Devil's advocate

[bayouhazard]

Whenever the subject of "hi capacity" mags comes up, the argument from pro-gunners is that smaller mags won't limit a mass killer's capabilities. They'll simply carry more mags and change them.

If that's true (and I'm not saying it is), then wouldn't the same apply to us good guys? What's the problem with having to carry more mags? IOW, are we arguing the wrong thing?

if you want to murder unarmed diners in a Luby's or school children cowering under their desks, a low capacity magazine will do the job.

If I need to defend myself or my loved ones from a violent criminal attacker, I may not have the luxury of leisurely magazine changes while the bad guys are trying to shoot/stab/stomp good guys.

But that's a logical argument and people who think logically already know gun control undermines personal and public safety. On the other hand, effective criminal control has a good track record at enhancing public safety.

[Jeff Barriault]

The second amendment is about our right to defend ourselves against tyrants, both foreign or domestic. The AR15 with interchangeable 30 round magazines is the "common man's" modern day equivalent to the 1776 musket. Why does one need a military style rifle and high capacity magazine? Because it is the most effective tool to stop tyranny.

Of course this inevitably leads to someone asking if you honestly believe the federal government would turn on its own citizens. The answer is absolutely. They've done it before; civil war, disarmament then internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, Battle of Athens, etc. Do you honestly believe they will never do it again?

[RottenApple]

Of course this inevitably leads to someone asking if you honestly believe the federal government would turn on its own citizens. The answer is....

...not if The People are well armed and willing to resist.