Ban on "assault weapons" and/or high capacity magazines?

[Northern Dominus]

Firearms owners in general? No, not at all.

A small and very loud and rabid group of firearms fetishists that value the firearm as a religious symbol above others and subesequently get ridiculous amounts of money from companies like Beretta USA to spew their vitriol into the public lexicon? Yes.

Sovereign citizens are most definetly in the latter category to a degree, but they're another more dangerous animal enitely. To put it very simply they're Ayn Rand's wet dream, they're people who believe they're beholden only to a vague version of "natural" law, and not any local, state, or federal statues. Time and again this belief has resulted in violence, most notably the Oklahoma City bombing.
More can be found on that Wiki of Wikis of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

I love the labels you use " Fetishes"

just like the other ones that are used to make an us vs them situation like " Gun-totting redneck" " Right-Wing Extremists" "Gun-totting bible thumper" " Gun-Grabbers"

It is a fetishistic obsession that people like Alex Jones and Wayne Lapierre promote. I have no problem with people having a technical or historical interest, but when it gets to the point that people are posting images of their knock-off AR-15 and calling it "my baby" and other vague rather creepy loving names, then the fetishism begins.

Hell, this isn't even a new thing. Look at what the Winchester Model 1873 is called, the "Gun that Won the West". Its yet another image the firearms fetishists love to invoke, completely ignoring the fact that the weapon is just another tool that the pioneers and cowboys used while taming the west, no different than the lariats and compasses. I'd be willing to bet that their horses were far more important than any of their firearms.
This is the problem, the elevation of the tool above the man in the eyes of the firearms fetishists of this country. And it's killing people every day.

Firearms owners in general? No, not at all.

A small and very loud and rabid group of firearms fetishists that value the firearm as a religious symbol above others and subesequently get ridiculous amounts of money from companies like Beretta USA to spew their vitriol into the public lexicon? Yes.

Sovereign citizens are most definetly in the latter category to a degree, but they're another more dangerous animal enitely. To put it very simply they're Ayn Rand's wet dream, they're people who believe they're beholden only to a vague version of "natural" law, and not any local, state, or federal statues. Time and again this belief has resulted in violence, most notably the Oklahoma City bombing.
More can be found on that Wiki of Wikis of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

You have a lot of hate/anger issues man, it is not healthy. Maybe you would be more at home in some dictatorial country? If some of the freedoms here in the United States bother you that much.

Oh I love my freedoms. Chief among them is my right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without wondering if some insane insurrectionist twerps who think they have a right to do every damn thing at the expense of public safety and civility will shoot up a DMV when I'm there trying to renew my license because vehicle registration restricts the "right to travel" in the eyes of the "sovereign citizen" movement.

Oh and I gave 4 1/2 good years in the name of serving my country by keeping its shores secure, so you can question my patriotism all you like, and I won't even bother to ask for a thank you for securing your right to question my loyalty. I'm just that kinda guy

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'd like to point out that Hitler deregulated gun ownership.

assuming your right(which i don't) what about all the others then? like Stalin and Mao?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control
Learn yourself a book.

[Mavorpen]

I'd like to point out that Hitler deregulated gun ownership.

assuming your right(which i don't) what about all the others then? like Stalin and Mao?

Too bad, because he did.

[Grinning Dragon]

I love the labels you use " Fetishes"

just like the other ones that are used to make an us vs them situation like " Gun-totting redneck" " Right-Wing Extremists" "Gun-totting bible thumper" " Gun-Grabbers"

It is a fetishistic obsession that people like Alex Jones and Wayne Lapierre promote. I have no problem with people having a technical or historical interest, but when it gets to the point that people are posting images of their knock-off AR-15 and calling it "my baby" and other vague rather creepy loving names, then the fetishism begins.

Hell, this isn't even a new thing. Look at what the Winchester Model 1873 is called, the "Gun that Won the West". Its yet another image the firearms fetishists love to invoke, completely ignoring the fact that the weapon is just another tool that the pioneers and cowboys used while taming the west, no different than the lariats and compasses. I'd be willing to bet that their horses were far more important than any of their firearms.
This is the problem, the elevation of the tool above the man in the eyes of the firearms fetishists of this country. And it's killing people every day.

