>Magazine size makes little difference. Therefore the gov

>>35006401
It creates a burden. Instead of one magazine, I now have to buy 3 to hold the same amount of ammo. 10 round mags are approximately the same cost of 30 rounders. More capacity is always better, but limiting capacity isn't really going to impact the potential lethality of a mass shooter. Also fuck you. SHALL.

File: IMG_1524.jpg (52KB, 1159x736px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1159x736px

>>35006401
Difference to what?

Protip: Of course arguments full of undefined terms don't hold up. Define your terms, then we'll talk.

the 2nd amendment is about the power of the common man to be armed against the government. 30 round mags are the government standard. so it would be unconstitutional for the common man to be disallowed to buy cheap standard capacity mags. I would tolerate a mag cap of 31 rounds but no less.

also for these same reasons full-auto should be legal.

>>35006456
>It creates a burden. Instead of one magazine, I now have to buy 3 to hold the same amount of ammo.
I doubt that would be considered substantial.
>>35006456
>More capacity is always better, but limiting capacity isn't really going to impact the potential lethality of a mass shooter
Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If more capacity would help you, it would help a criminal too.
>>35006456
>Also fuck you. SHALL.
Did you not read the part where I said
>I agree with the conclusion, but not the reasoning

I'm not arguing for mag limits. I'm just saying we need better arguments.

>>35006465
Difference in the performance of the gun. Did you not watch the video, specifically the part where they measured the time it took to fire x number of rounds with large mags vs. small mags?

>>35006493
>the 2nd amendment is about the power of the common man to be armed against the government
I would agree with that, but "the common man" is too apathetic to fight a rebellion, despite the fact that there is ample cause for one.

>>35006504
More capacity is an advantage. But reducing doesn't have a huge benefit to saving lives. Assuming mass shooters obey the law/can't get a hold of 30 round mags, limiting to 10 wouldn't make the shooter 66% less effective. It might only make him 5% less effective. It's not enough of a benefit for me to now be even slightly inconvenienced and having to buy 3 times as many mags and pouches.

>>35006599
I still don't think that's a good argument. The opposing side could just say, "Well, since limiting magazines to 10 rounds isn't going to make a difference, we need to limit them to 7 rounds instead." Our argument needs to be that we have a right to own any size magazine irrespective of crime, for which we are not responsible. The next time the other side brings up mass shootings, our response ought to me, "Not my fucking problem."

File: image.jpg (79KB, 480x462px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 480x462px

>>35006401

>>35006656
>We need to regulate that no motor vehicle can go faster than 50mph because some people speed and kill innocent people. Yes, it's an inconvenience, but it only makes your commute 10 minutes longer, but it's worth it to save lives.
There's a normie analogy

>>35006599
The last mass point-n-shooty in England was done by a guy with a double barrel shotgun and a bolt action .22, but he still managed to kill 11 people before an hero.

>>35006706
Actually, we do have limits on how fast motorists are allowed to drive, and most cars are electronically limited. However, the analogy breaks down when you consider that a car is much more dangerous than a firearm. A driver is actively using his car whenever he's on the road. A gun, by contrast, sits in its holster most of the time. It isn't actively being used. Guns are also easier to use safely than cars.

File: 1379305854977.gif (484KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 500x365px

>>35006401
It's only a non sequitur in a vacuum. Within the context of what a government is supposed to do, it is an argument which makes sense. From a classical Liberal standpoint, the government is to be an instrument of the people who live in the country, and a law which limits those law abiding for no gain reduces the legitimacy of said government.

>>35006725
Yes, and we already have limits on guns. In general no automatics, SBR, armor penetrating ammo, silencers, and all the state specific crap.

>>35006748
I wasn't even talking about all that. I just don't the the car analogy is a good argument.

>>35006738
That's true, but courts generally defer to the legislature's judgement of what is an effective law. Courts only override legislation when a plaintiff proves that the law is a substantial burden on his rights.

>>35006401
You'll find that many arguments on both sides of the debate lack internal consistency.

>>35006795
That's true. They aren't really arguments, just rationalizations for pre-conceived beliefs inculcated by political socialization.

>>35006401
You're limiting your logic on the argument by itself rather than within context, the point isn't just that limiting capacity won't have much effect on mass shootings, the point is that forcing law abiding citizens to have these limits isn't justified because the effect it would have on mass shootings wouldn't really do much to make the liberals, the people who make the mass shootings solely about the gun and not the person using it, stop complaining about guns because even if it does reduce the amount of deaths in shootings, the shooting still took place and that's reason enough for liberals to get upset about.

Now mass shooting are still extremely rare, and vehicles are starting to be more common in terrorist attacks anyways, so placing limits on firearms have been proven to have almost no effect on terrorism/mass killings, and only effect the law abiding citizen.

Tl;DR Our issue isn't that it'll have no effect on the shooting itself, our issue is that it effects us as gun owners in what we can do with our own property.

