*** 10-round magazine limit argument ***


PDA






husbandofaromanian
December 19, 2012, 08:30 AM
What is it with this magic number???

A Romak-3, Romanian psl clone, in 7.62x54r with a 10-round magazine is not too dangerous.

A 22lr Pistol with a 15-round magazine is too dangerous.

If you enjoyed reading about "*** 10-round magazine limit argument ***" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jon_in_wv
December 19, 2012, 08:35 AM
The ten round magazine limit is a lie on its face. The only goal of it is that once they get it, then can then show that it isn't the capacity but the ability to quickly reload it that is dangerous so they can go after the really scary semi automatic weapons with detachable mags. The idea they care whether or not high capacity magazines are dangerous, or they care about stopping crime, of making anyone safer is giving them too much credit. The only have a childish fear of guns and want to get rid of them. The magazine limits are a means to an end, thats all.

smalls
December 19, 2012, 08:37 AM
There's really no basis, to anti's it's just that; a magic number that stops people from killing.

Hacker15E
December 19, 2012, 08:41 AM
Arbitrary number that someone picked. Has no basis in anything, other than being a limitation that can be imposed.

Gregg28
December 19, 2012, 09:03 AM
I think that you are looking at this backwards. 10 round magazines, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, these all make little to no difference to the functionality/lethality of a firearm, and the politicians know that. But they have to be seen as doing something. So these bans go into place. whether they are effective in stopping the tragic deaths of innocents or not, the politicians have done their part to get re-elected.

Hacker15E
December 19, 2012, 09:32 AM
10 round magazines, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, these all make little to no difference to the functionality/lethality of a firearm, and the politicians know that.

I don't think that's true at all. I think many politicians who are calling for an AWB really have no idea about any of those details, nor care.

Need we re-post Carolyn McCarthy's "barrel shroud" video clip?

Gregaw
December 19, 2012, 10:34 AM
Need we re-post Carolyn McCarthy's "barrel shroud" video clip?

Oh Yes! Let's do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

It brings me much joy and sadness at the same time...

bikemutt
December 19, 2012, 11:13 AM
Seems to me it doesn't matter what number is chosen the question of "why 10?", "why 25?", or "why 8?" will still come up. Point being is they aren't likely to waist time arguing over "why 10?" because they know that no matter what number they choose, it will be called into question. So, like the tired parent says it's "because I say so".

Gregg28
December 19, 2012, 11:20 AM
... I think many politicians who are calling for an AWB really have no idea about any of those details, nor care...
Precisely my point. They are not really interested in the effectiveness of the regulation, but rather the perception that they are doing something.

Hollowdweller
December 19, 2012, 12:27 PM
Not meaning to be the devils advocate here, but if I was somewhere there was a shooter, and I got to choose whether he had a 50 round magazine or a 10 round one, I'd choose the 10 round one because somebody might be able to get him while he changed mags.

Also I've heard many people argue FOR big magazines so they aren't outgunned by somebody with a bigger magazine here in the gun community.

So I'm not sure that arguing about whether the 10 round limit being bandied about is arbitrary or not is really a good one.

I don't have any military knock offs. And I only have 2 guns that can hold over 10 rounds and I don't use either for home defense.

I know most people feel either an AWB or a clip limit is onerous, and I'm not convinced that either could pass congress anyway.

But if people had a choice of either would they rather see the militaristic knock offs be banned or limited, or big clips?

Neo-Luddite
December 19, 2012, 12:36 PM
The 10 round nonsense came from the lips of that fool Bill Ruger that was part of mthe deal he cut with the devil to keep the Mini off the naughty list. He's dead now, and his company now sells standard 20 and 30 rounders for the mini. But THAT is where that crap came from. The 1994 so-called ban.


Plus, we have a 'base ten' number system, and so on and so on. It's all lies and crap.

Gregaw
December 19, 2012, 12:42 PM
and I got to choose whether he had a 50 round magazine or a 10 round one, I'd choose the 10 round one because somebody might be able to get him while he changed mags.

I'd rather he be armed with nothing more dangerous than a wet noodle, but prohibitions don't work (see war on drugs and alcohol for details), and even if they did work the sacrifice of freedom, in the case of firearms, is not worth the benefit. Certain lives may be saved in some instances if prohibition was acheaved, but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.

razorback2003
December 19, 2012, 12:49 PM
It will be cut down to six because "WEll revolvers only hold six, why do semi autos need to hold more?". Then it will be three because "Well duck hunters can only use three in their shotguns?". See where this is going. So called compromising is what hurt Australian and UK shooters.

