And what amendment would that be?

freeman2 wrote:(4) he says that magazines can be used in hunting rifles as well as assault weapons...Ok, how abouy we ban these magazines for all weapons? Oh, but they are trivially easy for criminals to obtain? Yeah, very easy for criminals to obtain when they are legal but as for when they become illegal what his evidence for this bold statement?

I'm really not going to waste much time here, since it's long past the point where people read carefully.

For example, this is what Mr. Lott actually wrote:

That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

It is inarguable that a magazine is "basically a metal box with a spring." It is inarguable that magazines could easily be made (far more easily than, say, making a gun). Therefore, when you make them illegal, what happens?

Oh yeah, that whole "black market" thing.

But wait! It will be illegal!

Yeah, along with everything that's stolen and resold. Still, there are "fences" in the world, right?

As Tom pointed out, drugs are illegal. Yet, they are still sold on a fairly large scale.

Which is easier to make: a gun magazine or meth?

It's not a "bold statement" to say that laws will not stop magazines from being obtainable.

Remember: laws only help against those who obey them. By definition, those bent on mass murder seem likely to be willing to break the law. If they'll kill someone, will they venture into the "black market" to buy a magazine or two?

The "arguments" for the efficacy of banning high-capacity magazines presume outlawing them will bring an end to the matter. That is naive, if not just downright dumb.

A retired FBI profiler, who studied mass shootings, noted that they all enter into the situation determined that they will not live--they will either commit suicide or they will be killed by the police. That's their mindset.

To stop that mindset, a ban on high-capacity magazines is proposed.

That's not a serious proposal.

Seems to me that if large magazines don't matter because people can change magazines so quickly and if other guns can functionally replace assault weapons, then any restriction of assault weapons and magazines does not really constitute any infringement on gun rights and the gun lobby should cease opposition. Either assault weapons and large magazines are essentially fungible items that can be replaced by other guns and magazines as being functionally equivalent (and there should be opposition to their ban) or they are uniquely effective killing tools that should be banned because of their destructiveness. If assault weapons and magazines don't make a difference stop arguing about it and let us pretend like we're making a difference. If on the other hand you concede that assault weapons and large magazines are sui generis, then you have to justify why you are willing to allow deranged people to have more firepower when they decide to go out and shoot people. Kind of a Hobson's choice...

The arguement is always about why a law outlawing high capacity magazines would be effective or not.
If it is even only marginally effective, or slows the ability of the occassional mass shooter ...

On the other hand, why are high capacity magazines required? By eliminating them, what sacrifice would be made?
So far the only arguements seems to be, "Its fun to shoot lots of rounds fast". As a tool in hunting or target shooting ....they seem to add nothing.

Which is easier to make: a gun magazine or meth?

Meth is also enormously profitable so there's an incentive for the black market to exist. You can't really say the same about magazines. Criminals who make them would be running a risk by breaking the law to supply illegal products but they wouldn't be making any money out of it. It would be impossible to charge enough for the risk to be worthwhile, especially since you'd be making a product that people would buy once and not need again. I doubt we'd see a thriving black market in them that would spring up.

freeman2 wrote:Seems to me that if large magazines don't matter because people can change magazines so quickly and if other guns can functionally replace assault weapons, then any restriction of assault weapons and magazines does not really constitute any infringement on gun rights and the gun lobby should cease opposition.

No, you're wrong. It is a curtailment and said curtailment should have demonstrable, consistent impact.

For example, I favor ID when voting. Why?

You might, reasonably argue, that a tiny fraction of the vote might be fraudulent. Okay.

I say there should be none. Period. The right to vote also includes the right to have my vote not be negated in the slightest by fraud.

You say this is a reasonable restriction and does not constitute a curtailment. Obviously, this is incorrect. If I can only use a magazine of 10 rounds or less, what do I do in an emergency situation where i unexpectedly need more than that?

More magazines?

Easy to say, but there are a lot of "what ifs" that can attach.

"Well, what are the odds?"

Minimal, but the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I have the right to defend myself and to not have that right negated in the slightest by your desire to restrict it.

Either assault weapons and large magazines are essentially fungible items that can be replaced by other guns and magazines as being functionally equivalent (and there should be opposition to their ban) or they are uniquely effective killing tools that should be banned because of their destructiveness.

Well, according to Politifact (not exactly the NRA), you're all wet. It turns out knives are more dangerous than rifles:

If assault weapons and magazines don't make a difference stop arguing about it and let us pretend like we're making a difference. If on the other hand you concede that assault weapons and large magazines are sui generis, then you have to justify why you are willing to allow deranged people to have more firepower when they decide to go out and shoot people. Kind of a Hobson's choice...

More like a false dilemma that the "control your life for you" Left wants to impose.

Sassenach wrote:

Which is easier to make: a gun magazine or meth?

Meth is also enormously profitable so there's an incentive for the black market to exist. You can't really say the same about magazines.

No risk of being blown up.

No risk of being robbed.

If magazines can be made for $10-12 dollars and sold for multiples of that on the black market, you really don't think they'll be made?

Criminals who make them would be running a risk by breaking the law to supply illegal products but they wouldn't be making any money out of it.

