Would a ten round magazine limit be OK?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!

DASHZNT
 
We had a ten round limit before and there wasn't evidence that it worked. Why would we want to repeat the same mistake? From the publication by the National Academies:

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which banned the importation and manufacture of certain military-style semiautomatic “assault” weapons and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (National Institute of Justice, 1997)....
...A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes (Koper and Roth, 2001b). See the link for more info

Why repeat something that didn't do any good before?
 
I should point out that some of the most horrendous mass killings have taken place in Africa, not here.
Weapon of choice? No, not the AK, they usually used a machete.
Don't let your mind linger on that picture for too long.
 
No, I don't need 11 + round mags. I don't even "need" any semiauto weapon at all, based upon how often I actually "use" my semiauto weapons.

I don't guess I "need" 3 vehicles, or four computers, or two eyes. I guess I could live with just one eye, one computer, etc.

But the question really is do I want the govt telling me I can only have one eye, one gun, one car, etc?

Bottom line is that it's absolutely none of their business and we made a big mistake allowing it to become their business, whenever that was.
 
and we made a big mistake allowing it to become their business
Click to expand...

You got that right. Drives me nuts when I listen to supposedly pro 2A guys saying "I can see banning AR's" or "who needs a thirty round mag". You don't need to live here in NY to see where that road leads. First 10 round limit, now 7 round and Cuomo has said he wants 5. "Assault Weapons" with 2 evil attributes banned, now one evil attribute banned and I've already seen articles saying "hey, this legal .223 semi-auto rifle with a Monte Carlo stock is just as dangerous as that banned one with the pistol grip. They should both be banned".

We're not looking at the slippery slope, we're looking at a cliff. Push back!
 
From a personal standpoint a 10 round magazine doesn't bother me at all. I rarely ever shoot more than 10 rounds at a time anyhow.

But it will not stop there. If they ban higher capacity magazines next they will ban 10 rounds, then semi-autos, then handguns, etc. It is the first step in a complete ban in my opinion. I truly believe this administration would like to disarm the entire country.

Obama has already announced he is utilizing his election team to start campaigning against guns to move public opinion more to his court. I think he is just getting started and what is to come frightens me. I have yet to hear his administration state they support the second amendment and want Americans to be able to keep themselves armed. He is always very careful in his wording to try not and state what his true intentions are, his statements are very vague at best.

We live in a free country....or at least we used to. I have had friends ask me why do you need guns anyhow. I respond with I enjoy target shooting and gunsmithing as a sport and I have for the last 35 years. It is they same as someone mentioned above, why do you need 2 cars, or a hybrid, or the color of the shirt you choose to wear. Because we can.
 
Politics aside, I actually prefer 10 round mags for all my shooting. In rifles,anything longer tends to get in the way for bench and prone shooting. in handguns, it makes it easy for me to keep count of my round expended count. This helps with anticipating when mag changes are needed. For new shooters I've taught, I actually think it forces them to become better shooters rather than just blasting for blasting's sake.
Of course, I live in MA where we've had a 10 round limit since forever. Have to say it really isn't that bitter a pill to swallow IF (!!) it hekps stave off deeper attacks on the guns themselves.

Now drop us down to 7 like NY and I'll be madder than a wet bobcat! How the H@## can you compete in any shooting sport without the 10 round mag changes the rules are all built around at a national level!
 
If I am being attacked I NEED every cartridge that can be stuffed into my gun. The obverse of your question is:

"If you or your family is being attacked is there any such thing as having too many cartridges ready to use in the defense of your life?"

Makes the whole question of any limit sound ridiculous doesn't it?
 
DASHZNT said:
It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!

DASHZNT
Click to expand...

This is truly offensive. You paint all pro 2A gun owners as opportunists?! I take it you are not a 2A proponent and are butt hurt that folks are anxious about what our fickle Congress will do. Boo hoo.

Your broad sweeping rant is unworthy of this forum.
 
It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!
Click to expand...

The 8th Commandment is Thou shalt not steal. The most common definition of the word steal means to take wrongfully or without permission and without the intention of returning. To say that someone is stealing from someone else because they charge more for a good, which is purchased voluntarily, than you feel it is worth is disingenuous. No one has stolen anything from anyone in the situations you cite because both the buyer and seller must have agreed upon the price before the purchase was made.

