7 ms·

Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? Ohh god yes, they would. I live in Colorado, and 2 of o

Would people flip out if there was a bill proposed to require all guns in the US to have a GPS tracker? Ohh god yes, they would. I live in Colorado, and 2 of our state reps got recalled when the democrats limited clip size to 15, and required more background checks on purchase. That restriction got people so angry that they did mid-term recalls. Not even just waiting till next election.

wl 13y ago
FYI, using the term "clip" in this way is common but incorrect. Colorado limited the size of magazines to 15 rounds. Magazines hold ammunition in a way that a gun can pull a round from it when the action cycles. Clips are a specific kind of device for loading some types of magazines.
- Crito 13y ago
  If we are being pedantic, then the issue becomes fairly fuzzed when you consider guns that have you insert the clip, not just the ammunition, into a fixed magazine. The M1 Garand for example. I don't know of any examples of guns with this sort of setup that would get anywhere near 15 rounds, but I suspect that the M1 specifically has something to do with the common misuse of terminology. It may also be related to some of the loonier misconceptions about guns, such as the idea that "clips" (actually magazines) are disposable (and therefore somehow also not reusable) (example of this misconception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_DeGette#Gun_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_DeGette#Gun_control).
  - HNaTTY 13y ago
    You can fix an SKS with a 30 round magazine, which is reloaded via 10 round stripper clips (don't do it though, they're unreliable). In the case of the M1 and the SKS, the magazine, eg the device that holds the ammunition inside the gun, is the restricted item. The only difference is the magazine is not removed in the field, like with most other guns where that's how you reload.
- cschneid 13y ago
  Thanks, I'm obviously not very knowledgable about guns. But the word choice sure doesn't change the political reality in the US about any sort of gun control being totally untenable.
dm2 13y ago
Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there would be a provision for a type of license that would allow a larger magazine if you had a valid reason and very clean record. If you live on a large farm and like to shoot for fun, then maybe a larger magazine would be acceptable. If you live in an apartment in a city, then you don't reasonably need extremely large magazines for your weapons. The law would probably only prohibit the sale of large magazines but grandfather in existing owners, so who really has an issue with this? And more background checks shouldn't be an issue, as long as there was some sort of process or committee for appeals and exceptions. Someone with a history of mental illness or a felony should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Someone who was wrongfully convicted or had a minor offense that was charged as a felony decades ago might be a candidate for an exception.
- talmand 13y ago
  Because, in most cases, its a stupid argument and a requirement that only restricts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws in the first place. It's a way for certain politicians to appeal to a certain base that, in the end, helps no one in any way that was proposed. Get into a boxing match and stipulate that both boxers must have their right hand secured behind their back. You step into the ring to find your opponent has chosen to ignore that rule. The ref tells you that while you must keep your hand tied or be disqualified, he cannot deal with your opponent's lack of respect of the rules until after the match is finished. How exactly did that rule help you? Some people disagree with the law, some people think it's the beginning of slippery slope that leads to confiscation, some people don't like their rights being used as a cheap election gimmick. Take your pick.
- koenigdavidmj 13y ago
  Soon fifteen is going to be an insufficiently low limit. Yes, slippery slope is generally a fallacy, but...it actually is happening. In Colorado, your "reasonable" magazine size limit is fifteen. In New York, it's ten in a pistol and five in a rifle, and you can only load seven rounds in the ten round magazine. California was a governor's veto away from banning all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I also have yet to see a reason why these shouldn't apply equally to the police. If large capacity magazines only exist to kill people as quickly as possible, then why should the police have that? How many times are they going to encounter enough armed belligerents for the capacity to matter?

wl 13y ago

FYI, using the term "clip" in this way is common but incorrect. Colorado limited the size of magazines to 15 rounds. Magazines hold ammunition in a way that a gun can pull a round from it when the action cycles. Clips are a specific kind of device for loading some types of magazines.

Crito 13y ago
If we are being pedantic, then the issue becomes fairly fuzzed when you consider guns that have you insert the clip, not just the ammunition, into a fixed magazine. The M1 Garand for example. I don't know of any examples of guns with this sort of setup that would get anywhere near 15 rounds, but I suspect that the M1 specifically has something to do with the common misuse of terminology. It may also be related to some of the loonier misconceptions about guns, such as the idea that "clips" (actually magazines) are disposable (and therefore somehow also not reusable) (example of this misconception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_DeGette#Gun_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_DeGette#Gun_control).
- HNaTTY 13y ago
  You can fix an SKS with a 30 round magazine, which is reloaded via 10 round stripper clips (don't do it though, they're unreliable). In the case of the M1 and the SKS, the magazine, eg the device that holds the ammunition inside the gun, is the restricted item. The only difference is the magazine is not removed in the field, like with most other guns where that's how you reload.
cschneid 13y ago
Thanks, I'm obviously not very knowledgable about guns. But the word choice sure doesn't change the political reality in the US about any sort of gun control being totally untenable.

dm2 13y ago

Why would anyone be against that? Both of those things seem perfectly reasonable. I'm sure there would be a provision for a type of license that would allow a larger magazine if you had a valid reason and very clean record. If you live on a large farm and like to shoot for fun, then maybe a larger magazine would be acceptable. If you live in an apartment in a city, then you don't reasonably need extremely large magazines for your weapons. The law would probably only prohibit the sale of large magazines but grandfather in existing owners, so who really has an issue with this? And more background checks shouldn't be an issue, as long as there was some sort of process or committee for appeals and exceptions. Someone with a history of mental illness or a felony should probably not be allowed to own a gun. Someone who was wrongfully convicted or had a minor offense that was charged as a felony decades ago might be a candidate for an exception.

talmand 13y ago
Because, in most cases, its a stupid argument and a requirement that only restricts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws in the first place. It's a way for certain politicians to appeal to a certain base that, in the end, helps no one in any way that was proposed. Get into a boxing match and stipulate that both boxers must have their right hand secured behind their back. You step into the ring to find your opponent has chosen to ignore that rule. The ref tells you that while you must keep your hand tied or be disqualified, he cannot deal with your opponent's lack of respect of the rules until after the match is finished. How exactly did that rule help you? Some people disagree with the law, some people think it's the beginning of slippery slope that leads to confiscation, some people don't like their rights being used as a cheap election gimmick. Take your pick.
koenigdavidmj 13y ago
Soon fifteen is going to be an insufficiently low limit. Yes, slippery slope is generally a fallacy, but...it actually is happening. In Colorado, your "reasonable" magazine size limit is fifteen. In New York, it's ten in a pistol and five in a rifle, and you can only load seven rounds in the ten round magazine. California was a governor's veto away from banning all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. I also have yet to see a reason why these shouldn't apply equally to the police. If large capacity magazines only exist to kill people as quickly as possible, then why should the police have that? How many times are they going to encounter enough armed belligerents for the capacity to matter?