Would a ten round magazine limit be OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dlb435

New member
Would a ten round limit really bother you?
First, we can assume that all hi-cap mags that are already on the market will stay there. Your local FFL dealer may not be able to buy or sell them but private sale would go on.
Second, depending on how the law is writen, you may or may not be allowed to use them at the range or on private property.
Third, no new guns would have more than ten rounds.
Be honest here. Do you really need a thirty round mag? Would you feal that your rights were being impinged? If this measure only save a few lives per year, would it be worth it?

I'll kick this off.
No, I don't really need a thirty round mag, but I sure like them. It's a lot of fun to rip off thirty rounds at the range. Big "grin" factor here.
Yes I would. I would be giving up something I like to prevent only a handful of nut jobs from getting the same thing.
Again, yes. I like hi-cap mags, I would feal a certain loss if I could not get them but I would be willing to give this up if it ment only a few extra people a year lived.

Durring the last ban I was still able to get hi-cap mags but they cost a lot more. Even with the ban in place, it never caused me any loss.
 
Not really the point.
Once they take the 30s, the same argument will be used to ban the 20s, then the 10s, and then, who needs more than one round? Common sense gun control? Whose common sense?
 
No, I do not "need" "high capacity" magazines, nor do I need a rifle that mimics the controls or aesthetics of the military' M16/M4 or Russian' Kalashnikov series of rifles.

For me, it's not a matter of what I "Need" it's a principle. The amount of time it would take me to swap out a magazine for another would be a second if done casually, perhaps half a second or less if I was really motivated to do so.

In the end, the capacity of the magazine for the chosen firearm becomes a moot point because if you have multiple magazines, it won't make a damn difference in the end, as was the case with the Virginia Tech massacre.

As Cuomo has shown, once we settle and give way that 10 rounds is okay, and another mass shooting occurs with those 10 round assault "pistol/rifles" they'll push it lower, in the case of NY' new law, it's 7.

The anti gun party will continue to nickle and dime us until they reach their ultimate goal of an outright ban.

Not to be rude, but I suggest you abandon this "If it saves just one life" thought process, it's only detrimental to our fight to keep the 2A in the end. There is no compromising with the anti', all their laws and regulations will only affect the law abiding, 30+ magazines will still be accessible to the criminals and other nut jobs that really want them. So punishing those of us who obey the law is asinine at best.
 
Would a ten round magazine limit be OK?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would a ten round limit really bother you?
Click to expand...
No -...

Yes - it would bother me - quite a bit actually - despite the fact that it wouldn't impact me beyond the CZ75b(15 round) and Hi Power (13 round) very small number (2) of guns I own that would be affected.


There's a problem in this country.
No - there's several problems in this country.

Something is at the root of these outbreaks of violenece.

I want that something addressed.

I'm sick and tired of all this useless crap being pulled and the amount of time, effort and money thrown at stupid useless half brained knee jerk measures.
 
Need is a relative term. One round is fine if just need to scare a small animal, but if I'm face with a considerable treat then 10 may not be adequate. Be careful that you don't assign ideal circumstances when determining fire power or required round count.
 
Had one, now have 7 :rolleyes:

No, it's not ok.

The reason is always the same... It only effects law-abiding citizens.

The question is always the same, how will the proposed law/regulation effect those who are intending to commit crimes?

Criminals don't care about limits and bans.
 
No, I would not be OK with any restrictions on magazine capacity. For one thing, there is no reason that I should have to justify owning something when doing so does not hurt or infringe upon the rights of anyone else. The anti's keep bantering about how no one "needs" an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine/clip" but I think being drawn into that argument is distracting from the real point. The burden of proof when proposing a ban on something lies on the would-be banner and, as such, the question is not why should I be able to own a >10 round magazine, but rather why shouldn't I.

More importantly though, I know full well that a 10 round magazine limit will not be the end of it. Gun control is and has always been a game of incrementalism. If we had a hypothetical 10 round limit, what would the anti's do when another school shooting happens and the perp uses 10 round mags? Do you think that they'll actually admit that their legislation didn't work? Oh no, they'll simply do the same thing they've done every other time a piece of gun control legislation didn't work: moan that they were stopped from doing enough by the evil "gun lobby" and push for more. No more proof of this is necessary than what Cuomo just did in New York. NY has had a 10 round limit for many years now, but that wasn't enough for the anti's so now they've dropped down to a 7 round limit. What's next? 5 rounds? 3 rounds? Single-Shots? The anti's appetite for gun banning is insatiable and, as I see it, better to keep them fighting over >10 round mags than something even more important.
 
Just a thought here....what if all new mags were no longer "drop free"?
You could still get a hi-cap mag but when you pushed the mag release it would not just fall out. You would have to use two hands to hold the release and pull the mag out. This would slow a mass stooter way down but would still let me use hi-cap mags. Any thoughts?
 
It has already been pointed out and proven that 10 rounds is not enough. Ask the lady in GA the other day if 6 was enough? It was not and she had a 90% hit rate with those six!

A 15 round magazine against 2 bad guys still only gives you a 73% chance of taking them down.
 
