The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Webleymkv · January 19, 2013, 10:19 AM

No, I would not be OK with any restrictions on magazine capacity. For one thing, there is no reason that I should have to justify owning something when doing so does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of anyone else. The anti's keep bantering about how no one "needs" an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine/clip" but I think being drawn into that argument is distracting from the real point. The burden of proof when proposing a ban on something lies on the would-be banner and, as such, the question is not why should I be able to own a >10 round magazine, but rather why shouldn't I.

More importantly though, I know full well that a 10 round magazine limit will not be the end of it. Gun control is and has always been a game of incrementalism. If we had a hypothetical 10 round limit, what would the anti's do when another school shooting happens and the perp uses 10 round mags? Do you think that they'll actually admit that their legislation didn't work? Oh no, they'll simply do the same thing they've done every other time a piece of gun control legislation didn't work: moan that they were stopped from doing enough by the evil "gun lobby" and push for more. No more proof of this is necessary than what Cuomo just did in New York. NY has had a 10 round limit for many years now, but that wasn't enough for the anti's so now they've dropped down to a 7 round limit. What's next? 5 rounds? 3 rounds? Single-Shots? The anti's appetite for gun banning is insatiable and, as I see it, better to keep them fighting over >10 round mags than something even more important.

January 19, 2013, 10:19 AM	#7
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	No, I would not be OK with any restrictions on magazine capacity. For one thing, there is no reason that I should have to justify owning something when doing so does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of anyone else. The anti's keep bantering about how no one "needs" an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine/clip" but I think being drawn into that argument is distracting from the real point. The burden of proof when proposing a ban on something lies on the would-be banner and, as such, the question is not why should I be able to own a >10 round magazine, but rather why shouldn't I. More importantly though, I know full well that a 10 round magazine limit will not be the end of it. Gun control is and has always been a game of incrementalism. If we had a hypothetical 10 round limit, what would the anti's do when another school shooting happens and the perp uses 10 round mags? Do you think that they'll actually admit that their legislation didn't work? Oh no, they'll simply do the same thing they've done every other time a piece of gun control legislation didn't work: moan that they were stopped from doing enough by the evil "gun lobby" and push for more. No more proof of this is necessary than what Cuomo just did in New York. NY has had a 10 round limit for many years now, but that wasn't enough for the anti's so now they've dropped down to a 7 round limit. What's next? 5 rounds? 3 rounds? Single-Shots? The anti's appetite for gun banning is insatiable and, as I see it, better to keep them fighting over >10 round mags than something even more important.