Why Congress Should Ban High-Volume Ammo Clips

Reader Comments
Back to article

Last time I checked, pistols were for defensive purposes. Hi volume ammo clips turn a pistol into an offensive piece of equipment.

Heather of SC of SC 9:01PM May 02, 2011

Forget about whether or not there should be a ban on high-capacity ammunition containers. The real issue is the fact that some gun owners still fear that so-called "gun prohibitionists" and "total gun ban Democrats" want a 100-percent ban on private gun use and ownership, even though the Supreme Court in 2008 already has stated there cannot be a total gun ban.
Even though it is logical to assume there are no longer any serious "gun prohibitionists" or "total gun ban Democrats", some gun owners will still vote Republican because of a stereotype/myth/exaggerated notion.
There is no such thing in today's United States a total-gun-ban advocate (lesser forms of firearms regulation is a different story, of course).
Myth #1: the Obama Administration is 100 percent against gun ownership.
Fact: See above about the Supreme Court.
Myth #2: the Democratic Party favors a total gun ban.
Fact: The DEmocratic Party platform has NEVER mentioned a total ban.
Myth #3: Most Democrats in Congress support a total gun ban.
Fact: Very few congressional Democrats have ever called for a total ban.
Myth #4: Pro-gun Americans who fear a total gun ban are just being sane and rational.
Fact: Anyone who fears a total ban after what the Supreme Court stated in DC v. Heller is a crazy, kook, or paranoid fearmonger.

JVJ of MD 7:33AM March 09, 2011

Hi-Cap mags are either for rich boys or idiots. The price of ammo is so far out there that a huge mag is a waste, for sport shooting, relax and enjoy your day shooting and reflect on your previous 5-8 shot string, for home defense, if you need 30 bullets in a pistol, bud you should of just bought a shotgun.

Mike Pine of RI 3:58PM February 25, 2011

The second amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, it is about freedom. It's about the citizenry's ability to resist the oppression of tyrannical government. I AM A PROUD AND FREE AMERICAN AND I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY FIREARMS...EVER. You can't deal with that? Well then I guess we've got a problem...

Thomas of PA 9:12PM February 20, 2011

"The plain truth is that a magazine with 10 bullets, which the McCarthy bill would allow, is more firepower than our Founding Fathers might have imagined and more than enough to guard one's castle."
The Founding Fathers inserted the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights not necessarily just to enable every American to defend themselves in their own home, but to defend themselves against tyranny of their own government. The 2nd Amendment follows the First Amendment (the Right to Free Speech) for a very striking reason: It backs up the right to speak your mind with power. The 2nd Amendment is an insurance policy for every American against repressive government.
The Founding Fathers were armed with virtually the same armaments the British soldiers had. And they used those arms to defend their most important weapon, the printing press.
Does it surprise anyone that a repressive regime would endorse a 'Common Sense' approach to disarmament? 'Common Sense' for them is a lot different than 'Common Sense' for you and me. If they trusted you, they would encourage 'Common Sense' arms proliferation for responsible citizens, as an armed society is a polite society.
This is just another silver-tounged elitist talking you out of your freedoms.

Phil of NY 3:05PM February 20, 2011

Hey Mayor! So quick to regulate my property and my means of defending said property. Come take it from me. Seriously, personally come and take my rights and property. You haven't got the testicular fortitude. This offer is extended to anyone crooked/crazy enough to deny my of my rights/life/property and the means to defend such.

steve of FL 10:15AM February 20, 2011

"Only law enforcement and the military should have access to this kind of firepower."
Yes, I'm sure when the founding fathers said "the people" what they meant was "the government."
You want to ban "high capacity" magazines? Great. Either lead by example and start with the police, military, Secret Service, etc. or explain why you are more entitled to their protection than my family is to mine.

onchu of WA 9:22AM February 20, 2011

"Since Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004, we've seen tragedy after tragedy as deranged killers unleashed deadly firepower, murdering dozens of innocents." - You're kidding, right? Must have been like light switch. None of this EVER happened prior to (or during) the so-called ban on assault weapons. Oh, I bet it's because no one can really decide what an assault weapon is.
Weapon of mass-destruction? How about the car fleeing a robbery scene and being chased by police June 2009. It jumped a curb and crashed into a crowd, killing three young children and gravely injuring a woman. "It's horrifying to think about what happened," Mayor Michael Nutter said at the scene. "It's a horrific scene." Yep, you were there, Mr. Mayor, but I did not see you calling for the ban on cars so this would not happen.
"Large-capacity magazines can turn a semiautomatic pistol into a weapon of mass destruction, with some spitting out six shots per second." You've got to be kidding me. I really would like to see ANYONE with a semiautomatic pistol "spit" out six shots per second (unless they were in his mouth).
You are a member of the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns group" Fine, so worry about the "illegal guns, not those held by people who have them legally, the majority of whom have taken gun safety courses as required by state law.

Fred of MI 9:14AM February 20, 2011

This clown uses doublespeak gobbledygook to confuse and deceive. "Large-capacity magazines can turn a semiautomatic pistol into a weapon of mass destruction, with some spitting out six shots per second. These are not a hunter's weapons. They are meant to hurt or kill as many people as quickly as possible. Only law enforcement and the military should have access to this kind of firepower."
So, with a magazine of hampered (10 or less) capacity is the rate of fire altered? How is it related? Oh, and hunting is the only thing we are allowed to do with guns, and self-defense is not legitimate? And law enforcement should be allowed to hurt or kill as many people as quickly as possible, right? Military too? Oh, and why stop at 10 rounds? Why not 5? Or none? Weld the barrel shut while you're at it; after all, the real goal of Nutter (perfect name) is to take all firearms away from private citizens, one step at a time.

mike of VT 9:35PM February 19, 2011

Using the same logic, we should ban all "sports cars" that are designed to be capable of driven over 70mph. If 10 rounds in a magazine are sufficient then 4 cylinders in a car should be sufficient. right? More people are killed by cars than guns. Instead of imposing more illogical rules on guns, capacities, and ammo, we need to focus on enforcing the laws we do have regarding felons or mentally ill people from owning firearms.

Lee of GA 10:47AM February 19, 2011