My answer? - Ask this question to the people living on the border at high-level crossing points in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
A ban on extended magazines is not at all reasonable at all, for several reasons:
1) The right to self-defense is a fundamental human right, and as such is codified under our Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment specifies a tactical capability - i.e. the citizenry is armed for military purposes. The way it reads, we should actually be armed & trained just like the citizenry in Switzerland, and Israel.
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
2) High-capacity magazines do not determine a firearm's lethality - marksmanship does. Ask anybody who has served in Africa; the safest place to be when they're shooting at you is right in the middle of the street. African soldiers are notorious for closing their eyes when they pull the trigger and they simply do not aim their shots - and AK-47s have 30-round magazines! Lincoln, on the other hand, was killed with a single-shot derringer. Oswald shot Kennedy with an Italian M91 Carcano rifle, which has a six-round magazine. Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy with a .22 caliber Iver-Johnson Cadet eight-round revolver.
Carcano 91-24 Carbine
3) Weapons bans achieve nothing. The UK has total gun control, and yet for three decades a full-scale guerrilla conflict raged within the borders of the British Isles - combat which featured military assault rifles, belt-fed automatic weapons, even mortars and rockets.
Northern Ireland, UK, circa 1969-1997
Another island nation, Japan, has full arms control - it's illegal to possess even swords; unless you're a member of the Yakuza, that is. During my time in Okinawa a gang war raged, which was okay as long as it was merely 'kuzas killing 'kuzas. Then one day a little girl got caught in the cross-fire and the local government stepped in to put a damper on things.
4) Partial weapons bans symbolically target 'cosmetic' portions of weaponry - magazine capacities, bayonet lugs, pistol grips - yet they actually serve a more sinister purpose; as stepping stones toward total gun control, as exists in places like Illinois, New York, Washington DC and Massachusetts. Gun control laws in these places constrain law-abiding citizens while the criminals continue to arm themselves with anything and everything available.
5) When and if the day ever comes where you have to defend yourself and your family - Heaven forbid - you will want the highest capacity magazines available. It is not High Noon; in a situation, the trained marksman seeks cover and puts as many rounds downrange as possible.
My personal weapon of choice in a fight to the death? I'd start with a late 60s-era muscle car - the automobile has killed more people than any single weapon known to man AND it serves a dual purpose as a convenient form of transportation to distance yourself from the threat. Short of that option, I personally prefer the Remington 870 12-gauge pump shotgun. Absolutely devastating at the close ranges of your typical home defense situations; the five-round tube magazine is enough to provide a merciless hail of ball and/or slug (I modified my 870 to carry seven rounds because I belong to the more-is-better school of thought).
Remington 870 12-gauge pump shotgun
Of course it's not practical to tote a shotgun around town - although it IS legal to keep one in the car, in every state in the Union. My regular carry piece is the venerable M1911 - with the standard 7-round magazine - I make up for lack of magazine capacity by toting extra mags. I know, I know - this contradicts item 5) above; I carry the .45 for two reasons: A) I'm a member of a Cult, and B) because they don't make a 46.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
SEAN LINNANE SENDS