Oh, we were there alright. We were just laughing and hoping that maybe you’d finally put the damned joystick down and pick up a book for once. 
I never said I thought the law had any real benefit. I merely inquired intially why there was such an uproar about it; a number of folks mentioned that they felt it was a violation of the 2nd amendment, and that is what I disagree with.
And I do not see how a smaller clip makes the weapon itself any less effective; to me it just means you need to be a better shot
**
And here I agree with you. It violates the spirit, but not the letter of the law. Frivolous bans do not accomplish anything positive, but they don’t necessarily constitute loss of Constitutional rights, either.
And that is, ultimately, all I was looking for 
**
No, it is not right. And, from what I’ve read (again, I haven’t seen the actual text of the law, so I don’t know what the alleged purpose might have been) here, it serves no purpose. But I disagree mightily with the attitude that just because the law affects, in some minor way, guns, that it’s a government conspiracy to remove all individual rights, or even just our 2nd amendment rights. It’s a dumb law, nothing more.
**
Which pretty much describes most of the U. S. population…
**
Errr…see above.
Unfortunately, the ACLU doesn’t seem to care about the 2nd Amendment whatsoever. They haven’t, and probably never will, support a 2nd Amendment case.
Not that they are required to, but I would have more respect for them if they didn’t pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that feel like fighting for.
Demise, please see my response at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=48821
Lame. Sooooooooooooooooooooooo lame.
Everyone knows the playstation uses a “controller” and not a “joystick.” Put the Atari down and step away from the TV.
But . . . but . . . I’ve almost cleared “Pitfall!” dammit!
Forgive me if I don’t join you in just shrugging and saying, “Well, it’s just another dumb, ineffective gun-related law that the legislature had no purpose in pushing through.”
Politicians don’t do much that isn’t a means to one end or another. And there are too many people out there who only think of gang-bangers killing innocent children when they think of guns; not hunting or other sports-shooting activities.
No, it’s for a semi-auto with one 5 round and one 40 round mag. For a full auto You would need a class 2, but that is between you and Unca Sam, not you and Unca Tommy (the Guv of Dairyland). If you have satisfied the feds, WI. has no ban on full auto. Several states do, and also have bans on many other weapons (i.e. Kalifornia). Keep in mind, getting a class 2 for a brand new gun is, uh, well…difficult. Extremely difficult. Buy a used machine gun (pre 1987) and you can get the class 2 easier. I don’t know how much a full auto AK will run you, I have 2 full autos (not AK though) but I’m not selling them!
Pk,
Thanks for the info and ya if ya change your mind, let me know.
well it’s good to know i’m not the only one. i found myself going way out of my way to locate a high cap clip for my ruger 10/22 a while back. i finally found one for $42 bucks on ebay, although now it seems they’ve really clamped down on selling pre-ban clips. the only listings i’ve seen for them lately have already been pulled.
anyway, the 30 round plastic ramline clip is a piece of crap. if you fill it up it will jam for sure, and it jams a lot anyway. i’ve found that it’s actually more convenient to just pack three or four ten round factory clips. they’re much more reliable and less frustrating to use.
Maybe a bit off-topic, but I actually prefer smaller clips for target shooting. Reloading gives me a change to check my spread, relax my arm and hand, and change out targets if necessary.
But then, I prefer the skill involved. Unlike many, I don’t shoot just because it goes bang and it’s real neato, which is the only reason to shoot a full-auto, near as I can figure. I guess I prefer to take my shooting a little more seriously than that.
You may certainly feel free to succumb to paranoia, if you wish, which is really all this hooplah is.
Who’s to say that the politician who drafted this law was banking on exactly what you commented on: that Joe Citizen, who does not own guns, in his media-induced fear of guns, will see any law, regardless of its actual effect, as a good sign that the government is at least doing something to protect them from the evil gang-bangers and other assorted criminals? Said politician may well realize that the law is pointless, that it’s real effect on gun owners in general is very small, and on the general population, zero. However, it may be preferable to pass such a pointless law (again, knowing that the relative effects are insignificant) in order to appease the masses than to actually draft a law which would dramatically effect 2nd amendment rights.
I, of course, have no evidence whatsoever to support the above possibility. But then, I don’t know that anyone here has any real evidence to support the idea that the law is part of a grand conspiracy designed to gradually strip all Americans of their Constitutional rights, either.
But then, I’m also of the opinion that 30-round clips are superfluous for either hunting or sports-shooting activities, so what do I know?
