Gun Debate Illustrates Two Different Americas

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In fact, the 1994 ban was so fucking lame, all a mass shooter had to do was make sure he didn't meet the definition of an "assault weapon" and his gun was just as deadly.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine

and

at least two of these features:

a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel,
a bayonet mount, or
a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher.

 

[Brain357]

In fact, the 1994 ban was so fucking lame, all a mass shooter had to do was make sure he didn't meet the definition of an "assault weapon" and his gun was just as deadly.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine

and

at least two of these features:

a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel,
a bayonet mount, or
a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher.

Thats why we need a ban on high capacity magazines.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You only have X number of places to carry the mags where you can easily get at them when you are firing.

A person can carry as many magazines as they can fit into a backpack. All that person needs is enough readily available ammo to kill enough to keep the remaining people pinned and afraid. I can easily set up a vest/backpack combo that would carry at least 300 rounds of ready. easily-accessible 10-round magazines. I can put at least another 300 rounds inside the backpack.

So, tell me. How many rounds is too many for magazine capacity? At what point does it become safer?

How many millions have to lose rights so that one mass shooter has to casually reload a few more times against unarmed meat targets?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In fact, the 1994 ban was so fucking lame, all a mass shooter had to do was make sure he didn't meet the definition of an "assault weapon" and his gun was just as deadly.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine

and

at least two of these features:

a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel,
a bayonet mount, or
a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher.

Thats why we need a ban on high capacity magazines.

And what would such a ban accomplish? I noticed you never addressed my earlier question, so one more time: If we banned hi-cap magazines five years ago, would you be satisfied with the amount of kids killed in the last school shooting?

Bet you won't answer this time either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simple response. Bringing a lot of 30 round mags will bring a lot of ready to shoot ammo to the shoot. Making you haul around 5 30 round mags versus 5 10 round mags means you will bring 150 rounds versus 50 rounds for almost the same bulk and weight. It just might keep the body count down.

THat's bullshit.

Magazines weigh practically nothing. The cartridges make up all the weight. Many magazines are polymer now, so the weight is really low.

You completely missed the point. You only have X number of places to carry the mags where you can easily get at them when you are firing. I would think that 5 mags would be just about be the limit unless you have a nice room like the one in Nevada to fire from with a nice big table. If you are mobile, you will only be able to have easy access to about 5 mags. Now, those 30 capacity mags are big. They will be heavy with 30 rounds and take up a lot of space. But those 10 round mags will also take up a lot of space as well but not be as heavy. Still, you will probably be limited to only about 5 and still remain mobile with fast access.

Well, unless you are friggin super man like y ou are about to claim to be.

My 9mm uses a 15 round magazine. I can fit two in the left back pocket of my jeans, two in my right back pocket, two in each of my front pockets. That means with only my jeans on, I can carry 120 rounds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My 9mm uses a 15 round magazine. I can fit two in the left back pocket of my jeans, two in my right back pocket, two in each of my front pockets. That means with only my jeans on, I can carry 120 rounds.

Oh, but if you were limited to 10-round magazines, that would only be 80 rounds. You would have to wear cargo pants.


The horror...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is a story about permits. What does that have to do with what I posted?

It proves your source is a complete joke. He claims more guns equals less crime. Yet with the most concealed carry ever what is happening?
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Lott’s data and honesty have been repeatedly called into question by other academics. In one case, he claimed to have done a survey that found in 98 percent of cases when a weapon is used in self-defense, it was only brandished and not fired. When other academics asked for his data, Lott claimed he lost it as the result of a catastrophic hard drive crash.

What you ignore is that since CCW programs started being adopted by more and more states, violent crime and gun crimes have been on a near steady decrease. That started in the early 90's and continues today.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. As long as we have something that's working, why change anything?

However my pervious post was not about more guns. My post was to point out that even in countries that have stricter gun laws, we still only rank 11 in the world as far as mass shootings go.

Violent crime and murder relates more to race population than guns or no guns.

You just saw that violent crime has increased with CCW at it's height right? And you realize since the 90's we had the Clinton crime bill which lowered crime and we did get some gun control. But now that CCW is high violent crime is increasing....

No, it is not. Violent and gun crime did increase after Ferguson, but it leveled off and started to decline after that.

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Wonderful. First off, this is only data up to 2016. Secondly, it's not explicit to gun crime, it's targeting violent crime. From your link:

An analysis by the the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that overall crime in the U.S. had dropped due to sustained declines in property-related offenses. Burglary, vehicle theft and larceny has declined for 14 straight years. But murder increases were driven by violence in many of the country's 30-largest cities.