Orlin
December 19, 2012, 01:10 PM
My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what is to stop a criminal from making their ''high capacity clip" by cutting the top and bottom off two magazines and attaching them together or hammering out and indentations in a reduced capacity magazine?

Tommygunn
December 19, 2012, 01:22 PM
The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, used only 10 round magazines. He reloaded 18 times. He murdered more human beings than Adam Lanza did.
The 10 round limit is political BS.
Soon they will be after all detachable mags, then all rifles that can hold a number of rounds....

shooter_from_show-me
December 19, 2012, 01:27 PM
but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.

And the buck stops there my friend, I will NOT give up the ability to defend my family and property. Cause as my pastor has said in the past "criminals will always have their's and he being a former KCPD Swat member(battering ram/breaching) also said you can't depend on your local LEO to get there in time to apprehend or dispatch the intruder to save yours or your loved ones lives.

bikemutt
December 19, 2012, 01:31 PM
I'd rather he be armed with nothing more dangerous than a wet noodle, but prohibitions don't work (see war on drugs and alcohol for details), and even if they did work the sacrifice of freedom, in the case of firearms, is not worth the benefit. Certain lives may be saved in some instances if prohibition was acheaved, but when we give up the ability to defend ourselves we become subjects at the mercy of the governement.
This will not be sold as a prohibition to the public, it's a limit. 60 MPH comes to mind.

razorback2003
December 19, 2012, 02:21 PM
I will use what is best to protect myself. If i feel that is a 17rd handgun, that is what i will use or a 30rd AR.

beatledog7
December 19, 2012, 02:34 PM
Agreed, the number 10 is a meaningless and arbitrary swag at achieving an unachievable goal.

The anti's don't like "10" any more than we do. They'd like "zero" but are using 10 as an interim step, like slowly building a fence around the spot where you feed the wild pigs.

mavracer
December 19, 2012, 03:13 PM
This will not be sold as a prohibition to the public, it's a limit. 60 MPH comes to mind.
Fine but lowering the speed limit from 60 to 50 won't stop people that drive 90.

Saturnine
December 19, 2012, 06:58 PM
The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, used only 10 round magazines. He reloaded 18 times. He murdered more human beings than Adam Lanza did.
This is an important point to make. I think we really need to stress that "assualt weapons" aren't fundamentally much different than any other firearms. In the ten minutes in which the shooting occurred, 26 people died. That breaks down to a bit over 1 death per 30 seconds. In that setting, almost every firearm manufactured within the last 100 years would be capable of reaching that number.

Assuming the AWB passed (or hell, even that they banned all semi autos) and worked flawlessly, at best it would reduce the potential rate of fire by a few rounds per minute (I don't know what the average RoF for a semi auto is vs a bolt or lever action, but I'd be really interested to see what it really works out to). That couldn't possibly reduce the death toll of such shootings by much, maybe 1.2 deaths per 30 seconds instead of the 1.3 we saw at this last one? Assuming that's correct, their ideal solution is to reduce the death toll by .2 deaths a minute. The best they've got, in an ideal world where all their plans worked perfectly and all the evil guns magically disappeared, is to reduce the number dead by some tiny fraction. They need to be called out on that.

grahluk
December 19, 2012, 07:47 PM
It is arbitrary and ridiculous. As a law abiding NYC permit holder I am subject to this already. Both a friend and I shoot Sig P226's with 10rd reduced cap magazines. Shuttling back and forth from range point to lounge to refill magazines is disruptive to our range sessions and to other members organizing their sessions. Often we would each bring 5 magazines and load them twice for two 50 round sessions on a range visit. While sitting at the table after finished loading mags we both looked at a table of full of 10 round magazines and commented "but having just one 15 round magazine is illegal?" :banghead:

danez71
December 20, 2012, 01:22 AM
Plus, we have a 'base ten' number system, and so on and so on.

Since when did we go to the metric system?

I digress......

Bobson
December 20, 2012, 01:46 AM
I think Jon in WV hit it on the head. This time, even seemingly insignificant legislation could just be the beginning. Any concession whatsoever opens the door to the possibility that guns really are the problem.