Sure they would--or they'll be imported across our borders after being made in Mexico or China.

I'm sure some people will supply them, but it's not going to be a highly profitable criminal enterprise. It certainly won't be as easy to get hold of them as it is with drugs. Chances are it'll just be a few dedicated gun enthusiasts who will make them and supply to their friends. The markup just isn't going to be high enough to justify an extensive distribution network.

When it was learned, after years over coming the obfuscation, and misdirection and out right lies of the tobacco industry, much has been done to try to limit tobacco use and the harm it causes.
And smoking rates, have gone done, as have the attendant health issues.
Didn't need to change the constitution to make that change.

Wonderful reply Ricky!
So why not do similarly here with guns?
Tobacco is bad, did we outlaw it? Did we reduce the number of "shells in a cartridge"? Did we require background checks? Nope, we educated people to the harms. Why not educate people on guns? We attacked tobacco by not allowing smoking seen on TV, we stopped TV ads, we increased taxes on them, we educated and we had a real anti-smoking effort. Nobody limited tobacco sales, nobody limited the number of cigarettes per pack, they are still readily available!
How about we ban guns on TV and Movies? We ban Gangsta Rap? We ban violent video games? These would be similar methods that have been used successfully against tobacco and may actually have a longer term positive effect addressing the culture of gun violence instead of trying wishfully limit ones ability to get a hold of a gun ...the desire to use one still exists but your misguided thinking that they are no longer "available" ...c'mon, really? But doing as I said is harder, it may even be a freedom of speech issue. But then again, you have no problem stamping on the second amendment so why would you have trouble stamping on the first?

If congress would eliminate the corn subsidies, the price of fructose would go up as would the cost of soft drinks and other junk food. That, and an educational program ..... would greatly affect the rate of consumption of pop and junk food. No constitutional change required there either.
And it doesn't appear that anything Obama wants to do about guns will require constitutional change.

and if Congress would stop the whole ethanol requirements then corn prices would drop, you see, every time congress decides they have an answer there are unforeseen consequences. And once again, an education program is your answer but not reducing the availability of soda or junk food, no limit on the size per package. Your whole rational here simply points out how confused you possibly are on this issue?

Sassenach wrote:I'm sure some people will supply them, but it's not going to be a highly profitable criminal enterprise. It certainly won't be as easy to get hold of them as it is with drugs. Chances are it'll just be a few dedicated gun enthusiasts who will make them and supply to their friends. The markup just isn't going to be high enough to justify an extensive distribution network.

Because not even the Black Market works . . .

How "extensive" is the distribution market now?

The bottom line: this is a ban that accomplishes nothing. Take 8 minutes and watch this video.

Which weapons do the most damage? Will they be restricted by the proposed ban?

and they all shoot just as fast as each other, goes to show you how dumb these assault rifle bans really are. If you want to ban semiautomatic weapons then you need to ban them all, not just the scary looking ones. I always said before, you want real protection, get yourself a shotgun ...look at that freaking hole and the spread of shot around it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MfQYqHASIs

Here we have Freeman firing a 12ga semi-automatic shotgun.

I would have to agree with GMTom, that I would rather have a 12ga. over a semi-auto rifle. Better close in effective stats.

That was disconcerting seeing that reference to "freeman"--not me of course. If you want to go down the road that there other weapons that are just as deadly as an assault weapon then you basically have to concede that banning assault weapons has no net infringement on the right to bear arms. Of course, the other alternative is simply to ban all weapons that pose an equivalent danger in terms
If killing power to an assault weapon. Which would you prefer? When you think about it arms could mean a nuclear weapons, rocket grenade, rank, etc. Where we draw the line is in one sense somewhat arbitrary but in another sense based on common sense. You have an arms industry that makes lots of money selling these semi-automatic weapons. You think 20-30 years ago that mom of the shooter in New Town would have guns like that? Firepower in private hands is growing at a rapid rate and instead of some crazy shooting one or two people and the shooting not even making national news, they are killing ten or twenty people.

if you want to "make sense" then an assault weapons ban makes no sense.
Your arguments are (supposedly) about gun deaths, where do most gun deaths come from?
Hand guns are the "problem" but the constitution will not allow banning them so the furor simply moves to "assault weapons" even though it makes no sense to do so, change is being demanded so this rather simple little ban is the rallying call???

If you (those opposed to guns) want to reduce gun deaths then do something real. Eliminate guns, eliminate hand guns especially (uhhhh, good luck with that). If you find such elimination is not possible, then move to the next best thing and probably something that should be done even if you gt your total ban wish) and go to education and an effort to change the current gun culture, that would fight the problem if you really do think a problem exists. Banning assault weapons ....that sir is a joke!

Tobacco is bad, did we outlaw it? Did we reduce the number of "shells in a cartridge"? Did we require background checks? Nope, we educated people to the harms. Why not educate people on guns? We attacked tobacco by not allowing smoking seen on TV, we stopped TV ads, we increased taxes on them, we educated and we had a real anti-smoking effort. Nobody limited tobacco sales, nobody limited the number of cigarettes per pack, they are still readily available!

You taxed the living shit out of it though. Would you be willing to see the sort of taxation on ammo that you get on cigarettes ?