If we use your own logic here, it could be argued that by insisting that the seller accept $5 for an item that can be found nowhere else for less than $35-75, if it can be found at all, that it is you who is attempting to steal. The people who are buying so-called "$5 magazines" for inflated prices are more than free to shop around and educate themselves as to the value of the products they purchase. After all, in the computer age such information is only a few keystrokes and clicks away. As such, if people pay more for an item than said item is worth, they have no one to blame for their foolishness but themselves.

Now, I'm not necessarily willing to pay inflated prices for guns, ammo, and accessories either, but I recognize that I have a choice in the matter and, as such, I'm not going to accuse anyone of stealing. I understand the laws of supply and demand and accept that in the current climate, I have three options: pay the inflated prices, wait for prices to come down, or simply do without. Complaining and giving lectures on the Ten Commandments isn't going to improve anything and serves only to alienate possible allies in the fight for our rights.
 
FYI
I just got done e-mailing my congressmen that I would take personal offence and hold them responsible if any more restrictions were placed on guns or ammo.
 
I would just like to drop this link to a school shooting that happened not so long ago that everyone has seemingly forgotten about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardon_High_School_shooting

I live in the area, so it jumps to mind whenever I hear about shootings. For those who don't feel like following the link, the shooter used 10 rounds of .22LR in what was the deadliest shooting from 2005 until February 2012. The weapon was either a Ruger MKIII or a .22 revolver. One of the teachers who ended up helping a victim had a bullet proof vest and a HAMMER. I bet he would have been armed if allowed. Those who want to go on a killing spree will always find a way to accomplish their goal. Magazine limits accomplish nothing.
 
Last edited:
Had one, now have 7....
Click to expand...

10 is a subjective (objective really) number that will do nothing to save lives over a higher capacity mag. As Brian pointed out above, once you allow them to start defining capacity, you have just set yourself up for that capacity to be lowered to another subjective (objective) number.

The objective of course is to disarm you and I.

So no, I do not accept a capacity limit.
 
The point is not do we need a 30 round mag. The point is we the people are not children and should not be told what we need and don't need because of a few nut-jobs.

According to the anti's we do not EVEN need guns. They will tell us what we need and should have. All the while Feinstein is able to get her concealed carry permit in California and most other people can not. Trump is able to get his VERY rare NYC Carry Permit.

Why is obuma's Secret Service not limited to 10 round mags in their full auto weapons? Because his life is more valueable than your's or your familie's lives? I am sure he thinks so but I disagree.

For those who have enough money to spend $20,000 plus $200 for the stamp will they be limited to 10 rounds to their Thompsons?

Personally I think anyone who is OK with being TOLD a 10 round mag is enough should be limited to only a single shot weapon or maybe a bow and arrow.
 
Personaly as long as they don't limit magazines to under 4500 I won't screem too loudly, sorry for those of you that own GE 134's, I could be persuaded to raise the limits to 6000. Seriously is there any rational reason to put a legal limit of any size? Just trying to understand the thinking.
 
Skeeter, good point and you are right. Anyone with money to burn can get anything they want. These laws would only be of consequence to those of us that are not among the top 1%. I think most Senators and Congressmen fail into that top 1%.
 
If the manufacturers are smart or savvy, they are churning out all of the high cap mags that they can before the ban comes.

10 rounds is fine for me, but this is NOT the cure for this issue. Notice that all of the these mass murderers were on anti-depressants and realize that maybe just giving people pills does not solve their issues. If Obama were the genius he is supposed to be, he'd make this a health-care/Obamacare issue and actually try to solve it. So, the mag-cap is smoke and mirrors, imo so I'll fight it.
 
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?
Click to expand...

I don't care about slowing down a mass murderer to 7 rounds or 10 rounds or 5 rounds between reloads. I want him stopped. Forget the mag restrictions and let me carry wherever I go.

As a preventative measure for mass murders and the everyday murder that kill thousands every year- If someone really is crazy, ridiculously crazy, like several of the recent whackos, put him in a facility under supervision. If someone is a violent felon, put him behind bars. Don't let these people run rampant with the hope that we can legislate less effective weapons, or legislate fewer weapons among them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top