If their first efforts don't drop crime rates, we may not be so lucky as to having them simply abandon the laws, like back in '04. They might just say, "Maybe we weren't aggressive enough with our legislation." It's not at all a far-fetched scenario, especially if massacres like this keep happening.

If Congress allows incoming legislation to focus on controlling objects, rather than people, rest assurred that this style of violence will continue.

bikemutt
December 20, 2012, 01:55 AM
Fine but lowering the speed limit from 60 to 50 won't stop people that drive 90.
Maybe so but speeders and federal firearms felons rarely share the same housing.

Twiki357
December 20, 2012, 02:07 AM
I like that barrel shroud video. Just posted it on my FB.

B1gGr33n
December 20, 2012, 02:19 PM
Would it be too much to hope for that the morons only specify 'clips' in the legislation, and neglect the mention of 'magazines'? lol

Schwatt
December 20, 2012, 03:55 PM
After seeing the 3d printer thread on another forum where a poster made a working lower for his AR, I'm wondering how easily things like Pmags could be made.

IIRC during the last ban, floorplates, followers, and springs could be purchased forever. It was the magazine body that had the restriction. So if one could make their own, you could get around just about any ban whether the body needed to be date stamped or not.

Bobson
December 20, 2012, 07:08 PM
I don't think people here are concerned that the law will be difficult to break. Rather, we shouldn't need to be concerned that continuing to exercise our rights is going to become illegal in the first place.

jon_in_wv
December 20, 2012, 08:17 PM
Precisely my point. They are not really interested in the effectiveness of the regulation, but rather the perception that they are doing something.

I disagree completely. Groups like HCI have made is public they know they can't get what they want all at once so incremental-ism is the name of the game. First you get the magazine limit, then you prove it doesn't work because you can just change magazines on dangerous semi autos, then you ban weapons with interchangeable magazines or semi-autos, then you go after pistols, then shotguns. The magazine bans are not symbolic, they are a means to an end.

bushmaster1313
December 20, 2012, 11:25 PM
Why 10?

Comrade,
10 rounds good mnemonic for rallying support when redistributing liberty from Reactionary Running dog Teaparty types.
Reminds followers of Glorious Revolution -- after 2nd Amendment Rights redistributed -- only 9 left to redistribute.

jon_in_wv
December 20, 2012, 11:35 PM
I would say its the lowest double digit number so from a public relations standpoint it
is the easiest low number to sell to the ignorant masses.

toivo
December 21, 2012, 12:07 AM
The 10 round limit is political BS.
Soon they will be after all detachable mags, then all rifles that can hold a number of rounds....
That's it right there. If you let the camel get his nose in the tent, sooner or later you end up freezing under the stars.

I've already heard people calling for a ban on all semi-auto firearms. I also heard a call for six-round limits and no detachable magazine on any and all firearms. I'm picturing semi-auto handguns that take stripper clips. The ignorance is astounding.

Davey Wavey
December 21, 2012, 01:55 AM
My apologies if this has been discussed before, but what is to stop a criminal from making their ''high capacity clip" by cutting the top and bottom off two magazines and attaching them together or hammering out and indentations in a reduced capacity magazine?

Nothing at all other than a little self discipline to follow through on a goal.

pillage
December 21, 2012, 05:43 AM
Why ten? The politicians didn't want to take their shoes off to count any higher.

ndh87
December 21, 2012, 09:30 AM
I guess Limited 10 is about to become alot more popular in IPSC

jon_in_wv
December 21, 2012, 09:54 AM
The funny thing is the 10 round magazine ban spurred the boom of smaller more concealable guns, and the resurgence of the 1911. It only decreased the popularity of pistols like the P226, Beretta 92, and other large high capacity weapons and moved manufacturers to smaller and more concealable weapons.

Do yourself a favor and go on D. Feinsten's website. You can see where she is heading and all the lies it spreads. She credits the Assault Weapons ban with reducing gun violence in the US 6.7% even though there where more weapons sold and a ton of states passed concealed carry laws during that time period. She also states Al-Qaeda promotions tell terrorists to come to the US because you can "easily buy fully automatic assault weapons without a background check" to which she credits the gunshow "loophole". We need to call her out on these lies.

