foreseeable threat" (i.e. a need) before being allowed to exercise a right, then it is not a right but an entitlement, "Because you proved a legitimate need to exercise your 'right', we the government have benevolently granted you permission to exercise your 'right'."

And as far as this nuke business goes, can we drop that already? That's nothing but a red herring wrapped in a strawman. Whether its a nuclear weapon or a 31 round clip, my point remains the same... If the owner is not violating anyones rights, then where's the problem? Remember, if the right exists, the onus is on you to explain why/how simply owning something equates to violating the rights of others. And if it does not violate the rights of others, you need to explain what gives you, the government, or anyone, the right to deny people their natural rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

my point was that almost all sane people agree there is a limit to right to bear arms...clearly you see no limit..

Then clearly you can't read:

The only necessary limit placed on rights is barring individuals from violating the rights of other individuals.

Should individuals be barred from violating the rights of other individuals?

YES or NO?

 

[Apathy]

Whether its a nuclear weapon or a 31 round clip, my point remains the same...

Surely you can see the dangers of letting people privately own nuclear weapons. The founder had no idea that we were going to develope a weapon capable of leveling enitre countries. To them muskets and cannons were a well regulated militia. I can see if you would want to allow people to own machine guns but a nuclear weapon?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Surely you can see the dangers of letting people own nuclear weapons.

nope, he can't. He wants his toy, and no logic will stop it. If Amaed Hussain Mahamad moves in next door, and even has a criminal record....then why should he not be able to have that nuclear weapon he got on the black market in Uzbekistan? Who is the government to deny him , as untill he blows it up and kills a 500,000 to a million plus...its all legal and his right.

There is a right to free speech, but you can't yell fire in a theater for no reason..I can't yell threw a megaphone in the street my political views at midnight why not? because we used some logic. But logic can't apply to people when it comes to guns...no thats just wrong.

 

[Gipper]

Anybody know where I can buy a nuclear weapon? I really would love to own one. I have some extra cash, not a lot, but maybe enough....

 

[BigRob]

The concepts of "foreseeable threats" and a "proportional defense" are entirely subjective but let me go back to what you said earlier...

I agree they are entirely subjective.

Like Pocket, you are saying that a person must establish a "reasonable" need to exercise a right before the government will grant them permission to actually exercise their right.... Do you not see that?

Let me ask you this... do you think I could reasonably argue that I have a right to safety under the 9th Amendment? If I can (and I think it would be possible to argue that) then it makes sense to establish that someone must meet a criteria (and the criteria can be up for debate) to show a "reasonable threat and proportionate defense" so as not to infringe upon my undefined rights under the 9th Amendment.... things like that are after all codified in State Constitutions (such as California) that state:

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

If it is a right, then we need no government permission to exercise it BUT if it is not a, right then we do. Rights are not based upon "need", entitlements are... If you must prove to the government there is a "foreseeable threat" (i.e. a need) before being allowed to exercise a right, then it is not a right but an entitlement, "Because you proved a legitimate need to exercise your 'right', we the government have benevolently granted you permission to exercise your 'right'."

Many rights are limited regularly. How would you respond to the my 9th Amendment question above?

And as far as this nuke business goes, can we drop that already? That's nothing but a red herring wrapped in a strawman. Whether its a nuclear weapon or a 31 round clip, my point remains the same... If the owner is not violating anyones rights, then where's the problem? Remember, if the right exists, the onus is on you to explain why/how simply owning something equates to violating the rights of others. And if it does not violate the rights of others, you need to explain what gives you, the government, or anyone, the right to deny people their natural rights.

I can better answer more after I hear your response the idea of the right of safety.

 

[BigRob]

Anybody know where I can buy a nuclear weapon? I really would love to own one. I have some extra cash, not a lot, but maybe enough....

Eastern Europe.

 

[Rick]

I agree they are entirely subjective.

Nonsense.

It's not subjective that a nuclear weapon is useless for the legitimate second amendment right of defending yourself and your family against plausible threats.

 

[dahermit]

Nonsense.

It's not subjective that a nuclear weapon is useless for the legitimate second amendment right of defending yourself and your family against plausible threats.

"...the legitimate second amendment right of defending yourself and your family..." Hmmmm? The Second Amendment does not say anything about defending one's self or family. It says that the right to keep and bear arms has to do with the security of a free state. Therefore, whether or not a particular weapon is legitimate(as determined by whom?), for defending self and family is a moot point. However, it would seem logical that a small tactical nuclear weapon may be useful against an enemy (an army, foreign or domestic), that threatens the "security of a free state".

 

[BigRob]

Nonsense.

It's not subjective that a nuclear weapon is useless for the legitimate second amendment right of defending yourself and your family against plausible threats.

What is subjective is "foreseeable threats" and a "proportional defense." Additionally, I pointed to those as a reason why people would not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons in their homes under the 2nd amendment....


Perhaps next time you will take the time to read what I actually said on the matter?

 

[dahermit]

first I have not given a argument as to why there should be restrictions on your clips...as like I said , I don't really care. Why don't you tell me what possible reasons you have to need a larger clip in the first place? really poor aim? Your a big drug dealer needing to lay down heavy fire on your turf for deffence? Your scared the big bad Obama Army will come after you and plan to take them on? trying to over compensate for something? you just think they are cool and want to have one...really the last one is the only logical one I could see...

Because you cannot see a "need" for large capacity magazines in no way should limit a persons right to have them. That is your short coming.

In reality, the reason for the desire to have large capacity magazines is not the same for all gun owners. I want a 13 round magazine for my Browning H.P. because that is what has traditionally been supplied with it since WWII. I want a large capacity magazine for my AR-15 because if I have to use it in the capacity of militia vs. treat to the security of a free state, I anticipate multiple targets (that is why current U.S. military weapons are supplied with "large magazines". I want a "large capacity", 20 round magazine for my M1A because when I use it for NRA High Power matches, it is useful for supporting the rifle with the off hand.
Aside from all that, the former restriction on large capacity magazines did not provide any empirical evidence that the restriction of such had any positive effect on the crime/murder rate.
A last point, there is not real disadvantage to having a less-than 10 round magazine in some instances. The Colt .45 ACP and copies traditionally have been supplied with 7 round magazines, and with practice, a knowledgeable gun owner will drop the spent magazine and reload a full one in a 2 seconds or less.
In all, the restriction on "large capacity" magazines is another ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

Surely you can see the dangers of letting people privately own nuclear weapons.

By that line of reasoning, it's dangerous to let people own any kind of firearm, after all they might use it to violate the rights of someone else, correct? So shall we limit everyones rights based on what "might" happen, based on what "could" happen? We would have no rights left...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

I can see if you would want to allow people to own machine guns but a nuclear weapon?

Who could buy one? Who would buy one? Do you have any concept of the costs involved? Storage and maintainence costs alone would be enough to put Bill Gates in the poor house. The fanciful strawman argument that if nukes were legal to purchase that everybody would run out and buy one has no basis in logic or reason.

It's not as if there are nukes sitting on shelves at Nukes "R" Us just waiting to be purchased... If there were, there are gazillionaire oil sheiks in the middle east who would have cleared them off the shelves by now. They have to start their own programs, like Iran, and build their own because there simply are none for sale.

You may as well be worried that by letting people purchase space shuttles and rocket boosters that every kid on the block is going to run out and start their very own space program... It's just absurd. If I were to suggest that people should be allowed to purchase space shuttles and rocket boosters, you would ask, who could and who would? Would it be dangerous to allow people to have a space shuttle and rocket boosters? Hell yes, but since we both know that only a government supported by millions of taxpayers can afford a space program, making it legal is really a moot point.