pShould high-capacity ammunition magazines be banned?

Next>

Results

75 %

No, absolutely not

23 %

Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

2 %

I'm not sure

@Jan '13 c 292 comments V 540 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

540 Votes

o

7 hr
randy28 voted

v No, absolutely not
u

11 hr
DesignerLM voted

v No, absolutely not
12 hr
ccchhhrrriiiss endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

18 hr

PWM

v No, absolutely not

Tongue in cheek here, I believe we need to make safer guns and safer bullets. This is the statement of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Attorney General of the USA under Bill Clinton. You may also remember her suggestion that bucket makers put holes in their buckets so that toddlers could not drown if they accidentally fell in. To be serious for a moment, I can take a revolver and with a number of speed loaders, sustain a fairly significant rate of fire. This drive to reduce magazine capacity is an incremental move to set legal precedent allowing a more progressive Supreme Court to gut the Second Amendment. And don't think it will stop there. If these gun grabbers erode the ...

Post
u

19 hr
aledar voted

v No, absolutely not
u

21 hr
Just_Lisa voted

v No, absolutely not
u

22 hr
nickhotrod voted

v No, absolutely not
Sun
mikev9359 voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Sun
Avoicenmany voted

v No, absolutely not
Sat
doggie_luv voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
Sat
DamnGunslinger voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 18
Mallard voted

v No, absolutely not
May 18

Seanwongng

v No, absolutely not

To stop heroin addicts lets limit the syringe sizes... Not to mention that people can now print hi cap mags with 3d printers, so if a criminal really wants something they will get it. The government is punishing the wrong people...

Post
u

May 18
Whiskey endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 17
DotsonB voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 17
DrSilicon voted

v No, absolutely not
May 16
Bill2E endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 16
Obsidion voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 16
AlexNWA endorsed Oneness3am_i

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
May 16

Jaybird1964

v No, absolutely not

The only control a ban puts in place is on law abiding citizens...criminals will get what they want from somewhere and we should be able to defend ourselves from the government or criminals!!!

Post
May 16
buckleroos voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
u

May 15
sspphoto endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 15
tjander1 voted

v No, absolutely not
May 15

Ashley_Steele

v No, absolutely not

If they can limit this, what other freedom can they take away?

Post
u

May 15

earl

v No, absolutely not

The Second Amendment does not mention high-capacity magazines.

Post
u

May 15
Rpete endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 14
WakeUpPeaple voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 13
JumpRoundhouse endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
May 12
rangerjeff voted

v No, absolutely not
May 12
Raisinbran96 voted

v No, absolutely not
May 12
LEC endorsed stepped_in_it

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
May 12
Fyi1957 endorsed falco_alba

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
May 12

JoeJared

v No, absolutely not

Nothing about the government even remotely suggests it has the right to stand on the moral high ground on this issue.

Post
May 11
Kor voted

v No, absolutely not
May 10
Mournwolf voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
u

May 9
pezcore64 voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
May 9
TerryConklin endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 9
LilliB voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 9
Bill voted

v No, absolutely not
May 9
FFX_VA voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 8
sml11 endorsed AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not
u

May 8
mhogsten voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 8
SlimElmo91 voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 8
Rydad voted

v No, absolutely not
May 8
Bob72370 voted

v No, absolutely not
May 8
PaulUK2901 voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
u

May 8
LaurenM voted

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines
May 7

MarkColwell

v No, absolutely not

I don't mind seeing background checks expanded to include all gun sales, however I beleive there are already too many restrictions on the types of weapons people can build and/or own.

Post
May 7
that1guy voted

v No, absolutely not
May 7

scotta

v No, absolutely not

It is not "BIG BROTHER'S" excuse me the "GOVERNMEMT'S" job to tell the people they can't have high-capacity magazines. I don't remember any thing in the consistution that gives them this right. I don't remember voting to give the government this power.

