I'm just asking, did you even read the article? It isn't like your opinion is wrong, but it seems so non-pertinent to the topic. Or at least fails to mention how it is supposed to relate.

Well said Derek,

Within the numerous debates on gun control, those anti-control folks often go right to the extreme. I'm an avid hunter/gun-owner as well as an NRA member but I also see gun control as essential and have little fear of this administration (much less any other) really having any serious impact on 2nd Amendment rights. Our rights as people aren't so fragile here in the US that we have to fear the abolishment of the 2nd amendment every time gun control is mentioned. Stop being so damn reactionary a fearful schratboy.

Well...let's look at a country like the UK. They have had how many mass shootings in recent years? LIke 1 in the last 20 years or something?

And, if you guys think that guns are required to protect people. Why did he get off 16 shots before he was stopped? Shouldn't some good person wielding a gun save the day after the first few shots? I know that you guys like to fantasize about it...but it doesn't happen.

They need to tax guns and tax idiots who can't make a reasonable comment on the issues.....

The "Clinton gun ban" was a modification of an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. At the time it was the most expansive gun control law to take effect since the "Machine Gun Ban" ( not banned, but regulated, you must have a Class3 FFL to own ). So, there must be some merit to controlling the sale of assault weapons if a Republican president would support the law, and in fact his son supported extending the ban when he was campaigning for president in 2000, but let it lapse after his election due to pressure from the gun lobby, and post 9/11 sentiment. Note: I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but there need to be reasonable and prudent guidelines for gun ownership.

They banned civil war rifles because "it has a bannett lug" WTF who gets murdered with a banett, has it ever even happened?

Morons and more morons that claim they know guns, you know nothing stfu.

Not very credible misspelling bayonet twice in one line...fancy that...It is quite obvious you know nothing about guns either.

Ted-803281,

You are exactly right! A practiced/experienced shoooter would have killed just as many people. This is just an excuse for an elected official to get ahead. We take the rights away from the law abiding citizen and the criminal continues. What needs to be fixed or enforced is the law. We know this guy is guilty and he will apeal for another 10 years. He needs to be executed in public with 17,000 people watching. ( no appeal) The 9 year old girls Father should be pushing the needle into his arm. Instead we give the criminal all the publicity he wants through CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. He will get a college education and a color TV. 18 months from now he will get a book or movie deal. Gun control don't fix anything!

Lawrence, post #1.4: If they taxed idiots who can not make a reasonable comment they would start with you.

IndependentAmerican, post #1.5: Reasonable and prudent guidelines for gun ownership is an infringement of the second amendment. Look up the word infringement in your dictionary. The Founding Fathers knew why (shall not be infringed) should be in the second amendment.

Ted-803281, I assume you are not aware of the fact that the Laughner was rushed when his clip ran out and he was loading. With a 10 bullet capacity clip he would not have been able to shoot 33 bullets in a row before reloading.

This whole, "ban the extended capacity magazines" is bs.

Be glad the shooter didn't know squat about weapons.

You bring your Glock , with 31 round capacity, I'll bring my mossberg 12 gauge, with the plug out and loaded with 5 rounds of double ought buck, lets see who does the most damage in a crowd situation..

Jeez you people get on the vine, you don't even bother to find out if you know enough to comment.

Never wast a crisis.

And they're not going to waste this one. Do not compromise with liberal gun grabbers. They never give up. It will just be something else next time there's a crisis.

ok check this out they found 31 shell casings. witnesses say the shooter was aprehended while reloading. something is wrong here.

#1 the highes cap. mag. glock offers is 30rd the average is 15 rd but 31 casings were found.

So either the shooter was able to fully reload twice or he was able to fully reload 1 and fire 1 rd.

Either way its proven he did fully reload and get at least 1 shot off. So it doesnt matter if he had a 30rd mag or a 15 rd mag because he was able to reload and fire again before being subdued. that means if he had four 10 rd mags. he still would have been able to fire the same amount of rds. So regulating the capacity of the magazine isn't going to do anything but put more restrictions on honest gun owners.

I have to say this article doesn't surprise me at all since every time we have a democratic president they try to take away our gun rights.

Notice to all politicians get your damn story straight.

Was it Sarah palins fault. Or was it the gun manufacturers fault for making high cap. mags?..... Or could it have just been jared laughners fault for using his weapon to take the lives of 6 people???

You cant stop everyone for commiting a crime obviously.

I think a more important issue is the fact that Obama has appointed Tom Delay to office when he has been convicted of felony money laundering and sentenced to 3 years in fed. prison. Will he be conducting his offical duties from his cell or are you just going to postpone his sentance until he is out of office?

There are much more important things to worry about than Glock manufacturing and selling high cap. magazines!!!!

This is the thing that will finally bring about an actual rebellion in the US, these liberals really believe they can little by little take away clips, ammo, and eventually all guns! Our government is out of control and we are being enslaved, why can't Americans wake up before it's too late!

Oh here we go because of auto correct I'm an idiot. I was typing on an iphone and they suck.

Regardless if there were 31 shotts fired that actually makes sense. 1 in the chamber and 30 in the mag.

Just because he stumbled reloading or didn't know how to drop and pop doesn't make a difference, he could have stumbled on a chair.

Furthermore a sawed offshotgun with 5 rounds would have definitely cleared the stage , It's not hard to take a hacksaw to a shotgun but wait that's illegal so the murderer wouldn't have done it nor would he have just made a 30 round mag if it wasn't readily available

You people spewing your ignorant misinformed nonsense and hate here need to STFU. You're the reason these things happen. Furthermore gun bans of any type are going to do nothing more than inspire more of this kiliing..

guito7399, I agree 30 round mag is the largest for a Glock, but 30 round in the mag and 1 in the chamber equals 31. He was trying to reload with a smaller capacity mag when he was taken down.

Post #1.15... Guito7399..its correct they found 31 shell casings..and your correct the mag holds only 30...but you forgot the one in the chamber already..thats 31 total then!

Sorry scooter..for some reason didn't see your post with the answer I had too.

Does anyone honestly believe that making it illegal to own a 30 round clip is going to keep a person crazy enough to kill people from getting one? Or that that same person is going to think, 'Wow, I really want to kill a lot of people, but I can only get a 15 round clip, so I guess I'll just stay home and watch Sarah Palin's Alaska'? Now seriously, don't take me wrong. A 30 round clip has only one purpose: To kill a lot of people. But banning it is only going to keep honest people from getting them. And honest people don't need them.

Ted: You're not only stupid and spout the most f*d up logic, but you're also an a-hole.

Have a nice day.

Be reruns of Sarah Palin's Alaska..TLC just canceled her show!

I have no problem if extended capacity magazines disappear since they're all obnoxious aftermarket garbage. They're unreliable, they totally change the feel and balance of the gun - many just get in the way, plus they're rather pointless on top of it all. About all they're good for is separating the novice from their money or allowing one to announce to everyone else at the range that you're a total amateur who is too inexperienced to know the things are crap and that you've just let yourself get suckered.

The gun makers aren't manufacturing or shipping their pistols with extended capacity magazines. The police and military aren't buying extended capacity magazines. If you ship your gun back to the maker with one, they'll keep it for the trash can and substitute a quality OEM magazine, thereby 'fixing' your pistol that kept jamming every fifth round.

There's a reason that standard capacity magazines hold the number of cartridges they do. It's what worked best for the design and most users.

What I DON'T want to see and what we DON'T need is some mandate as how how many cartridges your magazine must be limited to. Many of the 10 round 'ban legal' magazines weren't too hot, either. If your Glock, Sprignfield XD, Smith and Wesson, or whatever has a standard capacity of twelve, that's 'standard' and perfectly OK. We don't need a low quality 30 round magazine on the market that no serious user is going to buy. Not all that many places sell them, either.

We don't need a new law. We need retailers who stock this garbage to be kindly asked to quit buying them to resell to novice pistol and rifle shooters. After all, they don't always end up in the trash can after one or two uses. Sometimes a loser like that clown down in Tuscon gets them!

Wilburn1942 is obviously severely under-endowed in the trouser department.

baning high capacity mags is not the answer. knee jerk leislation is what this is. if you want to kill alot of peeps should have made a bomb, but they are already illegal. ban guns and they will be more people pushed out of windows ......just wished he was an iilegal from mexico

guito7399 you are not paying attention OR you're watching FAUX Newz.