Deer_Freak
December 21, 2012, 01:08 PM
It would be much easier to buy a bunch of AK 47's and stuff them in a container full of teddy bears. You know like they do in Libya and other places that have gun control laws. The only thing that stops terrorists from attacking the US mainland is we would hunt them down like the dogs.

danez71
December 21, 2012, 08:33 PM
Oh brother... here we go...

“We can get the job done,” added House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., one of the bill’s co-sponsors. In an interview Tuesday with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Pelosi predicted: “Right away we could pass ... the ban on the assault magazine."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16044004-gun-control-advocates-zero-in-on-new-tactic-banning-high-capacity-ammo-clips?lite

avs11054
December 21, 2012, 11:54 PM
Oh Yes! Let's do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

It brings me much joy and sadness at the same time...

This was the best thing I've ever seen!!!

boatmanschneider
December 22, 2012, 10:36 AM
In the Army, Infantry, live fire range, bounding assault, forest. I was a private who was handed an SAW, 5.56 belt fed machingun that accepts m16 mags asa a backup to the belt feed.

I had never fire the gun except for qualification, once. We were out of box/belts for it so they gave me 7 mags. Load, get up, run , dive, hit pop up targets while others move, reload, get up, run while others fire.........repeat.

I fired all 210 rounds in less than a minute, hitting targets and not dropping a single mag. The other SAW gunner(with a few more years of experience) didn't go through one belt(they wanted a high volume of fie for this exercise).

Even with the limited mag capacity and no experience with them, I out shot a belt fed weapon. The difference was motivation, not equipment or training.

blarby
December 22, 2012, 07:06 PM
After seeing the 3d printer thread on another forum where a poster made a working lower for his AR, I'm wondering how easily things like Pmags could be made.

If you love us all, please delete that.......


Send me a PM, so I can delete mine.

*runs to the dip tank*

janedoedad
December 23, 2012, 01:09 AM
It is arbitrary and ridiculous. As a law abiding NYC permit holder I am subject to this already. Both a friend and I shoot Sig P226's with 10rd reduced cap magazines. Shuttling back and forth from range point to lounge to refill magazines is disruptive to our range sessions and to other members organizing their sessions. Often we would each bring 5 magazines and load them twice for two 50 round sessions on a range visit. While sitting at the table after finished loading mags we both looked at a table of full of 10 round magazines and commented "but having just one 15 round magazine is illegal?"

Going OT here. Are you not permitted to reload magazines on the line?

bushmaster1313
December 23, 2012, 11:55 AM
What is it with this magic number???

A Romak-3, Romanian psl clone, in 7.62x54r with a 10-round magazine is not too dangerous.

A 22lr Pistol with a 15-round magazine is too dangerous.

Comrade:
Wrong headed Tea Party-based thinking in post shows serious counter-revolutionary thinking problem.
Report reeducation center now.

Trick
December 23, 2012, 03:56 PM
My thoughts are that we do not give the shooter any kind of news coverage mentioning his or her name except for the name COWDARD thus diminishing the feeling of going down in history by name . if perhaps one survives said assault there should be a brief trail followed by a very public execution with in a couple of hours of the trial thus eliminating the need to feed clothe or otherwise make them comfortable for any reason see the trend here if the laws that are already in place were adhered to this would not even be a discussion but instead we are debating a issue that the lazy lawmaker have created and now looking for someone to blame , no accountability for them...

Landric
December 23, 2012, 07:50 PM
Back when the original "assault weapons" ban passed in 1994 the powers that be made an offer to the NRA: Support the ban and we will exclude the AR15 from the ban list and change the magazine capacity limit to 20 rounds. The NRA didn't fold, and we got stuck with the ban for ten years.

I'm not saying the NRA should have supported the ban, they clearly made the right choice. However, that shows that 10 rounds was just a number they picked, and they would have been just as happy with 20 and an easier time getting their bill passed. A ban is a ban after all, they could always try and restrict things more later.

beeb173
December 23, 2012, 08:14 PM
i've said it before, against a mugger, ten rounds is probably fine. when you really want more than ten rounds is if you were faced with a mass shooter, ironic then that a mass shooting may bring about a limit on ammo capacity.

PRM
December 24, 2012, 01:11 PM
Nothing but stupid people talking about a subject they know nothing about.

Most shooters with a little training can do a magazine change in 1.65 - 2.0 seconds. Anybody who really thinks there is a significant difference in 2, 15 round mags VS 3, 10 round mags, probably should form-up with the kool aid line.

