IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

[JPH]

Let's stick to reality.

Reality is that high cap mags have become a tool of choice for evil people bent on going out with a dramatic mass murder spree. Reality is that high cap mags increase the available rate of fire for those who hold them. Reality is that this is happening with alarming regularity in our sick nation. Reality is that we can hunt and take reasonable measures to defend ourselves (and those around us) with 10 rounds or less, before reloading.

You guys defend the right to own 100 rd drum magazines because to do otherwise limits your ability to engage in sustained gun battles with imaginary bad guys...and I'm supposed to ground myself in reality?

The claymores where a rhetorical argument. My point was that we have all accepted that a certain level of restriction is a legitimate way to regulate the militia. What I am asking is for us to consider, just consider, that we might be able sacrifice something psychos can't seem to live without.

Guys, I know you hate me right now. That's my curse. My right wing friends think I'm a liberal and my left wing friends think I'm a reactionary. There are few safe places for free thinkers in this society. What I hope you know is that I'm actually firmly on your side of the fence. I'm just exploring the possibility that our stubbornness might just just be contributing to the deaths of the innocent...

[fr0sty]

Nicely said.

Reality is that high cap mags have become a tool of choice for evil people bent on going out with a dramatic mass murder spree. Reality is that high cap mags increase the available rate of fire for those who hold them. Reality is that this is happening with alarming regularity in our sick nation. Reality is that we can hunt and take reasonable measures to defend ourselves (and those around us) with 10 rounds or less, before reloading.

You guys defend the right to own 100 rd drum magazines because to do otherwise limits your ability to engage in sustained gun battles with imaginary bad guys...and I'm supposed to ground myself in reality?

The claymores where a rhetorical argument. My point was that we have all accepted that a certain level of restriction is a legitimate way to regulate the militia. What I am asking is for us to consider, just consider, that we might be able sacrifice something psychos can't seem to live without.

Guys, I know you hate me right now. That's my curse. My right wing friends think I'm a liberal and my left wing friends think I'm a reactionary. There are few safe places for free thinkers in this society. What I hope you know is that I'm actually firmly on your side of the fence. I'm just exploring the possibility that our stubbornness might just just be contributing to the deaths of the innocent...

[kellory]

Hate has no place in this discussion. No one hates you. However, 100 round drum mags? Clay-more mines? Lets try 30 round mags. they are what is on the chopping block. Not only is it a useless restriction, (bad guys don't follow rules) but mags are nothing more than a sheet metal box with a spring driven carrier.Any half-assed militant can assemble one, in a short amount of time. Banning then just makes it a crime. (see argument 1/ bad guys do not follow rules).
banning a weapon based upon it APPEARANCE is laughable. (or would be if any of this was funny) It is a completely wasted, cosmetic fix-it. the only thing this does i limit the good guys. This is not acceptable.

[Woods Walker]

We don't hate you J'per! You're one of us! A bit confused, but still one of us!

My bottom line is that I have a HUGE problem with ANY elected official telling me what I "need" and what I don't "need" in regards to a God-given right that I was born with. I feel like I can trust people like Sen Durbin about as far as I can throw an anvil one handed up wind in a hurricane...and with my bad arm, which is to say no very far!

This is a no compromise issue for me. They may take that right from me someday, but I will NEVER, EVER give it to them.

[kellory]

First of all, the inalienable right of individuals to keep and bear arms as a check on a tyrannical government predates our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This, among other things, was clearly and eloquently expressed in Sir William Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries On The Laws of England.” Hence, the Founders were operating within a long historical tradition based upon English common law.

Secondly, the term “well-regulated” meant something quite different two centuries ago. It is not today's definition of “controlled,” “limited,” or “restricted” but was instead defined as “having proper kit and provisions” or in the case of objects or machinery, “properly maintained and kept in good repair.”

