News Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D/NY) To Introduce Extended Magazine Ban.

[drankin]

Which? You recognize the absurdity, or you support legal suppressors? I'm kidding, I know you mean legalizing suppressors. I'm curious, what POSSIBLE civilian application is there for anything more than a muzzle-brake and flash-guard? If you're hunting, your bullet is there before the sound is, and if you're not... you PRESUMABLY don't care about the sound or flash. They are strictly a means to reduce the rate of detection by sentries in a military context, in HR situations, and by criminals wishing to murder. There are vanishingly few uses for a suppressor, so I'd love to know why you think they should be legal for anything but the SWAT-type organizations on up?

Follow up: Should an American be allowed to buy any weapons system they can afford? i.e. Can Bill Gates buy some B-2's?, or to be less absurd, can he buy any weapon system the US would sell to a friendly foreign nation?

edit: Forget "because you can", and rights... man to man, what POSSIBLE need could you have for currently banned suppressors?

One use, the use I would have for a suppressor, is the ability to practice without hearing protection. It is entertaining to shoot with a suppressor. There is a lot of youtube vids on this. Hearing the bullet impact the target, whatever it may be. It's more for fun than anything else, if you can afford it. Why have a street legal sportbike that can go 160mph? Fun on a race track.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is it that only when the right to own guns is involved does 'need' ever get brought into the discussion? I thought in a free society we can get get things we want, in communist society they only get what they need. There are people who own P-51 planes and sherman tanks do they need them? I don't think so, but they wanted them, they were available, so they bought them. Why are we able to buy armani when a mens warehouse suit works just as well? Both are just clothing. Why can we buy a mercedes when a ford will do the same thing? Both will get you from point A to B. Its called freedom, anything less is oppression.

If we start, well continue, to make things illegal just because they can be used for nefarious reasons, what's next? Nuclear engineering, chemistry?

Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man that would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature upon a supposition that he may abuse it. - Oliver Cromwell

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription! Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection! As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

 

[drankin]

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription! Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection! As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

Is it possible to have a discussion with you without the condescension? You ask a question then berate the answer. There is no perfect analogy to owning a suppressor. But there is no good reason to ban them. The current laws are adequately restrictive. There isn't an epedemic of murders, outside of the movies, to where a suppressor was used. Until I'm personally being an *** towards you, be nice. :)

 

[drankin]

Here is an interesting and current opinion article on the proposed state amendment concerning suppressors in my state: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/a-proposed-gun-law-for-wa-that-makes-sense

 

[turbo]

edit: We both know it's crap for accuracy at range, so... "discharge a firearm" is a very generous appellation, when, "kill someone", would still be fair.

Not true. Supressors with disks or fibers that contact the slug can effect the ballistics. Supressors with baffles, etc that do not contact the slug do not degrade accuracy. Early in the 1900s, many major gun manufacturers offered threaded barrels with matching "silencers". You need to pay $200 to the ATF for a permit to possesses one, and still some states won't allow you to use it, even if you own it legally.

 

[Al68]

Oh... so then when is it you need or even WANT that 33 round clip?

What are you referring to? I haven't made any claim concerning "need" or "want".

BTW, what does "copypasta" mean? Should I be embarrassed by my ignorance?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Nis- the method in which I answer is designed to show sepcific responses to specific statements of your own. It is commonly used across this forum, especially in the P&WA area where very large posts contain several points and are most easily answered in pieces. You would do well to answer the content of my posts rather than the method in which they are presented.

Really? You think GUN OWNERS have to justify need, try a psychopharmacologist trying to write a prescription!

What more fundamental justification is there if not a constitutional right?

Better yet, any farmer can tell you that they get thoroughly checked if they're using ammonia fertilizers. A chemist or biologist, radiologist or pathologist could get into more detail, but I'm not sure you'd follow.

There's a difference between "being checked" (already done with FBI firearm background investigations) and preventing the purchase of a product in the first place. Currently, no background investigation is required to buy a magazine, but an actual firearm (or certain operating parts of one) require a background investigation, which I'm 100% for. Still, the point was mentioned that a background investigation cannot find a record which does not exist...

Your entire premise here is based on illusory persecution that is so famous of the NRA's higher reasoning. You have a right to bear arms, not the right to a private army... in fact the implication is that the right to bear arms is tried to a willingness to SERVE in the armed forces when called; remember what a militia meant then (police/army).

You had better look up the definition of a militia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

drankin: That is ABSURD (hearing protection) given the life-span of a suppressor, the effect on accuracy, potential for catastrophic failure... and you should STILL wear hear protection and eye protection!

