GOP, Dems closer to compromise on Magazine Limits


PDA






sharpshooter74
February 19, 2013, 01:37 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lawmakers-magazine-clip-limits/2013/02/18/id/490874


It's getting closer guys on a Federal magazine ban on high capacity mags. If you don't have your 30 round AR, AK, and Mini 14 mags go out and get them fast. That goes for high cap handgun mags as well. Anything over 10 rounders will be worth it's weigh in gold.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOP, Dems closer to compromise on Magazine Limits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
r1derbike
February 19, 2013, 01:40 PM
No compromise.

bds
February 19, 2013, 01:54 PM
Reduction in magazine capacity will only decrease the law abiding citizens' ability to defend their lives at home from multiple intruders/attackers.

It just may take a lone woman who gets raped/killed because she ran out of bullets after 10 rounds when there were multiple intruders in her home ...

I say ... Just say no.

06
February 19, 2013, 01:58 PM
No compromise--not one inch (round). One compromises when weak---there are enough gun owners in America to vote them all out and call for a referendum on issues. Getting time we stood together against this crap.

Cosmoline
February 19, 2013, 01:59 PM
This is one to really pound your reps on. A lot of them are just out of touch with how prevalent "high cap" magazines are, and how enormous the impact would be felt. Many if not most CCW pieces these days run with high caps.

razorback2003
February 19, 2013, 02:01 PM
No compromise. Put pressure on the House for no compromise for this garbage. If i want my gun to hold 30 rounds, what is it t someone else?

Big_John1961
February 19, 2013, 02:03 PM
"Evidence suggests that a ban on magazine size would indeed reduce the number of those killed in mass shootings, largely because of the difficulty in changing clips, particularly among amateur gun users."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lawmakers-magazine-clip-limits/2013/02/18/id/490874

Evidence? What evidence? Do liberals even bother with facts anymore? Nothing cited, just opinion passed off as fact. Christ.

Big_John1961
February 19, 2013, 02:06 PM
When this all started coming down, I told myself that at least some Republicans would roll over on this issue and sure enough here we go. The party is a disaster right now and I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a Republican. What a joke.

akv3g4n
February 19, 2013, 02:18 PM
Looks like this article is only focusing on the Senators from both sides of the aisle that would be in favor of this type of legislation. Even if they could get it through the Senate, I still think that we could stop it in the House with the Republican majority.

jamesbeat
February 19, 2013, 02:25 PM
"Evidence suggests that a ban on magazine size would indeed reduce the number of those killed in mass shootings, largely because of the difficulty in changing clips, particularly among amateur gun users."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lawmakers-magazine-clip-limits/2013/02/18/id/490874

Evidence? What evidence? Do liberals even bother with facts anymore? Nothing cited, just opinion passed off as fact. Christ.
ALL of the antis arguments are opinions made while ignoring the facts.
There is plenty of evidence that shows more guns=less crime and vice versa.
It may seem counter intuitive to them, but the evidence is there- they just choose to ignore it.

22-rimfire
February 19, 2013, 02:26 PM
I also would suggest you buy a few magazines if you are so inclined.

fastbolt
February 19, 2013, 02:29 PM
It wouldn't surprise me to see some sort of national legislation eventually enacted which reduced magazine & feeding device capacity to 10, 15 or 20 rounds (since the 30-rd magazines seem to be attracting the most attention).

However, I'd also expect that more individual states might consider implementing their own restrictions, as has already been done (and is being considered) by several states.

Of course, a patch-work of 50 state laws will probably complicate manufacturing, importation, shipment and sales of a variable definition of "hi-cap" mags. From NY's newest 7-rd restriction, to existing 10 & 15-rd restrictions, to whatever else comes down the pike at the state level.

Everybody has facts ... and everybody has opinions.

Let's see what happens at both the federal and individual state level in the next 2-3 years.

I don't have a crystal ball, myself.

Steel Horse Rider
February 19, 2013, 02:30 PM
The drum magazine used by the Aurora theater shooter caused his gun to jam. REAL large capacity magazines save lives.........

JFrame
February 19, 2013, 02:37 PM
However, I'd also expect that more individual states might consider implementing their own restrictions, as has already been done (and is being considered) by several states.

And we may see a corresponding number of states nullifying, within their borders, any and all federal anti-gun legislation that might happen to come down.

