1. (US) Any select fire firearm that allows semi-automatic and fully automatic operation, and is used or was once used by a military organization.

Many people on this board have been fed false information and think just because a weapon looks evil, it is. According to the Government less than 1% of all murders are committed by people using “evil guns”.

Also, if you read up on Heller vs D.C., not what some journalist wrote, but the actual decision, you will learn that the court ruled on Parker v. District of Columbia. The scary part of the Parker v. District of Columbia ruling was that the police have no obligation to protect an individual citizen.
I’m not sure how you people feel, but I for one want to protect my family and my property if the police are not in the business of doing so.
Lastly, “1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!” –Adolf Hitler
and
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn’t deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn’t own a gun.
Now they’ve taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.

Since there are a number of ways one can forfeit the “right” to bear arms, and there are arms no private citizen may legally own, one must assume that using the word “right” is a bit of a semantic boondoggle.

Aside from adding a new emphasis on big clips I don’t really propose much new legislation. As I have said, repeatedly, most of the ideas I would like to see tried for national firearms regulations already exist in state and local jurisdictions. And most of the rest were covered in the “assault weapon regulations” which expired in ‘04.

And yes, Greta tells a very compelling story. But…
I don’t know about Texas conceal/carry laws, however, here in Minnesota she could apply for a permit to carry a gun in her purse. Plus, while I don’t know the legal standing of the shooter, I think it’s safe to say that legislation which effectively kept weapons out of his hands could have prevented the whole tragedy and, assuming his weapons were bought legally, the tragedy could have been mitigated if he were restricted to one, or perhaps two, small capacity clips.

I’m not a Kucinich fan and Nader is a whiny punk who I would be delighted to beat the crap out of. Fortunately, most of the nation seems to agree with me and neither one has gotten much support. And they certainly don’t represent a cohesive movement.

Where does the regulation stop? When we have a system that’s more effective at keeping mass killing machines out of the hands of dangerous people. It seems pretty obvious to a life-long moderate like myself that the blanket “right to bear arms” has not kept up with technology. And if people are using legally acquired weapons for mass shootings? It’s time to examine ways to improve the regulations.

Perhaps I’m too optimistic? Regardless, I’m still pretty sure that survival won’t depend on private militias any time soon. And I certainly don’t think the probability justifies regulations that don’t keep deadly weapons out of the hands of mass murderers. I fully support the right of lawful, responsible, American citizens to bear arms. I merely question the suitability of military type weapons for casual ownership.

If I were forced to deal with occasional groups of brain-eating-mutant-zombies and did frequent hunting of bears? A high capacity lever action in .44 mag would be high on my list. I think that groups of brain-eating-mutant-zombies, big enough to demand a military style battle rifle or assault weapon, are more likely than bands of armed criminals or rogue military.

The way I look at it is that, if the U.S. devolves into a military vs. civilian conflict? There’s a 50/50 chance I’ll be on the side of the military. If the need arises for people beyond the age of conscription to repel enemies, foreign or domestic, I’ll eagerly sign up. If the military takes after civilians? I have no illusions about the chances of mounting a resistance myself. In neither scenario would I expect to be required to supply my own ordinance.

Considering that a society’s collapse is generally preceded by a long list of bad signs I feel pretty certain that we won’t collapse into lawlessness in the immediate future. The rise of religeous radicalism in this country is alarming but, I’m pretty sure that the number crazy enough to take arms against their neighbors is happily small.

One inference that can be made from the last election is that the number is no bigger than thought. The same hardcore 20%ers would vote for the Great Satan if He wore a crucifix, carried a gun, and added an (R) after His name.

And if We The People are forced to rise against a hypothetical oppressor? It won’t matter if we have clubs or machine guns. Our only hope would be military leaders honorable and brave enough to say, “no, Sir! I will not order the slaughter of our citizens”.

Little glitches like the “war on terror” or the current financial woes don’t forebode the collapse of a society. War, just or not, unifies a country as do hard times in general. The Great Depression didn’t spawn widespread lawlessness, once prohibition was repealed. In fact the spirit of nationalism which grew from the Depression made it possible for us to gear up our military quickly enough for WW2.

