[musher]

If me taking extra time ( no matter the length ) to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success. Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

This argument fails on two levels.

First, this is a utilitarian argument against a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are not subject to utilitarian (cost:benefit) analysis and are not subject to being dropped simply because they're too expensive. Fundamental rights are circumscribed only if there is a compelling (and legitimate) reason, there is no other way to achieve the end, and only to the minimum extent necessary. To dismiss an argument based on fundamental principles as "greedy" misses entirely the point of having a constitutional republic with fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

Second, even if a utilitarian argument was appropriate, this argument fails on that level as well for two reasons. The benefit of the suggested "fix" is questionable and the real costs associated with the "fix" are ignored. There's no evidence that restricting magazine capacity affects the probability of mass killings. If anything, the fact that successful crimes of this sort are located in areas already having many of the restrictive laws commonly proposed suggests the opposite. 10 years of experience with the previous magazine ban showed no effect on crime rates. In more general terms, it is very difficult or impossible to affect the likelihood of very rare events by legislating around very common behaviors. This is because the behavior you are circumscribing, ultimately has little relationship with the events you are trying to affect.

Also, if you fail to recognize the cost of a proposal, a utilitarian argument always seems to be a reasonable solution. Framing your argument in this manner is disingenuous. You claim that your proposal "might" save a life and this justifies it:

to load a couple smaller mags saves even one person i would consider it a success

But you dismiss the possibility of costs with an ad-hominem

Someone wanting big mags just for the principle when the law could save a life seems very greedy to me.

Clearly, such a restriction could potentially result in lost lives as well as lives saved. Consider a self-defense situation against multiple attackers, perhaps self defense in a riot or natural disaster. These are situations where having larger capacity magazines may save lives.

I anticipate one might respond that such situations are "theoretical" or "extremely rare" and would point out that there are real examples of these sorts of events (witness the korean store owners during the Rodney King riots), and that the sort of event you are trying to prevent is also very rare. The reality is both sorts of things are exceedingly rare events and not really subject to being affected by legislating around very common behaviors.

One would also need to consider the cost of removing or limiting access to the sorts of individual weapons that would be of the most use in resisting a tyrannical government, admittedly also an event so rare as to be vanishingly unlikely to happen (again), but nonetheless a fundamental reason for the 2nd amendment's existence.

An honest analysis would not ask "Might one life be saved?" but would ask "Is this likely to save more lives than it costs, and are the lives saved worth the cost?"

I believe the fundamental dishonesty, or perhaps superficial thinking, that goes into proposals like this accounts for a large part of the dismissive reaction many have to such ideas.

And then there are those who believe fundamental principles have intrinsic value...