I just hope it doesn't have to come to that, and any movement toward anti-gun legislation gets soundly defeated.


.

JRH6856
February 19, 2013, 02:50 PM
An AR-15 mag holds 30 rounds of 5.56 but it only holds 10 rounds of .458 SOCOM. Just roll mark all AR mags to say"

"Cal. .458 SOCOM
Capacity 10 Rounds"

shafter
February 19, 2013, 02:51 PM
I wouldn't count on the house majority to stop anything anymore. They may be the majority but when it comes down to crunch time the dems have their way with them. The house has NO leadership right now.

AlexanderA
February 19, 2013, 02:58 PM
There is no room for a deal on magazine capacity. Consider that standard magazine capacity for an AR-15 is 30 rounds, and that a standard belt for a Browning machine gun is 250 rounds. As long as the weapons are legal, so too should be their standard feeding devices.

As far as the advice to buy your magazines now while you still can, that presupposes that existing magazines will be grandfathered. If Feinstein had her way, there would be no grandfathering. Any new ban would probably not be similar to the 1994-2004 ban, because the antigunners keep saying that they "learned their lesson."

JayBird
February 19, 2013, 02:58 PM
Oh please.

This 'article' is based of some bull article by the NY Times. Big Headlines with no real bite in the story.

They quote like 1 dem and 1 independent.

This is the news trying to push their agenda to seem 'reasonable'. Dont be fooled.

Keep writing your congressman.

shafter
February 19, 2013, 03:01 PM
I wouldn't count on the house majority to stop anything anymore. They may be the majority but when it comes down to crunch time the dems have their way with them. The house has NO leadership right now.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 19, 2013, 03:12 PM
The article is a straight out reprint of a NYT article with an inflammatory headline to get eyeballs. Not only is there no evidence offered to support the article; but several prominent Democrats quoted actually refused to commit to a magazine ban.

Captains1911
February 19, 2013, 03:48 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lawmakers-magazine-clip-limits/2013/02/18/id/490874


It's getting closer guys on a Federal magazine ban on high capacity mags. If you don't have your 30 round AR, AK, and Mini 14 mags go out and get them fast. That goes for high cap handgun mags as well. Anything over 10 rounders will be worth it's weigh in gold.

Here's an idea....stop attempting to inject more panic into the market.

NosaMSirhC
February 19, 2013, 07:28 PM
A Magazine Ban may make it out of the Senate but I don't think it will pass the House. I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. This is the first rumblings I've seen about any movement on a magazine ban for a few weeks...

Be Safe!

NosaM

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

MachIVshooter
February 19, 2013, 07:36 PM
Nothing cited, just opinion passed off as fact.

That's what they teach in journalism school these days, apparently. Conjecture billed as fact is fine, so long as you're not a dissenter.

MachIVshooter
February 19, 2013, 07:44 PM
Called my senators. Again. Useless, no doubt, but done nonetheless.

InkEd
February 19, 2013, 07:48 PM
We should refuse to accept any limits on our 2A rights stone what has already passed.

firedawg60
February 19, 2013, 08:46 PM
When this all started coming down, I told myself that at least some Republicans would roll over on this issue and sure enough here we go. The party is a disaster right now and I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a Republican. What a joke.
While I mostly agree with your statement, this biased article names no R that is compromising. It only states "an increasing number of lawmakers in both parties." What does that mean, maybe one R between both the house and senate said he might consider it if the earth starts spinning on the other direction? We need to be careful to not fall for the biased agendas like the sheeple do.

hso
February 19, 2013, 09:10 PM
Spend the money you'd banic spend on magazines properly - donate to the SAF and the ILA to fight this instead of "gotta get mine while the get'n is good".

Big_John1961
February 20, 2013, 01:25 AM
Oh please.

This 'article' is based of some bull article by the NY Times. Big Headlines with no real bite in the story.

They quote like 1 dem and 1 independent.

This is the news trying to push their agenda to seem 'reasonable'. Dont be fooled.

Keep writing your congressman.
It's not members here that I worry about being fooled, it's the average uninformed voter that still views the NY Times as a legitimate source of news. They will eat this stuff up.

If you enjoyed reading about "GOP, Dems closer to compromise on Magazine Limits" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!