CDZ What is a "high capacity" gun magazine...how many bullets?

[rightwinger]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

 

[danielpalos]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Personally I think we need a group of people who like guns, have practical experience with them and have a law enforcement background to set up regulations which make sense. Otherwise you end up with the 90's era assault weapon ban which seemed to mostly have been good for raising ammunition prices and selling old stock or some reactionary ban which does not practically matter.

Far as where to set the line for "high capacity. I dunno if there is an exact place to draw a line. What's a long pass in the NFL?

What was the WWII era M1's capacity? We sent boys into battle with those. Perhaps we can start there.

We already have all the laws we need........the problem is democrats keep letting criminals out of jail.......

What gun laws are we missing?

Not laws, right wingers; higher taxes to keep criminals behind bars. Stop lowering taxes.

 

[2aguy]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Personally I think we need a group of people who like guns, have practical experience with them and have a law enforcement background to set up regulations which make sense. Otherwise you end up with the 90's era assault weapon ban which seemed to mostly have been good for raising ammunition prices and selling old stock or some reactionary ban which does not practically matter.

Far as where to set the line for "high capacity. I dunno if there is an exact place to draw a line. What's a long pass in the NFL?

What was the WWII era M1's capacity? We sent boys into battle with those. Perhaps we can start there.

We already have all the laws we need........the problem is democrats keep letting criminals out of jail.......

What gun laws are we missing?

Not laws, right wingers; higher taxes to keep criminals behind bars. Stop lowering taxes.

We have more than enough tax money to keep criminals in jail...the problem is that democrats keep spending our money to increase their own power....

 

[2aguy]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

 

[eflatminor]

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

I think we can all agree this qualifies as a high capacity magazine:

Vogue US Releases Its Thickest Issue Ever: 916 Pages

Vogue US Releases Its Thickest Issue Ever: 916 Pages - DesignTAXI.com

 

[rightwinger]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

 

[2aguy]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

 

[eflatminor]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

 

[danielpalos]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

Personally I think we need a group of people who like guns, have practical experience with them and have a law enforcement background to set up regulations which make sense. Otherwise you end up with the 90's era assault weapon ban which seemed to mostly have been good for raising ammunition prices and selling old stock or some reactionary ban which does not practically matter.

Far as where to set the line for "high capacity. I dunno if there is an exact place to draw a line. What's a long pass in the NFL?

What was the WWII era M1's capacity? We sent boys into battle with those. Perhaps we can start there.

We already have all the laws we need........the problem is democrats keep letting criminals out of jail.......

What gun laws are we missing?

Not laws, right wingers; higher taxes to keep criminals behind bars. Stop lowering taxes.

We have more than enough tax money to keep criminals in jail...the problem is that democrats keep spending our money to increase their own power....

Lowered taxes lately?

You need "keep them in jail tax rates".

 

[Toronado3800]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

 

[rightwinger]

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

 

[rightwinger]

Lets start with anything over 15

Then you can justify why a private gun owner needs more

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

 

[danielpalos]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

 

[Toronado3800]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

 

[danielpalos]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[airplanemechanic]

My experience is that anything over 20 feeds poorly and tends to jam. I oppose any laws on capacity, but my personal experience is that 20 round magazines work better in AR-15 and Mini 14 rifles.

That's why you use an AK instead. You can use a 100rd drum mag and those things never jam. I had 30 rd mags and mine never jammed one time.

So speak for your 20 rd limit with your POS AR-15. Get a real gun!! Go full Taliban!!!

Mr Kalashnikov himself with his pride and joy:

 

[JoeMoma]

1 is regular capacity. 2 or more is high capacity.

(Sarcasm alert)

 

[airplanemechanic]

To answer the OP:

A high-capacity magazine (or large-capacity magazine) is a firearm magazine capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the designer, or legally, a particular number of cartridges dependent on jurisdiction and kind of firearm.

High-capacity magazine - Wikipedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

----------------------- yeah , no nukes allowed either Toranado [chuckle] !! But Americans do have the Right to all the Issued Small Arms of the American combat soldier Toronado .

OK. so we have spouted our rhetoric and come up with some common ground. We both believe in gun control. Probably to different degrees but we both believe in it.

The topic at hand, do you think there should be restrictions on what size magazine, clip or whatever I can have on my gun? (I assume we are talking simi-auto's here and if I am correct in respect of the OP we should restrict ourselves to that)

We have all the gun control we need with the laws banning convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from owning firearms. That said anyone who is legally eligible to own firearms should have the right to but whatever size magazine he wants

 

[eflatminor]

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

The Korean store owners during the LA riots for one, but your point is irrelevant. The 2nd amendment is not about what you think someone else needs. It's about every citizen's right to self defense. You nor anyone else can predict the future of what someone else might need.

Swing and a miss!