Magazine Limits
From iGeek
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-04-15 |
| Left | Right |
|---|---|
| Limiting magazine capacity can save lives. Standard capacity magazines have no practical application in self defense or hunting. It's the evil NRA and Gun Owners that block them, because they want to see their neighbors and children killed rather than give up playing weekend Rambo. All bullshit. | You can reload a magazine in half a second: no one has ever closed the gap during a magazine drop, limiting magazine capacity doesn't matter. There are many self defense, sporting and hunting situations (multiple intruders, charging bear or boar, moving competitions) where 10 rounds is not enough. If they did anything good, the pro-gun crowd would at least be split: the fact that virtually none agree with the gun controllers, shows the gun controllers are ignorant, hateful bullies, or both. |
Facts[edit | edit source]
- The first thing to know is that these laws are unconstitutional, and have been ruled so, many, many times But aggressive legislators pass them anyways, knowing that they'll get the votes of the gullible for "doing something". The fact that's it's something stupid, offensive, and will lose in court, after wasting millions of dollars fighting over it, doesn't matter to them. Who cares about the law or their oath of office (to defend the Constitution), when you can get money, votes, and attention for breaking it?
- The second thing to know is they don't work. There's no evidence that they've ever done anything good, and the gun controllers have poured millions into trying to find or make up data to support their causes. They got bupkis on these.
- If you have more brains and ethics than a gun controller, ask yourself why the 12th bullet is more dangerous than the first 11 (10 in the magazine + 1 in the chamber)?
- Then again, if you have more brains/ethics than a gun controller, ask yourself why the founding fathers who just fought a civil war with the British over trying to take their guns, would possibly think it's OK to limit guns to only 11 rounds? Especially when they had 14 and 22 shot guns in that era. The 1A wasn't created to allow for hunting deer.
Magazine limits are the perfect example for how "reasonable" sounding gun laws to the ignorant or dishonest, are not reasonable at all, to the informed gun owners that the constitution was written to protect.
Examples:
- 2019.04.16 New Jersey Magazine Ban - NJ outlawed them, and got zero compliance; the state could find a single standard-capacity magazine that was turned in. They successfully turned civilians into felons. Though they had never arrested anyone for it either. Tell me, does that sound reasonable - a law that does nothing but makes you a criminal that might be prosecuted if a DA is having a bad day?
- Duncan v. Becerra - California had enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state. Because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, originally they grandfathered in old magazines. In 2018 they tried to take those away too, and got slapped down.
- Gun control or gun ban? - Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. Why would you tolerate a little murder or mass murder, if you could get rid of it all?
- Reload Times - There's a fallacy that limiting magazines to 10 rounds will help against mass shooters. If only it was that easy, no one would oppose it. But those with even basic knowledge on guns and crime know that giving up their rights/sport would have zero functional impact on mass shooters. And every failure would lead to more encroachment on liberty.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
Even the name lets you know about the sides position. If they call it a "High Capacity" magazine ban, you know they're likely anti-2A and anti-Gun. What they are actually banning is the standard capacity 15, 18, 20, 30 round magazines that the guns often come with standard. And limiting it to some arbitrary round number (like 10 or 15), under the brilliant theory that only the 12th round is dangerous. (10+1 in the chamber). The arbitrariness, lack of scientific evidence of any value, and the fact that it criminalizes older guns and magazines (especially without paying the owners fair market value and making ex-post-facto laws) means that they'll keep losing in court, or on appeal. But the goal isn't to help the public, but to garner votes by harassing gun owners.
| 💭 What's Reasonable? |
|---|
| What is reasonable when it comes to gun laws? I explain what it takes to be compliant with a few gun laws so that readers can decide how reasonable these laws are. Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so don't take this as legal advice. But these are just a small sampling of the 20,000: local, state and national gun control laws that every owner must know and comply with, under the legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law is no excuse). The penalty for infraction is often a felony conviction, ruination and loss of gun rights by hyper-aggressive DA's who hate guns or want to get elected to higher office on the fraud that they're helping public safety. Or worse, the laws aren't enforced and teach both sides contempt for them. If any of these laws seem silly, annoying, or ineffective, you will begin to understand why gun-advocates mock and resist “reasonable gun control” and the legislators who create them. |
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
Tags: History Guns Laws 2A RGL