My proposed levels of regulation would be: 1.low capacity long guns. 2. High capacity handguns and long guns. 3. Multiples of 2 including clips.

As I said. Assuming one can legally hold the permit for a weapon, one could have it at home, on a range or private property, public hunting lands providing it meets other requirements for hunting, and in transit in a cased and fully unloaded condition. Personally, I think that would include extra clips in a vehicle.

Licensing sales would, again, be a codification of existing laws. Though I would like to see an effort aimed towards requiring a licensed dealer to “stamp” all sales. As for trades, swaps, and private sales? It would actually be simpler to enact a federal firearm license. Failing that I would just say that the seller has some responsibility to assure themselves the buyer is qualified. I think the rules on the casual sale of “surplus shop add-ons” (especially high capacity clips in any caliber) should be much more closely regulated.

I sincerely believe that every precaution should be in place to prevent the scenario where the buying spree is part of the whole package. I seem to recall research that most single, or small scale, shootings are with whatever weapon is available at the time while mass shooters acquire their arsenal, with purpose, as part of the buildup to the actual shooting. Assembling the “tools” is apparently part of the madness.

I also read a speculative article that presumed, with some authority, that many mass shooters would not have been able to hold it together if they faced more challenges in acquiring weapons. I think it’s prudent to examine possible changes to existing law if it can help.

As I’ve said, repeatedly, one can keep the right to big clips by demonstrating a reputation for civil behavior comparable to many conceal/carry requirements. One can get those high capacity weapons with a single, limited, clip (and maybe a similar spare?) by meeting the common requirements of simple handgun ownership. I think that existing laws on accredited sales of sporting and home-defense long arms are probably adequate outside the multiple clip standards.

Oh yeah. A fixed magazine might be bigger than a replaceable clip. And I wouldn’t necessarily crack down on .22 rimfire long guns (despite for my considerable affection for my old Winchester) but multiple clip auto-pistols would be treated like big-bores. Another proposal I read, decades ago, would have “mated” clips to weapons. What he meant was that a clip’s seller/buyer would engrave the weapon’s serial on the clip. At that point the clip is a throw away if the gun shoots out and it can’t legally be used in another gun or sold without the weapon.

Which all leads back to the .44 mag and the legitimate Constitutional right to bear arms for the defense of self and country. The .44 mag and the weapons that use it are largely geared towards hunting or long range target work. It was developed from the .44 special which was thought too “mild” for hunters and too big for police or self-defence.

While there have been snub-nosed .44’s the majority are still big frame revolvers with relatively long barrels. They are big enough that one is about all a normal person can carry and they are not terribly easy to fire/reload rapidly. Plus, they have a nasty habit of blinding/deafening anyone unfortunate enough to shoot one inside.

Now. If one has a big-bore revolver for hunting and target use? It’s fine for home defense and I wouldn’t buy another weapon for that purpose. Personally though, when I’ve felt the need to grab a weapon? I’ve always reached for my shotgun and I would not buy or recommend a .44 as a sole self-defense weapon. Nor would I buy or recommend any rifle, “militarized” or otherwise, as a sole self-defense weapon.

I’ve spent most of my life miles from the nearest neighbor and never saw the need for a high capacity big-bore. I guess I figure that if I ever piss-off enough people to need more than a few rounds? I probably deserve what’s coming. And, speaking as someone who can head-shoot a squirrel at 150 yards with a .22 rimfire, my survival won’t ever depend on clip size. Even in war.

Even in war, a medium caliber “assault weapon” would not be my first personal choice. If I were conscripted and forced to choose a current military weapon I would request a scoped M14/M21. I’ve had the pleasure of shooting a Garand, a M14 and several 5.56mms including AR-15’s and, if I could expand my list and couldn’t have a scope I would choose the Garand. And, regardless of regulations, I would carry a slinged pump shotgun rather than a sidearm. If forced to pick one? I would lose the rifle if I were going to engage in hose to house of jungle fighting.