You find it absurd- is that reason enough to legislate it away?

As for why you have a legal bike that can go 160, the relationship between acceleration, torque, and top speed is not as simple as a SUPPRESSOR, but I applaud you on one of the best straw men I've seen in days.

It's a valid comparison- why should a vehicle be capable of breaking the speed limit? Are we <gasp> trusting people to obey the laws of the road??

 

[BobG]

I don't know about the need for high capacity magazines, but the demand is sure there.

Since the Arizona shooting, sales of high capacity magazines have risen about 300 to 500 percent. Overall, sales of the Glock model used in the shooting have risen about 5 percent since the shooting with some places (Arizona, Ohio) reporting increasesover 60 percent in sales and others (Illinois, New York) having increases over 30 percent since the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13guns.html?src=twrhp
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html

 

[Evo]

I don't know about the need for high capacity magazines, but the demand is sure there.

Since the Arizona shooting, sales of high capacity magazines have risen about 300 to 500 percent. Overall, sales of the Glock model used in the shooting have risen about 5 percent since the shooting with some places (Arizona, Ohio) reporting increasesover 60 percent in sales and others (Illinois, New York) having increases over 30 percent since the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13guns.html?src=twrhp
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html

People are afraid they'll be banned and are stocking up.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

People are afraid they'll be banned and are stocking up.

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is it possible to have a discussion with you without the condescension? You ask a question then berate the answer. There is no perfect analogy to owning a suppressor. But there is no good reason to ban them. The current laws are adequately restrictive. There isn't an epedemic of murders, outside of the movies, to where a suppressor was used. Until I'm personally being an *** towards you, be nice. :)

Now that's one of the first sensible arguments you've made here. (<--- THAT is condescending... not disagreeing completely with your point, position and approach. That said, SCOTUS has already clearly ruled, even with its most conservative thinker (Scalia), that gun rights have limits.

Oh, and I chose a suppressor PRECISELY because we'd have to talk about... a suppressor. I'm tired of people weaseling out of these debates with a lateral move, or a false analogy. I find it telling that such a constraint reduces the conversation to, "Because I have the right!", "it's entertaining", and essentially... because you want it. I'm curious, if suppressors were legal to own, I think the main consequence would be that they would less risky to manufacture and distribute. If there ever were undesired results, well, as is the case with compact automatic pistols, and compact sub-machine guns... good luck getting them off the streets... right?

Hell, part of the point that keeps being made implicitly is that if extended magazines are banned, the first response would be to hoard them, and by extension that leads to distribution. Obviously the only real point of control is the supply, and like the Fed changing buying or selling T-Bills, it's a slow reaction.

Clearly there are people who want the right to bear arms, AND have a fetishistic desire to press that right to its logical absurdities.

Al68: No you shouldn't, and I wouldn't call it ignorance. It means something other than what I applied it to, because Mech matched the form of the paste-response that often emerges. In terms of content, it's just a block of text copied from one site to another, usually passed off as somehow original. It's sometimes used for posts that look like copypasta (as in the image) of endless quote-dissection and the mirror-mirror effect.

 

[nismaratwork]

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.

No, that would be a splurge of buying guns and clips in the wake of a shooting. I mean, if a bunch of people at a safeway in AZ weren't packing heat, it wasn't for lack of opportunity in the law.

If it's more of the militia vs. government notion, then irony might be a guy decked out like Rambo just being crushed under the treads of an M1 Abrams. Again, I'd suggest that you look at the role of militias in the context of the time... it implied responsibility, and not free usage either. People can read the constitution aloud again if they like, but our laws have a lot more to do with evolving jurisprudence from the states on up. Your other post is almost completely about gun ownership, not this specific issue.

Oh, and I don't trust people, I just don't care if they crash on a bike going at 160. If you're on a bike and choose to do that, you take the risks... maybe those genes didn't need passing on. I know few riders would do that on an open road... in fact, I know none who would. I'm so tired of your straw men... do you ever just sit back and marvel at the sheer volume of your logical fallacies and substance-less rhetoric?

Why do you want or need a 33 round clip? The consensus among gun owners here seems to be that they are unreliable and hard to conceal, and therefore undesirable compared to other options. I'd ask what on Earth you think it is you're fighting for here, because this is government, not an exercise on paper. I'd also ask, but I'm afraid you'd answer, and I really hoped I was done replying to you a page ago.