Just listened to a dem on FOX spewing about how they have to ban magazines that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute??? Even mentioned assault ammo??? That is the second time I've heard the assault ammo verbiage over the weekend. Another anti was ranting about how the .223 was invented only to kill people and tumbles when shot...

Why let the truth or facts get in the way of politicizing a crisis or tragedy.

Most of us get it. The anti-gun crowd looks at it this way: You take this, because of recent events...next time someone breaks the law, they take more until finally nothing is left.

Criminals and the criminally insane don't follow the laws anyway.

Cybercop
December 26, 2012, 10:38 AM
I've got no problem with a 10 round limit, as long as it applies to LE and Mil alike. The militia clause was in place to put the people on the same footing as the government. So if you change the rules it applies to everyone.

Jim

Trent
December 26, 2012, 12:46 PM
My Barrett 50 cal has a politically correct 10 round magazine.

:)

SidRon
December 26, 2012, 05:47 PM
Tommygun, the Wikipedia article says that Cho used 15 rd mags for his Glock and 10 rd mags for his Walther. I agree with what you are saying but just wanted to point that out to you.

Jaag
December 26, 2012, 06:47 PM
10 just happens to be a number that is significantly smaller than 30. Its only the beginning and everyone know that tactically speaking, magazine capacity is fairly irrelevant when the targets are unarmed defenseless people. A skilled shooter with a single shot could be very effective in that setting.
They wont be content until they take the 1 away from in front the 0

reggie_love
December 26, 2012, 08:50 PM
It's from the Ruger letters. Bill Ruger told congress "no honest man needs more than ten shots."

Either it was a smart move, as it kept them from banning guns, or it was an insidious mistake that cost us the first AWB. Depends on who you talk to.

Drail
December 26, 2012, 11:11 PM
Go to a Cowboy Action Shooting match and see how much their magazine limits slow them down.:rolleyes:

DurangoKid
December 26, 2012, 11:36 PM
They know how fast a magazine change out can be. The point is accept a law on 10 shot firearms. After the next shooting they will subtract 9 rounds from what is legal.

beeb173
December 27, 2012, 11:24 AM
I've got no problem with a 10 round limit, as long as it applies to LE and Mil alike. The militia clause was in place to put the people on the same footing as the government. So if you change the rules it applies to everyone.

Jim
excellent point. thought it should be reposted.

AlexanderA
December 27, 2012, 09:26 PM
Chris Matthews on "Hardball" tonight said that magazines should be limited to 5 rounds. I guess he doesn't realize that Garands hold 8 rounds, and Lee-Enfields 10 rounds. Heck, even Civil War-era Spencers held 7 rounds. And most revolvers are 6-shooters.

DaisyCutter
December 28, 2012, 07:00 PM
I've got no problem with a 10 round limit, as long as it applies to LE and Mil alike. The militia clause was in place to put the people on the same footing as the government. So if you change the rules it applies to everyone.

That's not going to sound as cute to you when I roll up on scene and 11 guys are gang-raping your wife.


The police aren't out to take away your guns. In fact, I don't know a single cop legitimately supporting any form of ban.

Dean1818
December 29, 2012, 09:41 AM
It will be cut down to six because "WEll revolvers only hold six, why do semi autos need to hold more?". Then it will be three because "Well duck hunters can only use three in their shotguns?". See where this is going. So called compromising is what hurt Australian and UK shooters.
You are CORRECT sir!

Zeke/PA
December 29, 2012, 09:49 AM
My Beretta Model 96, .40 S&W came wuth 4 magazines, 2 made in Italy, 2 made who knows where.
The after market mags hold 10, the Berreta mags hold 11.
Most of us here will agree, that to someone bent to do harm, mag capacity means nothing.

Soldiernurse
December 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
The 10 round mag cap limit is ridiculous & absurd! What's next, a limit on how many mags you can conceal carry?!?

Soldiernurse
December 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
LOL, my Glock, PPQ & XD came w/"hi-cap mags".

otasan56
December 29, 2012, 10:42 AM
The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho, used only 10 round magazines. He reloaded 18 times. He murdered more human beings than Adam Lanza did.
The 10 round limit is political BS.
Soon they will be after all detachable mags, then all rifles that can hold a number of rounds....
That's right. If the sheep don't shoot back or tackle the shooter while he is reloading, it won't matter if he has 10-round magazines or 30-round magazines.

sean326
December 29, 2012, 10:49 AM
That's not going to sound as cute to you when I roll up on scene and 11 guys are gang-raping your wife.