Post

u

18 hr

PWM

v No, absolutely not

Tongue in cheek here, I believe we need to make safer guns and safer bullets. This is the statement of Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Attorney General of the USA under Bill Clinton. You may also remember her suggestion that bucket makers put holes in their buckets so that toddlers could not drown if they accidentally fell in. To be serious for a moment, I can take a revolver and with a number of speed loaders, sustain a fairly significant rate of fire. This drive to reduce magazine capacity is an incremental move to set legal precedent allowing a more progressive Supreme Court to gut the Second Amendment. And don't think it will stop there. If these gun grabbers erode the ...

Post
Sun

mwr

v No, absolutely not

this action is a faults concept that will not impact the mentally ill folks who shoot at groups of people.

Post
May 18

Seanwongng

v No, absolutely not

To stop heroin addicts lets limit the syringe sizes... Not to mention that people can now print hi cap mags with 3d printers, so if a criminal really wants something they will get it. The government is punishing the wrong people...

Post
May 16

Jaybird1964

v No, absolutely not

The only control a ban puts in place is on law abiding citizens...criminals will get what they want from somewhere and we should be able to defend ourselves from the government or criminals!!!

Post
May 15

Ashley_Steele

v No, absolutely not

If they can limit this, what other freedom can they take away?

Post
u

May 15

earl

v No, absolutely not

The Second Amendment does not mention high-capacity magazines.

Post
May 12

JoeJared

v No, absolutely not

Nothing about the government even remotely suggests it has the right to stand on the moral high ground on this issue.

Post
May 7

MarkColwell

v No, absolutely not

I don't mind seeing background checks expanded to include all gun sales, however I beleive there are already too many restrictions on the types of weapons people can build and/or own.

Post
May 7

scotta

v No, absolutely not

It is not "BIG BROTHER'S" excuse me the "GOVERNMEMT'S" job to tell the people they can't have high-capacity magazines. I don't remember any thing in the consistution that gives them this right. I don't remember voting to give the government this power.

Post
May 7

Mr_GO_HERD

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

I don't really see the need but I guess some hunters using their M-4s want to obliterate the deer. Makes sense right?

r1 reply

Post
May 18

Seanwongng

In a defense scenario your house is attacked by a group of men. is a double barrell shotgun going to stop them? You will need 30 bullets.

Post @Seanwongng
May 5

Nurse8493

v No, absolutely not

2nd amendment rights.

Post
May 5

Prime_Meridian

v No, absolutely not

Why should they be? On what grounds? Because a few homicidal maniacs have misused them? Why should everyone be adversely impacted over a few criminals' horrific acts? Even police officers don't agree that they should be banned. Read all about it at: http:policeandguncontrol.blogspot.com A survey taken by PoliceOne.com, a non-profit organization with 400,000 law enforcement officers as its members, between March 4, and March 13, 2013, has some surprising results on Police Officer attitudes. See the results of the 15, 595 officers, supervisors and chiefs that took the survey, from how they felt about President Obama's recent failed legislation, to "Gun Free...

Post
May 2

marine1

v No, absolutely not

I think it more important that we ban life long politicians. Their capacity to screw up this country is way to high.

Post
u

May 2

fraps

v No, absolutely not

A citizen should be able to have any weapon he chooses, including sub machine guns, with whatever magazine capacity he chooses.

Post
May 1

Mr_me

v No, absolutely not

I'm an honest man with poor aim. Why should my odds of successful defending myself reduced.

Post
u

Apr 30

AlmostIllusion

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. But guns make it so easy. Home defence does not require huge capacity ammo mags, assault rifles, rocket launchers, grenades, nukes. So make it difficult for idiots to get them by making them not legally available.

r3 replies

Post
May 1

JoinCCA

"Guns do not kill people, people kill people" is right! So, why should the actions of one prevent me from something I am passionate about. If someone wants to cause harm they will in on way or another. You can reload most guns with a magazine in under 3 sec if you practice enough. So, banning high cap mags would do no good. Focusing on the legality of high cap magazines or guns in general is the wrong approach. Focusing on the people seems more efficient.