>>35006871
The title of the linked video was "magazine size makes very little difference." That argument cuts both ways. If it makes little difference for criminals, it makes little difference for us, which would mean we have nothing to complain about.>>35006871
>affects us as gun owners in what we can do with our own property.
Now you're on the right track. The argument we need to make is that we have a prima facie right to own anything.

>>35006898
Except, the difference is that I don't plan on going around shooting innocent unarmed people with my guns, the argument itself is flawed, and should be disposed of.

I plan on using my gun in a DEFENSIVE setting, and that could mean a myriad of things, from a single contact, to multiple, lightly armed to heavily armed. So clearly, having over 10 rounds in your gun will be more advantageous and will have a big effect depending on circumstances.

>>35006898
The onus is on the person making the claim. No one need to prove why they need to keep a right. They need to prove that high capacity magazines are dangerous; they claim that it makes it easy to sustain a high rate of fire. This video refutes that claim by demonstrating how quickly magazines can be exchanged. It making little difference to anyone isn't a reason to affect change.

>If magazine capacity makes little difference, then magazine capacity limits are not a substantial burden on the right to be armed.

The reasonableness of the burden is determined by the magnitude of effect. If there is no effect, no burden, no matter how minute, can be reasonable.

Under our legal system, everything is legal unless stated otherwise. To make something illegal, there must be a reason, a benefit that justifies the burden on your freedom.

People get confused by the Bill of Rights, thinking it grants freedoms. It does not. It merely elaborates on some natural rights that the authors thought might likely be trammled upon. The misconception you labor under was a feared consequence of its inclusion.

>>35006871
>Now mass shooting are still extremely rare
This is the fundamental argument I try to make. I point out how extreme they really are (lower chances than being struck by lightning). When pressed I either get them to admit that the majority of mass shootings are either organ crime related or that they are worried about white people being shot. After the former the discussion can be moved away from gun control and the latter usually ends the argument since they will have to admit that they are racist to continue.

>>35006401
The "convenience" factor is a non sequitur if you're talking about regulating a weapon to save lives. Just because I, like a mass shooter, can reload quickly doesn't mean that such restrictions don't have an impact on my life, hobby, wallet, and rights. When a person uses this argument they are conceding that it doesn't matter. I can reload fast, he can reload fast. There's no evidence that such laws would save lives. See the myriad of shootings with low capacity weapons. If it does not matter for hobbyists and does not matter for criminals then why are we discussing regulating it at all?

Ultimately, like most wedge issues in the US, restrictions such as magazine capacity fall on value-based judgments rather than rational arguments. Say reducing magazine capacity would reduce casualties in a mass shooting scenario by 10%. Is that 10% of reduced casualties worth the restriction on millions of law abiding gun owners?

Some people would say that if even one person's life is saved than any firearm restriction is worth it. This is especially pertinent to mass shootings, because statistically they comprise of such a minuscule amount of violence (and gun violence) in the country that it's nearly negligible and, frankly, down right disingenuous to suggest regulations on firearms to address them.

The argument that magazine restrictions "don't matter" because you law abiding owners can reload fast is unrelated to this value-based discussion. I can drive a car that maxes out at 60MPH. I will still get where I'm going, but it will take longer. It's proven that crashes at higher speeds tend to cause more harm to people. What is the reason that we don't restrict manufacturers to slower speeds? Because the inconvenience to hundreds of millions of people who aren't in crashes among other economical reasonings.

Plus, all of this doesn't address the practicality of (non)enforcement of such regulations.

>>35006718
Did he an hero because he was about to get stopped or could he have continued?

I got it.

Large magazines aid id suppressive fire. That allows for fire and maneuver tactics.

Fire and maneuver allows one to fight their way out of a gunfight, or take and hold ground, or pin down someone else with a gun. It is essential when fighting someone armed with a gun.

Mass shooters aren't affected as much by this because they select target rich environments where people aren't armed. Specifically gun free zones. With no one shooting back, they can pick people off at leisure.

Therefore magazine capacity limits don't hinder mass shooters much but they do significantly impact the ability of citizens to defend themselves from armed attackers, mass shooters included because they cannot fire and maneuver as effectively.

>>35006898
Your argument is retarded. If it doesn't limit criminals much, why should my rights be limited?

>>35006401
that's just retarded, in the hands of the right guy high capacity magazines do not do harm to the public in the hands of the bad guy low capacity magazines do great harm to the public, not to mention you can 3d print or fabricate mags easily so any limitation on their purchase is meaningless to criminals.

the focus should be more on the guns not getting in the wrong hands and encouraging well balanced and dutiful law abiding folks to have them.

>>35010134
well generally speaking criminals are not limited by the same laws as you are because they are fucking criminals and don't give two fucks about laws.

Show me where in the Constitution it gives the gov the power to restrict magazine capacity.

>>35006401
>then magazine capacity limits are not a substantial burden on the right to be armed.

they are also not a factor, so why ban them if not to simply limit peoples' rights?

throwing away the "it makes guns more dangerous" argument makes it even more tyrannical because you are literally just trying to control people at this point

>>35010208
Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) for the federal government or 10th Amendment for states.