You've confused two (2) different 'facts' here and created a lie:

I think a more important issue is the fact that Obama has appointed Tom Delay to office when he has been convicted of felony money laundering and sentenced to 3 years in fed. prison. Will he be conducting his offical duties from his cell or are you just going to postpone his sentance until he is out of office?

FACT #1 - President Obama announced Bill Daley as his new chief of staff last Thursday night.

FACT #2 - From CNN - A Texas jury on Wednesday convicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges of illegally funneling corporate money to help elect GOP candidates to the Texas legislature. DeLay was found guilty on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, said jury bailiff Gilbert Soto. DeLay was charged with illegally funneling $190,000 in corporate money to help elect Republicans to the state House and Senate in 2002. At the outset of the trial, he predicted the jury would clear him.

Proof, once again we've been 'dumbed down' in America.

The gun grabbers will seize any and all opportunities to empower themselves by disarming the citizenry.

Banning clips for handguns than can hold 30 bullets is disarming the citizenry? What do you need a handgun clip that holds 30 bullets for?

A ban on these high capacity clips seems reasonable - but what might be more effective is either giving the FBI proper access to do a real background check (seriously, this wack job cannot get into the college he was attending because of his bad behavior, dd this not show up on the gun permit check, or is the FBI incompetent?). If we are going to have laws and then not properly use them, what is the use of more laws?

Making more laws against Concealed Carry, Gun Ownership and or High Capacity Magazines ( Not the same as a Clip! ) will not stop criminals from having and using them to rob and kill others.
We already have how many laws against MURDER, ROBBERY, RAPE ETC. that they have ignored. That is why they are called Criminals because they do NOT CARE about the LAWS. If more law abiding citizens where carrying guns they could stop more criminals and save more Lives.

Here is the problem with Gun Laws, especially new ones. Criminals don't follow laws, so you can pass all the laws you want, that will not make the people that break the law any more susceptible the punishments than the people who follow the laws.

The problem is this. We live in a free country. When you live in a free country you have a lot of people who follow the laws, abide by the rules, and help to enforce those rules. As in any society you will have a section that does not think the rules apply to them, or criminals who break the laws as a part of their calling. Then you have the crazy people who do not bother with the laws either.
Unfortunately it is the law abiding citizens that absorb the brunt of these new laws designed to curtail the lawlessness. We continue to take it, we continue to be the shock absorber for all of this legislative buffoonery. Until they actively enforce the laws on the books, new laws will only effect those who do not need to be controlled by these laws. Look at the Clinton AWB. IT did not effect crimes committed with firearms in the least, in fact the crime rate involving firearms increased. The AWB was a flagship piece of legislation passed by liberals who were listening to special interest groups, PACs and Lobby groups. It is a fact that more people are killed by malpractice medically and in alcohol related car crashes than with guns. Claiming that guns kill people is like claiming that pencils cause misspelled words. Instead of legislating guns and gun ownership, how about federally funded gun safety, training, and better and more thorough background checks.

Limiting magazine capacities, or banning rifles with bayonet lugs are ridiculous. A rifle with a 5 round magazine kills just like the one with 30 rounds. And when was the last time you read about someone being bayonetted? The problem is that legislators are completely out of touch with reality and instead listen to "facts" that are forced on them by PACs, lobby groups and special interest groups. These entities do not have the facts, they make up "facts" based on their private agendas.

The founding fathers chose to make gun ownership a part of the Constitution for a reason. They understood that the only thing that separates the individual from the tyranny of those men who would act to do damage to their freedoms.

Look at Israel. This country not only has unrestricted gun ownership, but issues guns to civilians. They have the lowest domestic crime rate of anywhere in the world. This does not include Palestinian terrorism, because that is a totally separate issue.

Other countries where gun ownership is forbidden (Socialist Countries), you are at the mercy of the criminal element because like a wise man once said "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

I will end it with this, During WWII when Admiral Yamamoto was asked about Japanese plans to invade the mainland US he said this: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
What a smart man, this still hold true to this day.

Government is the only human enterprise that profits from failure.

Failure to address the slavery question at the outset turned into more power for our government.

Federal Reserve meddling that ruins the economy turns into more power for our government. This one works GREAT and has paid dividends many times.

Two wars in Europe in the 20th century turned into more power for our government.

Failure to prevent 9/11 turned into more power for government.

And now failure to disarm a schizophrenic under existing law is going to turn into more power for government. In addition to this high-cap magazine deal, there's also proposed legislation to make speech that incites violence against Federal officials (how conveniently vague) a felony, as well as carrying a firearm within ONE THOUSAND FEET of a Federal official. I've seen a car wreck right in front of a Federal building. If this law were in effect then and the driver happened to be carrying (perfectly legal under Washington state law), he would have caught a Federal case.

Once again the rubes cheer the exchange of a little bit more of their freedom for the illusion of "safety," and this time not even for us but for our bozo politicians. Their fears will subside and they can slip back into worrying about whether or not the military is queer enough or if the Seahawks deserve to be in the playoffs.

And the uber-polarizing partisan speak from schratboy is a glaring example of what is so wrong with politics in the USA.

The only problem I have with this would be that I have little confidence that the govt. would stop at, for example, 10 rounds, and might cut the restriction all the way down to (for example) 1 round. If there was some kind of way to guarantee that it wouldn't be restricted to under 10 rounds per clip, then I might be able to get behind this legislation.

To the Peoples Republic of Seattle, I salute you! Bravo, Bravo, and to the rest of you patriots who see beyond the supposed reasoning of this knee jerk legislation, keep up the good work, and keep telling people how you feel, until that too becomes illegal.

This is more about the slow eroding of our rights and civil liberties than anything else, they just keep on legislating us into slavery, one bill at a time.

How many laws do we have? You may ask yourself, well, so many that there is no official number, I have searched for it.

My guess is Hundreds of thousands. Everything we do is governed even though we're supposed to be the "land of the free".
Actually, the proper question would be how many federal crimes are there?
The US Justice Department is your best source to keep tract of this total.
The fact there are so many criminal laws, the odds of no one breaking one in a lifetime are so astronomical, it would make DNA odds look like simple math.
Since the start of 2000, Congress has created at least 452 new crimes. So the total number of Federal crimes as of the end of 2007 exceeds 4,450. Ninety-one of the 452 were contained in new laws that created 279 new crimes, and the remaining were contained in amendments to existing laws.[22] The total of 452 new crimes breaks down by year as follows: 65 for 2000; 28 for 2001; 82 for 2002; 51 for 2003; 48 for 2004; 13 for 2005; 145 for 2006; 20 for 2007. The Appendix to this report lists all the federal statutes containing new crimes. You can view a more detailed analogy on the following website.

and that doesnt even go beyond 2007. I can tell we sure as heck have a lot more since then.

Is this the country our forefathers envisioned? A police state bureaucracy where everything is illegal, and most people are criminals and dont even know it. Its become so convoluted that even the people enforcing the laws dont really know what they are.

Dont believe me, ask a cop, hell probably deem you suspicious and use the patriot act to throw you in jail with no right to a trial after deeming you a "terrorist". Or mabye hell just execute you on the spot because he just finished his interdepartmental training with the CIA SPS officers at the last DHS conference and he'll just use Obamas Executive order issued last April authorizing the assassination of American Citizens. Dont believe me check my facts

Come on people, Wake the fu@& Up! Its far beyond the time when these trivial things will matter anyway, you think having 30 rds in your glock will help you when the government can LEGALLY shoot you in the back of your head at your home with a silenced 9mm?

I know alot of you are going to post asinine comments in reply to my banter, saying that its crazy and that the government would never do that, and blah, blah blah, blah blah. You might be right, but the problem is , the government CAN do that, already, legally, right now!

People need to wake up. That's all I'm saying. Choose your fate America...

For some reason the links I posted so you guys can check my facts are not showing up in the previous post, so Ill post them again and put a space between the . and the org or the com, respectively. So just copy and paste to your browser and fix the space, or quite being lazy and google it. Im not sure if the links will work this time but just google Executive Order 13528 its scary people.

www.heritage. org/research/legalissues/lm26.cfm

www.salon. com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

whos to say what loughners real motives were anyway? who to sat giffords was his main target?

net/2011/01/top-us-federal-judge-assassinated-after-threat-to-obama-agenda/

once again, copy and paste and rempve the space between . and net

net/2011/01/top-us-federal-judge-assassinated-after-threat-to-obama-agenda/

Your links don't work. But I like where you are going with this. Shades of '63. Notice that Republicans don't fall into this whole assassination trap?

