Can anybody tell me this?

[world wide wally]

How does limiting magazine capacity infringe on anybody's Second Amendment rights?
They can still bear arms.

[Atticus]

1. Why do you hate America? nt

[COLGATE4]

3. Yeah, why donja go back where you

came from, Commie sympathizer.*

* If needed (really?)

[Drahthaardogs]

2. It doesn't, and neither do universal background checks

And those two items should be a non-negotiable Democratic platform

[Lee-Lee]

4. Another question should be- will it really change anything?

It sounds great, especially to people who don’t really understand guns and have little experience with it and have not studied it.

The gun that did most of the killing at Columbine used 10 rd magazines. They just carried 13 of them. Most of the ones used by the Virginia Tech shooter were 10rd.

The truth is that the “attack while they reload” idea is a myth. A person with just minimal practice can swap magazines in 3-4 seconds, before people under stress can even process what they are doing much less close the distance between them and intervene.

Reality is the difference between someone with 2 30rd magazines and 6 10rd is little to none in practical effect.

The second problem with banning them is newer, but also negates the effect of any ban. Anyone can 3D print a magazine now with a $250-350 3D printer. So even if somehow you managed to ban them all, collect them all, and get them all out of civilian hands for the price of 15 magazines a person intent on harm could buy a printer and make even more.

So a ban won’t stop anyone who wants them now that this technology exists.

So the question is when you consider the millions of dollars it would cost to enforce such a law, and all the manpower, when it will have very little to zero real effect on crime.... is that the best way to spend that money and manpower?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. Why not shitcan all laws then - people regularly disobey them and they cost $$$ to enforce.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. +1000

[Lee-Lee]

7. Well, maybe laws should be based on if they will accomplish what is needed

For example there are laws that we should shitcan that should have never been passed. Like marijuana prohibition. Or voter ID laws.

Just because it’s a law or a proposed law doesn’t mean it is a great idea, and your arguement that because some don’t work we should shitcan them all is juvenile and shows you can’t seem to consider things on a rational basis.

Do you think we should shitcan all laws because millions of people use marijuana and the law against it doesn’t enhance public safety at all? Or does that mean those laws are just a bad idea?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

8. I wasn't making an argument - I was asking you a simple question.

Based on your own rationale for not enforcing a particular law, I wondered why, using your logic, non-enforcement shouldn't then be extended to all laws.

Noted that you couldn't answer my question without being condescending, or trying to change the subject.

[Lee-Lee]

10. Laws should be based on if enforcement accomplishments an essential goal for society

If a law doesn’t accomplish an essential goal for society, then having it and enforcement of it is counterproductive.

Remember this about laws- every law you pass, no matter how minor, is enforced by the threat of force being used eventually against the person not following it. Even minor ones. If a law says you can’t take food into a government building, you do, and you refuse to leave then you will be forced out. You resist that force used to enforce the minor law and the level of force increases.

EVERY law is essentially based on use of force by the government to ensure compliance in one way or another.

So when any law is proposed we should ask- why are we doing this? Will this accomplish that goal? How much will this cost to enforce? Is this law the based way to spend that money and manpower to accomplish that goal?

And lastly, is this goal worth possibly killing someone over if they don’t comply?

For example, was NY’s law against selling loose cigarettes worth using force against Eric Garner when he refused to comply with enforcement attempts of that minor law?

So the answer is laws should be based on what will and can accomplish the goal and have the effects and results be worth the cost and manpower it takes to get there.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

11. So yes or no?

[Lee-Lee]

12. Yes or not what?

If you asking yes or no to if we should shitcan all laws, my answer above was clearly a no, I guess it went over your head.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

14. No, it didn't.

[world wide wally]

9. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

Just because there are ways to get around it doesn't mean it won't have some kind of positive effect. And if it were up to me, I would limit magazine size to 6 shots.

[moondust]

13. Or outlawing ammunition altogether?

They can still bear arms.