The "point" for some of us is that our government is becomming more and more intrusive into our daily lives and every time the populous gives in another small part of our free rights is taken away. 30 rounds, then 20, then 10 then none. They are already telling us how large our soft drinks can be, how much salt one can have on their food, how we can protect our families.
Sure we should eat better, exercise and take better care of ourselves, it's only logical, but do you want someone thousands of miles away making these decisions for you and your family? Once the government rock starts rolling down the hill what is going to stop it? I think many are rationalizing that "things aren't really so bad". We give a little and the liberals give a little. The problem is that the liberals take little by little and do not compromise at all. What have they done for you lately except run the country further into debt and take more rights away. No I do not "need" a 30 round magazine at this point but it is MY decision what I own and as a law abiding citizen will make those decisions in the future. Not someone else.
 
Yes restrictions on guns and magazine capacity would be a violation of my rights as a citizen. I would give up neither. If LEOs require AR style rifles and high capacity magazines to protect themselves then that is what I should have. I remember when all LEOs had was a .38 Special revolver with 6 shots but as threats increased so did the weapons they carried. The lady in Georgia was lucky protecting herself and children with her .38 caliber revolver but what if there were 2 criminals? There is no compromise on Constitutional rights as Ben Franklin said "They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
(1) Fifteen rounds is not a high capacity for my Beretta 92FS - it is standard capacity.

(2) The choice between ten rounds and thirty rounds is a false dichotomy. There are 19 choices in between.
 
Mag capacity is not an issue in anyones mind outside of those that fear weapons and the indepedence that an armedcitzenry represents.
 
I wonder if it would it bother the op if the government started to incrementally limit free speech or freedom of religion.
 
Yesterday's 10-round limit becomes today's New York 7-round limit, which becomes tomorrow's 5-round limit, which ...

There's a bill in the Connecticut legislature to ban everything other than single shot firearms. Period.

If they get that, next they'll prohibit everything but muzzleloaders.

Capacity limits are not the problem. Don't think for even a nanosecond you will ever placate the anti-gun forces by "compromising." What do WE get out of any such compromise? If both sides don't gain something and both sides don't lose something, it's NOT a compromise.

Read this. Scroll past the several short Q&A at the top to the "Okay, I'll play" part about compromise: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

Besides, GUNS aren't even the problem. All this rush to ban everything is being justified by the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But within two weeks after Sandy Hook, before the end of December, there were at least two teen-agers arrested in different states for plots against their schools -- using bombs. The worst school massacre in U.S. history was Bath Township, MI, in 1927. The killer use dynamite. The two killers at Columbine used guns only after their bombs failed to detonate.

Don't be fooled. Regardless of how they try to package, this isn't about making your kids safer at school, this is about taking away your guns. I have yet to see any of these talking heads offering any suggestions for how to make schools safer against other threats, such as bombs and motor vehicles.

And just last week, in Philadelphia, a woman wearing Muslim face covering walked right into a public school without showing any identification and walked out with a 4- or 5-year old child. The child was subsequently found alive. What the [bleep] kind of "security" allows a stranger to walk out of a public school with someone else's child? How would a 10-round magazine capacity limit help in this situation?

Don't let them control the discussion. If the problem is school safety, why are we ONLY talking about "gun violence"? Why aren't we talking about "school security"?
 
Last edited:
call them what they are-Reduced capacity

standards are just that, standard..
either accepted by use of the public, manufacturers, issuance in LE and military.

pistols standard capacity mags don't extend conspiciously below the grip.
whether they have 5 rounds or 30..could be anything from a browning vest pocket to a kel tec pmr 30.

LE and military standard is 20-30 depending on platform, why should we have less?

mag capacity does not adress the problem of evil, and evil does not obey laws.
To arbitrarily restrict mag capacitys to 7,10 or whatever feel good number only infringes on the RIGHTS of the law abiding,and to call them high capacity is deception. call them what they are.. reduced capacity.

but we already know that here.

And yes, it bothers me, as there is no need to infringe my protected rights due to actions of a madman. (or insert whatever issue of the day)
 
Last edited:
I was limited to 10 round magazines. Now if I put more than 7 rounds in them I am the criminal.
If I am being completely honest I would say that there were some gun laws proposed in the past that would not bother me that much, but several posters have hit the nail on the head: Anti-gunners cannot be compromised with, every compromise we make as gun owners is just a stepping stone to a complete ban.
If there was ever a guarantee they would go no further, they would probably be surprised at what they could get. But they have proven time and time again that they will always want more. If it was not for my family I would leave this state as soon as I retired, and it makes me sad that I should have to move to maintain a basic right that I should have as an American.
 
The idea is to completely ban the ownership of firearms. the British did it one step at a time, over a period of years. It is against the law to defend yourself with a firearm in England. In 1999, a farmer, Tony Martin used an unregistered shotgun to shoot two burglars that broke into his house. He wounded one and killed the other. His house had been broken into many times and the police did nothing to stop the problem. He was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison. "we don't need people to take the law into their own hands" was the reply from the police.
The right to defend ones self is seen as vigilantism in England. The Brits were ordered to turn in all their handguns and given 3 months to do so. after that the police were sent out to collect the handguns from those that did not comply. The police bragged that they collecter over 200,000 guns from the people.
This is what they will try to do here. One step at a time, and soon we will be like the sheep in England.:mad:
 
Any magazine/ammo limit bother me. If law enforcement uses full capacity, then we should be able to as well. We as Citizens, cops, military, whoever,,,are subject to all the same threats of violence in society, criminals, potential terror attacks on our soil, and so on!!!

If you do not subscribe to this, then I believe you live in DENIAL and FEAR. Denial and Fear are our worst enemies!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top