Or, instead of inconveniencing the vast majority of law-abiding gun-owners and users, we could start actually enforcing the laws we already have, arrest more gun-related criminals and keep them locked up longer. Just a thought.
Sorry, but a ban on 30-round banana clips does not inconvenience “the vast majority of law-abiding gun-owners and users.” I would certainly like to see proof that it does, if you truly believe that. I would venture to say that most gun owners own one or more of a) a handgun, b) a shotgun, c) a hunting rifle; most gun-owners do not own semi-automatic weapons.
Though I do agree that it would be wiser to more efficiently enforce the laws already on the books, rather than create more, largely un-enforceable ones, which have little, if any, effect on gun-related crimes.
Well, tracer doesn’t seem to have been here in a while, but maybe someone else can answer: what does the 25th Amendment have to do with taxes on weapons, polls, or anything else? I just got done reading it, and all I saw was stuff about who gets to be President after he loses competence.
- Dave
Ahhh…
Handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles all come semi-automatic. I’d being willing to bet that half or more of all handguns bought in the last 5 years were semi-automatic. Semi-automatic only decribes the action of the gun. If the firearm automatically reloads it’s chamber after you shoot, then it is an semi-automatic. Unless it is a revolver, where pretty much the same thing happens anyway.
Why, Milo, that would actually require taking actual action. Mauve Dog has captured the essence of the average modern legislator. Legislate something, anything, but don’t just sit there, at least look like you’re doing something. Howzat go, “do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”?
jrd
My mistake. However, no handguns or shotguns (at least, none I have seen) use 30-round banana clips. Thus, semi-automatic or not, owners of said firearms are not inconvenienced the least bit by the law.
As for the hunting rifles, well, I may well be wrong about them not using 30-round clips. Since I am woefully ignorant on the various models out there, I will tenatively retract that part of the statement, or rather, amend it to say that most owners of hunting rifles are not likely to be affected (which would still amount to a definite minority, even among gun owners).
Having said that…
I have finally gotten around to looking up information on this bill, and from what I can determine, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) is the bill which Wildest Bill alluded to in the OP. A summary can be found here for anyone who is unfamiliar with it.
I fear I have been arguing under limited information. While I still maintain that the simple banning of clips which hold more than 10 rounds is, in itself, not unconstitutional, the VCCLEA does rather more, including the outright banning of 19 specific “assault weapons.” While I agree that the motives of those seeking to possess such weapons may be suspect (I doubt most folks have in mind the potential defense of the nation when they are purchasing said weapons), I find a ban on them troubling.
I shall have to ponder this newfound information…
We are not talking about 30 round clips. We are talking about 10 round clips. Many pistols will accept a 15 round clip,(or 12) but now have to have the clip “blocked” off so it will only accept 10 rounds.
!@#!@ I even have an old .22 pistol that uses a 15 round clip. I went looking for a replacement clip several months ago, and all I could find were crappy 10 round replacements. I will have to shop around at different gun shows to find a 15 rounder, and I expect that the cost will be around $60-$70. And of course I have an old 15 round .22 semi-automatic rifle. We love it because you can shoot all day for just a couple of bucks, it has no kick, and is just plain fun to shoot. From my reading of the California gun laws, this is classified as a dreaded assault weapon.
It is shit like this that makes me wish this thread was in the pit. WTF???
You agree with whom that the motives might be suspect? Is there a high percentage of these weapons used in crimes? Are criminals buying them from licensed dealers? Do you really want to start trying to divine the motivation behind someone purchasing something so we can determine whether the Federal Gov’t should allow it or not?
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Look dude. I’m going to try and explain this nicely. You may sit back in your comfortable little computer chair and question my motivations till the friggin cows come home, but I could care less. I own an “Assualt Rifle.” The reason I do is not because I want to knock off a bank or go pyscho in a post office. I bought an AR-15 for several reasons.
Accuracy. Reliability. No kick. Large choice of after-market accesories. Wide spread availabilty of fairly affordable, reliable ammo.
And I admit it, because I also wanted a “cool” looking rifle. I had wanted one for awhile, but the thing that finally pushed me to hurdle all the obstacles to getting a firearm was the fact that I wondered if it would still be available if I waited another several years.
So be careful when you start questioning “motivations” behind buying a firearm. Anybody who legally buys a firearm is by definition a law abiding citizen who has never committed a felony, has never been in a mental institution and has no restraining orders against them. These people have given you no reason to sit in judgement of their “motivations.”
Sorry if I got a little heated, but that comment pissed me off.