Beaubenn:

You're right I confused two different articles I was reading and stand corrected. However insted of trying to belittle me you could have just pointed out my mistake and asked if I was positive about the names. All in All I do feel alot better knowing that the money launderer isn't going to be chief of staff LOL. By-the-Way from what I read he has been convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Hey progressive, if it never happens than what about when that guy brought a gun to the school board meeting and started shooting and was shot by a security guard before he could hurt anyone, but i guess that was like a month ago so its long past your train of thought

GREAT. The 2nd amendment people who consider their guns a private part of their lives don't get affected. The crackpots who buy reams of ammunition will get slowed down. This might be a wonderful solution to this conflict.

Schratboy-- join the real world. Anyone who loves guns and shooting will still be able to exercise that lifestyle choice. The people who will be affected are the ones who want to spray out a hundred bullets a minute because they can't aim. You can aim, can't you?

Thank you!!! ITS A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE YOU UNEDUCATED MORONS!!!!!

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

It was a normal capacity magazine. 30 rounds was always the norm until idiot democrats said that was HIGH.

30 rounds was always the norm until idiot democrats said that was HIGH.

Moran (spelled this way so you would understand) - The "normal" magazine for an automatic type pistol (semi-auto) is usually from 5 to 10 rounds with 15 in the military Beretta.

Democrats didn't have anything to say about it.

Actually there were some with more, the Glock 17 has a 17 round magazine that is the standard for that weapon.

Ruger P85 9 MM. Standard 15 Rounds Plus one in the chamber.

Tony

30 is high capacity for a 9mm. The only reason I'm against the ban is because it is a slippery slope when you start to blame the equipment for the tragedy. What exactly is the right of the government to limit the magazine count?

High capacity magazines aren't the issue. I know people who have several weapons. What if the guy had a gun in each hand with 15 round mags? The loon should have never had a gun.

many 9 mm have 18 round double stack. i personally have a 45acp with 14 rnd cap. it really doesnt matter what capacity they have. its not like having to reload a revolver. besides with practice a lot of shooters can become quite fast with a single shot rifle. and besides look at japan which now has no firearms but lots of mass murder with knives. and what better weapon than a 4000 lb automobile. drive into a group and simply claim a seizure or stuck throttle. or maybe claim drunkenness and get off with a year of probation. point being. if someone wants to kill someone else they will find a way. nothing is going to stop it.

I see no point in banning high capacity clips. People that go out and shoot other people obviously do not care about the law. Secondly, if you want to shoot the same amount of people, just carry more clips. The fact a shooter has to slow down might even mean they will hit more targets with the same amount of bullets.

At the very least, banning high capacity clips wont keep people from shooting other people.

David, post #2.6: The Government has no right to limit the magazine capacity count. See my post #1.11

Look people, its very simple math. A man is shooting a gun- he gets off 33 shots and hits 6 people. He can not be tackled until he stopped to reload. If he were not able to use the high capacity magazine then maybe he has a 15 shot clip and hits only 3 people before stopping to reload and getting tackled. If the guy had a gun in each hand with a 15 round clip yes he might have still hit 6 people. But if he had a gun in each hand with a 33 round clip he might have hit 12 or more people before having to reload and being able to be tackled. This isn't complicated, we are talking second grade level addition here. Less bullets fired means less oppertunity to kill innocent people.

Ted...30 rounds was normal? How do you figure that?

My Glock 23 (40S&W) has 13 and one in the chamber. Jared's gun, (the Glock 19) has 15 and one in the chamber.

Todd...You're one of the few sane posts on here. Glad to have you aboard.

How do I figure that? Any semi-automatic military rifle had 30 rnds! If you ban 30 rnd mags you ban the standard, furthermore some were drum fed and had 100 rnds..

That's why 30 was easily the standard at one time.

The f-n 5.7 HANDGUN is a 20 round standard and actually shipped with a 30 rnd mag..

These articles draw the pro gun nuts out no matter what attempt possibly slow these killers down. I know several responsible gun owners who do not feel threatened when ideas or gun safety is introduced. Why do so many of you feel the need to be on the attack. You are not going to lose your right to bear arms. Perhaps restrict the assault type availability. Perhaps save lives in the future?? Why is that so threatening?

My only point was that they are magazines, not clips. 30 rounds is too much for a pistol, especially since in a Glock the high cap mags hand down off of the butt of the weapon....I prefer my 8 round 1911 anyways. I can see the logical argument for restricting the sale or production of high capacity magazines, I just do not like the government doing so. The manufacturers should take a hard look at what is truly necessary...30 round pistol mags are a bit ridiculous.

"This isn't complicated, we are talking second grade level addition here. Less bullets fired means less oppertunity to kill innocent people."

Uh, no todd, it IS more complicated than that. Have you ever tried to shoot one handgun in each hand? Good luck trying to aim that way. And reloading 2 handguns at once? You're funny.

Have you ever tried to shoot one handgun in each hand? Good luck trying to aim that way.

Unfortunately, aiming was a moot point in this instance since he literally walked into the crowd and was standing more or less at arms length from the people he was shooting. No matter where he pointed it, he was bound to hit somebody.

In fact, since it appears he was using basic, solid, non-expanding Full Metal Jacket or 'ball' style target cartridges bought at Wal Mart in his 9x19mm Glock 19, odds are excellent that several people were hit with the same bullet as 9mm FMJ is NOTORIOUS for overpenetrating anything but the most substantial backstop (like an earth berm). At close range, a solid 9mm would probably punch a 'through and through' hole in three or four people with no problem. 9mm NATO or equivalent loads will penetrate 85% as much wood as a full-size 7.62mm service rifle at moderate ranges. Those bullets are very hard to stop and that's part of what makes them a truly lousy choice for anything but punching holes in paper at an appropriate shooting range. They lack stopping power when you need to immediately incapacitate an assailant to save yourself from being maimed or killed, and they also pose a danger to anyone else within a hundred yards of your muzzle. They'll fly through walls, cars, dumpsters, the mail box on the corner, you name it.

On the flip side, though, if Wal Mart carried them and this loser had spent the considerable extra money to purchase premium personal protection cartridges with expanding bullets, poor Representative Gifford wouldn't have had a chance when he shot her in the head from behind.

So shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be protected under the 1st amendment? Once you let yourself become an ideologue and exclude the possibility of compromise you become the antithesis of our Republic.

Limiting the capacity of the magazine does not infringe upon your right to bear arms. It merely limits the number of kills you can make before changing magazines. Ammo magazines are not arms, merely accessories.

Please give an example where I used the term "illegal" at all much less in regards to yelling "Fire." You are the only person here who brought up the illegality of fire. Why didn't you respond to what I actually said regarding what is considered "protected free speech." Why does this term even exist if it hasn't already been in most cases reasonably restricted. This was my response to the prior post. How am I the moron when you are the one who so blatantly misunderstood a clear and concise statement and then respond with utter @!$%# and nonsense for a response? Maybe you'll choke on it one day.

Ammo magazines are not arms, merely accessories.

You are nit picking. And what right does the government have to limit accessories? Are they next going to tell us that red-dot sights are illegal because that makes the firearm more lethal? You can't go up this path, it's a slippery slope. It was a person who committed the crime, not the equipment.

CORRECT!

Ted you sound very angry. Just the type of person I feel good about carrying an assault weapon.

And btw, NO ONE needs an assault weapon to protect themselves, unless they plan on having an army invade their home. Better yet, ban ALL guns, get yourself a baseball bat or a can of mace.

Guns DO kill people.

Clueless ... don't you know silly that baseball bats are dangerous weapons and should be outlawed. What exactly is the point of having them legal in the first place?

Wow - no guns for Ted-803281!

Perfectly legal to yell fire in a theater. You will go to jail for endangering people or because you caused someone to be hurt or killed. Still legal to yell it. How are you going to stop anyone from yelling it? We have put consequences in place for what happens to the yeller, but nothing can stop him form yelling it, making it illegal, so what.

It is illegal to murder; happens every day. Do you really think that restricting the tool, making the tool illegal, is going to help? DC and Chicago, you can't own a gun there, both murder with a firearm capitals. Only people who aren't safe is the people who follow the law, the normal person on the street, otherwise know as the victim. Criminals love gun control. In every interview ever conducted with criminals the criminals say that they most fear ARMED victims, because the ARMED victims only appeared to be potential victims.

