which my oldest son runs for me. Here is what I can tell you…
*There are plenty of high cap magazines out there, especially imported ones. The wholesale prices are higher than they were, but many businesses are price gouging. Gun stores are locally owned, the owner is ussually on the premisis. Negotiate your price. A Bulgarian made AK-47 with a 40 round mag is $260 wholesale. Retail can be as high as $1600! Keep this in mind.
High caps for rifles are abundunt, for hand guns not as ample but still very available.
*10 round mags should be called 9 round magazines because on many of them getting that 10th round in is damn near impossible.
*If you can only have 10 rounds in your gun, make’em count! The larger caliber the better. A .45 with target rounds is better than a 9mm with hollow points I don’t care what anyone says!!
*There is in fact a sunset clause in the assault weapons law in 2004, BUT…
*Don’t expect it to go away! George W. supports the ban on high cap magazines. He’s more pro gun than algore, but not as pro gun as people think he is.
*As a gun dealer for the last 13 years I have amassed a huge personal collection of assualt weapons and high capacity magazines all “off the books” (legally!) I saw this bullshit coming, folks.
You have every right to debate gay rights - this board, after all, is all about expressing ideas.
And if all Democrats and/or liberals can be broadly painted as not only anti-gun but anti-Bill of Rights, seems somewhat balanced to give a little back. After all, fair is fair, right? :rolleyes:
And when has it been shown that 30-round clips are vital to a militia? Moreover, what is the Court’s interpretation of “well-regulated militia”? It could be argued by some that this phrase means that any milita formed under the Second Amendment should be regulated (note that I am not arguing that, I am simply curious what the official interpretation is), and that limiting clip size is therefore not a violation of constitutional rights.
**
It should be noted that, while the Miller case does specifically address the fact that ammunition is to be considered along with the possession of arms, the 30-round clip limitation does not limit the amount of ammunition one may possess. Again, I do not see how the requirement to carry smaller clips, without in any way restricting the number of such clips one may have, is unconstitutional. It should also be noted that should the need for a true militia to be formed ever arise, it is highly unlikely that any existing bans will remain in place. One can certainly obtain larger clips at this time, albeit at an increased cost, thus they will be present should the need arise. Furthermore, while it may well be true that not everyone for whom such a clip might be useful (again, assuming a militia is indeed mustered) will possess one because of the ban, neither will everyone own a gun in the first place. Ultimately, the deciding factor on who has what when the bullets start flying will be who can afford what, not what bans have been enacted during peacetime.
**
Sorry, but my reasoning leads to no such conclusion. An “arm”, as set forth in the second amendment, does need to be useful. However, I have yet to see any argument whereby limiting clip size to ten rounds renders a given firearm useless.
Not “useless” less usefull. there is a continuum that runs from “very usefull” to “useless”. Decreasing clip size nudges the weapon more to the useless end.
Let me turn the question around on you. If carrying 3 10 shot clips is just as usefull as 1 30 shot clip, what effect does the ban on the larger clip have? If none, then it is a very stupid law. IF it does have an effect, then it must be rendering the weapon less usefull.
Personally, I would want a larger clip in a fight. I also like a larger clip when plinking. It is just easier.
I do not see what crime the clip law is preventing. Especially when less than 1% of gun crimes are committed with an “assault rifle”, let alone one with a 30 shot clip.
It is jsut another feel good law that appeals to the masses while accomplishing nothing other than the gradual diminidhment of our rights.
Care to explain why no modern military issues 10 round clips to it’s soldiers?
I am sensing a major disconnect in your arguement here. On one had you say…
But yet you connect the price increase to the ban. So…your arguement seems to go like this to me…
Bans are Ok because…The stuff is still around anyway, it is just more expensive. If we ever need a citizen militia again they will be armed with whatever they could have afforded during peace time. No ban will will ever keep the people from having what they need, but it will raise the price of certain items, so only people with money will have what they need.
???
If the ban increases the price of certain items, and restricts access to them from a sizable portion of the public, then it is at least partially effective in disarming the public. The people have no inherent right to own whatever firearms they want regardless of what they can afford, but they do have a right not to have the government tax it out of their price range.
The Federal “assault weapons” ban only applied to *semi-*automatic firearms manufactured before 13-September-1994 that had 2 or more features from a certain small list. Fully automatic firearms were not affected at all by the “assault weapons” ban, and in fact are not and cannot be classified as “assault weapons” under Federal law.
Firearms capable of fully automatic fire are classified as “machine guns” under Federal law, and have a totally different set of laws that apply to them. (The Federal machine gun laws are, not surprisingly, even more restrictive than the Federal “assault weapon” laws are.)
Well, I am not disagreeing that the law itself may be stupid and/or pointless. I do disagree that these 30-round clips that started this thread are necessary, and that banning them is a violation of constitutional freedoms. If the main issue is one of convenience, then I submit that both the law and the clips the law bans are unnecessary
**
And I quite agree with you. However, I am pretty sure that no-one particpating in this thread has been involved in such a firefight (note: this specifically excludes actual military duty, since rifles, ammunition and clips, etc., are all supplied - the whole idea behind a militia is BYOG - bring your own gun). And, as I mentioned earlier, if the U.S. ever does get invaded, or other circumstances necessitate the mustering of a militia, I suspect that larger magazines do become available.