Post @JoinCCA
u

May 2

SuperBeast

Well making drugs illegal sure put a stop to the use of them by criminals didnt it? While you're at it, why dont you go ahead and make murder illegal, that should stop the criminals from doing it...shouldnt it?

Post @SuperBeast
May 2
Post Removed by Moderators
May 4
Post Removed by Moderators
u

May 4

AlmostIllusion

@SuperBeast And here we go with the insulting labels I am not liberal my politics are radical, but that is not what or why we are discussiong this. Speeding is illegal and yet some people speed, and yet less people speed than would without it being illegal. I am not advocating making guns illegal, just agreeing with moves to restrict assault weapons and high capacity ammunition. Will people still kill with them? Yes without doubt, but there will be less killings. For home defence a shotgun in a better weapon than a rifle anyway.

Post @AlmostIllusion
u

Apr 30

BossTweed

v I'm not sure

If Guns fired themselves at will then limiting ammo would be a very good idea.

Post
Apr 28

Calfkiller

v No, absolutely not

yeah

Post
u

Apr 28

s1forliberty

v No, absolutely not

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon"

Post
Apr 28

MemphisTiger89

v No, absolutely not

Are they going to limit the number of words the press can print?

Post
R Load more comments...

Jan '13

AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not

This is just more government infringement on second amendment rights. It will do nothing to make people safer. The market will still have them just at a higher price. Bad guys can still carry multiple 10 round clips and reload fairly quick. Screwing with law abiding citizens will not make one bit of difference.

B4

e82 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

stepped_in_it

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

Want versus need.....And what exactly is a high cap mag used for? Besides that!

r28 replies

e19 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

RedFloppyShoes

v No, absolutely not

Banning high capacity magazines has nothing to do with the crime level. Truth is, I can reload my gun in 2 seconds. Most people who are skilled in weaponry can do the same. Of course by me saying that, the next thing they will ban is how many magazines you can own.

e19 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not

Actually, all this talk about thd second amendment for protection against crime or hunting is nonsense. Not saying firearms should not be used for that purpose, but the stated purpose of the second amendment is for the arming of militia. It is militia type weapons that are meant to be protected, and high capacity clips, in my opinion, fall directly into that catagory. That is something the states, which are specifically specified as the entities to arms militia should be in charge of regulating.

B1

e10 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

falco_alba

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

It only takes one bullet to protect yourself and if you are a responsible gun owner, you are capable of aim.

B2

r31 replies

e8 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

Oneness3am_i

v Yes, ban 10+ bullet magazines

Right along with assault Rifels

B1

r2 replies

e7 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

tomhorn1903

v No, absolutely not

Not only "no", but "HELL NO!"

B3

e4 endorsed

Post
u

Jan '13

Grubby

v No, absolutely not

This will not make people safer. It is a liberal city-folk democrat feel-good move. They wouldn't know a magazine if they saw one, it just sounds better to have a smaller number, as if that will make a difference. It takes me maybe 2 seconds to switch out a magazine. If I wanted to do harm to someone it would be a minor inconvenience to carry 10 magazines in a bag instead of maybe 4 or 5. Don't worry Liberals, I am not advocating harming people, but this has nothing to do with safety. It will have no effect. Of course, the idiot liberals are also talking about banning handguards and adjustable stocks, both of which make guns SAFER, not more dangerous. Clueless morons.

B1

e6 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

AMSCountryboy

v No, absolutely not

Ok first of all it takes about ONE (1) second to change a magazine....so whats the difference? Why is it anybodys business how many rounds are in my weapon that i have the right to have anyway? Even if making these magazines illegal would do somthing to stop gun violence (it wont) do you really expect criminals to follow ANY gun law?

e4 endorsed

Post
Jan '13

SavageMazx

v No, absolutely not

Banning magazines won't solve the problem and directly infringes on my rights.

e3 endorsed

Post

Politix

pShould high-capacity ammunition magazines be banned?

Results