You have a lot of hate/anger issues man, it is not healthy. Maybe you would be more at home in some dictatorial country? If some of the freedoms here in the United States bother you that much.

Oh I love my freedoms. Chief among them is my right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without wondering if some insane insurrectionist twerps who think they have a right to do every damn thing at the expense of public safety and civility will shoot up a DMV when I'm there trying to renew my license because vehicle registration restricts the "right to travel" in the eyes of the "sovereign citizen" movement.

Oh and I gave 4 1/2 good years in the name of serving my country by keeping its shores secure, so you can question my patriotism all you like, and I won't even bother to ask for a thank you for securing your right to question my loyalty. I'm just that kinda guy

I am not questioning your patriotism, I am however questioning how you seem to pick and choose which rights in which you gleefully embrace and show extreme contempt for others. All Rights are equal, no one Right is above the other or has a higher value than the next.
The pursuit to life, liberty and happiness as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, just isn't for you, nor can you define what another person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be. No one is going to have the same pursuits.

[Northern Dominus]

It is a fetishistic obsession that people like Alex Jones and Wayne Lapierre promote. I have no problem with people having a technical or historical interest, but when it gets to the point that people are posting images of their knock-off AR-15 and calling it "my baby" and other vague rather creepy loving names, then the fetishism begins.

Hell, this isn't even a new thing. Look at what the Winchester Model 1873 is called, the "Gun that Won the West". Its yet another image the firearms fetishists love to invoke, completely ignoring the fact that the weapon is just another tool that the pioneers and cowboys used while taming the west, no different than the lariats and compasses. I'd be willing to bet that their horses were far more important than any of their firearms.
This is the problem, the elevation of the tool above the man in the eyes of the firearms fetishists of this country. And it's killing people every day.

Oh I love my freedoms. Chief among them is my right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without wondering if some insane insurrectionist twerps who think they have a right to do every damn thing at the expense of public safety and civility will shoot up a DMV when I'm there trying to renew my license because vehicle registration restricts the "right to travel" in the eyes of the "sovereign citizen" movement.

Oh and I gave 4 1/2 good years in the name of serving my country by keeping its shores secure, so you can question my patriotism all you like, and I won't even bother to ask for a thank you for securing your right to question my loyalty. I'm just that kinda guy

I am not questioning your patriotism, I am however questioning how you seem to pick and choose which rights in which you gleefully embrace and show extreme contempt for others. All Rights are equal, no one Right is above the other or has a higher value than the next.
The pursuit to life, liberty and happiness as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, just isn't for you, nor can you define what another person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be. No one is going to have the same pursuits.

How exactly am I picking and choosing which rights are more valuable than others? How exactly have I shown extreme contempt for any particular right? By suggesting that maybe the 2nd Amendment's base right to own firearms should remain intact but regulation should reflect the march of time and advance of technology?

Explain it to me like I'm five how that's some sort of contemptible breach of the constitution, because I fail to see how its incompatible in any other way other than in the mind of a nihilistic misanthrope with the mentality of a 5 year old, like all Sovereign Citizens.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

I believe in Law. It is necessary. But the Constitution and the courts are there to make sure the Law serves the People, and not the other way around.

These individual a--holes who think that they are their own country unto themselves (like McVeigh, etc.) are real lunatics, and disgustingly selfish.

I like speed limits. they keep everyone (more or less) on the same page and traffic can flow freely and smoothly. Imagine how well they would be respected if there was no deterrent to simply ignoring them. It would be a free for all, everyone would drive at whatever speed he wanted, and carnage/and or gridlock would ensue. It would be a very bad time, indeed.

I agree with most laws. Not all, but most. And that is the cost of living in a society. I have to accept the occasional law that irks me. Nothing is 100% perfect for anyone once you have more than one person in the group. Compromise is a necessity.

So there is compromise. Most people are pretty decent folk and are happy to compromise (to an extent) to live (more or less) in harmony with his neighbours. I do it myself every day. Almost everyone does.

The government also has to compromise, too. It doesn't get to do everything it wants because of checks and balances: the Constitution and the courts. It does so not because the courts will send the Army into Congress and remove them if they don't, but because they know that there is a well armed citizenry that will not stand for suspending the Constitution and the declaration of Martial law. It simply cannot happen. The government will never be able to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law because it will be impossible to enforce. The population is simply too well armed, and the 19 year old kid in that tank turret is not going to want to fire on his own countrymen.