The police aren't out to take away your guns. In fact, I don't know a single cop legitimately supporting any form of ban.
I've seen many interviews with both the Philly chief and the DC chief stating that civilians don't need guns. The Philly chief is one of the advisors to Biden's working group on solutions to the mass shooting problem.

crossrhodes
December 29, 2012, 10:55 AM
Yeah the magic number of 21 stopped underage drinking too.

beeb173
December 29, 2012, 11:12 AM
DaisyCutter you're a sick individual. get help.

mods, please delete his post.

DaisyCutter
December 29, 2012, 11:37 AM
DaisyCutter you're a sick individual. get help.

mods, please delete his post.


I think someone who would prefer to see the body count of dead soldiers and police rise is the sick individual.

Suggesting we send our sons and daughters to Fallujah with 10 round magazines?


The plain fact is that the mission for a police officer is different from that of a soldier, which is different than that of a citizen.

The drug trafficker I INITIATE a traffic stop with may well have an AK47. There may be more than one with an AK47.

The insurgents in Iraq are armed to the teeth as well.


To suggest limiting the firepower of the entities sworn to protect the citizenry is absurd. These entities are EXPECTED TO CONFRONT the evil AND put an end to it.


The citizen has to option to elect not to engage, soldiers and police don't. How many load vehicles do you pull over? How many drug runners have decided to rub you, in addition to hauling a million dollars worth of dope?


I understand the citizens are upset with the ban, and I am too. I'm also a citizen. I'm in favor is having no ban. I wasn't a police officer during the last ban, and I had to deal with reduced capacity mags myself. I'm absolutely sensitive to the feelings here. If it makes people feel better to attack my profession, or if individuals get some satisfaction over the idea of unnecessary soldier and police deaths, then I am very disappionted.

I can't speak for "Back East" cops. In West, the police world is different. No cop I work with supports any ban. Work to keep it that way. Because frankly, if I contact a driver with a full-capacity magazine, and he's an upstanding citizen, I'm not going to waste my time making a criminal out of him over a bullet count.

Who's it really going to hurt when frustrated people decide to take out their anger on my contemporaries? The above poster had his time to vent. My response was an indicator that it's time adjust the direction of his frustration.

My mental health has been scrutinized far deeper than the majority of users here.

Quiet
December 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.

No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun

I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock

During the 1980s...
William Batterman Ruger (creator of Sturm, Ruger & Company) pushed for magazine capacity limits.

During 1989, he proposed and urged Congress to pass a 10 round magazine capacity limit on shotguns & centerfire rifles and a 15 round magazine capacity limit on handguns.

His proposal was then used as a model for the magazine capacity ban for the Federal AWB of 1994.
It was simplified to a 10 round magazine capacity limit for all firearms.

After passage of the Fed AWB of 1994, Brady Bill 2 was introduced. Which was the follow up legislation to the Fed AWB and it called for a 6 round magazine capacity limit. The 6 round magazine capacity limit came from the author of the bill (Dianne Feinstein), who stated that the capacity limit came from the fact that her CCW firearm (S&W .38Special revolver) only held 6 rounds, so that should be good enough for everyone else.

beeb173
December 29, 2012, 01:11 PM
so let me get this straight, we are allowed to post gang raping another members wife as a legitimate argument but a thread about dedicated tax to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill gets closed.....

Soldiernurse
December 29, 2012, 01:37 PM
If, you understand the context of DaisyCutters analogy with the fact he is a LEO, then I see nothing wrong w/his post, IMHO.

I think it's sad some civilians (aka citizens) want to have the mindset of a Soldier. Civilian CHL is to protect self, as well as those in same "immediate" vicinity. LEOs protect citizens, i.e. the general public, US Armed Forces protect foreign & domestic.