You see Mr. and Ms. anti-gun, I understand that you don't give a rats a$$ about what the truth is; you run on sensationalism and emotion. You want guns done away with. If you succeed, you will see crime like never before. But you will have gotten your way. It is all sensationalism and emotion from every anti-gun-nut that I have ever talked with or watched.

I know that it is useless to talk logic with an anti-gun-nut, they all run on sensationalism and emotion and are deaf to the truth; so I am out of here.

David, post #3.5: Good shot David, I was just going to write on the same subject. You did a good job. Thanks.

It is not illegal to yell fire in a theater!

I am angry because we consistantly get stupid people making stupid comments that have no basis in truth.

NEWYORK JUST BANED METAL BATS, NOPE I'M NOT KIDDING!

Stupidity is rampid!

Can someone tell me why I can't use my second ammendment rights to own a grenade launcher.

Under National Firearms Act law, you can own a grenade launcher. You cant get explosive grenades, as no manufacturer will sell them to civilians especially one at a time. Goto subguns dot com and read the information regarding the NFA.

Ted and AJV:

Who was it that argued that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal. I've looked several times and can't find an example, why are you harping on it? Ted keeps commenting on how stupid other people's arguments when he obviously doesn't even understand some of them. And what does he do when he's called on it? Ignores it and then continues to rant on how stupid other people are. Keep up the good work pal.

AJV goes on about how the anti-gun folks sensationalize in order to "do away with guns" and yet only one person on this stream has even remotely argued "doing away with guns." This stream (with some exceptions) has been a constructive discourse on the extent of the protections covered under the 2nd amendment and this is how you respond? What is your response if not reactionary sensationalism?

You both are hypocrites don't even recognize it. Your rhetoric is so rehearsed that when you find that you're not able to address peoples actual arguments you misrepresent them in order to make your own tired ideas fit. Oh and Ted, what the hell does "rampid" mean? Is that even a word? I find it ironic that you include a word that does not exist in the statement "Stupidity is rampid." You said it buddy.

Only someone paranoid would need a clip to hold that many bullets.

Or someone that wants to commit a crime. Generally criminals don't care about laws, so making one banning high-capacity magazines wouldn't help.

Jacob, the Clinton ban was anything over 10 rounds. Again, I agree that if you can't hit it in a coupe rounds, RUN the other direction. Any trained shooter can drop a magazine (clips are actually different) and slam one back in so fast, you would hardly notice it. The Problem with any ban is..... what's next. Calibers? In Mexico it's illegal for them to own anything higher than a .38 and look at the situation there. Types? England and Australia only allow single shot shotguns for the general population and look at the situation there. ANY? Look at Washington DC, New York City and their problems. Banning simply leads to the bad guys having what the good guys need. Unarmed citizens are targets for the government. Look at history.

If there is a ban on high capacity clips, only the uninformed will where to get the now illegal clips. Just like I don't know where to get illegal drugs because I don't want them.....

The first handgun I ever purchased was a .40 cal Glock. This was back when the .40 cal was just becoming popular. I even bought a 30 round magazine for it. Never really cared for shooting the gun with that large of an object hanging down underneath it. A 30 round magazine would make sense in a carbine though. To me any way.

As for me and outlawing them, I would rather they not pass laws that only make it look like they are doing something but really don't do anything at all to help. I don't think a ban like this is really going to do anything positive.

There is no point in a magazine holding that amount of ammunition. You're right, no normal person hunts with a hand gun.. but yet they do, just not with an over extended magazine capacity. That amount of ammunition would throw off the guns balance.

I have found the best method to take down a burglar is with a shotgun, use buckshot with a good spread and there's plenty of stopping power.

Honestly though, I have several hand guns, several shotguns, several rifles and some odd balls like a non-functional BAR and an AK-47.

Limiting gun ownership is a lot of talk, many people would like to see it happen. I think the background checks for future gun owners should be more extensive. On a side note, if people would like to see extended magazines outlawed for good they should go after the manufactures. The extended magazines wouldn't be on the market if they weren't produced. (Of course one could clip the springs in a magazine to extend the capacity but that's never more than an additional 2 rounds)

Not to take sides either way, but isn't this just typical of a lawyer? Gets hired to defend one side of the issue, spouting all the good stuff about it, and gets paid. Suddenly, there's money to be had when the other side pays him, so La! His tune changes.

To me, this story lost it's steam (and credibility) when it's 2nd paragraph stated this was what a lawyer said.

There's no point to you because your a moron.

If you're target shooting why do you want to force the guy to reload three times with a 10 rnd limit?

Don't incovience others when it does zero go to anyone. You can slam fully loaded mags in right after the other with out ever having to rack the slide or lose fire timing. 20 10 rnd mags and anyone with a little skill can fire 202 rounds with you ever knowing the changed to mag.

Stop being paranoid america. It's a gun and you could make a full auto machine gun at home! you can also make your own ammunition (bill nye the science guy teaches you how to make smokeless powder on tv for god sakes!) You can make a 10000000 round clip at home if you wanted to. It'll be alittle heavy though..

I have found the best method to take down a burglar is with a shotgun, use buckshot with a good spread and there's plenty of stopping power.

Honestly though, I have several hand guns, several shotguns, several rifles and some odd balls like a non-functional BAR and an AK-47.

Wow, if the burglars are THAT bad in your neighborhood, just move!

Wow, if the burglars are THAT bad in your neighborhood, just move!

lol no no its not that I live in a bad area or anything. I moved back up north from living in Mississippi for several years. I have collected guns for some time.

Even if I did live in a bad area, worrying wouldn't be high on my list of things to do.. cause the entrance way is the choke hold and I have a few banana mags for the AK lol

I enjoy my collection of firearms but I am a firm believer that people should know and respect the firearms that they own. Getting firearms shouldn't be as easy as it is, hell I walked into a store and walked out 10 minutes later with an AK, 3 banana mags and a .40 CZ. We need to restrict how easily firearms are sold.

"no normal person hunts with a handgun"

Shows what you don't know right off the bat.

I and many, many, others hunt with handguns. To be perfectly honest, they are quicker to swing than rifles; if you can shoot.

I spent years shooting a 10 rnd mag. in competition; it was my choice to do that, to shoot in that class. The operative word there is MY CHOICE!

I happen to think that your Glock should only be allowed to have a two rnd mag. Anyone who can shoot should be able to take care of themselves with two rnds. <sarcasm>

It isn't about accessories or abut guns. It is about my Constitutional right to protect myself as I see fit. This Lawyer seems to think that it is OK to have hair but it is OK to outlaw or restrict the ownership of brushes, OK to have a car and OK to restrict gas ownership.

I often wonder what would happen if the gun 'debate' stopped tomorrow? Actually, I wonder what new and exciting bunch of crap the government would throw out there to distract people from seeing their livelihoods and liberties being taken from them while they are arguing about something that we already have a Right to.

Dear anti-gun-nut, you do know that it is the gov. distracting us from taking action about what is really going on and using your emotionalism to do it? Don't you?

Hear, Hear, AJV!

@zug7mm The M1 Garand from the 1940's took a clip. That's actually how it got into the American lexicon.

Well who knows when you'll call for a second amendment cure?

Regardless there is no need to eliminate them, anyone can own 100 10 round mags then and just time droping them. You'd never know they didn't have a 1000 round mag in the gun.

Its appearant you know nothing about firearms but yet youre ready to incovience everyone that does with your stupidity.

Your point is valid! But what if the time comes when all the gum carrying, 2nd amendment right, idiots need to defend all the non carrying ,2nd amendment haters, freedoms! What then? You were right just won't cut it!

Rodentrack, post #5: YOU are not in a position to decide what is not needed by the general population. Get lost.

Teddy boy -

Argue this FACT - The wacko in Tucson was stopped WHILE HE WAS CHANGING MAGAZINES!!!

"...The Second Amendment is not absolute." This statement bothers me. At what point do we begin to determine which of our rights are not "absolute", and who will determine it?

barohar

I could have swore that it was the Supreme Court's responsibility to determine the extent of rights protected by the Constitution as well as the extent that our legislators can limit said rights.

Also, the second amendment is over two centuries old. Is it a reasonable thing to take these words at face value without addressing issues of historical context and the shift in our reality that has occurred over the course of 200+ years? Not arguing this point one way or another, I'm just always interested in hearing from people who advocate for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution on this topic.