I'm not saying that the Citizens need their guns to use against the government, I'm saying they need them so the government doesn't try to use guns on the People.

And yes as I‘ve posted before, Oliver North drew up plans under Regan’s orders to suspend the constitution, declare martial law, round up "potential troublemakers" and warehouse them in camps, dissolve all state governments and appoint about a half dozen military officers to act as "governors." etc. REX 84. It was done in case there were mass (like the entire country) protests against the government. Look it up.

Of course it cannot happen, because the government knows that they cannot pull it off without starting a bloodbath that will kill hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million. The actual men and women ordered to do it will simply refuse.

[North Calaveras]

assuming your right(which i don't) what about all the others then? like Stalin and Mao?

Too bad, because he did.

Look I know your mission in life is to make little remarks to bug me, but It's not going to get to me so I'd advise just knocking it off that'd be greeeeaaaattt.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Sure whatever you say Mavorpen

idk like to piont out how dictators love to ban guns yet no one admits that this is a tyrannical tactic.

actually nevermind they were doing it for the saftey of the children

I'd like to point out that Hitler deregulated gun ownership.

I'd like to counter with the point that in Hitler's day there were no 'assault weapon' scares.

[Grinning Dragon]

I am not questioning your patriotism, I am however questioning how you seem to pick and choose which rights in which you gleefully embrace and show extreme contempt for others. All Rights are equal, no one Right is above the other or has a higher value than the next.
The pursuit to life, liberty and happiness as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, just isn't for you, nor can you define what another person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be. No one is going to have the same pursuits.

How exactly am I picking and choosing which rights are more valuable than others? How exactly have I shown extreme contempt for any particular right? By suggesting that maybe the 2nd Amendment's base right to own firearms should remain intact but regulation should reflect the march of time and advance of technology?

Explain it to me like I'm five how that's some sort of contemptible breach of the constitution, because I fail to see how its incompatible in any other way other than in the mind of a nihilistic misanthrope with the mentality of a 5 year old, like all Sovereign Citizens.

I will not insult your intelligence by chatting in such a manner.

The simple fact that you label anyone who holds a more strict constitutionalists view on the 2nd Amendment, that differs from yours and you start throwing out the labels, and seem intent on turning an enumerated right into some sort of quasi-privilege, and if anyone says differently, you start screaming about how your perceived right to safety is being violated, all because you have this notion of the 2nd Amendment needs this updated regulation to reflect the march of time. Do you honestly think the framers of the Constitution were that ignorant that as time progressed that advancements in weapon technology would not have advanced as well?

I also get the feeling that you feel no one is competent to own certain weapons/features or have a fit because someone take pride in their weapon and likes to show off, is this any different than people with cars, bikes, etc. or do they have an unhealthy fetish as well? Does anyone who has a particular interest in anything and likes to show off their interests as having a fetish? So to me, and just me alone, that is how I see you as having a contempt towards another persons right to keep and bear arms.

P.S.
If you ever find your way down here, the first case of beer is on me, as my way of saying hey, thanks for putting in 4.5 yrs of service.

[Northern Dominus]

I believe in Law. It is necessary. But the Constitution and the courts are there to make sure the Law serves the People, and not the other way around.

These individual a--holes who think that they are their own country unto themselves (like McVeigh, etc.) are real lunatics, and disgustingly selfish.

I like speed limits. they keep everyone (more or less) on the same page and traffic can flow freely and smoothly. Imagine how well they would be respected if there was no deterrent to simply ignoring them. It would be a free for all, everyone would drive at whatever speed he wanted, and carnage/and or gridlock would ensue. It would be a very bad time, indeed.

I agree with most laws. Not all, but most. And that is the cost of living in a society. I have to accept the occasional law that irks me. Nothing is 100% perfect for anyone once you have more than one person in the group. Compromise is a necessity.

So there is compromise. Most people are pretty decent folk and are happy to compromise (to an extent) to live (more or less) in harmony with his neighbours. I do it myself every day. Almost everyone does.

