Better question, why do you not want me to have additional firepower? The only reason that someone would try to disarm someone else would be to exert control over them.
As for how much firepower do I really need, all I have to say is this.
Posted on 03/25/2011 5:33:10 AM PDT by marktwain
I don't really care if you have a gun for hunting or a pistol to give you some sense of protection at home. It's your right.
But what's the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip? I stopped by a legislative hearing Wednesday at which a roomful of gun enthusiasts was irate about a bill that would make it a felony to own a "large-capacity magazine" that uses more than 10 bullets.
The shooter in the Tucson attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords earlier this year that killed six and wounded 13 used a legally purchased semiautomatic Glock pistol with an ammunition clip holding more than 30 bullets. Large-capacity magazines like this, illegal from 1994 to 2004, were used in the mass shootings in East Hartford, at Virginia Tech and in Fort Hood, Texas, to name a few.
Cops such as Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett see "no reason whatsover" for anyone to have these ammo clips. "The large-capacity magazines put not only the general public at risk, but especially the men and women of Connecticut's police departments," Gaudett told the General Assembly's judiciary committee in testimony Wednesday.
Banning these magazines isn't going to magically stop deranged killers. But it's an important start and it certainly might help police -- and prevent the next Jared Loughner from going into Walmart to buy a 33-bullet ammunition clip.
As I listened to opponents and read through their testimony, I realized how little I know about the violent wild-west-of-a-world some of these folks inhabit, a place that doesn't reflect the reality of Connecticut.
"Anyone who knows anything about firearm self-defense knows that you want as many bullets loaded as you can carry in a practical manner,'' Robert Crook, director of the Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance, said in his testimony. "He who throws the most lead wins."
A doctor from Guilford, Daniel Vining, said in his testimony that criminals will ignore the law while law-abiding citizens "will be hindered."
"As a practicing ER physician, I have seen many shooting victims with as many as 6 separate bullet tracks who are not seriously injured. Consider then, trying to defend your family with a 10-round magazine against two home invaders ... five shots per attacker, even with 100 percent accuracy might not be enough."
Michael Fifer, CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Co., a gun manufacturer in Southport, explained further. "In defensive situations, magazines in excess of 10 rounds provide ... private citizens the ability to deal with multiple offenders ... one-third of aggravated assault and robbery victims are attacked by multiple offenders."
We should not let these views distort a sensible response to these recent mass killings. Instead of throwing lead at marauding home invaders, I keep thinking more what Dallas Green, grandfather of shooting victim Christina Taylor Green, said not long after the Tucson attack.
"Even though I'm a hunter and I love to shoot and love to have my guns, I don't have a Glock or whatever it is and I don't have a magazine with 33 bullets in it. That doesn't make sense to be able to sell those kind of things,'' Green said. "I just don't understand that."
Neither do I.
"Why do we want magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Ask a cop. The EXACT Same reason!!! Is his or her life more valuable than my children’s, my wife’s, or mine? If a cop has a good reason for them, then so do we."
We are winning, and we need to keep fighting to restore the Constitution.
Hmmm...that's easy...to protect ourselves from hordes of people like you.....
They always blow it in the first few sentences where they feign empathy. The Constitution does not mention hunting or home only and nor do our lifestyles.
Irrelevant if you can't hit anything.
— moron alert —
Perhaps laws should require someone return an empty case before they’re allowed to purchase another one.
The issue is not the magazine - it is our government making a criminal out of everyone of us for your personal choices. Except if your are gay or muslim personal choices.
We need larger magazines more then the police.Afterall we’re more likely to be the victim of a violent assault.The police only get involved after the victim has been seriously injured or killed.
The majority of the time a police officer does’nt even draw his weapon.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for people to have weapons to hunt or even protect themselves, their families and their property from criminals. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect us from the U.S. Government. That fact was even acknowledged within the last year or two by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, commonly called the Ninth Circus.
Personally, I no longer hunt. I use a Remington 870 12 gauge and a S&W model 66 .357 for home defense. I also have long weapons which will take 20 and 30 round magazine; my semi-automatic handguns have 15 round magazines.
Why, you might ask? Simply put, I believe that no one can better protect me, my family, my property and my family’s interests than me. And each possible challenge might be better remedied with a different weapon than those I use for home defense.
The second reason is quite simple. The U.S. Constitution says I have the right to own them. Enough said.
But what’s the point of ammunition magazines that allow the shooter to fire dozens of bullets at a clip?
Dozens of bad guys?
Under the Second Amendment, I can own a first-rate naval vessel, a tank, a fighter jet, artillery, or even a large-capacity magazine for my personal defense weapon.
Do not infringe.
Why does the government need mags over 10 rounds then?
What wild west world does it live in?
Are they preparing for an eventuality the citizen would never encounter?
WOW I am surprised you even had to ask that. Of course the cops life is more important than miserable peon slave to the Fed life. /s
Has anyone asked if the governor of CT has instructed the police who protect him to use 10 round clips and nothing else?
Whenever a lefty asks,
“Why do you want magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?”
I reply:
1) Shouldn’t a homosexual like Mathew Shepard be able to protect themselves from a ‘hate crime’ about to be committed by 15 angry gay bashers??
2) Shouldn’t a ‘person of color’ in the south be able to protect themselves from ‘rednecks’ about to tie the person of color to a truck bumper and drag them to their death like in Jasper Texas??
3) Shouldn’t a woman preparing to exercise her “reproductive rights” be able to fend off 20 Christian Taliban members led By Sarah Palin who are going to bomb a Planned Parenthood Clinic or commit violence??
To other readers: Travis and I have a little bet going about a possible federal ban of magazines of more than 10 rounds by citizens who are not police or military.
Travis McGee (AKA the famous author Matt Bracken of the Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy and the upcoming Castigo Cay action thriller) forecast that magazines over 10 rounds would be banned by the end of this year, 2011. I am a bit more optimistic, and set up a wager that they would not be banned, because President Obama just doesn't have the political capital to do it.
If I am wrong, I will buy a case of Castigo Cay. If I am right, Matt will ship me a signed case of Castigo Cay free of charge. Either way, I get a case to distribute to family and friends this Christmas. I love to set up a win-win situation!
While I hope that Matt loses this bet, he is a strong intellect that I respect. If he loses, it won't be because the domestic enemies who want to destroy our Constitutional Republic won't be trying. Castigo Cay is a page turner that will keep you up all night, if you let it. I have read the excerpt that Matt has on his web site, and I am eagerly looking forward to the complete book.
Why? The 2nd Amendment is very clear that such a law would be unconstitutional.
Hey Rick! Tell me what is the limit specified in the 2nd Amendment?
Better question, why do you not want me to have additional firepower? The only reason that someone would try to disarm someone else would be to exert control over them.
As for how much firepower do I really need, all I have to say is this.
Indeed. Under such a law, the next deranged leftist psycho who wants to go on a shooting spree will just bring multiple guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.