It boggles the mind that you don't seem to understand that this massacre was stopped when the shooter paused to reload. Don't you think it is possible that if he had to stop and reload after 15 rounds, things may not have been quite as deadly? There is absolutely no legitimate need for magazines of 30+ rounds outside of the military or law enforcement. When you attempt to justify not banning large magazines based upon the ease and speed of loading 15 round clips/magazines, you nullify your own argument for large capacity magazines. I am an avid hunter, shooter, gun owner, NRA member and Republican. However, I see no problem with limiting the size of magazines. If you expect gun rights to be reasonably protected, you have to support reason.

What would be your reaction if they wanted to make changes to the frist amendment because it's over 200 years old?

The "I could change a clip too quick to matter" is BS...when a nutcase is massacring a crowd even a second or two he needs to reload can be enough time for him to be tackled...and in this case it was a chance for them to get 'em as he was trying to put another THIRTY round clip in!!!

Why on god's green earth does ANYONE need a 30 round clip? (Other than the military).

Oh yeah, I have to ask the question....where were all the LEGAL LAW ABIDING GUN TOTING CITIZENS at the event? Gun rights advocates keep saying that they could stop a massacre like this. Well, AZ has about the weakest gun control laws in the U.S.....sure as s*** didn't help in this case, eh?

east coast,

limits have been placed on the first amendment, should I name them for you? And I'm not advocating for making changes for the their own sake or simply because of how old it is. But if you if you interpret the Constitution without addressing issues of historical and modern contexts then your coming to understandings inside a vacuum which is dangerous to say the least. Not to mention most of the bill of rights is written in a broad and generalized manner which argues to the fact that change to the Constitution was seen as inevitable and necessary as time moves on and realities change.

Stu-

"where were all the LEGAL LAW ABIDING GUN TOTING CITIZENS at the event"

This was a democrat event, which, quite frankly, is the group least likely to be carrying a gun. Some do (in fact, the judge that was killed normally did, but had been to church right before, and therefore didn't have it on him), but is it really a stretch to think that perhaps the shooter selected this event as the murder site for Giffords because they were the least likely group to shoot back?

Also, the second amendment is over two centuries old. Is it a reasonable thing to take these words at face value without addressing issues of historical context and the shift in our reality that has occurred over the course of 200+ years? Not arguing this point one way or another, I'm just always interested in hearing from people who advocate for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution on this topic

Then we should do THE LEGAL THING and CHANGE THE SECOND AMENDMENT NOT IGNORE IT .

MORONS!!

The "I could change a clip too quick to matter" is BS...when a nutcase is massacring a crowd even a second or two he needs to reload can be enough time for him to be tackled...and in this case it was a chance for them to get 'em as he was trying to put another THIRTY round clip in!!!

Again another idiot that has probably never fired a firearm in his life let alone has any clue of what he's talking about spewing BULL$h!T. Go F^ck %our$e!F.

Any person with any trainging can drop a mag while one is still in the chamber and pop the next one in without a pause! Since you son't know wtf you're talking about STFU!! People like you are ruining this nation spewing your ignorance so that the other ignorant people actually by your $#!T as fact..

IDIOT!

Where were all the CCW citizens?

Hmmm....

1 - Arizona has between 1-5% of its citizens licensed to carry concealed - that's probably 60,000-300,000 out of 6 million. Do you expect a high chance of one of these folks being there at the right place at the right time? The Americans of today are really not too different than the Brits, Canadians, and other people of western europe. They may like the idea that they can be armed, but few actually exercise that right. Armed or not, they are what they are. A people distracted with the cares and convenience of life and the entertainment of the day. Whether they choose to carry a gun or not is irrelevant. Most of these people would never even consider drawing it, much less using it. And it would be surprising for most people to learn how few people actually carry weapons in their day to day life...even in Arizona. And now thanks to your little culture war ("oh, only southern white rednecks own guns") and the perversion of the real clinical meaning of "paranoid," you antigunners are now part of the problem as well.

2 - Democrats are seen as the traditional enemy of firearms and concealed carry - how likely was it that a concealed carrier would want to show up to a Democrat event? Giffords has not done anything significant to merit the ire or praise of gun owners on her own initiative. Any time gun owners see "Democrat" next to a congressperson's name they will automatically think "antigun" because that's what many Democrats have been trying to do to them for the past two decades. Both sides need to wake up and realize that gun control is a losing proposition.

3 - Americans have a "mother-may-I" attitude to everythin gthat is cultivated since birth. Self-initiated action is counter-productive to the collective thought since pre-school and continues on through the "education" phase, and later into work life. It becomes a personality trait almost to seek permission for everything.

Then people like this go to a CCW class and are brow beaten until they crap themselves with incessant discussions about liability and getting sued and being prosecuted if anyone ever sees the muzzle of your pistol over and over and over. Those two things create an attitude that if any gunfire takes place, they are going to act as if they are not armed and run away...and you would be astounded to know how many cops share that attitude. Nobody has given them permission to act, so they do not.

4 - In a crowd, or elsewhere, unless you have all the information needed....ENOUGH INFORMATION TO KILL SOMEONE OVER, you will be slow to action. There is nothing wrong with prudence and circumspection over matters of shooting people when there is not enough data to warrant action.

Picture you are in the crowd...six, seven rows away from the action. You do not have the bird's eye view the Monday morning quarterbacks always seem to have. You hear shooting and screaming. That is all the information you have. Ok Captain America...exactly what do you know is going on?

All you know is you heard shooting and screaming. Are you going to draw and move through the crowd to the guns? You could, but what if it was the bodyguards shooting a terrorist that was beginning his draw, or about to initiate an explosive? The shots were being fired by the good guys!Now you pop through the crowd to save the day, only to be mistaken for another terrorist by the amped up security guys! Bad scene.

My point is this guys. All of the issues listed above contributed to the lack of return fire on the crazy assassin. I suspect that the media would have probably been less vociferously anti-gun had a CCW actually killed the assassin...or better yet, done so before he actually killed anyone. However, in all the events that have taken place in the last few years, only one that I am aware of was ended by a CCW person. And in that event, the woman that ended the killing had ample information about what was taking place. There is something called the fog of war. First written about by Clausewitz, it defines the confusion that leads to indecision and mistakes. That is why the gathering of information is so important. If you have it, it is priceless, and you can use it to effect change in your environment. Lacking it, you can do nothing.

Dear GOD no!!! WHAT will we DO!?!?!

Stu-2632430

God won't save you. You have to save yourself. You apparently don't own a gun, have no desire to protect yourself or don't care that your rights are being eroded one by one. I feel sorry for you. You should grow up in a communist country like I did. Then you will appreciate what you have and not so readily give it up.

A couple of seconds was all they needed to subdue Jared Loughner.

What LEGAL reason do you need a 30 round clip for? Perhaps if he had a 10 or 15 round clip, they could have tackled him after 15 rounds fired, instead of 30.

acidrain

As I stated, I don't need a 30-round clip, but it is legal. Loughner was tackled, not because he took too much time to reload, but of a malfunction. Anyone can change a clip in less than 2 or 3 seconds. That is not enough time for anyone to tackle a gunman especially when he was firing away and people scattering. Would you be standing within ten feet of him in that situation? I don't think so.

I'm pro gun rights but where on God's Green Earth do you macho men live that you need all these multi round weapons and numerous clips? I have lived in a major city for 20 years and now live just outside it - and at 5'4" I have never needed a weapon for my safety - or for any reason, ever.

I support your right to have these weapons but I think you're either wimps or paranoid to believe they're as necessary as oxygen.

Ann-Libertarian

I have never needed a weapon for my safety

There is always a first time. It is that first time that you wish you had a weapon with as many rounds as possible. You probably never needed a seat belt to save your hiney either, but if that SUV pulls out in front of you that one time at an intersection as you are going through the red light, I hope you have your seat belt on. And when you visit that construction site, I hope you have your hard hat on, even though nothing ever falls on you. Or just maybe that hammer falls on your head from the fifth floor. If you were in the crowd where Loughner was shooting, do you need a weapon then??

JobSeeker, had someone in the crowd fired... chances are even more people would have died since it was doubtful anyone had a clear shot... and there were people in the crowd with weapons.

