I agree with your position, but disagree with your reasoning about LE. LE is supposed to attack a violent situation and stop it. A homeowner is, unfortunately, limited to defense of their home and property. Defense is much easier than attack, so fewer rounds will be needed. Always has been, always will be.

Limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold is ridiculous. It does nothing but make a person reload sooner. A well practice and trained person can reload in a matter of a second or two, and only an amateur lets their weapon run dry. If they are going to limit the number of rounds in a chamber what is to keep them from limiting the number of magazines you can purchase, or the number of rounds you can buy? Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will do nothing to stop the violence, so the next limitation will be taken. It might not be next year or next decade, but it will be taken.

 

i feel horrible for the families effected from the school shootings. but if i were in their shoes the last thing i would want is another gun law of any kind, gun laws don't stop criminals, guns do.

 

All the back ground checks go through the feds. Quite a few are refused, only to find it was a mistake in the database. You need to find out why it was refused and if an error, get it reversed.

 

And I would disagree about the need for less rounds. Quite often, a LE officer is not alone. He has other officers to back him up, especially in known dangerous situations. A homeowner is on their own.
It wasn't that long ago there was a story of a women who fired 5 rounds into a burglar and he left, but was still alive. With home invasions, quite often there are more than one person doing it, even groups. If you had to defend against 3 intruders, do you think you would be satisfied with only 10 rounds in your weapon? Or would you want more? I am certain, if protecting your family, you would be wishing for a lot more than 10 rounds.


On another note it seems even more states are asking for gun manufacturers to move. Now it is Rhode Island. Not sure what their laws are like, but I had thought being in New England they would be similar to Mass. and Conn.

http://www.necn.com/04/09/13/Lawmake...49c216130780bd


Just saw this, so I expect RI is out.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt...,4339199.story

 

If a single mom facing 3 intruders chooses an AR15 with a 30 round clip to defend her kids, what gives the government the right to stop her?

Certainly not the Constitution.

 

I think that by this point the Constitution has been rendered pretty much irrelevant. The government doesn't have the right but believes it now has the power to dictate. Are you or I going to stop them? Not unless you can get the masses to see the damage that is being done.

That mom and children are now considered collateral damage. For the greater good of course.

It is those of us who exercise our second amendment rights who are now the enemy.

 

First, I'd like to point out that a magazine that holds 30 .223 rounds, will only hold 10 .458 SOCOM rounds. So technically...


Then, another good video:

 

That was one of the best defenses I have ever heard! Praise that man, a true American. And Kingfish, I wasn't aware that the Feds filtered all of them. We are appealing it, but have to wait until June to August because, just like all governmental institutions, they are months behind schedule.

 

All go through the FBI. How the checks work.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politi...ner/index.html

Quite often, the problem can be a matter of having the same name as a criminal.

 

My last agency had pistols that only held 11 rounds when including the one in the chamber. My current agency's pistol holds 12+1. My personal defense firearm holds 15+1. All of them are .40. As was drilled into me in the military the reload is where you die. Get that done quickly. I forget to put, that I can't count how many times I went into a dangerous situation alone and called for backup after getting on scene. It happens and happens frequently.

More often than not someone doing a home invasion is not going to be willing to take on an armed resident. It's not what they typically do. They are burglars and might be interested in performing violence, but not in overcoming violence. As soon as you start shooting they are normally looking for a way out and fast. One shot, 10 shots, or 30 shots irrelevant to them. When the shooting starts they are looking to leave. They know any neighbors home at the time are most likely going to be calling the cops (unless you really **** off your neighbors or you live in the hood). A home invasion is a different situation all together. Your average person is not going to be able to defend themselves during that situation anyway. They will most likely freeze up or be overtaken by the sudden violent intrusion into their house. Don't get me wrong this in no way diminishes my belief in being armed and trained to use whatever firearm a person decides to purchase. It's just that most people don't look at things tactically and have a plan of action before something actually happens.

 

Except there are those that are there to hurt or kill rather than rob. They invade the home knowing people are in the house. Just so they can have their "fun". That is something that seems to be on the rise. Very similar to the "raves" you see occurring.

 

'Most' people may not need 10+ round magazines to defend against a burglar, and 'most' people may not have the tactical planning skills to defend against a home invader bent on killing, raping or kidnapping. But our choices for defense should not be restricted by what most people need or are capable of using.

Anyways, the 2nd Amendment is not just about defending ourselves from the tyranny of a home invader.

I know, I know. A 30 round magazine is not going to defend me against government forces. But if a few million 30 round magazines in circulation will slow the government assault on our liberties, I am in favor of that.

 

You don't need to try to convince me that we should be able to buy what we want. I whole heartedly believe we shouldn't be restricted from owning what we want with very few exceptions. I agree the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or survivng it is about keeping the government honest. When the SHTF one 30 round magazine might not win a war, but it can get you more supplies and keep an oppressive government on its heels.

I guess you missed the part where I agreed with kingfish's position just no this reasoning.

 

In case you haven't seen this one yet, this is what happens when the government takes your rights away:

 

Right, and like I said they don't care whether you shoot once or one hundred times. When that first shot rings out they typically are looking to get out whether they've been shot or not.

A sane, non-criminally minded person is not going to use a firearm for a crime. It doesn't matter whether they own a single shot .22 or an M-2 .50 with 100k rounds. They are not gong to go out and commit crimes if they are sane and not criminals. It is very important to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally unstable, because it doesn't matter whether they own a single shot .22 or the M-2 they will contemplate and most likely try to use the firearm in the commission of a crime. For these reasons any restriction on firearm ownership, with very few exceptions, makes no sense. If a person is not a criminal they won't suddenly become a criminal because they own a firearm. If someone is mentally unstable then it is impossible to say whether they will commit a crime or not. Limiting the number of rounds a firearm can hold or the type of firearm a person can buy does nothing to solve the problem. It attacks the symptoms not the underlying issue.

Just about every one of these mass killings in recent times has been a result of someone who is mentally unstable shooting up a place. That tells me that the background checks we have in place work and don't need to be changed. That also tells me that the mental health side of the equation is lacking.