Which I guess gets to the point of where does self-defense end. Should we, as common citizens, have a realistic expectation to own weapons which allow us to replace, resist, or supplant, legal authority? I find it unlikely, in the extreme, that I will ever need to do that.

Clip volume is such a major factor in volume of fire that no one has ever needed to commission a study to prove it. The entire evolutionary history of military weapons has been geared to volume of fire. I suppose that the programs which led to the M-14 and finally the M-16 are the most well known. Or I suppose you could go back to McArthur’s insistence on a semi-auto battle rifle or the birth of high capacity sidearms and sub-machine guns. The general rule of thumb, since the adoption of replaceable clips, has been “as many rounds as can be carried without seriously affection the operation of a weapon”. (NOTE: Fixed magazines make things complicated but, in existing laws, a fixed magazine is allowed to be somewhat lager. In practice the size limits them to about the same size.)

As for the effect of clip size in mass shootings, again it’s too obvious to need much study. Anything which limits the number of rounds and/or affects the rapidity with which they are fired works to the advantage of victims. That’s why there are existing laws here and abroad that do address magazine/clip sizes. And it’s one of the reasons why countries with more restrictive access to high capacity weapons have fewer if any mass shootings.

It seems quite simple to me: People who go on shooting sprees acquire the highest capacity weapons they can. In many famous cases stronger laws, or better enforcement, could have kept the weapons out of the perps’ hands. If extra and/or high capacity mags were harder to come by? It’s a certainty that body counts would go down in many types of shooting.

I’m still at a loss as to why you can’t comprehend that I don’t propose banning high capacity weapons, I would just treat them, and their clips, as seriously as most jurisdictions treat concealed handguns. As an example: Anyone legally eligible to buy weapons would be able to buy an AR-15 or Glock 21(?) with a single, five (or six, or nine, or even ten) round, clip. Extra and/or high capacity clips would require an extra level of scrutiny, such as needed for a conceal/carry permit and would include a waiting period. Similar laws are on the books in some places for some weapons. Oh yeah, I also think it’s time to restrict all firearms sales to those to, or from, a licensed dealer.

Such laws would reduce the lethality of “rage shootings” where someone gets fired on Friday, buys a high capacity weapon or three on Saturday, spends Sunday rounding up clips and ammo, and wastes a dozen people on Monday. Once again, how many fewer would have died in ANY mass shooting if high capacity weapons were replaced by weapons with a single, small, magazine?

FYI. The 5.56mm was developed as a military round to do one thing. Pack the greatest number of rounds, barely adequate to kill a human at medium range, into the smallest lightest rifle/carbine. Though it was developed from a varmint/small game round, the 5.56mm itself is first, last, and always a man-killer.

The .44 mag, in addition to being a pistol round, was developed as a hunting round for deer-bear sized game out to a hundred yards or so. It’s always been seen as overkill as a self-defense weapon. Except defense from angry bears where it’s highly regarded.

I’ve indulged in the fun of burning through a case of ammo many times myself and, one day it struck me, I came to the conclusion that I would be more than willing to sacrifice a bit of fun for the sake of public safety.

Neither my right to liberty nor my intrinsic quality of life would be damaged in the slightest if it were more difficult to buy weapons. Specifically I think it should be very difficult to buy high capacity firearms and multiple clips.

As for arguing about the killing potential of big clips; are you effing kidding me? Military clips are big so that one person can carry the most total fire power capable of killing the most people with the fewest interruptions. Everything about a military arm is optimized for one thing. Killing people. That’s it. That’s their only function. And you can reference any freakin military study since the first repeating firearms for evidence that bigger clips kill more people. Another example is the 3 shot limit set by federal waterfowl laws for over 70 years.

Then you can try the monumentally difficult task of figuring out for yourself how many fewer rounds a shooter like the psycho at Georgia Tech would have fired if both weapons he bought had single, five round, clips. And, if he had had to pass the scrutiny of most conceal/carry permitting programs? He would never have been allowed to buy ANY weapon.