You need to read a bit more, more people are injured with their own weapons than an enemies weapon. You really need to calm down. The world you see isn't really the world that exists. You could develop prostate cancer - to make sure you don't are you going to have the family jewels cut off? And as I said I support your right to own weapons but I have a very non-favorable opinion of those that believe they need an armory. Your paranoia is bad for your own life and those around you.

Ann-Libertarian

You apparently live a sheltered life. If you travel through a different city, different state like I do in my line of work, and run into some of the neighborhoods I go into, you have a whole differenct perspective. Have you ever been fired upon? I have.

BTW, I carry my pistol with only one magazine (10 rounds). I don't need any more, but I do want more than one magazine when I go to the target range or just having a spare at home when the one in the pistol is damaged.

Watch "I Survived" just once, your opinion of owning and carrying a firearm, after hearing how a lady gets raped and beaten by a dozen men and thrown on the side of the road, will change. Or how a rape victim gets beaten to a pulp in her home while her boy is watching TV.. Yeah, you can not own a firearm I respect that but don't keep me from owning one.

As I stated, I don't need a 30-round clip, but it is legal. Loughner was tackled, not because he took too much time to reload, but of a malfunction. Anyone can change a clip in less than 2 or 3 seconds. That is not enough time for anyone to tackle a gunman especially when he was firing away and people scattering. Would you be standing within ten feet of him in that situation? I don't think so.

That's the point. WHY is it legal? They don't serve any purpose except to make murder and target practice more efficient. I think we can do without more efficient target practice at the expense of less murder.

Your statement that "anyone can change a clip in 2 or 3 seconds" ignores the fact that, when the shooting happened, some people may have dropped to the floor immediately, and may be in a close enough position to make a difference in those 2-3 seconds. Obviously in this case, they did. They made more of a difference than anyone with a concealed weapon.

I have also heard that police determined the 2nd clip was defective and probably would not have fired, so that may have been a contributing factor. We just do not have that level of clarity into the timeline of this event.

Ted calm down, whether you realize it or not you're actually making your opponents case a better one.

How many shots will it take to drop a angry black bear, pack of coyotes or wolves when I am walking in the northwoods with my dog.? I do not know. A couple of high capacity magazines are very handy.

Tony

So many of the posts here have the common thread of, (to paraphrase)"I can't see any reason to have a magazine with that much capacity," "I cant imagine a need for that large a clip," " I have never needed to protect myself with a gun", ect. ect. There in lies the root of the problem. You people can't imagine. You need to let those who can see the posibilities out in the real world determine for ourselves the leval of protection we feel we need. To not see the possible dangers is to live a lie. I am quite sure that you have insurance on for your stuff. The only real life insurance is a good gun and as much ammounition as you can carry, and a lot of luck. Praise GOD and pass the ammunition.

I'm with Westcoastgym on this one.

You need to let those who can see the posibilities out in the real world determine for ourselves the leval of protection we feel we need.

What could you possibly determine would require 30 bullets to defend yourself from? I mean really. And if there is something, perhaps you would share it.

I still hold with what I said: if you don't kill whatever you are after with the first couple of shots, you are not going to kill it. I get tired of being out in the woods deer hunting and hear some fool unloading a full clip - and you KNOW he didn't get anything! Or if he did, it's not worth eating. And then the case of the rogue kodiak bear that the ranger killed in Alaska - found that a hiker had emptied a .38 into it, just made it mad!

Gun control means having the right gun, knowing what you are going to do with it, then do it. A fool spraying bullets around the countryside is a hazard to those of us who know what we need to do. If you need 30 shots to hit one target, then go home and play with your video some more, leave real weapons to people who can use them. And if you have 30 people attacking you and need a machine gun, you shouldn't have been there to begin with.

Hint: Angry bear (that you never provoked) against a machine gun/select-fire assault rifle. Don't give me that crap about it not being controllable - there are hundreds of youtube videos showing people going full auto with NFA items, they've done ok so far. Plus why is the military using full autos if you reportedly cannot control them? The reason why they don't like full auto is because they don't want to waste ammunition - full auto is best used when you suddenly come across a whole bunch of enemies at the last moment and you cannot access your sights.

@Westcoastgym,

There in lies the root of the problem. You people can't imagine. You need to let those who can see the posibilities out in the real world determine for ourselves the leval of protection we feel we need. To not see the possible dangers is to live a lie

Ok if we are now dealing with imaginary threats, why don't we authorize 1,000 thousand round magazines, full auto machine guns, and grenades for everyone, since we may imagine an alien invasion threat that we have to defend against.

We need to think in the real world and not one that is imagined. The plausible real world scenario's all do not require someone to carry high capacity magazines. For the most part they are extremely impractical.

Real world scenario?

How about a riot? Thugs attacking in groups of 3 or more (robberies)? Drugged up attackers in your home? All handgun rounds are unpredictable in their effects on the human body. There have been reports of an instant kill with a 9mm to a thug taking 16 rounds of .45 ACP because he was just really freakin' mad - there is one where a guy took a 3-inch slug round from a shotgun and blew a hole clean through his heart - continued the attack for 2 minutes, decided to then run off when he thought he was beat, collapsed 100 yards away, and died there. The human body is able to take a lot of punishment in quite a few cases for some people. Sure, if you're facing down multiple attackers (unarmed - that is a mob - you can use deadly force, if they're armed, get off the X so that they have to fire past each other to get to you) you might be in trouble and you probably should run away. If somehow with all the information you get with the environment (we're not all perfect, you know), you unfortunately get cornered - those extra rounds could help you fight your way back through those thugs.

and back before they passed the silly Hughes Amendment with the Gun Control Act of 1986, you COULD get machine guns, 100-200 round drums, grenades and grenade launchers, they were just heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act with a $200 ATF stamp and an extensive background check that probably rivals the CCW permit process itself. And somehow no crimes have been committed with rocket launchers and actual select-fire assault rifles (classified as machine guns by the ATF).

So yeah, they already have been legal to own - but the NFA in of itself is akin to a poll tax or a literacy test for polling.

As I've said before, if you don't think there is a need for civilians to own high capacity mags, then you need to give us a reason why cops don't need them either. You DO have to realize that every community in this nation HAS a police force. Because they somehow know that crime does NOT discriminate by location. Why the heck are they the privileged few? If they knew crime WOULD NEVER occur in their area of operations then there'd be no need for a police force because oh, the "magical forcefield" keeps criminals out.

So let's have it, first, read David Codrea's Only Ones files, then tell me how are cops "like you and me, only better."

I'm waiting.

Ok in real world scenario's you have to balance out the risk with the likelihood of occurrence. As none of these actually happen on a daily or even near often enough basis there really isn't a good enough justifications.

And no I do not believe that a civilian police force should have high capacity magazines either, they should learn to reload normally like everyone else. And I do not know any of the police in my neighborhood that have standard issue high capacity magazines either.

And all I have to say about rocket launchers, are that they are very impractical to commit crimes with. As they are hardly concealable in any way, shape, or form.

there really isn't a good enough justifications.

You don't need to justify a right.

"Ok in real world scenario's you have to balance out the risk with the likelihood of occurrence. As none of these actually happen on a daily or even near often enough basis there really isn't a good enough justifications.

And no I do not believe that a civilian police force should have high capacity magazines either, they should learn to reload normally like everyone else. And I do not know any of the police in my neighborhood that have standard issue high capacity magazines either."

Nope. Try Again. Talk to your local police chief and ask him/her if they're willing to give up that capability. All you gave was a "feeling" response. Read the news some more.

Many forces carry the exact same weapon as this creep - some form of Glock or Sig Sauer that holds at least 15 rounds. Under the AWB ban, those were (unjustly) illegal to sell to civilians. Their select-fire assault rifles that they carry in the car in case of an active shooter situation hold 30 or more rounds. Those were also illegal to sell to civilians under the unconstitutional AWB.

So again, how are they "like you and me, only better?"

Still waiting.

@ACO, Ok you are way off on many different tangents here. #1 no one is talking about reinstating the assault weapons ban, and it is unlikely to happen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41071206/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

#2 I just asked, and I don't know where you are from, but High Capacity Magazines are not standard issue here in NY. They do not travel with their AR-15's in the trunk of their car, it is locked in the station until needed. And even in that case they do not have full auto capabilities. They do carry in the car a legal pump action Remington shotgun in the car though.

#3 Again you are asking for my belief in your last question, so I responded in such.

#4 I have work and other better things to do than to respond to someone on the internet that has some sort of delusional paranoia about someone taking their guns away.