"Chicago accounted for more than 20% of the nationwide murder increase in 2016, despite being home to less than 1% of the U.S. population," the center concluded.

So what they are telling us here is that the lions share of murders (not necessarily gun crime) comes from a place that has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Well.......if a city that has some of the most restrictive gun policies in the country also leads the country in this murder increase, does that tell you more gun restrictions are working?????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My 9mm uses a 15 round magazine. I can fit two in the left back pocket of my jeans, two in my right back pocket, two in each of my front pockets. That means with only my jeans on, I can carry 120 rounds.

Oh, but if you were limited to 10-round magazines, that would only be 80 rounds. You would have to wear cargo pants.


The horror...

Well then.......I guess I would have to abort my mass shooting plans, now wouldn't I???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Simple response. Bringing a lot of 30 round mags will bring a lot of ready to shoot ammo to the shoot. Making you haul around 5 30 round mags versus 5 10 round mags means you will bring 150 rounds versus 50 rounds for almost the same bulk and weight. It just might keep the body count down.

THat's bullshit.

Magazines weigh practically nothing. The cartridges make up all the weight. Many magazines are polymer now, so the weight is really low.

You completely missed the point. You only have X number of places to carry the mags where you can easily get at them when you are firing. I would think that 5 mags would be just about be the limit unless you have a nice room like the one in Nevada to fire from with a nice big table. If you are mobile, you will only be able to have easy access to about 5 mags. Now, those 30 capacity mags are big. They will be heavy with 30 rounds and take up a lot of space. But those 10 round mags will also take up a lot of space as well but not be as heavy. Still, you will probably be limited to only about 5 and still remain mobile with fast access.

Well, unless you are friggin super man like y ou are about to claim to be.

My 9mm uses a 15 round magazine. I can fit two in the left back pocket of my jeans, two in my right back pocket, two in each of my front pockets. That means with only my jeans on, I can carry 120 rounds.

You are comparing your popgun to an AR. There is a reason that a 9mm handgun isn't used in mass shootings. It can't go through 3 people and into a wall. Now, stay focused. You gun crazies keep trying to move the goal posts. Newsflash: The ARs goal posts are completely moved well past the limits.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You only have X number of places to carry the mags where you can easily get at them when you are firing.

A person can carry as many magazines as they can fit into a backpack. All that person needs is enough readily available ammo to kill enough to keep the remaining people pinned and afraid. I can easily set up a vest/backpack combo that would carry at least 300 rounds of ready. easily-accessible 10-round magazines. I can put at least another 300 rounds inside the backpack.

So, tell me. How many rounds is too many for magazine capacity? At what point does it become safer?

How many millions have to lose rights so that one mass shooter has to casually reload a few more times against unarmed meat targets?

IF they are in your Packpack, they aren't accessible when you are on the move. And if you are not on the move you aren't killing. You only have a very short window of killing and must keep moving to keep the string going. Once you stop and restock, you will give the authorities the time to stop you. You have a matter of minutes. If you don't have your mags within easy reach you just as well not have them at all.

How many more school children must die before you place common sense limits on fire arms. The next batch is on you. Hope you step up and take the blame.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In fact, the 1994 ban was so fucking lame, all a mass shooter had to do was make sure he didn't meet the definition of an "assault weapon" and his gun was just as deadly.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine

and

at least two of these features:

a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel,
a bayonet mount, or
a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher.

Thats why we need a ban on high capacity magazines.

That can be done at the State Level. In Colorado, we have a 15 capacity level limit. The Aurora Theater Shooting caused that. One person using an AR had a 100 round mag. He killed 45 people with just that weapon. It jammed on the 50 round level. He changed to his semi auto 40 handgun and bagged another 4. Imagine how many if that AR hadn't jammed and all 100 had been discharged. He stepped out to reload when they arrested him. He wounded over 300. The 40 wounded more than it killed and didn't penetrate. The AR killed and went through many people per shot. In a target rich situation, the AR is devastating.

 

[OKTexas]

You're a freaking idiot, no mass shooter has purchased a gun form a private individual, they were either stolen or purchased from an FFL dealer. Also tell us how much teaching goes on in an active shooter situation. Training willing teachers to respond can be an effective deterrent and a ready response force if needed. It makes perfect sense.

You're a bigger idiot who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Yes, most guns in mass shootings were legally obtained. Lax BG checks or NO BG checks enabled them.

