Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that saying this is heretical and I will quickly add that I am fully aware that restricting magazines to 10 rounds is totally arbitrary and thus meaningless... but when was the first time much less the last time that you needed more than 10 rounds for self-defense?
Let the burning at the stake begin.
I have many 30 round magazines that I sincerely hope I never have a need for.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,407,894 times
Reputation: 2394
I have a Taurus PT840 with two 15 round mags. That is fine for a shooting range, but I much prefer my Taurus .357 revolver that only holds 6 rounds. If you are handy with those quick reloads (for revolvers), you are good to go. I don't think holding mags to a 10 round limit serves any purpose other than to keep law-abiding citizens from being able to compete against a government if it has gone bad. Never trust a government that doesn't want it's people to have a way to defend itself against it if it goes rogue.
I know that saying this is heretical and I will quickly add that I am fully aware that restricting magazines to 10 rounds is totally arbitrary and thus meaningless... but when was the first time much less the last time that you needed more than 10 rounds for self-defense?
Let the burning at the stake begin.
When I put 18 rounds in my Marlin model 60 and did some plinking.
I wont live in a state that limits my firearms i can have. I believe if the goverment can have it or use it, us normal people shoud be allowed to have and use it too.
But back on topic: All this is going to do is to rapidly skyrocket the price of large-capacity mags, as people will stockpile. Just like they did with certain bullets.
And this proves people live for the now, and many really don't prepare like they should. Glock magazines went from about $15-$20, then to over $100 during the ban, then as the expiration of the first ban got closer and closer, prices dropped like a rock. Then after expiration, our local police supply store was selling them for $17.00 each, public gun stores were around $20-$25/each. As soon as it was clear that people thought Obama was the second coming and would likely win, most gun stores jumped prices to the $25-$30 range. The police supply store went up to $23 each.
There really is no excuse for folks not have purchased two or three mags for common pistols if they could find them back at more reasonable prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
....but when was the first time much less the last time that you needed more than 10 rounds for self-defense?
Most law-abiding citizens won't ever need one round for self-defense, but that doesn't mean we should limit them to only being able to own one handgun. The term "high capacity" is only around because people look at revolvers as the standard. Why I don't know, but there is this rational thought process that six rounds was standard for a revolver, and for some reason, ten rounds are rational for the more advanced technology known as semi-auto pistols. The fact is that these magazines aren't "high capacity." They are standard capacity. If the grip of the gun allows for a magazine to hold 12-18 rounds, there is no rational reason that such a technological jump somehow causes mass blood shed and needs to be restricted.
There are plenty of gang banger shootouts where guns are emptied. Ask those folks, they will likely tell you they embraced each and every single round available to them.
If it is life and death, most will want every advantage that they can reasonable have. I'm not a big fan of those really long stick mags that stick out of the bottom of a handgun grip. For handguns, I like magazines to be as flush as possible with the bottom of the grip. I believe I have the right to load up as much as I can given the physics of the gun.
Another problem that has recently started is this issue of mob violence. Lots of thugs/punks gathering into large groups in various cities and then assaulting people. In these cases, you may need to make it so you have the fewest reloads needed.
I know that saying this is heretical and I will quickly add that I am fully aware that restricting magazines to 10 rounds is totally arbitrary and thus meaningless... but when was the first time much less the last time that you needed more than 10 rounds for self-defense?
Let the burning at the stake begin.
when does the police or military need more than 10 rounds too? after all, the revolver (6 rounds) worked just fine for so many years for the cops, and the M1 Garand worked so weel for the military as well, it only held 8 rounds.
so if there is no need for the civilian populace to have more than a 10 round magazine, then I see even a less need for the cops and military to have more than a 10 round magazine as well.
Im sure a baseball bat has been used as a weapon, should we ban baseball???? gun restrictions are completley useless and waste of time, all you do is restrict law aibiding citizens...
Election year subjects are usually firearms and abortion. Both protected by amendments but not from fools.
You can add gay marriage or stem cells or whatever issue will inflame the religious people into those "standard election year issues" as well. The name of that game is to distract people from the issues that are actually important- rampant corruption in the government, out of control spending and the resultant enormous debt, and the continued erosion of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights by an ever-growing government. Those are the things that the politicians don't want you to think about, so they spew FUD about killing babies and such to get people off track. The bad thing is that it usually works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
No, actually this is not "election year" posturing. This bill has been under discussion singe the Tuscon muders/Giffords shooting. However, it was very slow to gain co-sponsors until last year. Doubtful yes but still worth keeping an eye upon.
I'll go one more and guess that this bill has been under discussion since the 1994 Bill Clinton "scary looking firearm accessory ban" looked like it would not be renewed in 2004. There is NO WAY that the anti-Second-amendment types would not have at least some legislation sitting in a drawer somewhere to pull out to ram through quickly in case of a widespread Democrat victory. Frankly I am a little surprised they didn't get anything like this rammed through in '09 when they had the super-majority, but I guess they had bigger fish to fry with Obamacare and such.
But, I do think that you are partially right. There needs to be some "crisis" to ram Constitution-shredding legislature through. The original National Firearms Act that was the first widespread firearms restrictions was rammed through because of a nasty gang fight with Thompson submachine guns (St. Valentine's Day Massacre.) Australians lost their ability to use most repeating weapons because of a single killer on a shooting spree in the '90s. The Giffords shooting is a good "crisis" to provide the extra push to get this bill we're discussing rammed through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming
It's not about need; it's about rights.
If I never need any gun I still have an absolute right to own and carry a gun of any sort I choose. Should a person be required to demonstrate need to own a gun, a big house, a powerful car, or a lot of money? Those who would deny us the right to guns of our choosing would deny us the right to any guns and to all of the rest of our freedoms and possessions.
There are certainly people that think you should need to have permission to own a large house or a vehicle with mediocre fuel economy. They are called "environmentalists" and hold huge sway in the current administration.
Quote:
Read the squealing of government sycophants and leftists. They want us to be slaves in every aspect of our lives. The gun is the ultimate tool of freedom; it's no wonder that they hate guns more than anything else.
They hate firearms, but they REALLY hate the widespread dissemination of opposing ideas, especially through talk radio and the Internet. Witness all of the stuff about "the fairness doctrine" that essentially would knock talk radio off the air. The idea that you are no longer free has to get into your head before you are willing to defend your freedom using force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