30 round mags are standard capacty, california and NY get REDUCED capacity mags.

You know nothing, you're an idiot, STFU. You're calling the clips and they are not, they are magazines and you are completely clueless. Anyone with intermediate training can drop a mag just as the last bullet cycles into the barrell and drop and pop the new mag in. Maybe he tried to catch it, maybe he didn't keep the last one in the barrel and had to rack the slide. MOST GOOD SHOOTERS DON'T DO THAT.

STFU You're an idiot.

Ted

You need to go see the psychiatrist the loser in Tucson never did see. You have issues dude!

Who the f*** would want to practice at a range with the weight of a 30+ round mag. I shoot competively and it will totally throw your leveling off when you have to use regulation clips (oh,sorry,MAGAZINES!).

The FN5.7 ships with a 20 round mag (I own one). The 30 is aftermarket.

They guy carrying in Tucson just came out of another store and by the time he got near the scene the shooter was already disarmed and on the ground. He never attempted a shot and just helped hold him down. READ the F***ING ARTICLES!

What the hell is an "idiot moron?" They're mutually exclusive! And are these the only insults you know?

The fact you spelled inconvenience incorrectly in two seperate posts tells me you really think it's spelled that way and not just a typo. IDIOT!

NY and other park districts are only banning the use of aluminum/composite bats in little league because the ball comes off the bat too fast for kid pitchers to get out of the way. You can still buy as many as you want for the batting cage, pickup game, whatever.

I can go on and on but a MORON like you isn't worth it.

I want to continue to own and buy whatever guns I want to, but having an IDIOT MORON like you on our side will only get the good guys hurt.

Comeback??

How 'bout 10-shots, 1 or 2 kills...and a few incapacitation's as well.

If high capacity clips are outlawed, then at least they won't be so pervasive...couldn't go down to WAL-MART and buy 'em like this wacko did.

stu

Why can't you be sensible. I can also see the other side of it people are afraid to lose the freedeom to protect themselves. Why do you half to go off like an irrational idiot . Oh .... because you are an irrational idiot ! Besides. I don't think you can Buy those clips at Walmart.

They are called mags nto clips and you have no clue about what your talking. You probably never fired a firearm. There is no reason to ban them, anyone can make them at home!!! Anyone can learn to drop and pop where the cycle of fire is never broken! IDIOTS talking and making laws that's what we have and thats why this nation is so FU@%ed

Anyone can drop and pop? How well did drop and pop work for Jared? His clumsiness enabled him to be taken down. Had it been a smaller magazine, he might have been taken down sooner. The public doesn't need huge magazines, except Better Homes and Gardens.

Maybe we need to have tanks and grenades at our homes, also. Why have any limits at all for weapon ownership?

Why have limits? Yeah, why shouldn't we? Just good luck for finding spare grenades and diesel for the tank. If the Norks and Ahmendinijablahblah are having a hard time getting nuclear material, what makes you think John Q. Public will get his hands on an Abrams or an RPG any time soon, considering their manufacturers are very fastidious about getting them into the hands of qualified individuals?

Does it matter if he had a smaller magazine? Someone could have came up behind him WHILE he was firing his 33-round magazine and tackled him, too.

Ever wonder why police are allowed to shoot threatening criminals in the back? No chance of retaliation, plus you have the drop on the criminal.

Or your own boat and cannon.

Shoot, I didn't get mine in the mail yet :( I hope the Brits don't come a knockin'

I believe the US Supreme Court has disagreed with you. You should try to update yourself and your information on these matters before making youself look foolish in public.

THe Supreme Court has no idea up or down. They rules that every "arm" must be for military purpose (that's why we can't have sawed off shotguns) and then they say its for the milita (the definition of militia in LAW is every able bodied male from 17 to 45 rather or not in the military and then they say its for every citizen but can be restricted ignoreing "shall not be infringed". WTF! What they should have said is that it is the fault of the United States for not altering the 2nd to fit with modern weapons and as such you can own a nuke.(we have that ability you know, to alter the second). Sure I don't want people owning nukes, that's why congress and the states ought to have altered the 2nd amendment! I also don't like child porn that's why we should alter the first. Bunch of damn lazy representatives we have when we cannot even alter the 1st to exclude child porn huh?

Of course you can hunt with a glock, wtf are you talking about. STFU if you don't know.

How about just plain target shooting. Also Hunting should be banned, the second amendment isn't to protect your nonexistant right to hunt. Its about protecting our right to protect ourselves. A gun that could kill isn't going to help protect you! It purpose is to protect and that is all!

Yes Kaara, I agree. They are not needed. I will pray for the same.

Don't count on it! Many will see a slippery slope with any restrictions.

It would be wonderful if both sides could get together and hammer out some logical solutions to this situation. The one side wants to ban EVERYTHING (yes you do, c'mon & admit it). The other side wants to ban NOTHING (same goes for you).

The problem is this: After we all could decide on what to do and how to do it, we'd have to give it to the politicians to come up with the law to enforce it.

Oops. We don't trust politicians.

We could come up with a solution on how to hang out a wet dishcloth, and they'd make it look like how to wash the Grand Canyon.

We don't trust politicians because they've proven that they can't be trusted; they've screwed Democrats and Republicans both, but we still keep electing them.

Nothing meaningful will ever be done in this situation because of the well-deserved lack of faith in our elected officials.

THIS GUY IS NOT A GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE! He's just a middle of the road idiot.

We have already had compromise that goes well beyond the limitations of government. The other side just wants to ban anything they can whenever they get a chance to. you've already banned Machine guns where will you end?

They are not "clips" if youre calling them clips you have no idea about what you talk. You need to STFU and get educated first. Mags all started out with 30 rnds! That was the standard way back when. Just because most handguns run between 8 to 20 rnds STANDARD now doesn't mean that 30 rnd mags are rediculous. Learn a thing or two before you spew your ignorance.

Ted....You don't have to be a rocket scientist or know anything about "clips", "rounds", etc. to know that this idiot shot 31 times and killed and injured a bunch of people. Having that kind of gun and the ammunition that goes with it in the hands of screwballs is just wrong and something needs to be done to end this insanity.

If we begin today it will take years to get these things off the streets, and yes, more collateral damage will occur before it's all over. The criminals will have them, people who bought them when they were legal will stockpile them, and sell them illegally, yadda yadda yadda. There should be some harsh punishment in place for those violators....as well as a felony murder charge if they sell a gun that is used to kill.

Doing the same thing (nothing) and expecting different results is the definition of insanity!

You cannot get them off the streets, gun violence in the UK is higher than when they banned guns years ago..

Furthermore guns aren't hard to make you can make on in your own home.

Stop living in this fantasy land and deal with reality.

kaara, would you be happy if the lunitic had used a highbrid car to plow into the crowd? What, 6 dead, 13 injured. It's not much differant than the results for autos as weapons events from the past. Its not the weapon. It's the screwball.

GOOD POINT! Spewing this crap is more likily to incite MORE VIOLENCE.

Really ring of truth then were are all those bulletts flying?

It was nonsense then and the proff is in the pudding.

Furthermore they are not automatics!! They are semi-automatics get your facts straight before you spew BS.

It's a matter of training.

Good combat training is hard to come by these days in a lot of police academies. This conscript mentality leads to poor training as the trainers are trying really hard to fit a quota of recruits they must put out on the street with each class.

Not enough time is spent going over the details of combat marksmanship (although many police departments are recognizing this error and are allowing officers to take more advanced courses throughout their career)

The second amendment is not about hunting and I'm sure the founding fathers were intelligent enough that if they had agreed to a different meaning to the amendment that it wouldn't have been lost due to syntax. These were intelligent and thinking human beings, not some scanner trying to read in text from a printed page.

I agree. It isn't about hunting or private gun ownership at all. I think the meaning is very clear but activist judges have spent 200 years interpreting it as they see fit not as the founders themselves intended. However the Supreme Court has a great respect for settled law and are unlikely given any mix of left and right leaning justices to overturn this interpretation at its basic level. But Congress can make laws that are common sense and meet the threshold of constitutionality even given the current reading.

Daedulus....thank you for stating so eloquently what should be obvious to all.

If you had any incling about what you were talking about you would know that EVERY ABLE BODIED MALE 17-45 is part of the militia by US cod 303!!

The founding fathers knew we might have to change the constitution for various reasons and gave us the ability to do so.

Here's a good reason..

Child Porn.. Do you think we should change the first to exclude child porn? Why haven't we?