It's all dubious because it infringes on the second.

>>35006401
First of all the idea is all around idiotic because mag regulations are literally regulations of boxes with spring.

Secondly mass shootings should be the least of everybody's concerns. Majority of events that get called "mass shootings" are elements of gang warfare and therefore to cut them short you have to get rid of the gangs(even if it means that "raycis" police will have to raid ghettos).

Thirdly this is all beating around the bush. The assault rifle features, magazine size limits - they don't matter. The few existing gun control measures that WORK are various licensing systems(especially visible outside of the US) and restrictions on private sales. Now the problem is that gun grabbers first want to ban as many things as they can and then introduce those(working) measures, which sounds kind of hypocritical, unless you realize that there's an entirely different agenda behind it. They aren't interested in reducing "gun crime" they're interested in disarming the society. Otherwise they would be talking about disbanding the ATF in the same sentence as they're talking about gun control.

>>35010258
Commerce clause does not give the gov power to ban anything they want its to prevent states from enacting barriers to trade.
For 10th, 2A has been incorporated against states via 14th.

>>35006401
It's a substantial burden on the use of arms for defensive purposes. Somebody carry a gun for legitimate purposes would be much less inclined to carry five 6 round magazines than two 15 round magazines simply because they don't have any intention of using their gun unless is absolutely needed. This has the potential to bite then in the ass in a defensive scenario.

A mass shooter/armed robber/criminal with a firearm doesn't have to be concerned with how practical it is to tote around magazines for their day to day activities because they have time to premeditate their firearm usage and stow their extra magazines accordingly.

>>35010277
For the majority of politicians I don't think it has anything to do with preventing gun crime but wanting to look good to voters. Passing a gun control law looks good and is easy, actually solving the problems that create gangs and out of control crime is very difficult.

Then there the politicians who have been raised in gun control world who believe that if the guns go away, crime goes away. They believe that absolutely no good can come from a gun. They are the biggest and hardest group of anti-gunners to deal with.

The last group, is the scariest. This is the group with an alternative motive. Gun control is just step one (or two or three) on a plan for a major power grab. The issue is telling the diff between this group and the others

>>>>35006401
Because mass shooters can just pack more magazines i.e. columbine.
Yet I can only realistically carry so many in daily life.
It does nothing to hinder mass shooting, but lessens my ability to shoot back

>>35010303
The Commerce Clause has been used to justify nearly every single federal government expansion of power. The argument is that x could have been sold across state borders we need to regulate it.

>bang bang bang
>leave one in chamber, put in new mag
>bang bang bang

>>35010258
The 10th amendment does not allow states to override other amendments.

>>35010303
>14th
Was never ratified by the southern states, but by a military junta during Reconstruction.

>>35006504
>Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If more capacity would help you, it would help a criminal too.

Of course it will, but as a criminal he is by definition unconcerned with whether or not its illegal to use a hi-cap mag. So the only person youre hurting is the law abiding citozen who now is less well prepared to defend himself against a criminal using an illegal capacity magazine.

>>35006516
>>the 2nd amendment is about the power of the common man to be armed against the government
>I would agree with that, but "the common man" is too apathetic to fight a rebellion, despite the fact that there is ample cause for one.

So, that means we should infringe on their ability to rise up just because they aren't using it? What if the puic comes to the conclusion that rebellion is necessary in the future? Now they'd be screwed.

>>35006401
you have to justify taking things away not letting thing be

>>35015527
I agree. That's the way it should be. However, that's not how the court system works. You can't challenge a law in court by demanding the government prove that it serves a valid purpose. You have to prove that it's a substantial burden on your rights. There is a case to be made that mag limits are a successful burden, but videos like the one I linked to only undermine that case.

>>35006676
I'm betting those niggers went around raping and looting like their modern cousins, but people just assume that the whites in the picture hanged them just for being black.

>>35015615
equally likely scenario is the sheriffs son was doing the raping and the mob lynched the first pair of blackies they could put their hands on.

>>35006504
>More capacity is always better, but limiting capacity isn't really going to impact the potential lethality of a mass shooter

>Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If more capacity would help you, it would help a criminal too.

This assumes defensive use of a firearm is equal to offensive use. A mass shooter can carry multiple guns, multiple sawed off shotguns and hella lot more mags. He's not going to carry them far.

I have to carry it all day. You put a substantial burden on the law abiding without impacting the criminally inclined.

>>35017537
>equally likely

>>35006401

I'd argue that we already allow the purchase and private ownership of motor vehicles, which in of themselves are substantially more dangerous than machine guns, therefore why bother banning larger capacity magazines? Allowing both is like drinking hemlock and following it with an abraxo chaser. Doubly delicious and redundantly deadly.

>>35006516
>Ample cause

Angry frustrated antifag loser detected. Go back to larping on Reddit, you aren't gonna do shit.