Ever see a mag capacity ban supported by facts?

FlSwampRat · Dec 13, 2019

748 said:
They didn't need a reason to pass the 1934 national firearms act.
Machine guns were banned "because criminals used them" but what they failed to mention is that most if not all of the machine guns used were stolen from the US military and law enforcement, not bought in a legal transaction.
Silencers were banned because someone might poach to feed their family, that's literally the justification, so really they need no justification. Oh no can't have people feeding their families.
They tried to get handguns on the NFA too but that didn't fly.

It's of historical interest that by 1934 Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone, Machine Gun Kelly and other notorious gangsters were dead or in prison.

stchman · Dec 13, 2019

Absolutely not, the 10 round capacity was chosen arbitrarily.

rem700nut · Dec 14, 2019

its just a round number to use ,to start with .Then they will lower it more like New York state making only 7 rounds legal ,I think the courts made them put that on the back burner ,but iam sure it will come back

Warp · Dec 17, 2019

buck460XVR said:
Those of us that want to retain the use of high capacity mags, have to come up with legitimate arguments. We can't fall prey to the same emotions we accuse the antis of having. As I said, I see nothing effective coming out of any magazine ban.

But, we don't.

The burden is always, always, on those who wish to use force against others. The burden is always, always, on those who wish to restrict what other people can and cannot do or can and cannot own or possess.

Tommygunn · Dec 17, 2019

FlSwampRat said:
It's of historical interest that by 1934 Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone, Machine Gun Kelly and other notorious gangsters were dead or in prison.

The events in recent history of the day motivated the passage of the NFA. Gangster shootings in Chicago seemed to be at the epicenter of the drive for passage of the law, many using a particularly infamous weapon similar to the evil device pictured in my avatar. :evil:

That many gangsters were dead or imprisoned isnt really germaine, or surprising.

buck460XVR · Dec 17, 2019

Warp said:
But, we don't.

The burden is always, always, on those who wish to use force against others. The burden is always, always, on those who wish to restrict what other people can and cannot do or can and cannot own or possess.

Then I wonder why the NRA spends so much money and time lobbying for our 2nd A rights?

rodinal220 · Dec 17, 2019

Never and you can't. Its an Infringement period. The whole purpose is to disarm you and then enslave you.

Navy_Guns · Dec 21, 2019

It's of no conciliation to law abiding people that a ban is eventually overturned in the courts if you've been forced to give up your property (and liberty) in the meantime. It's not as if they'll put your magazines, or the guns that don't have "low capacity" magazines made for them into storage pending litigation. You have to either sell them, move them, or forfeit them - or ignore the law and risk prosecution. It means the law abiding person is the one punished.

Ever see a mag capacity ban supported by facts?

FlSwampRat

Member

stchman

Member

rem700nut

Member

Warp

Member

Tommygunn

Member

buck460XVR

Member

rodinal220

Member

Navy_Guns

Member

Similar threads