Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't believe civilians do, no. (0+ / 0-)

    There are many more civilians than police. So you're only talking about one-person vigilantism against an oppressive armed horde of ::insert badguys here::.

    I don't think it's a violation of the 2nd amendment, on the individual right to keep and bear arms, to not be able to shoot 20 people before changing the magazine.

    Cho had lots of guns and planned his attack so he could trap people.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:06:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Cho had two pistols, and seventeen magazines. (0+ / 0-)

      And there's no indication that he planned anything other than acquiring weapons.  He went after targets of opportunity after his first victim.

      I'm still not following you on the ratio.

      Magazine limits may not be a violation of the Second Amendment.  That issue needs to be addressed by the courts.  But I'll say if the courts do find that the state has to tread carefully before impinging on a citizen's capacity to defend himself, then magazine limits--at least as you envision them--may truly be suspect.  A ban on 100 round drums may survive under any circumstances, though I would still consider their banning an immaterial and spiteful act unrelated to security and safety.

      Also, if you're not taking fire--as is too often the case with these monsters--what does it matter if you have to change magazines?  Seung Hui Cho did.  In any case, within a few years the issue of magazines will be moot.  Anyone who wants one will be able to DIY.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site