How would a magazine capacity limit prevent you from owning a gun? Or from shooting that gun? Or from carrying that gun? You aren't limited in your ability to buy the ammunition, or to use the ammunition. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the court overstepped on this one.

Superbly expressed!

Just curious, anyone arguing from the standpoint of "shall not be infringed", do you believe a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to buy a gun? And don't use "depends on the felony" because "shall not be infringed"..It doesn't allow for just a wee little infringement or just a little bit of infringement, it expressly forbids any infringement.

Agree that folks should go through the proper steps to learn firearm safety and usage. Be that from a range sponsored event or a family member.

But we are talking magazine capacity here and a crisis situation where someone fears for their life. Look at law enforcement gun discharge...here is a pretty famous example

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/

Typical round counts are much higher than 10. If our trained law enforcement cannot end a threat with a couple well placed rounds how is it reasonable to expect that measure from everyday citizens?

Edit - not my quote but I agree with it. "If I am fighting for my life I don't want it to be a fair fight. I want it to be as lopsided as possible in my favor."

Maybe our "trained law enforcement" needs more training? At the point where you're emptying your weapon, you've deployed the spray and pray method. Any cop using spray and pray should be fired and if an innocent civilian is hurt or killed they should be charged.

Great idea! Half the cops in my area would be unemployed.

I've been on the range with state police and federal officers who were superb shots. Local police? Embarassing. A friend who who owns a shop and range in another town stopped giving the local cops range time, after one officer shot the table in his booth. It was not the first incident.

Let's apply this same sort of infringement to, say, the First Amendment. We have actually seen efforts along those lines, efforts to limit "free speech". What if we allowed our government to ban what it refers to as "hate speech"? What if we allowed our government to ban speech that one group may find objectionable? What if we allowed our government to ban speech that it deems to be "anti-government", as many governments around the world have done?

Such measures would not curtail our ability to speak - we have plenty of other things we can talk about, after all. Banning certain forms of speech, banning certain topics, would in no way hinder our ability to speak, now would it?

Jeff,
You know as well as I that there are limits to almost everything covered in the constitution or the amendments to it. If you want to argue "shall not be infringed" then come right out and say you think people who committed a felony shouldn't be denied the right to keep and bear arms. It's not a ridiculous argument I'm making if you truly believe "shall not be infringed"

Being convicted of a felony will result in the revocation of many of one's rights. Not just firearms rights - the right to vote, the right to hold many professional licenses, etc. One can petition the courts for restoration of those rights. So, yes, it is entirely possible for a convicted felon to own firearms. It does in fact depend upon the nature of the conviction and the sympathy of the court.

There was a young man who worked in one of our support shops who wound up convicted of a felony - vehicular homicide. He went to prison. He lost his firearms rights. Upon release, while he was unable to get his job back (my employer has a policy against hiring, or rehiring, convicted felons), he was able to successfully petition the court for restoration of his firearms rights.

You have veered off into an unrelated tangent. This has nothing to do with the capacity or type of firearm we, as law abiding citizens, have the right to carry. Being a "right", those details are rightfully, morally, left to us, not our government.

Not veering off on a tangent at all. As you pointed out it doesn't state "just a wee little..." There are limitations on rights under the constitution as you have pointed out. The constitution doesn't read "shall not be infringed... unless you're a felon" or "unless you break the law". A discussion on limiting magazine capacity isn't a "tangent" it's merely a part of the discussion we're having about the 2A. You seem to be arguing that the right shall not be infringed. I'm just asking how strongly you believe it shall not be infringed. I don't see how anyone can sensibly argue that limiting the number of rounds is a limitation on their ability to keep and bear arms. It's a limitation on the arms, not your ability to own or use them. It would seem to me that it's well within the right of the State to regulate commerce.

BTW, there is no right to hold professional licenses. That's a privilege.

Yes you are (veering off on a tangent). Introducing the concept of forfeiting rights as a result of being convicted of a felony to a discussion on magazine capacity is most certainly veering off on a tangent.

I never said this was a "tangent". I said introducing the loss of rights due to a felony conviction was a tangent to the discussion, which you introduced, of magazine capacity. We began on that topic - you then introduced convicted felons, and their "rights", to an ongoing discussion on magazine capacity. For whatever reason...


Regulating the types or arms we can "keep and bear", right down to details such as the capacity of those arms, is an "infringement" upon that very right.

Any time we allow the government to begin to regulate any facet whatsoever of a "right", it devolves into a "privilege", the boundaries of which are now regulated by the government. "Rights" have no such government defined boundaries - they exist outside of government.

Of course it is - privileges are controlled by, and doled out by, some authoritative body who owns the power to grant or deny that privilege. What you propose - allowing an authoritative body, in this case our government - to allow (or disallow) arms that hold their specified number of rounds, reduces this right - to decide for ourselves how many rounds are appropriate to our needs - to a granted privilege. It is no longer our right to decide what we feel is appropriate in terms of how we arm ourselves. We are reduced to asking someone - in this case our government - for permission regarding how we may arm ourselves. That is no longer a "right" - it is a privilege granted by someone else.

Off topic but if you watch any police shooting video footage you will notice that the cops empty their gun almost every time. Maybe they're trained to do so but my money is on adrenalin. One! Two! Three! Sixteen!

None of those are assault rifles.

In the old days they would hang the sorry miscreants azz...no felon...no problem.

You injected "shall not be infringed" in the discussion about magazine capacity, not me. It's most certainly not me veering off on a tangent to ask how much you truly believe "shall not be infringed"

The loss of rights in a conversation regarding "shall not be infringed" is not a tangent to the discussion. We started discussing magazine capacity, enter "shall not be infringed" and he we are discussing shall not be infringed and to what extent it applies. Not a "tangent" but rather a continuation into the same conversation.

In no way does limiting the number of rounds a gun can carry infringe or your ability to buy, own, carry or use a gun. You can buy the ammunition, you can shoot that ammunition... you have not been infringed upon.


I used to be one of the people that said "shall not be infringed" but that's just not reality. I don't support a felon owning a gun so I clearly don't fully support "shall not be infringed" (see it's not that hard to be honest and just state exactly where you stand on something). I too believed shall not be infringed doesn't allow for even the slightest infringement but I realized that's just not reality. I brought up felons losing their right to own a gun because I wanted to see how much you or anyone else arguing based on those four words really believe in "shall not be infringed". Rather than come right out and say where you stand, you accuse me of going off on a tangent.... by discussing something you injected into the conversation.

Are you defining "assault rifle" as one that can go to full auto?

I think that's the generally accepted definition.. Me I say any weapon used to assault someone is by definition an "assault weapon"

Ok. Good to know.
It sure doesn't look like a sporting rifle.
I had fired an AR-15 at the range that belonged to a co-worker of mine.
It was surprisingly accurate and easy to operate.
The owner of the gun had mentioned that one of his friends had converted the same type of rifle to full auto. Not sure of the truth in that.

And this highlights part of the illogical slippery slope that is gun control. There's no shortage of things to assault someone with: hands, feet, teeth, hammers, electrical cords, wrenches, 2x4s, knives, pipes, lamps, pressure cookers, white box trucks.... Seriously, the list is endless, though that hasn't stopped the UK from trying to ban/make illegal all things potentially dangerous.

Prohibitions don't work except for creating black markets for criminals to thrive.