Mass shooters use loopholes, lapses in checks to get guns

And then we had Klebold and Harris who indeed bought all their guns from unlicensed private dealers:

How Firearm(s) Acquired

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

VPC - Where'd They Get Their Guns? - Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado

Perfect sense to arm teachers? Nope

The other link posted didn't go back that far, so you proven ONE weapon was bought from a private seller illegally, because they were too young to buy the weapon, and the other two were purchased illegally though a straw purchase. So tell me dick wad, how would another law have stopped them?

Also oh ignorant one, I know teachers that are competitive shooters and can out shoot just about any police officer, all have a military background. Why wouldn't you trust people like that to be armed in the schools?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Back when I was a first year college student, I was taught the definition of a nation. Among other things, that definition showed a nation as being a single culture. But in America today, with respect to the subject of guns, we have 2 separate cultures. Those who like (and appreciate) them, and those who despise and fear them.

On USMB, I've heard gun owners referred to as "gun nuts", "gun freaks", etc. They're sometimes referred to as "the gun culture". Well, just as easily, those who dislike/fear guns, could be called the Anti-gun culture.

Perhaps this dichotomy has a relation to how Americans begin adulthood. Millions of high school kids go straight to college, never spending a minute in the military, or anywhere getting introduced to firearms. Most have never even touched a real gun, much less receive training on it. Making things worse, is that college teachers, who also never touched a gun, and whose left-wing political bearings, make them automatic gun opponents.

Millions of other kids bypass college entirely, and go straight into the military, after high school. Unlike the college kids, these young soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. aren't exposed to the leftist propaganda so prolific on college campuses, but they do have lots of introductions to firearms, thereby becoming familiar with and knowledgable of them. So, for the major pars of their adult lives (after college or the military), America is divided generally, into these 2 very differing groups.

Having spent 6 years in the US Army and Army National Guard, and then attending college for 4 years, I noticed a huge gap in gun perception in this 2 groups. I was often taken aback, sometimes humored, by the stiff and robotic way that my college cohorts perceived just the thought of guns. The college kids, with no direct exposure to guns, and lots of indoctrination against them, actually though that the only people to ordinarily possess a gun were police and criminals.

They really thought that if you weren't a cop or military person, you shouldn't have a gun, and had no idea why anyone else would. In contrast, my former Army National Guard buddies had whole collections guns, of various types, each suited for various purposes. They could take apart their M4A1s, M-14s, AR-15s, clean them, and put them back together blindfolded, in accordance with their military training.

How disconcerting it is to hear education system people worrying about things happening with guns in schools, when these fears emanate mostly from ignorance of guns, and how to handle and secure them. Equally perplexing and disturbing is their amazing lack of worry about the danger of guns not being there (in the schools), for the very necessary PROTECTION they provide.

Those who speak about the "gun culture" should do some self-examination, with regard to the anti-gun culture, and the hows and whys of its existence.

My experience with USMB is most anti-gunners know little to nothing about guns. You can tell when they refer to magazines as clips, or ask stupid questions like why do we desire high capacity magazines? They really believe shooting a gun is like they see in a movie. You hit everything you shoot at.

Democrats are born liars, so they tell us their are avid shooters and also have multiple guns in their home. I file those claims along with the libs that tell me they have their own business, work from home, or are independently wealthy, yet want government to take more money from them.

I happen to be one of the ones that sometimes refer to mags as clips. I come from a time when we actually used clips so us old timers will sometimes refer to it that way. You come from a later time. Doesn't make me a Lefty by any stretch of the imagination. It makes you making a fools statement.

As for taking your guns. If you are a big enough nut case, maybe we should. Mental Health should be looked at closely for gun ownership and handling. Every time you drool a little at just the thought of an AR or an AK then you just might be mentally unstable and shouldn't own a gun. To me, guns are tools and not something to be worshiped. To you they might be something to be bowed down to and prayed to.

I can come up with all kinds of reasons why I am armed. I can say that I am armed to protect my family, my home and all that. I can say that I am armed to protect me from you gun nutters. Or I can say that I just like my gun. While all are a bit of the truth, the last one is the most truthful.

Just because I want safe gun laws doesn't mean that I want to take your guns if you are using them in a safe manner. But I do want to make sure that others will use theirs in a safe manner as well. And a few "Common Sense" gun laws can help there. This ain't the OK Corral. I have a right to send my grand children to school with a reasonable expectation that they won't be murdered. I have a reasonable expectation that I can go to a movie without being slaughtered. I have a reasonable expectation that I can attend an outdoor concert without being mowed down. So I demand reasonable laws that keep the body counts down even if we can't completely stop it. At least we can slow it down a bit.

Am I a novice? Not even close. I spend time on a range on a regular basis. I am Combat Trained and blooded. I have trained and used many weapons in my 20 years in the Military. I can field strip a M-16 in total darkness. Am I an expert? Nope. Just another shooter that spent time in the US Military like millions of others.