The government also has to compromise, too. It doesn't get to do everything it wants because of checks and balances: the Constitution and the courts. It does so not because the courts will send the Army into Congress and remove them if they don't, but because they know that there is a well armed citizenry that will not stand for suspending the Constitution and the declaration of Martial law. It simply cannot happen. The government will never be able to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law because it will be impossible to enforce. The population is simply too well armed, and the 19 year old kid in that tank turret is not going to want to fire on his own countrymen.

I'm not saying that the Citizens need their guns to use against the government, I'm saying they need them so the government doesn't try to use guns on the People.

And yes as I‘ve posted before, Oliver North drew up plans under Regan’s orders to suspend the constitution, declare martial law, round up "potential troublemakers" and warehouse them in camps, dissolve all state governments and appoint about a half dozen military officers to act as "governors." etc. REX 84. It was done in case there were mass (like the entire country) protests against the government. Look it up.

Of course it cannot happen, because the government knows that they cannot pull it off without starting a bloodbath that will kill hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million. The actual men and women ordered to do it will simply refuse.

Nice speech, really well thought out, and you made your points concise and clear.

And yet despite all that, you're still firmly in the camp of McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Jerry Kane, and others.

I don't deny that the US governent has plans on record to suspend the constitution and declare martial law. It does... it also has plans to invade Antarctica, and the ISS, and theoretical scenarios for taking over underwater habitats should they ever be built. It's called being prepared and having a contingency plan, and as ugly as it may sound apparently they thought it was needed in the 1980s. Bear in mind that was at the tail-end of the cold war when Reagan was grandstanding and we believed the Soviet Union was more competent than it was. Odds are the CIA had some sort of brief regarding the KGB engineering an uprising of some sort that necessitated the planning of REX 84, plus then there's the fact that Caspar Weinberger was a paranoid unscrupulous asshole.

And yet in terms of damage, in terms of lives lost and destruction, who has done the most damage to this nation? Why it was the "individualist rights" and "freedom from tyranny" camps of course. The Sovereign Citizen movement, Oklahoma City, hell the Civil War, all on the shoulders of people who so rabidly believed that they were being persecuted in some form or another because the government was impinging upon "their rights", whatever screwed up rights they may be. All of these people had one thing in common; that they believed that force is perfectly acceptable as a reaction to legislation that they don't agree with and have killed time and again.
It is, once again, the notion that somehow there is an "individualist rights" event horizion, and the paranoid belief that the big bad evil government is out to get you and your family because you're forced to take a step back and view the 2nd Amendment through the lens of history and the advance of technology. You're suddenly not allowed to conveniently ignore that after the Revolutionary War the colonies were essentially broke and in debt, and the best way to defend themselves were to raise citizen militias to guard against potential invasion from the British territory of Canada or hostile tribe. You don't get to simply pretend that the advance of firearms technology from the 18th century means one person has a lot more killing potential with a modern firearm than your average homesteader did with a musket. If you do either of those then suddenly the excuses of "protection from government tyrrany" when stockpiling military-pattern weapons becomes nonexistent.

So yeah, try as you might your logic is no different than the logic that was used to wage a war of treason against the United States or set a bomb that killed 168 innocent people.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

wondering if some insane insurrectionist twerps who think they have a right to do every damn thing at the expense of public safety and civility will shoot up a DMV when I'm there trying to renew my license because vehicle registration restricts the "right to travel" in the eyes of the "sovereign citizen" movement.

Oh and I gave 4 1/2 good years in the name of serving my country by keeping its shores secure, so you can question my patriotism all you like, and I won't even bother to ask for a thank you for securing your right to question my loyalty. I'm just that kinda guy

That is certainly not my meaning of sovereign citizen. it is a complete bastardization of it. Those douchetards piss me off too. Laws are necessary so we can all get along. I’m not talking about vehicle registration. I’m talking about government taking complete and absolute power over the people (and without checks and balances they will - it is Human nature).

What I mean by "sovereign citizen" (and I had no idea there was a crackppot "movement" bastardizing that term. Grrr!) is that the USA is the people, and the government is there to serve them and make sure everyone can get most of what he wants and facilitating compromise by passing productive and useful legislation allowing everyone to (more or less) get along. Legislation within the boundaries and restrictions of the constitution so the government doesn‘t go too far, and compromising by understanding that if it is a law the majority opposes, that it can't get all fascist and shove it down the people's throats anyway.