Why haven't we altered the second to actually allow "reasonable restrictions" or to define exactly who can own a firearm and when or where we can carry it or to ban say NUKES! OH heaven forbid we emplore our legistature to make such changes..

If you want to know WHY we didn't its simple because then you'd be stuck with an absolute law and as 85% of the american public believes we have an absolute right to own guns well you'd have to live with it and as all except a very few states allow Conceled carry we'd have to allow that too. Oh but in the name of compromise stupid states like CA, NY, SC, IL, MASS ect. wouldn't want to compromise on their illegal activities...

No one for the anti side wants to compromise they just want to keep hammering away and with this they see an opportunity in the death of a 9 year old girl never mind the initial target was an advid gun right supporter that supported conceled carry as a AZ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!! That's correct you don't need no stinking license in AZ if you aren't prohibited to own one you can carry it right out of the store locked and loaded. It happens every day in AZ, where are all the massive deaths? They don't happen, one incident and all of the sudden the anti's are banging the drum. Idiots..

The founding fathers intended the citizen to be running around with the standard type of weaponry of the day. Whatever the day. The standard battle weapon of the late 1700's was the round ball smooth bore musket. Today the standard battle weapon is a high capacity (30/40 round normaly) select fire assault rifle. The weapon that we will face when the need arises to defend ourselves against all enemies "Foriegn and Domestic". The best that most of us will have will be a semi-automatic rifle with whatever magzine the government allows us to legally own. The ties that bind our society together are frail and easily stripped by those who give up liberty for precieved safety. History people! Know history!

Who is suggesting banning guns? Banning access to clips that have the potential to slaughter people in a few seconds is common sense. This is one potential way to prevent a killer to succeed with mulitple body counts.

Its called target shooting..

Ted...so what you're saying is you want to have these 30 round clips for target practice and you're not willing to compromise on that to save lives? Unbelievable!

As far as Job Seeker's comment that the anti gun lobby will take a mile if you give them an inch, you could certainly say the same about the gun lobbyists and the NRA....the key doctrine is no compromise on anything....deny....deny....deny. Blame it on the people, not the guns being used by the people. Always answer a question with a question.

I would love to see some of our lawmakers have the balls to stand up to these guys for the good of our nation.

Gun rights lobby has given more than the Gun Ban lobby.

Like the rest of the world? You mean like Timothy McVeigh?

Nonsense. Then how about an RPG or a howitzer..should those be legal? Or is that an infringement?

Absolutely. The Constitution says arms not guns. Remember, this is so we can protect ourselves from our own government. We had better have state of the art equipment, they do. Just look at all the rights and freedoms we have lost since 9/11. At some point enough will be enough. I guess you will be on the other side. True Americans are willing to fight for our freedom. We have been doing just that for over two hundred years.

True americans are willing to pay the price for freedom the antis aren't in that group.

Read the article Lisa. They stopped him when he had to change the magazine.

Use you head madness just because he blundered when changing the mag doesn't mean squat, it doesn't change the fact that any one with intermediate skills could have changed that mag without a blimp off thier fireing timing. Stop spewing your ignorance. Furthermore her point is dead on he could have had six guns on him, what then, no reloading if your firing two handed.

11 madness, they tackled him when he fumbled the reload. He bought the weapon in Nov. 2010. As good gun control requires repeated practice (meaning months of quality training) for proper muscle memory, not just the alility to point a gun and pull the trigger. It takes time to become proficient at the act of reloading fast and when you add the affects of adrenalin, I am glad but not surprized at all that he screwed up the reload. If you put in alot of time and are good, a magazine swap can be done in 1-2 seconds. He was just a lunitic.

Hunting is not a right you idiot!

The second amendment isn't about hunting its about repressing illegal force against you!

the guy was taken down when he fumbled, doesn't matter if it was while he was reloading or if he just stumbled on a loose rock. If you had an ounce of clue you'd know that one can drop and pop without altering their rate of fire. There are a million you tube videos out there that show this.

Who said the second amendment was about hunting? The second amendment says you have the right to bear arms - there is nothing regarding why, how, or what the intent of the amendment is. If we want to repress illegal force against us, then guns are not the way to do it! Carry a knife with you if you want. Carry your hunting rifle with you if it absolutely has to be a gun. We don't need concealed rapid-fire guns in every bar, restaurant, and public event! It is not in the interest of safety! I've seen those youtube videos. It's absolutely false that you can drop and pop as fast as you say. If we are genuinely concerned about safety then we will admit that putting more guns on the street is definitely and obviously the antithesis of the solution. Let's have the right to bear arms - not the right to concealed-rapid-fire weaponry. I'm not budging on this issue. Your argument is preposterous.

Uncle Shroom....with you 100%....more people need to stand up and state their feelings about this issue instead of letting the NRA and their gun toting enthusiasts say it all. They label anyone who tries to talk logically about responsible gun control an anti American for not supporting the 2nd Amendment the way they see its interpretation. To them there is no middle ground and no compromise...it's their way or the highway and that is why we are in the position we are in today.

The NRA, it supporters, and many of our esteemed congressmen have blood on their hands for their unwillingness to take the steps necessary to put a stop to this killing.

Being that they are one sentence in format I believe they are part of a coherent thought which leads me to believe the intent of the amendment is the establishment of militias. You would not include a statement on conscientious objectors if your driving force in the amendment is individual gun ownership.

If it were to be as you have written it likely would have been something like:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"

Underwriter - Actually, not true. "Scrupulous of bearing arms" means having a conscientious objection to having or using a firearm, and therefore having the right to not be compelled to carry or use one in a militia or standing army.

You have not disproven Daedelus' interpretation of the original text

Regardless the code 303 states that ALL able bodied men 17 to 45 are in the militia regardless of military service or not.

That means we all are in the militia and have the right to arms, furthermore, it means a 17 year old can own a firearm..

Don't go quoting the "militia" argument unless you're fighting to lower the age of firearm ownership to 17.

"The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

This act later interpreted to create the National Guard and institute the draft. But an act in the US Code cannot establish constitutionality on its own. So that does not speak to the original intent or the constitutionality of the modern interpretation.

Modern Interpretation is not relevant.

Militia always implied EVERY able bodied free male.

There was never any deviation from that.

You'll never find any record in which that wasn't the case.

We are all militia and as such we are all entitled under the crazy argument that the second only applies to the militia.

Of course it doesn't apply and "modern interpretation" is that each citizen has the right under SCOTUS.

SO now what?

Thank you Daedelus -

Ted, there are no codes in the Constitution. And Ted please respond without name calling - it does not help you earn the goodwill of those of us posting who would like to think you are arguing in good faith.

Then let us fall back on the words "well regulated". That imply some control at the very. Indeed the Militia act of 1792 spells that out. Regulation could no doubt include the arms allowed to be brandished by your regulated militia.

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

The Heller Court defined "well-regulated" as "well-trained."

The problem is, are you going to make a training requirement so restrictive that it places the right out of reach of so many individuals?

And if they wanted the 2nd Amendment to read as Madison had wanted it, I guess they would have put it in as such...but where is it?

He's 22 it's not like he's a kid.

@basketballjones

I have been asking the same question myself.Google the Glock 19 9mm it retails for over 600 dollars. He was unemployed,living with mom and dad,and had been seen by at least one therapist.

He bought the gun in November of last year,at 22 years old .There is definitely something wrong with what isn't being told.

As for those of you that want to start trash talking me.Yes I own guns.2 to be exact,1 pistol and 1 rifle ,both take magazines . I do not however own a 30 rd mag for either of them, and as bad as this may sound just be thankful that the fella doing the shooting wasn't a true shooter.

Semantics. I think most people know what we are talking about when referring to the removable cartridge holder in a semi-automatic pistol. You can call it an "automatic" pistol although it is not really automatic, but everyone knows what we are talking about. Same with bullets. People talk about how many bullets the gunman had on him when they are really talking about "cartridges" which conisists of the bullet and the shell case.

No that's the problem, not everyone knows what youre talking about and it's obvious you don't know what youre talking about.

People out there believe this kid had a machine gun! People keep spewing this ignorance and the smart people that are just uniformed are being led by idiots to the slaughter.

"led by idiots to the slaughter?" That is an odd choice of words friend.

Reload Sarah!!! I see you took you dumb video down accusing the media of killing Christian children for passover. Way to go numbskull. What a dumb beatch.