**
Again, I agree. I cannot speak to the intent of the lawmakers when the bill was drafted, nor can I speak to Clinton’s motives when he signed it into law. I do think that if the specific intent was that limiting clip size would somehow reduce gun-related crimes, such an effort was misguided.
**
But, again, there is no violation of rights here. Yes, it may be a stupid law. Yes, it may be inconvenient for you to have to carry three times the number of clips around to go hunting or whatever one does with larger magazines in peacetime. But I don’t see how inflicting a minor inconvenience is violating the second amendment.
Of course if anyone truly feels that their rights are being trampled in this case, is it not possible to appeal to the ACLU, or some such organization, to be a test case?
Sure. Because they are full-blown military. The military is, by its nature, exempt from most, if not all, civilian restrictions. The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, however, is composed primarily of civilians.
I could have, perhaps, stated that a bit more clearly.
That particular part of my argument (actually, more of a completely separate argument) should have gone something like this:
Bans on such accessories as large-capacity clips are OK, because they are not necessary for the proper function and utilization of civilian firearms. Such bans, furthermore, do not remove said accessories from the general marketplace, they simply drive up the price (thus the complaint in the OP) and piss people off (again, witness the OP). But ban or no ban, it’s still only the people who can afford the guns in the first place, along with such add-ons as high-capacity clips and large supplies of ammunition, who will have them if a militia is called for. Thus, even without the ban on 30-round clips, the general populace are not going to have them (since, generally speaking, the general populace don’t even have guns), so the net effect on the well-maintained militia is likely insignificant. And as for peacetime uses, such clips are, for the most part, unnecessary anyway.
OK, so it’s probably not the best argument, but that’s what I meant
**
But we are talking here about certain speciality items. The government, or the economy for that matter, is under no obligation to keep the price of such specialty accessories within the financial reach of Joe Citizen. If, however, the Feds tried to impose a tax (or limitation) on ammunition in general, for example, then that would certainly be viewed as a violation of the 2nd amendment.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to insist on a cite for that one:)
I’ll be back later for the rest.
and Tracer…
Goddamnit!!! I know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic. I gotta learn to prof-read better, that looked really embarrasing on the second read.
Here ya go, Freedom2: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990406.asp
(This one states that, as of 1999 at least, 36% of those polled keep a gun in their home, among other statistics regarding the demographics of gun ownership)
And by the way, when I said “general populace” above, I was referring to “the majority of Americans” - perhaps not a vast majority, depending on which figures you like best, but a majority nonetheless!
My shop is federally licensed in Wisconsin, but because it’s only a sideline business we concentrate more on gun shows than a store front operation. You would be better off finding firearms in your location as I do not sell over the internet, and I can not ship you a weapon anyway, you have to pick it up in person. Of course, you also have to be over 21, not a felon, have i.d., go through a back ground check, and so on. You can legally posses any gun in Wisconsin, including a machine gun, but not a concealed weapon (and there is no such thing as a ccw permit in the land of cheese).
My quote for an AK47 was wholesale (what I pay) You would pay about $985 plus tax. (Hey, I’ve got 2 kids in college and 1 still in private high school. The bans, while I oppose them, have allowed me to increase my profit! Years ago when all our kids were in private school & we were going broke I told my wife “I’ll get the money sweetheart, even if I have to use a gun to get it!”. That’s how I got into this.)
PK LOL. I understand I want a ak but I don’t want travel that far to get one. Just curious was that less than a grand price for a fully automatic? If not, what would be a good price for a fully auto ak? One more question do you really not need a class 2 license for a fully auto machine gun in Wisconsin?
Dr. J,
Come on dude I could really have some fun with a fully auto ak-47. I mean I have to live up to my name don’t I? Or do you want me to start being known as Mildest Bill?
My argument is that it makes the gun a less effective fighting weapon. Furthermore, it does this with no benefit to society. This is more an erosion of rights than an outright violation. The goal is to get to single shot hunting rifles only , IMHO.
It is a pervasive tactic. If there is no reason to have something, why not ban it? I feel that this violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights. We should be asking instead, if banning something will not create a benefit, why not keep it legal?
I can think of a lot of items that have no appreciable benefit. But that is not a reason to ban Play Stations, Gay porn and The Backstreet Boys.
You may be right that, in a strict sense, the law isn’t unconstitutional.
But is it right to establish laws that is designed to pose inconveniences on people, for no reason?
(Is there a reason? Two pages now, and I don’t feel like I’ve heard one – in support of the law, I mean.)
As has been pointed out, at best it’s a feel-good P.R. move designed to make the masses who aren’t thinking to hard believe the government is actually doing something to curb gun violence, stop the Columbines and Kayla Rollinses of the world.
(Just don’t stop to think about the fact that any gun law enacted in the last two decades - or even proposed, for that matter - would have done anything to stop any of those tragedies.)
At worst, its an erosion of rights working toward the goal of taking guns away from the millions and millions of people who use them safely and legally.
So, what does this banana-clip law, assault weapons bans, etc., accomplish? Anyone? Anyone?
When they took the Gay porn away, I stayed silent. When they came to collect the Back street Boys, I did nothing. When they came to get my Playstation, there was nobody left to help me:)
That’s how I got into this.)