Now that I know the term has been corrupted by selfish little douchetards, I will have to come up with another one. Heinlein was right about never learning anything from a man who agreed with him.

Service? Good for you (and your country). I myself would have made a lousy soldier when I was young enough to enlist (they said so), but I know it's a tough and unforgiving job. Oh, and there's that bit about risking life and limb. That's almost as bad as sand in every damned thing you have to eat in the field.

Were you ever deployed overseas? (If that's too personal or nosy a question, this is the Interwebs - feel free to ignore it.)

McVeigh didn’t tell the government to behave itself. He just murdered a bunch of random people.

380 million silent guns in law-abiding hands reminds the government to behave itself, and if a relatively tiny fraction of those guns have to be combat weapons to make that check on power that much more effective, so be it.

[Alien Space Bats]

I don't know where you got that lowball figure of $100 b. a year. All the totals I have seen have been at least twice that, if not thrice.

It's cost us $600 billion (or so) since 2001.

For argument's sake, I'll go with that $100 b. How much is the deficit? how much is the debt? The USA cannot afford for the world to lose confidence in its ability to honour its debts. Period. Most of the rest of the world is starting to think of the USA as a lottery winner having had gone on a spending spree and is halfway bankrupt. The value of the USD is based on international perception and confidence. It has been ever since Nixon ordered the treasury to stop redeeming the USD in gold because more money was printed out to finance Vietenam and the Moon Race that the USA could guarantee in gold at $35 per ounce.

The U.S. is having financial problems because its tax rates are too low and its economy is weak. If it had an economy functioning at normal levels of employment and output, the $100 billion cost of continuing operations — which is well above the average annual cost across the entire 11+ years since the conflict started, BTW — would be easily sustainable, since we'd be looking at deficits of $200 billion or less per year, which would result in steadily decreasing debt-to-GDP ratio.

Sorry, but the evidence is simply not there that the Taliban are bleeding us dry.

There are the other costs, too. The dead. No one will argue with that. The morale of an army and a nation. While that may sound touchy-feely, and army with low morale is simple not effective. The soldiers are being worn out with long tours, and multiple long tours at that. The equipment is being worn don into the dust from overuse as well. that will cost one heck of a lot of money to replace.

The cost of this war in lives and casualties is well below what we spent per year in Vietnam. The manpower issues could be resolved in many other ways, including an expansion in forces.

A nation with low morale will experience social rot and decay.

Except we're not seeing that at home from the war, are we? Again, Vietnam was far more divisive and had a far greater impact on public morale than this war has. The public response to Vietnam was frustration. The public response to this war has been apathy.

Frankly speaking, as a nation we're more demoralized by the fact that we're entering our fifth year of war in Washington between Republicans and Democrats than we are that we're approaching the mid-point of our twelfth year in Afghanistan.

Why do you thing China has been getting uppity? Because they know they can, now. They US military has been worn down and fatigued by two nasty wars in arid dusty environments, one of them having gone on for 12 years now. That’s a total of 20 years of war between the two.

Because China's rising GDP and its modernizing military give them more regional power, and they don't know what to do with it. China would be uppity even if we weren't in Afghanistan.

And 12 years? No, it is unwinnable by both sides. 12 years and the US military at its finest could not rout them and secure the country. No outside force has ever succeeded in Afghanistan. Take a look at its history. It hasn't only been the Soviets and Americans who have tried.

All because the locals are well armed and do not want to be subjugated.

An assault weapons ban is a very bad idea.

Your argument is that we could make an aggressor have to spend a generation or more digesting some or all of our country? Surely there are more effective ways to secure our freedom!

I mean, if you're telling me that your strategy for keeping America free is one that will take decades to work and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, while leaving us battle-scarred and impoverished after the fact, my natural response would be to say that there has to be a more effective strategy than that.

I mean, Christ, why not build two hundred suitcase nukes and make it clear that if we're ever invaded, we'll smuggle them into enemy territory and blow them to fucking Kingdom Come? Or just use the worlds's biggest nuclear arsenal to draw a line in the sand and stop the tanks rolling?

[Christianasa]

Here is what I think about Banning gun laws. The best way to protect people from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and plus we have the right to keep and bear arms according to the bill of rights and the second amendment so banning gun laws would be unconstitutional. In outer words I appose banning guns, but I do believe this is a problem and I think we need to have STRICTER gun laws so it doesn't fall into the hands of a bad guy.

