Quick question on gun confiscation.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a ridiculous argument.

-What- is a ridiculous argument?  I'm arguing that politicians waste their capital on ineffective legislation.

Do you disagree -with that-? 

That people might reject common sense or even ideologically aligned regulation can only strengthen my point on not wasting whatever political capital a person has.  

Look at national healthcare in other countries then compare that to the political meltdown we had over an overly conservative implementation by the conservative side.

We can extrapolate from that that the assumption you made above is trivial to dismiss.

.......?

Furthermore, carrying an extra gun is heavier than carrying what you need to reload. So in the cases where the criminal actually thought that through, they're capped by usually one or two more.

Heavier...heavier....?  Guns are rated in ounces now, they;re light as shit.  The wight of a gun never seems to dissuade shooters who carry multiple guns.  

The Virginia Tech massacre hinged upon extra large magazines and two handguns. Fucker was eager enough to kill but lazy enough to not carry a lot of ammo - taping extra would've been easily accomplished.

Taping mags together provides "extra large magazines" regardless of individual magazine size...that's kind of my point.  

The Sandy Hook shooter, like VTech, obsessed for months over killing those kids. He used the weapons his mother purchased for him to enact his attack. Again, no such innovation in carrying additional magazines.

There was no need...but if legislation creates such a need the solution is already within anyone's reach and well known.  Hence, legislation to that effect..is ineffective.

Let's consider an alternative.  If the political capital for vtech or sandy hook was spent strengthening laws and penalties for those who make straw purchases...as that shooters mother did, wouldn't that be more effective at stopping shootings which happen as a consequence of straw purchases?  Would that be a better expenditure -of- political capital...particular in comparison to a law which -tape- defeats, in your opinion?  I'm not criticising, directly, the value of mag size laws in and of themselves, but of the seeming lack of prioritization that the people who advocate for them consistently fall prey to.  Ban high cap mags, go ahead.  I understand that...but...maybe, do that after you do things which might have or at least be capable of having an effect.

Let me play devils advocate for a moment, and pretend to be a person who objects to regulation on firearms.  If you propose sweeping legislation, which contains a mag size provision...I;m going to try my hardest to block it, but also to -give- you mag size regs because I already know that they have no effect of anything, and this allows me to look like I've compromised..it allows me to paint -you- as an absolutist who won;t be satisfied with anything but the full seizure of my guns...and it also allows me to suggest, to you, that you can take this meaningless victory back to your base in order to save face - they don't know it's meaningless.  I know, full well, that if you win any victory, however empty, you'll have simultaneously emptied your anti-gun tank.  

In my opinion a better use of political capital is to paint the gun nutters into the corner that mag size regs have allowed them to paint anti-gun nutters into.  To, for example..remind people that straw purchases -are a felony-...and that any straw purchasers will and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  If momma buys the gun for her boy...she will be tried as a felon in connection to the shooting her son carries out as is already allowed under current and uncontroversial federal -and- state regulations.  Force the gun nutters argue against -that-...rather than a law made pointless by tape.