JohnRich 4 #1 March 7, 2011 A bill has been submitted in the Connecticut legislature that would ban the ownership of all detachable ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, both pistol and rifle. Failure to surrender such magazines to police would make you a felon. Bill source: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/S/2011SB-01094-R00-SB.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 March 7, 2011 Most magazines over 10rds aren't "large capacity" they are typically "full capacity." I'm not talking about "high capacity" magazines, like 100rd mags for a G17/18 or the 150rd drums for an AR weapon.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 March 7, 2011 Ban large Magazines ... won't some one please think about the paper Boys (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 March 7, 2011 QuoteFailure to surrender such magazines to police would make you a felon. then we can plant a GPS in all you felons' femurs ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #5 March 7, 2011 Maybe next they'll decide anything holding more than one round is "high capacity." It's just as arbitrary as ten rounds. And like the Dave said, these people need to understand the difference between full cap and high cap. Of course definitions are not their strong point: they can't tell a semi-auto from a full-auto. A good rule of thumb to apply to any proposed gun control: will it apply to law enforcement? If not, we don't want it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #6 March 7, 2011 Quote And like the Dave said, these people need to understand the difference between full cap and high cap. Of course definitions are not their strong point: they can't tell a semi-auto from a full-auto. Definitions are their strong point since it's easier to win debates when you control the language used. Intentional confusion helps more. Don't underestimate them and confuse their malice and manipulation with simple ignorance. "Assault weapons" are easier to ban than more pedestrian "semi-automatic rifles" due to the confusion with fully-automatic military "assault rifles" The term wasn't in use prior to Josh Sugarmann's (of the Violence Policy Center) 1988 "study" titled "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America." To quote Mr. Sugarmann Quote Assault weapons; just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms; are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons; anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun; can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. I prefer the more accurate and innocuous sounding term "Sport Utility Rifle." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 March 8, 2011 QuoteA good rule of thumb to apply to any proposed gun control: will it apply to law enforcement? If not, we don't want it. But of course, this bill would exempt law enforcement. And the odd thing is, it also exempts the manufacture, sale and maintenance of high capacity magazines. I guess they don't want to hurt gun businesses in the state, and they don't mind if those evil magazines are sold to people in other states. As long as the folks in Connecticut can't have them. Screw everyone else. And that kind of reveals the lie that this is a principled stand for safety. If that's what it was all about, they wouldn't make 'em and sell 'em to anyone else either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #8 March 8, 2011 Quote Quote And like the Dave said, these people need to understand the difference between full cap and high cap. Of course definitions are not their strong point: they can't tell a semi-auto from a full-auto. Definitions are their strong point since it's easier to win debates when you control the language used. Intentional confusion helps more. Don't underestimate them and confuse their malice and manipulation with simple ignorance. "Assault weapons" are easier to ban than more pedestrian "semi-automatic rifles" due to the confusion with fully-automatic military "assault rifles" The term wasn't in use prior to Josh Sugarmann's (of the Violence Policy Center) 1988 "study" titled "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America." To quote Mr. Sugarmann Quote Assault weapons; just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms; are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons; anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun; can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. I prefer the more accurate and innocuous sounding term "Sport Utility Rifle." they're trying to ban SUV's here already. and tried to get military weapons locked away. now comes the SUR! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #9 March 8, 2011 Whittling away, one small piece at a time, on the right to bear arms.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #10 March 8, 2011 QuoteA good rule of thumb to apply to any proposed gun control: will it apply to law enforcement? If not, we don't want it. I prefer military since that is the real reason for the 2nd... But the police angle is not bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #11 March 9, 2011 You could make that argument, but to get traction you'd need to qualify it. I doubt you mean Abrams, Apaches, and A-bombs. If you put the qualifier of "infantry in the military," then I am 100% with you. But the easy sell is law enforcement. You want thumb print guns? I'll use them when cops do. You want GPS guns? I'll use them when cops do. Limited capacity magazines? I'll use them when cops do. And so on and so forth.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 March 9, 2011 Not a fan of confiscation of magazines. Trashy as they are, magazines, periodicals, pamplets, etc are peaceful ways to get messages and self help hints across to millions of people for a small profit. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #13 March 9, 2011 QuoteYou could make that argument, but to get traction you'd need to qualify it. I doubt you mean Abrams, Apaches Sure. In the Founding Father's times wealthy private citizens could own warships. Quote , and A-bombs. although I'd support a constitutional amendment to ban private ownership of nuclear explosives, biological weapons, and many chemical weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