So, a well, regulated militia, means one that is well armed, and in good working order,

[JPH]

To be well regulated or properly equipped does not mean to be armed to the teeth. Again, I point to the Army. The average soldier, carrying out an infantry mission in Afghanistan is not allowed a magazine over 30 rds. And that is to hunt down a well armed and determined enemy, in unfamiliar territory! Could we not make a showing as a militia in a time of domestic crisis with an organized use of smaller magazines? I mean what exactly do you plan to use the militia for? From where I sit I don't see us preventing mass shootings, or terrorism, or drug traffic, or tyranny with our high ammo capacity.

[Woods Walker]

OK then. Let's say we do sacrifice part of our birthright and we give the Durbins what they say they want. Then what happens after the NEXT shooting (and we all know that there WILL be one) when the Durbinites come back to us and all they "think we need" is ONE shot.

Then what J'per? Because I believe with every fiber of my being that that's EXACTLY what will happen. Do we continue to thin our own herd until there's no herd left?

[kellory]

"To be well regulated or properly equipped does not mean to be armed to the teeth." actually JPH, that is exactly what it means. Able to repel attackers, and to defend liberty. on our soil, if our own Government turn on us. That is EXACTLY what a militia is for, That is what the Founding Fathers envisioned, and that is what they feared. That is what they wrote, and why they wrote it that way. They did not say "every man can have a pistol for defense" (the minimum), They called for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. A working, military machine that could be called upon in times of need. Not a standing army that had to be paid, but the Citizens of the Nation themselves to rise to their own defense. That is what we are called and required by our Bill of Rights to be. For every Right, there is Responsibility. Our Responsibility, per the Second Amendment, is to be as dangerous a threat to a tyrant as possible. We are the linchpin of Liberty.

[JPH]

OK then. Let's say we do sacrifice part of our birthright and we give the Durbins what they say they want. Then what happens after the NEXT shooting (and we all know that there WILL be one) when the Durbinites come back to us and all they "think we need" is ONE shot.

Then what J'per?

Well for one, I do not accept that there must be another mass shooting, with or without a limit on mag cap. I pray for peace. Not as often as I should, but I do. I work for peace. Again, my efforts are clumsy and weak, but I'm trying. God willing, peace may take hold.

That being said, I live in the real world and know peace may not yet come. In that case, assuming that high-cap mags were removed from civilain circulation, I hope that the need to change mags might slow the shooter allowing people to escape or even overcome the shooter. That's the idea anyway. As for Durban's response? I don't care. I never did. I only said I agree that 10 rounds is generous, not that I like or trust Durbin.

What I am suggesting is that regulation be written and expressed by those who know guns. That's us! If we go about this task with the proper respect for human life and the Constitution, and express this properly, I hold that our position and the militia becomes stonger, not weaker.

[JPH]

"To be well regulated or properly equipped does not mean to be armed to the teeth." actually JPH, that is exactly what it means. Able to repel attackers, and to defend liberty. on our soil, if our own Government turn on us. That is EXACTLY what a militia is for, That is what the Founding Fathers envisioned, and that is what they feared. That is what they wrote, and why they wrote it that way. They did not say "every man can have a pistol for defense" (the minimum), They called for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. A working, military machine that could be called upon in times of need. Not a standing army that had to be paid, but the Citizens of the Nation themselves to rise to their own defense. That is what we are called and required by our Bill of Rights to be. For every Right, there is Responsibility. Our Responsibility, per the Second Amendment, is to be as dangerous a threat to a tyrant as possible. We are the linchpin of Liberty.

Good stuff, Kellroy. The historical militia was frequently used to quell slave uprisings too. Don't leave that part out.

Are we talking about shooting down imaginary black helicopters? Are we protecting high-cap mags for those kooky doomsday preppers on TV? Are we going to act out scenes from the movie Red Dawn (great movie BTW). Or are you actually talking about using them against my son and nephew who are active military? I mean seriously! I think we are turning a blind eye to real world carnage in order to preserve a fantasy world.