Simply cannot compare military firepower to civilian HD/SD needs. However, setting a 10rnd mag cap limit is absurd. What's the difference between x2 15rnd mags & x3 10rnd mags? LOL, Feinstein says her handgun has 6rnd mag cap, therefore should be the same for the general public. A scenario of two attackers & if she seldom goes to a Shooting Range could end up wishing she had more rounds.

mister_murphy
December 29, 2012, 02:48 PM
DaisyCutter,

The issue is, that if a mag ban or AWB comes through, it WILL restrict some law enforcement officers...Why? go talk to some small town officers where they have to supply their own pistol/rifle and see if their admin is willing to sign off to purchase a restricted item. I think you will find plenty of them that would refuse, I know of a few that did under the old AWB, and there for, if any ban comes through, its going to restrict law enforcement as well.

DaisyCutter
December 29, 2012, 05:43 PM
I'm pretty sure I could walk into Glockmeister, show my badge and commission card, and buy as many full-capacity mags as he can stock.

I'm not certain because I wasn't LEO during the Clinton Ban. I don't think I'll have a problem.

Any small town problem would be a small town problem because the town is small. A letterhead and a department shipping address would get you what you need in a week.



The issue here is to maintain the rights for EVERYONE. Turning against police and military isn't productive. A lot of police were military. All police/military are people just like everyone else, and the vast majority act selflessly for the benefit of others.

Who's bright idea is it to make 'em enemies?


Look past the uniforms. They are your neighbors.

beeb173
December 29, 2012, 06:29 PM
Daisycutter, the point of the post was that it would be absurd to limit our police and military. it was not an attack on your profession. sorry you misinterperated it.

talking about someone gang raping my wife to make your point....? c'mon. be a professional and a human.

that the mods let it go makes me question the whole premis of 'The High Road'

Soldiernurse
December 29, 2012, 06:29 PM
http://imageshack.us/a/img853/3664/photodec28093917.jpg

I went to GT Distributors (Austin, TX) a couple of weeks ago. They were out of mags w/cap > 10 rounds. The above comes straight from GT's website.

45_auto
December 29, 2012, 06:45 PM
To suggest limiting the firepower of the entities sworn to protect the citizenry is absurd. These entities are EXPECTED TO CONFRONT the evil AND put an end to it.

And what happens the other 99% of the time when the sworn entities AREN'T able to confront the evil and must wait until it actually does something?

Where were all the sworn entities when the evil came to Sandy HooK?

You believe limiting the firepower of civilians is Ok because evil attacking citizens isn't allowed to carry AR15's or AK47's?

tulsamal
December 29, 2012, 07:35 PM
The military deployed to foreign soil is a totally different argument.

But the tradition in the US (before SWAT) was that the police were armed with the same weapons available to civilians. If the police are wearing body armor and carrying automatic weapons and riding around in armored vehicles, are they still police or are they in fact military units deployed on American soil?

So yes, I think the rules that apply to the civilian world in general should apply to the weapons the police can carry.

Gregg

mister_murphy
December 29, 2012, 10:40 PM
Deleted...No sense arguing....

DaisyCutter
December 30, 2012, 11:39 AM
And what happens the other 99% of the time when the sworn entities AREN'T able to confront the evil and must wait until it actually does something?

Where were all the sworn entities when the evil came to Sandy HooK?

You believe limiting the firepower of civilians is Ok because evil attacking citizens isn't allowed to carry AR15's or AK47's?

How do you interpret my statements, quoted below?

I'm in favor of having no ban. I wasn't a police officer during the last ban, and I had to deal with reduced capacity mags myself. I'm absolutely sensitive to the feelings here.

The issue here is to maintain the rights for EVERYONE.


:banghead:

I'm smart enough to understand that one user's responses aren't indicative of the rest of the forum.

I'm going to try my best to help, and I'm still going to operate on the presumption that most people are intelligent enough to receive it.

BjornF16
December 30, 2012, 10:59 PM
From the report on Virginia Tech shooting (Cho used 15 rd G19 and 10 round P22 magazines):

‎"The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a differ- ence in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation."

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf

No surprises here (other than their honesty in evaluating the tragedy).

otasan56
December 31, 2012, 09:08 AM
I think that you are looking at this backwards. 10 round magazines, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, these all make little to no difference to the functionality/lethality of a firearm, and the politicians know that. But they have to be seen as doing something. So these bans go into place. whether they are effective in stopping the tragic deaths of innocents or not, the politicians have done their part to get re-elected.
This is a very accurate statement of the facts.

If you enjoyed reading about "*** 10-round magazine limit argument ***" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!