 

[drankin]

Now that's one of the first sensible arguments you've made here. (<--- THAT is condescending... not disagreeing completely with your point, position and approach. That said, SCOTUS has already clearly ruled, even with its most conservative thinker (Scalia), that gun rights have limits.

Oh, and I chose a suppressor PRECISELY because we'd have to talk about... a suppressor. I'm tired of people weaseling out of these debates with a lateral move, or a false analogy. I find it telling that such a constraint reduces the conversation to, "Because I have the right!", "it's entertaining", and essentially... because you want it. I'm curious, if suppressors were legal to own, I think the main consequence would be that they would less risky to manufacture and distribute. If there ever were undesired results, well, as is the case with compact automatic pistols, and compact sub-machine guns... good luck getting them off the streets... right?

Hell, part of the point that keeps being made implicitly is that if extended magazines are banned, the first response would be to hoard them, and by extension that leads to distribution. Obviously the only real point of control is the supply, and like the Fed changing buying or selling T-Bills, it's a slow reaction.

Clearly there are people who want the right to bear arms, AND have a fetishistic desire to press that right to its logical absurdities.

.

Your point is vague to me. Can you summarize? Preferably without condescending references to anothers post.

 

[turbo]

The very definition of irony considering the intent of the bill.

Just google on "pre-ban" components of "assault rifles" to see how idiotic this can be. Got a little semi-automatic .223 carbine? If it has a folding stock, a flash-hider, or a bayonet lug, or a pistol-grip? It might be illegal for you to own. Why?

What the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know is that almost every semi-automatic hunting rifle is far superior to these "assault rifles" in stopping-power and accuracy. The anti-gun nuts are attacking mostly cosmetic features. My father's 40+ year old Remington 742 (chambered for .30-06) is far superior in stopping-power, accuracy, and reliability to any of the assault weapons (automatic or semi-automatic) that are currently used by ground-troops in most of the world.

.30-06 is the gold standard for military shooting competitions at long range. It used to be the .45-70, but things change. People who follow news feeds and who have short-term memory and no historical context tend to jump to some irrational conclusions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not true. Supressors with disks or fibers that contact the slug can effect the ballistics. Supressors with baffles, etc that do not contact the slug do not degrade accuracy. Early in the 1900s, many major gun manufacturers offered threaded barrels with matching "silencers". You need to pay $200 to the ATF for a permit to possesses one, and still some states won't allow you to use it, even if you own it legally.

I personally disagree; you're adding yet another point of failure or error in a fundamentally disposable item. If we're talking ballistics here, I'm not a fan without taking anything else into consideration.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...Which is ironic, as nobody is rushing to invade Montana; Red Dawn was a movie. It's also ironic, because it's just that attitude and behaviour that's made an otherwise unremarkable state a HUGE blip on the federal radar! Oooohhh, that last bit never gets old, I always laugh at the absurdity.

edit: I'd add it seems that the cows are the only sane creatures in Montana. Maybe they should be given the vote?

Just in case anybody out there has not looked at the act (Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated, if you want to read it word for word), it basically allows any accessory, or ammo for a fire arm to be produced and sold only in the state of Montana to state residents. As for guns, they can only fire one bullet per pull of the trigger, it also limits the size of the weapon (safely operated/transported by one person) and caliber (nothing over 1.5 inches), only sold in the state of Montana to legal residents of the state, and any accessory/gun must have a made in Montana label clearly etched/stamped in a prominent metal part.

Face it this law was not really about guns but it was about state rights. If something is made in a state and only sold to residents of that state, then the federal government has no say in the matter.

Also if you are worried about gun toting lunatics stay out of Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, as those states have passed a law that mirrors the MFFA, and watch out in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, as these states are looking to do the same.

As for the cow reference it was more of a crack at the world wide beef markets, so would you kindly keep the snide comments to your self, as I'm starting to wonder about you sanity.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. — Sigmund Freud

 

[nismaratwork]

Just google on "pre-ban" components of "assault rifles" to see how idiotic this can be. Got a little semi-automatic .223 carbine? If it has a folding stock, a flash-hider, or a bayonet lug, or a pistol-grip? It might be illegal for you to own. Why?

What the anti-gun nuts don't want you to know is that almost every semi-automatic hunting rifle is far superior to these "assault rifles" in stopping-power and accuracy. The anti-gun nuts are attacking mostly cosmetic features. My father's 40+ year old Remington 742 (chambered for .30-06) is far superior in stopping-power, accuracy, and reliability to any of the assault weapons (automatic or semi-automatic) that are currently used by ground-troops in most of the world.

