The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[JASmith]

More twisted logic.

[montana]

False analogy. The part of a car that's actually analogous to a firearm's magazine is the gas tank, not the engine.

The correct analogy would be a law requiring the 18-gallon gas tank be replaced by one with a 6-gallon capacity.

A Corvette with a 6-gallon tank would still be a "true" Corvette, able to accelerate just as quickly, and go just as fast. The only difference is it would have to refuel more often.

Likewise, an AR-15 limited to 10-round magazines can fire the same ammo just as rapidly, just as far, as an AR-15 with 30-round mags. It just has to be reloaded more often.

The AR-15, Glock, Beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds. The point "purpose" of owning a "MODERN" firearm is the capacity of rounds held and the speed they can be shot and reloaded. A better analogy of yours would be a requirement to fill the "limited gas tank" of a Vette with gas pump nozzle the size of a straw while trying to compete at Le Mans with other nationalities who have no such restrictions. The only difference is it is your life and not a trophy at stake. I'm sure ms-13 will not play by the same rules! Imagine if the insane logic used by the anti-gun fools today had been applied to the American people back in the 1800's? We are going to ban all Winchester lever action assault rifles because the Indians used them to massacre the 7th cavalry and no one needs more than a one shot capacity. You will also be able to keep your Army Colt pistols if 5 cylinder chambers are rendered in operable. Nuts!
Quick and speedy reloads are vital to self defense, and nowhere have I ever read, seen or heard of any person complain they had too much ammunition or their firearm functioned too well during a self defense, life or death shootout. Like in anti-gun Chicago, "where murders are in the hundreds and not news worthy to the national press", these states are neutering modern firearms for civilians and the 2nd Amendment with it.

[JASmith]

Well said montana!

[stanc]

more twisted logic.

lol.

[bj139]

These are just tests for the gun owners.

First 10 rounds only, then 5 rounds only, then single shot only, then rocks only. Slippery slope.

In Connecticut, most citizens just ignored the law as being unconstitutional.

What do you think Stan? Rocks only?

[stanc]

The AR-15, Glock, Beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds. The point "purpose" of owning a "MODERN" firearm is the capacity of rounds held and the speed they can be shot and reloaded.

There is no capacity common to all modern semi-autos. Design capacity varies with make, model, and caliber. The Glock 36, for example, was designed to hold only SIX rounds.

When a 6-shot pistol is considered adequate for self defense, it's difficult to support the claim that magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds are truly a necessity.

A better analogy of yours would be a requirement to fill the "limited gas tank" of a Vette with gas pump nozzle the size of a straw while trying to compete at Le Mans with other nationalities who have no such restrictions.

Now you're just being silly.

Imagine if the insane logic used by the anti-gun fools today had been applied to the American people back in the 1800's? We are going to ban all Winchester lever action assault rifles because the Indians used them to massacre the 7th cavalry and no one needs more than a one shot capacity. You will also be able to keep your Army Colt pistols if 5 cylinder chambers are rendered in operable. Nuts!

Yeah, but the point is moot. We don't live in the 19th Century.

...these states are neutering modern firearms for civilians and the 2nd Amendment with it.

I agree. And it sucks.

[stanc]

These are just tests for the gun owners.
First 10 rounds only, then 5 rounds only, then single shot only, then rocks only. Slippery slope.
In Connecticut, most citizens just ignored the law as being unconstitutional.
What do you think Stan? Rocks only?

Nah, but it may very well get down to single-shot only.

[montana]

There is no capacity common to all modern semi-autos. Design capacity varies with make, model, and caliber. The Glock 36, for example, was designed to hold only SIX rounds.

Now you are being disingenuous, the grips of most modern hand guns are designed to be as ergonomically possible with the highest possible capacity. The Glock 36 was designed as a concealed carry firearm, not an open carry firearm.

When a 6-shot pistol is considered adequate for self defense, it's difficult to support the claim that magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds are truly a necessity.

Adequate is subjective since I and many others carry the Glock 26. We consider our body types and clothing when deciding which firearm to carry. I have never heard anyone willingly want less cartridge capacity other than for the advantage of concealability and weight. Much better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. The saying: a handgun is the tool you use to fight your way to a rifle can also be applied. If it is difficult to support the claim that a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds is necessary, then why do the police need more than 10?

Now you're just being silly.

LOL, I do my best It is no more silly than compliant mag buttons and mandatory thumb hole stocks.

Yeah, but the point is moot. We don't live in the 19th Century..

So when our founding fathers studied the history of Greece and Rome governments to form our Constitutional Republic, it was a moot point? It was a perfect example of how insane and ridiculous our gun laws have become.

I agree. And it sucks.

You got that right!

[stanc]

Now you are being disingenuous, the grips of most modern hand guns are designed to be as ergonomically possible with the highest possible capacity. The Glock 36 was designed as a concealed carry firearm, not an open carry firearm.