[Mizrad]

I hate how people say "This gun is evil" NO GUN IS EVIL! It's the person BEHIND the gun that is evil, not the weapon. I think background checks should be amped up, not gun laws.

[Atest]

I have found in my debates with advocates of so-called "gun abolition" seem to think that firearms are the only cause for gun violence. While I will not deny that current legislation enables people to commit terrible acts, and that restrictions should be strengthened (this is coming from a Libertarian), I believe there are several issues. It would be foolish to ignore the direct correlation between poverty and crime, and yet many of the same people who fight for "gun rights" also fight for a limited government.

I look at Scandinavian nations as a possible example for the United States, since it is obvious the emotional investments the U.S' population has made with firearms runs entirely too deep (as though they think they can actually defend themselves). Scandinavian nations have legalized basic weaponry, but they also have a prevalent welfare state and some of the lowest poverty rates on the planet. Is it too unreasonable to support significant weapon bans, like the prohibition of high capacity cartridges, and support a more effect welfare state?

But to deny the wide availability of firearms, often times without the need for licence (see gun show loophole), as the causation for widespread firearm violence is incredibly ignorant. Japan would be a sufficient comparison when speaking per capita, since Japan has roughly half the population of the United States. Japan's homicide rate is 0.3, multiplied by two is 0.6. In 2006, Japan had three shootings, and accommodation for population difference is six. America's homicide rate is 4.8.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

I'd like to point out that Hitler deregulated gun ownership.

I'd like to counter with the point that in Hitler's day there were no 'assault weapon' scares.

Well, Hitler did personally coin the term "assault rifle" after his bright gunsmiths invented one, and he was a pretty scary guy.

[Christianasa]

I hate how people say "This gun is evil" NO GUN IS EVIL! It's the person BEHIND the gun that is evil, not the weapon. I think background checks should be amped up, not gun laws.

I believe you are 100% right and i don't think it could have been said any better than that.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I'd like to counter with the point that in Hitler's day there were no 'assault weapon' scares.

Well, Hitler did personally coin the term "assault rifle" after his bright gunsmiths invented one.

Six years after the 1938 Weapons Act
When they actually invented it in 1943, he also hated it to fuck, until they carried on working on it for about a year and showed it working to him.

[Atest]

I hate how people say "This gun is evil" NO GUN IS EVIL! It's the person BEHIND the gun that is evil, not the weapon. I think background checks should be amped up, not gun laws.

That would be encompassed by gun laws. But background checks, or rather the lack thereof, is not the only preventive measure. A restriction on high capacity magazines is both within reason, and still nonrestrictive for both the self-defense and "hunting" excuses.

[Omnicidal Maniacs]

OK, let's talk capacity restrictions. Toss out a number, please.

[Chernoslavia]

I'd like to point out that Hitler deregulated gun ownership.

I'd like to counter with the point that in Hitler's day there were no 'assault weapon' scares.

And on top of that, hitler only deregulated gun ownership for ''aryans'', while restricting Jews the ownership of firearms.

[Chernoslavia]

I'd like to counter with the point that in Hitler's day there were no 'assault weapon' scares.

Well, Hitler did personally coin the term "assault rifle" after his bright gunsmiths invented one, and he was a pretty scary guy.

Yes, but the guns Feinstein is trying to ban are in no way assault rifles.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

OK, let's talk capacity restrictions. Toss out a number, please.

Personally, I can't come up with a good reason to not accept a capacity restriction.
All I can give is that it's unnecessary, though someone did point out the other day a style of recreational shooting. I can't recall the name, but 3-Gun comes closest.

[Northern Dominus]

How exactly am I picking and choosing which rights are more valuable than others? How exactly have I shown extreme contempt for any particular right? By suggesting that maybe the 2nd Amendment's base right to own firearms should remain intact but regulation should reflect the march of time and advance of technology?

Explain it to me like I'm five how that's some sort of contemptible breach of the constitution, because I fail to see how its incompatible in any other way other than in the mind of a nihilistic misanthrope with the mentality of a 5 year old, like all Sovereign Citizens.

I will not insult your intelligence by chatting in such a manner.