.30-06 is the gold standard for military shooting competitions at long range. It used to be the .45-70, but things change. People who follow news feeds and who have short-term memory and no historical context tend to jump to some irrational conclusions.

Maybe if we ignore the nuts on both sides, and let the people who know and RESPECT firearms legislate issues of gun control. Pistol grips... that was such a joke. Remember however, that a hunting rifle takes SOME practice to use with any skill, and I'd argue that as you add range and firing rate, it can be a lot. What scares people about assault rifles is that they think they're spraying weapons... which we know they're not. A mini Uzi, an old Mac 10... what place do they have in a civilian's hands? You can defend yourself without cutting the intruder in half...

 

[turbo]

I personally disagree; you're adding yet another point of failure or error in a fundamentally disposable item. If we're talking ballistics here, I'm not a fan without taking anything else into consideration.

You should bring in some research to bolster that view.

Certainly, Remington and Winchester did not subscribe to the view that their supressors were disposable accessories that would have a very limited life-time or would contribute to the degradation or safety of the firearms to which they were attached. Do a bit of research, and then come back and make blanket pronouncements.

 

[nismaratwork]

Just in case anybody out there has not looked at the act (Chapter 205 in Title 30, of the Montana Code Annotated, if you want to read it word for word), it basically allows any accessory, or ammo for a fire arm to be produced and sold only in the state of Montana to state residents. As for guns, they can only fire one bullet per pull of the trigger, it also limits the size of the weapon (safely operated/transported by one person) and caliber (nothing over 1.5 inches), only sold in the state of Montana to legal residents of the state, and any accessory/gun must have a made in Montana label clearly etched/stamped in a prominent metal part.

Face it this law was not really about guns but it was about state rights. If something is made in a state and only sold to residents of that state, then the federal government has no say in the matter.

Also if you are worried about gun toting lunatics stay out of Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, as those states have passed a law that mirrors the MFFA, and watch out in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, as these states are looking to do the same.

As for the cow reference it was more of a crack at the world wide beef markets, so would you kindly keep the snide comments to your self, as I'm starting to wonder about you sanity.

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. — Sigmund Freud

It's good to quote a man who's theories have been largely replaced, and who formulated the bulk of them with the aid of copious amounts of cocaine. I should add, there wasn't much that he didn't think was a sign of some sexual dysfunction. Oh Freud, such a mixed bag.

So... you're worried about my sanity because I made a snide comment... yeah, that's usually the first sign of impending madness, along with profuse sweating, erythema... wait... no... that's anticholinergic toxidrome... never mind!

Anyway, I'd say a guy who feels a heartbeat away from being able to get his hands on an arsenal should have thicker skin. If jokes make you doubt someone's sanity, maybe gun ownership isn't for you. As for Montana law, I'm aware of it, as is the ATF which is why such a relatively unpopulated state is watched like a hawk.

Oh, and I'm not worried about lunatics... statistics clearly show that nearest and dearest will kill you first, and after that your own poor judgment in the form of crime, or other poor choices. Machismo self-defense fantasies involving extended clips, machine guns and silencers aside... very few murders are random, or even committed by strangers. You know that, right? I think you should, since you have access to so much ammunition and so little of what I'd call common sense when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[drankin]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

 

[nismaratwork]

You should bring in some research to bolster that view.

Certainly, Remington and Winchester did not subscribe to the view that their supressors were disposable accessories that would have a very limited life-time or would contribute to the degradation or safety of the firearms to which they were attached. Do a bit of research, and then come back and make blanket pronouncements.

I take a different view. The reality is that they degrade far more rapidly than advertised, which you're welcome to research as well. I used a suppressor as a specific example for a number of reasons, including my incorrect assumption that there would not be much support for them.

The fact is that any suppressor, muzzle brake and flash guard changes the dynamics of the escaping gasses, and alters the flight of the bullet. You can compensate, but as the suppressor degrades it's just a useless barrel extension that no long offers much in the way of reduced volume. As I said, you're adding another point of failure for no benefit other than "entertainment" and not wanting to use basic range safety (hearing protection at all times on an active range, if not on, then available) FOR WHAT.

Obviously I haven't given a primer on suppressors, or we'd be talking about what suppressor on what gun, and whether or not the bullet us supersonic or not. CONTEXT.

 

[nismaratwork]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

Ready hours ago... obviously it's not possible to discuss any change in gun laws here without one or the other lunatic fringe hijacking the thread. Usually both. Locking has my vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Weeelp, this thread is going down the toilet. We're ready when you are, Evo.

Going?

 

[drankin]

Going?

:) Waaait foor iit...

