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

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.

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

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.

Go to a Cowboy Action Shooting match and see how much their magazine limits slow them down.

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.

Cybercop said:

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

Click to expand...

excellent point. thought it should be reposted.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

razorback2003 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are CORRECT sir!

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.

The 10 round mag cap limit is ridiculous & absurd! What's next, a limit on how many mags you can conceal carry?!?

LOL, my Glock, PPQ & XD came w/"hi-cap mags".

Tommygunn said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

DaisyCutter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Magic number

Yeah the magic number of 21 stopped underage drinking too.

DaisyCutter you're a sick individual. get help.

mods, please delete his post.

DaisyCutter you're a sick individual. get help.

mods, please delete his post.

Click to expand...

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.

William B. Ruger said:

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.

Click to expand...

William B. Ruger said:

No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun

Click to expand...

William B. Ruger said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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'

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.

daisycutter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?