Should the proposed magazine restrictions apply to LEOs?

[Callisto32]

Why or why not.

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Yes.

Because the same arguments for and against banning them for civilians can also be applied to the police. In addition police have additional mags, maybe a backup gun, and backup police just a radio call away.

[Francis Marion]

23. Yes. Let the establishment live by its own rules.

Alinskyism is fair play.

[jeepnstein]

2. Sure, why not?

I'm sure the statists among us will be along shortly to tell us how police aren't like regular citizens and all that. If a ban passes, then it should be imposed on citizens and agents of the state equally.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. Fine. As long as they don't apply to Libras

[X_Digger]

5. Is that the *new* Libras, or the old ones? Ophiucutucututu-whatever notwithstanding.. n/t

[guitar man]

4. Yes

When asked what I firearms I should be able to own, my answer has always been "equal to what the cops have".

[clffrdjk]

6. Yes

Wow i joined specifically to bring up this question in another thread. I will support any gun control legislation as long as it also removes any and all exemptions for LEO, .mil, and .gov. Not out of fear but from the question if power comes from the people how can any group have more power than the people as a whole?

[flamin lib]

7. Considering that less than 2% ever fire their weapon on duty

and then miss their target more times than not, who cares?

[Atypical Liberal]

12. I'm sure that 2% cares.

I'm sure that when your luck runs out and you find yourself in a violent confrontation, you care very, very much.

[spin]

8. Yes, if civilians are limited to 10 rounds, cops should also be limited ...

Criminals, of course, are exempt from following the law. If they get caught with a hi-cap magazine, the charge will just be plea bargained away.

[guitar man]

9. indeed

To someone intent on committing a crime, the law is "just a goddamned piece of paper"

[Remmah2]

10. I'm for limiting magazine capacity for criminals first. nt

nt

[damntexdem]

11. No, nor to the military = they have a reason to have extended mags.

It is reasonable that they may need to fire repeatedly.

[jeepnstein]

14. I may "need to" as well.

If a lawful citizen of the United States can't have a magazine over ten rounds, then what makes the state so special?

Our military plays by a different set of rules so pretty much anything goes for them.

I have more of an issue with convicted felons having firearms. They are responsible for the lion's share of shootings.

[shadowrider]

15. How about when the cop punches out for the day. Are they now limited?

[X_Digger]

16. Even better.. how about retired cops?

Yes, Rep "the-shoulder-thing-that-goes-up" McCarthy's bill includes that provision, too.

[slackmaster]

18. Can you point to a single incident in which the 32nd or 33rd round from a police pistol made...

...the difference between a successful police action and a failure?

[krispos42]

19. *cackles evilly* n/t

[PavePusher]

20. Since the reason to ban them has repeatedly been given as:

"They are only meant to kill a lot of people very quickly", perhaps you can explain to me why the fuck police would need them?

I doubt I'll get an intelligible answer, but I will check back.

[bossy22]

22. why wouldnt a civilian need to fire repeatedly?

im expecting to hear crickets

[Euromutt]

27. You really do walk into right into these things, don't you?

Police have body armor, the rest of the department a radio call away, and plenty of room on their belts for reloads. Why do they need magazines and firearms that are--we are assured by various members of Congress and the Brady Campaign--only good for killing large numbers of people?

Or could it be that there are legitimate reasons to possess magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds, and that these might apply to private citizens as well?

[benEzra]

13. LEO's are civilians. If guns with post-Civil-War magazine capacities

are too scawwy for civilians to use for defensive purposes, they are too scawwy for all civilians to so use. That would include law enforcement, corporate security, executive bodyguards, and all stateside protective details.

[slackmaster]

17. Of course. It's not uncommon for police to lose their weapons, or have them stolen.

Corrupt cops might raid armories and sell weapons to criminals.

If those items are too dangerous to be in the hands of non-LEOs, then LEOs shouldn't be able to have them either.

[Euromutt]

21. They should absolutely apply to law enforcement

All the arguments that have been made against so-called "high-capacity" magazines and, for that matter, so-called "assault weapons" apply just as strongly to law enforcement as they do to private citizens. If a semi-auto-only AR-15 with a 30-round mag is a "weapon of war" suitable only for "mowing down large numbers of people," then law enforcement has no legitimate need for that type of weapon, even if they do refer to them as "patrol carbine."

More importantly, though, it's a litmus test as to whether proponents of these measures are being honest. If Schumer, McCarthy, Feinstein etc. honestly believed all the stuff they say about full-capacity magazines and semi-automatics, they shouldn't countenance an exemption for law enforcement. The very fact that such an exemption is already written into the first draft--it's not even a bargaining chip, just conceded right off the bat--is a very strong indication of the dishonesty fundamental to this kind of proposed legislation.

[appal_jack]

24. +1, n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

25. They'd shit squid jigs

Say that three times fast .

[Union Scribe]

26. I can't say it one time fast. But it's still my fave line of the day.

:D

[Katya Mullethov]

28. Results will vary depending on jig orientation

But it's still quite the sight .