 

[turbo]

This thread was started (ostensibly) with a (knee-jerk, IMO) declaration to ban extended hand-gun magazines. Why? What would such a ban accomplish? Grand-standing on the shirt-tails on a public tragedy might play well to the "believers" back home, but what is the result? Adults should come to the fore and express themselves, IMO

 

[WhoWee]

:) Waaait foor iit...

If I might have a final word - this is not a reactive or knee jerk piece of legislation - this is an example of someone trying to use a terrible event to advance their personal agenda.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I might have a final word - this is not a reactive or knee jerk piece of legislation - this is an example of someone trying to use a terrible event to advance their personal agenda.

It's that TOO... everything done in congress could be described as that, minus the knee-jerk.

@others: If you want to see the thread die, I have advice that can't fail! Stop Posting, stop reading.

edit: My first sentence in the opening post of this thread:

Unlike other discussions which have taken place in the public discourse about guns, this is a valid concern. I'm not interested in the politics of it, and yes, I realize people are doing this for political points.

It's like memories fade by the page.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This thread was started (ostensibly) with a (knee-jerk, IMO) declaration to ban extended hand-gun magazines. Why? What would such a ban accomplish? Grand-standing on the shirt-tails on a public tragedy might play well to the "believers" back home, but what is the result? Adults should come to the fore and express themselves, IMO

This is what I've been saying the whole time. There's no evidence backing up the need to ban extended magazines in handguns, this back-burner legislation has been introduced (under the guise of a knee-jerk reaction) in hopes of further limiting personal freedoms.

 

[Al68]

Obviously I haven't given a primer on suppressors, or we'd be talking about what suppressor on what gun, and whether or not the bullet us supersonic or not.

And the fact that the effectiveness of suppressors is not the way it is depicted in movies. If you believe what you see in movies, you'd think one could screw on a suppressor the size of a roll of quarters on a 9mm and someone in the other room wouldn't even hear it. That's nowhere close to the ballpark of reality. Reality is that a pillow is far more effective than a screw-on suppressor.

As far as fully automatic weapons, it should be obvious that far less people would have been killed/injured had Loughner's glock been fully auto. Unlike in the movies, a 30 round clip doesn't last long in full auto, and accuracy suffers, to say the least. Especially with a light handgun used by a shooter unaccustomed to full auto. Most of the rounds probably would have gone way over the heads of the intended victims.

If I'm part of a crowd being shot at by a glock (or any gun), I'd sure prefer it to be full auto, all else being equal. Greatly increases my chances of seeing another sunrise. Ditto for every person being shot at.

 

[mugaliens]

Unlike other discussions...

Ok I'll have to take your comments in reverse order. Just the logic of things. (shrugs)

I believe that people should be allowed to own a handgun, but I don't see the need for extended clips, and I'm yet to hear anyone claim they need it to hunt...

Well, it's certainly not an issue with respect to hunting! I've never expending more than two rounds downrange while hunting.

When it comes to carrying a firearm for personal protection, however, I used to believe six rounds was enough, but events around town have indicated otherwise, particularly a few extended confrontations in which a few dozen rounds were expended. Thus, I carry a full 16-round clip, as well as a spare magazine. When I head downtown, I add two more magazines.

I really hope I never have to use it! Still, might I ask what you pay for auto and home insurance each year? I sincerely think you hope it never comes time to collect on that, either, but you pay it just the same.

It's prudence. Some people ask me why I carry at all. I think the simplest answer is that I'd rather not be a victim.

...why anyone except a soldier or MAYBE a police officer to have over 30 rounds in a single clip.

Ten rounds, or thirty...

What matters most is that when responding to the threat, we don't run out. Thus, those of us who carry tend to carry whatever may be required.

As for the police, I'm not sure what the standard load is, but I think they carry 16 in their carry weapon, plus two more 16-round mags on their left hip. I usually carry less than that, but it's not like I go around blazing it away! I don't think we'd be having this conversation if I did!

Several people have asked me why I carry at all. I have difficulty figuring out why anyone wouldn't? Weight? Sure! About three pounds! Not too much fun lugging that weight around.

Has anyone heard the expression, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away?" Seriously, most folks don't like thinking about it, but most deadly encounters are over in less than a minute. Yes, they're quite rare, and stats indicate it'll be perahaps 18 to 50 years before I may ever encounter a need to use my firearm. I sincerely hope that day never comes! But, I carry because someday it be necessary, and I'd prefer not to be a victim.

So, with all due respect to Frank, frankly, I'd much rather not be a victim. I think his politics are quite backwards.