The simple fact that you label anyone who holds a more strict constitutionalists view on the 2nd Amendment, that differs from yours and you start throwing out the labels, and seem intent on turning an enumerated right into some sort of quasi-privilege, and if anyone says differently, you start screaming about how your perceived right to safety is being violated, all because you have this notion of the 2nd Amendment needs this updated regulation to reflect the march of time. Do you honestly think the framers of the Constitution were that ignorant that as time progressed that advancements in weapon technology would not have advanced as well?

I also get the feeling that you feel no one is competent to own certain weapons/features or have a fit because someone take pride in their weapon and likes to show off, is this any different than people with cars, bikes, etc. or do they have an unhealthy fetish as well? Does anyone who has a particular interest in anything and likes to show off their interests as having a fetish? So to me, and just me alone, that is how I see you as having a contempt towards another persons right to keep and bear arms.

P.S.
If you ever find your way down here, the first case of beer is on me, as my way of saying hey, thanks for putting in 4.5 yrs of service.

Ah yes, the "Constitutionalist" angle. I think the framers of the Constitution faced a situation where a new nation was heavily in debt and couldn't keep a standing large army and had both hostile troops to the north and hostile native tribes in its midst. So it did the best it could at the time: raise a civilian militia, train them accordingly, and charge them with defending their homes and territories. I also thing that these militias were eventually formed into a more formal, professioional force. Let's call it a "National Guard", just for arguments sake.

As far as the disturbing fetishist fixation on objects there is a wide gulf between pride and unhealthy fixation. And yes I have a problem with that fixation on any inanimate object with the potential to kill, either directly or through provoking an unhealthy reaction from the fixee when their object of desire is so much as looked at in a wrong fashion. I take pride in my own car, and I enjoy it. But if it turned out that Honda CR-Z batteries spontaneously exploded unless I took extra precautionary measures I wouldn't insist it's my "right" to not take those precautions because it involved extra paperwork and therefore put my neighbors at undue risk. I'd either do the paperwork or get a different car.
Similarly, yes it irritates me when somebody scratches (or keys in one case), the paint, but do I flip my lid because somebody violated the sanctity of my vehicle? No. Can't really say the same for Wayne LaPierre's mob can we?

And you can keep your beer. Know how you really want to thank me for my service? By concerning yourself with other more pressing rights, ones that are actually being quashed. Concern yourself not with firearms rights which aren't under any real threat and dedicate that energy to securing the same rights for the LGBT minority that is oppressed in a majority of the states, you know people with fewer rights than the average citizen. Or perhaps with the rights of your fellow citizens who happen to have brown skin but still are subject to stop and interrogate tactics in places like Arizona because the local governance is a bunch of racist jerkwads in the pocket of more wealthy megalomanical jerkwads, usually the same ones who inject money into the firearms debate to screw with actuall dialogue and make sure that idiots like LaPierre and Alex Jones actually have a voice where they're not needed or wanted.

OK, let's talk capacity restrictions. Toss out a number, please.

Not a restriction on number per se, but a mandatory background check for high capacity magazines. And let's call large capacity magazines as a detachable magazine capable of holding more than 30 rounds of ammunition.

Again, not a restriction on capacity, but an extra check, obstinately to leave a trail in case somebody starts buying a lot of high-capacity magazines and ammunition for no obvious reason. People can still own the high-capacity magazine, all they have to do is just wait a bit longer.

[Chernoslavia]

I hate how people say "This gun is evil" NO GUN IS EVIL! It's the person BEHIND the gun that is evil, not the weapon. I think background checks should be amped up, not gun laws.

That would be encompassed by gun laws. But background checks, or rather the lack thereof, is not the only preventive measure. A restriction on high capacity magazines is both within reason, and still nonrestrictive for both the self-defense and "hunting" excuses.

*sigh* And once again I find myself repeating the same facts over and over again...

First off, we already have background checks. Second, it only takes 2-4 seconds to reload a full magazine and much faster if it was a 10 rd magazine. I dont care how many rounds is ''appropriate'' for hunting or self-defense, you forgot that some people use guns for recreational purposes like shooting at paper targets. And the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people's rights from tyranny both foreign and domestic. During the time of the fore fathers the Brown Bess musket was like the AK47 of the time. It was found just about anywhere in the world, and it was made for the British military. Anything that the military uses should also be available to the citizens.