Concealed versus open carry is not relevant. You said: "The AR-15, Glock, Beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds."

It's not at all disingenuous to note that there are many "modern semi-auto firearms" designed around magazine capacities of less than 10 rounds, yet which are deemed quite suitable for self defense.

If it is difficult to support the claim that a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds is necessary, then why do the police need more than 10?

Because most of their shots miss the target.

So when our founding fathers studied the history of Greece and Rome governments to form our Constitutional Republic, it was a moot point? It was a perfect example of how insane and ridiculous our gun laws have become.

Granted, but it's still moot. Guns are viewed differently now by a large segment of society, and more importantly, by many of those who make (and enforce) laws.

If we were still fighting the Indian Wars, I doubt that we'd have such "insane and ridiculous" gun laws. However, we're not, and we do.

[montana]

concealed versus open carry is not relevant. You said: "the ar-15, glock, beretta, etc or any other modern semi-auto firearm is designed around a certain number of rounds."

it's not at all disingenuous to note that there are many "modern semi-auto firearms" designed around magazine capacities of less than 10 rounds, yet which are deemed quite suitable for self defense.


Because most of their shots miss the target.


Granted, but it's still moot. Guns are viewed differently now by a large segment of society, and more importantly, by many of those who make (and enforce) laws.

If we were still fighting the indian wars, i doubt that we'd have such "insane and ridiculous" gun laws. However, we're not, and we do.

ok

[phishfood]

No, that's not why.

When the country was founded, there was a small standing army. Both private citizens and government forces had the exact same types of guns: Muzzleloading muskets, rifles, and pistols.

Today there is a very large standing army. Private citizens (with few exceptions) are still limited to having rifles and pistols, while government forces have rifles, pistols, machine guns, self-propelled artillery, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, etc, etc.

In the 18th Century, an armed citizenry posed a credible counterbalance to an equally armed government.

In the 21st Century, the disparity in force is so great that, IMO, the original concept is no longer adequate in and of itself to be an effective counter to a government becoming tyrannical.

Really?

Heard anything about Afghanistan lately?

[stanc]

Really?

Yes, really.

Heard anything about Afghanistan lately?

Not sure how you think Afghanistan is relevant to what I said. Care to elaborate?

[phishfood]

Well, in Afghanistan, several different major military powers sent in troops in armored vehicles, backed by air support, and in some areas artillery.

Despite vast technological, numerical, and weapons superiority, Afghan insurgent groups were able to continuously present a serious threat to all of the world's badass military power. Same thing happened to Russia in that same area 30 or so years prior.

Our military's experience there and in Iraq really puts a dagger in the heart of your argument that an armed populace cannot hope to resist a government that wishes to subjugate it.

Edit to add: And it adds credence to the premise that the only way to completely control a population is to disarm it.

[bj139]

Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecti...id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-h...tate-list/

[StoneHendge]

Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecti...id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-h...tate-list/

The scary thing - where did they get the list?

[stanc]

Well, in Afghanistan, several different major military powers sent in troops in armored vehicles, backed by air support, and in some areas artillery.

Despite vast technological, numerical, and weapons superiority, Afghan insurgent groups were able to continuously present a serious threat to all of the world's badass military power. Same thing happened to Russia in that same area 30 or so years prior.

In Afghanistan, the US military is trying to quell an insurgency while keeping collateral damage to a minimum, not behaving like a brutal tyrant and unleashing its full might. A better model of the force disparity that I mentioned is the Syrian civil war, where the military uses pretty much every type of weapon in its arsenal, without regard for how much death and destruction is inflicted on the populace.

However, neither of those conflicts are examples of private ownership of firearms preventing the government turning tyrannical.

Our military's experience there and in Iraq really puts a dagger in the heart of your argument that an armed populace cannot hope to resist a government that wishes to subjugate it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I did not mean that a populace armed only with rifles and pistols would be unable to mount significant resistance to an oppressive government. I meant that it might not provide enough deterrence value to keep the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

If the US government were to become a tyranny, I think it would likely happen with the unwitting assistance of the American people. Say, something along the line of the German model of the 1930s, when the population enthusiastically embraced a strong, charismatic leader who promised to make Germany great again...

[stanc]

Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecti...id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-h...tate-list/

Cool. Sounds like it could be a good test case to see just how far gun owners are willing to go.

[JASmith]

In ...when the population enthusiastically embraced a strong, charismatic leader who promised to make Germany great again...

Likely true, but use of the term "make Germany (America?) great again" seems to be more like trolling for knee-jerk responses than a serious attempt at offering insight.

[stanc]

Likely true, but use of the term "make Germany (America?) great again" seems to be more like trolling for knee-jerk responses than a serious attempt at offering insight.

Making Germany great again is exactly what Hitler promised the German people. And he did that, for a few years.

[stanc]

P.S. If you're going to quote me, kindly don't change the text so it's different than I wrote.

I said "make Germany great again." I did not say "make Germany (America?) great again."