And I know the difference between something that is designed to kill a deer and something designed to kill a human. Yes, you can use a pair of channel locks to hammer in a nail but a hammer works better. Do you understand that?

You and your grand kids are more likely to die going to and from those events than at the events themselves. Murders aren't even in the top 10 list of causes of death.


.

 

[OKTexas]

And yet, in actual mass public shootings where you actually had civiians with guns, out and in many cases having shot the attacker, the police never make that mistake.....it is a fantasy that you guys conjure up to scare people...

Gabby Giffords shooting......2 men, with concealed carry pistols out in the open.....nothing happened.

Black Lives Matter shooter in Texas.....he starts shooting at cops during a march where civilians have AR-15 rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols on their hips, the civilians got out of the way and the cops dealt with the black lives matter shooter.

The Texas church shooter....the NRA Instructor who shot the attacker...saving 26 lives and likely more, was at the scene of the killer when he pulled over, and waited for the police to arrive, pointing his AR-15 civilian rifle at the attackers car...when the police arrived, they provided the NRA instructor cover with their car so he could retreat...


Nothing you posted is born out by actual real world events.....

And more...

Defensive Gun Use of the Day: LA CCW Stops Mass Shooting - The Truth About Guns

On the afternoon of 31 January, 2016, some ten ATVs were getting gas at the intersection of Claiborne and Esplanade Avenues in New Orleans, Louisiana. Richard Macklin pulled up in a white Volvo. Police said Macklin became upset; the ATV riders were blocking the gas pumps. He pulled out a firearm and opened fire, sending more than a dozen rounds into the crowd. Three were wounded.


One of the wounded was armed . . .

He drew his legally carried weapon and fired at Macklin, hitting him in the head and stopping the attack. During the initial investigation, officers concluded that the person who fired back did so in legitimate defense of self and others

And these mass shootings stopped by armed civilians.......the cops did not shoot them..


Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 41 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)

Texas church shooting (26 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)

Wow, did you strain anything cutting and pasting all this propaganda?

With regard to at least one of the concealed carriers at Giffords shooting there is THIS regarding the good guy with the gun who nearly shot the wrong dude who had actually just wrestled the gun away from Mr Loughner:

The man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter, holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."​

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

Cops are more likely to hurt or kill innocnets than civilian CHL holders, and there's more CHL holders than cops.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

IF they are in your Packpack, they aren't accessible when you are on the move. And if you are not on the move you aren't killing. You only have a very short window of killing and must keep moving to keep the string going. Once you stop and restock, you will give the authorities the time to stop you. You have a matter of minutes. If you don't have your mags within easy reach you just as well not have them at all.

Is that what happened with Cruz or in the Orlando shooting?

No authorities will do shit. They always wait until everybody is dead and the shooter runs out of bullets or offs himself. You are dead if you are hoping police will come and save you.

Mass shooters can load up with a vest/ backpack combo, and have at least 300 round redily accessable. Another 300 in magazines inside the backpack. Total, 600 rounds, all in 10-round mags.

That is just operating with one rifle. Forgrtting about an additional handgun to keep the fire rolling while the perp refills a vest with mags.

All magazine capacity restictions do is limit law-abiding people in home defense scenarios where a reload in the dark with intruders returning fire is near impossible or when additional magazines are not readily accessible because intrusions are sudden and difficult to anticipate.

Magazine restrictions are a no go. Gun control is not helping.

We need to change the coversation. It is not about how much further we will be restricted. It is now about how much restriction we are going to let you gun grabbers keep. Otherwise, I am pushing for full repeal and full autos for everyone. Enough of this infringement.

 

[DrLove]

Cops are more likely to hurt or kill innocnets than civilian CHL holders, and there's more CHL holders than cops.

Probably, but think for a minute Tex: Who performs more unknown traffic stops and gets called into the middle of crime, domestic violence, etc etc scenes with potential armed perps ... a cop or a CHL holder?

Please don't start concealed carriers might be happy they were such once in their lifetime. Cops do these things a dozen or more times a day.

Additionally, over half the states now allow concealed with no license and no training. As a whole, who do you suppose is better trained to deal with a high stress situation in public?

 

[DrLove]

The other link posted didn't go back that far, so you proven ONE weapon was bought from a private seller illegally, because they were too young to buy the weapon, and the other two were purchased illegally though a straw purchase. So tell me dick wad, how would another law have stopped them?

Also oh ignorant one, I know teachers that are competitive shooters and can out shoot just about any police officer, all have a military background. Why wouldn't you trust people like that to be armed in the schools?

