As a gun owner and a former member of the NRA I have arrived at the opinion that there should be

[Atypical Liberal]

27. How do you propose taking them out if circulation?

First of all, firearms are only useful as long as they contain ammunition. Thus it is logical that the more ammunition a firearm holds the more useful it is. This is why military and law enforcement carry "high capacity" magazines allowing 15, 20, or even 30 rounds of ammunition in their firearms as a matter of course.

Civilians own firearms for the same reason that the police and military do - to protect themselves. If "high capacity" magazines make firearms more effective for the police and military to be able to protect themselves, why should civilians not also have this same option?

If your reasoning is that 95% of firearm owners should not have access to such things because 5% or less of firearm owners break the law with them, I'm not going to support that.

Remember that the second amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is about killing people who threaten the security of free states.

But even if we decided today to outlaw all magazines with a capacity greater than 5 rounds (which would make many firearms over 100 years old illegal), how would you propose taking them out of circulation?

There are millions of 1911s and similar handguns out there. The AR15 is the most popular center-fire rifle in America. The Ruger 10/22, which has been produced since 1964 has always shipped with a 10-round magazine. My great-grandfather's Colt Woodsman, made in 1927, holds 10 rounds.

The venerable 1911 holds 7 rounds, only 2 more than you suggest as a limit. Is there any doubt that a person with a dozen magazines could not wreak the same kind of havok? Remember, Cho was armed with 10 and 15-round magazines and killed 32 people.

Another argument the gun proponents give is well if everyone had a gun someone could have taken him out is bogus. Colorado has about the most lax gun laws in the USA, where were all those CCW holders at the other night? I bet hiding under the seats or knocking people down trying to get to the exit door.

Yet as is almost always the case, in the end the shooting stopped when people with guns showed up to stop the shooter.

Carrying a concealed weapon is no guarantee of being able to prevail when faced with violence. You might be surprised. You might be incapacitated. You might not be able to get off a clear shot. Having choices does not mean that every choice is the right choice, but it is usually better than having no choices.

It's possible that no one could have stopped Holmes' shooting rampage. But given how he gave up so easily to the police, it's also possible that he might have given up to anyone who could stand up to him.