As I said before, I use 5 shots as a convenient number. The former limit of ten rounds could have worked with some tweaking and I’ve seen the number seven kicked around in foreign stories. The number is negotiable and ultimately not critical. But I have still failed to hear a credible reason why high capacity weapons, long guns, handguns, and big magazines alike, should not face tighter regulation in the interest of preventing psychos from assembling and using an arsenal in a week-long psychotic break.

I have twice faced down burglars with my trusty 12 gauge and broken up a few fights. And I’ve long since lost track of the trespassers and assorted bums I’ve faced down in a lifetime of hunting and pursuing other outdoor activities in a part of the country where guns are common tools and toys. I even once threw a Sheriff off my property when he had the damn gall to ask me for my ID “as a formality”, in my own house, when we knew each other and he knew the guy he was looking for.

And I don’t know how many more times I can tell you I’m not talking about “bans”. I’m talking about making it harder for some guy to assemble an arsenal over a couple days when he snaps and decides to take “them” out with him. I’ll even concede the size limit for the sake of treating clips as weapons instead of as accessories. And high capacity clips in particular should require strict control similar to existing handgun laws.

It sure as heck shouldn’t be possible for a company to legally ship a bunch of clips to an unlicensed kid with a stolen credit card. And selling them by the gross at gun shows has to stop. And the best part is that most of the new regulation would simply include enforcing existing laws and codifying some of the more rational state and local ordinances around the country.

Finally. In each of the three mass shootings I mentioned earlier a single fact remains constant. People escaped while the shooters were reloading. There’s no way to figure the exact math but the clear implication is that smaller clips would have saved more lives. And if clips were not sold casually? More lives would have been saved.

As for barrel limits to hinder conceal ability? That’s why handguns are preferred by crooks. The extra federal offense has proven to be a successful deterrent to criminals who retain enough reason to stick a proper handgun in their pocket and/or carry a proper long gun. And some pretty bad characters are in prison for speeding with a sawed-off shotgun in the car.

So. Ya got anything to sensibly refute assertions that high capacity military weapons should be more carefully regulated in the interest of public safety? Can you come up with a single logical argument why possession of a loaded high capacity weapon, except on private property and/or satisfying guidelines similar to conceal/carry, should not be dealt with as seriously as illegal weapons? Can you cite a single real world argument against taking steps to limit the acquisition of military type weapons by people who are least equipped to handle the responsibilities of gun ownership?

For that matter. Why shouldn’t the guy who shows the bad judgment to get three DUI’s in a year not be required to surrender his license and weapons until he can prove he’s improved his decision making? Why shouldn’t the guy who gets loaded and shoots out a neighbor’s window be subject to arrest if found within ten feet of a weapon? And why shouldn’t some nimrod who just has to load up while stroking off in the basement not face a hefty penalty for carrying around an arsenal that’s ready for immediate use?

Then you can try to come up with a logical reason why, from this day forward, every clip should not be limited or plugged at five rounds and be as difficult to buy as any other weapon. If the shooters at Columbine, or Georgia Tech, or Red Lake had been carrying five round clips? Fewer people would have died. If the legal purchase of every weapon required satisfying qualifications to the standard of conceal/carry regulations? None of those shooters would have been able to acquire the weapons by the means they used. Nuts will, sadly, always find a way to get weapons but the cavalier attitude of Reichwhiners makes it far too easy.

And I still haven’t heard any reasoned argument that convinces me that limiting every yahoo with a Rambo complex to five round clips would harm anyone while I think it would be worth it if one person manages to escape a monster while he’s changing clips.

However, I would like to add that in virtually every mass shooting in U.S. history, tighter regulations or enforcement of existing regulations would have mitigated, if not prevented, the high body counts. And there still has not been a single instance of armed civilians stopping a mass shooting.

No, but the prosecutor and judge who send that criminal away for possession of that shotgun do, as do the people in that criminal’s neighborhood who would prefer that the criminal be off the streets.

Are you admitting that stricter laws and sentencing are not a deterent to crime Tracy?