I'll take your second question first - I am not opposed to this highly skilled teacher pals of yours carrying concealed in the classroom assuming it has been approved locally and their credentials verified. I've said that many times.

In the case of Harris and Klebold, the Straw Buyer Robyn would not have been allowed to buy from an unlicensed seller at a gun show without a BG check had if there had been a requirement for such.

That was really hard - WASN'T it ----- DICKWAD?

Done with you asshole - I don't debate ignorant name callers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

IF they are in your Packpack, they aren't accessible when you are on the move. And if you are not on the move you aren't killing. You only have a very short window of killing and must keep moving to keep the string going. Once you stop and restock, you will give the authorities the time to stop you. You have a matter of minutes. If you don't have your mags within easy reach you just as well not have them at all.

Is that what happened with Cruz or in the Orlando shooting?

No authorities will do shit. They always wait until everybody is dead and the shooter runs out of bullets or offs himself. You are dead if you are hoping police will come and save you.

Mass shooters can load up with a vest/ backpack combo, and have at least 300 round redily accessable. Another 300 in magazines inside the backpack. Total, 600 rounds, all in 10-round mags.

That is just operating with one rifle. Forgrtting about an additional handgun to keep the fire rolling while the perp refills a vest with mags.

All magazine capacity restictions do is limit law-abiding people in home defense scenarios where a reload in the dark with intruders returning fire is near impossible or when additional magazines are not readily accessible because intrusions are sudden and difficult to anticipate.

Magazine restrictions are a no go. Gun control is not helping.

We need to change the coversation. It is not about how much further we will be restricted. It is now about how much restriction we are going to let you gun grabbers keep. Otherwise, I am pushing for full repeal and full autos for everyone. Enough of this infringement.

IF a home invader invades and I can't put them down with 10 shots, I can't put them down with 100 shots. I'll be dead long before that. I shoot a peculiar way that I learned in the Military. I double tap. Do you know the meaning of that? Cops shoot until you drop. You will shoot until your gun is empty. I use a method that uses less ammo that is more effective and doesn't assume everything in front of you is a target.

I am far from a gun grabber. You are a fear monger. Anyone that wants a safer world must be a gun grabber. Maybe we should come and get all your guns. Maybe we should come and check your mental health. There just might be something there. Are you a convicted Felon on Parole? Or how about a very dangerous violent person on a restraining order. Or using some pretty nasty medication that covers most of your violent tendencies. Or maybe you are paid by the NRA and that should be enough to lose your right to own guns.

 

[Brain357]

In fact, the 1994 ban was so fucking lame, all a mass shooter had to do was make sure he didn't meet the definition of an "assault weapon" and his gun was just as deadly.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 defined certain firearms as assault weapons based on the features they possessed. This included semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine

and

at least two of these features:

a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel,
a bayonet mount, or
a muzzle-mounted grenade launcher.

Thats why we need a ban on high capacity magazines.

And what would such a ban accomplish? I noticed you never addressed my earlier question, so one more time: If we banned hi-cap magazines five years ago, would you be satisfied with the amount of kids killed in the last school shooting?

Bet you won't answer this time either.

If the shooter in the last school shooting couldn't get a gun for mass killing it is likely the shooting would not have happened. They are all trying to up the last guy. Would be difficult without a gun for mass killing. But since we are handing out guns for mass killing they continue.

 

[Brain357]

Simple response. Bringing a lot of 30 round mags will bring a lot of ready to shoot ammo to the shoot. Making you haul around 5 30 round mags versus 5 10 round mags means you will bring 150 rounds versus 50 rounds for almost the same bulk and weight. It just might keep the body count down.

THat's bullshit.

Magazines weigh practically nothing. The cartridges make up all the weight. Many magazines are polymer now, so the weight is really low.

You completely missed the point. You only have X number of places to carry the mags where you can easily get at them when you are firing. I would think that 5 mags would be just about be the limit unless you have a nice room like the one in Nevada to fire from with a nice big table. If you are mobile, you will only be able to have easy access to about 5 mags. Now, those 30 capacity mags are big. They will be heavy with 30 rounds and take up a lot of space. But those 10 round mags will also take up a lot of space as well but not be as heavy. Still, you will probably be limited to only about 5 and still remain mobile with fast access.

Well, unless you are friggin super man like y ou are about to claim to be.

My 9mm uses a 15 round magazine. I can fit two in the left back pocket of my jeans, two in my right back pocket, two in each of my front pockets. That means with only my jeans on, I can carry 120 rounds.

Which is why we need limits on magazine capacity.