Anything without a grandfather clause is confiscation, pure and simple.
No, technically it isn't, although the result is the same in the long run. But for those pushing this plan it's a distinction they will make, since confiscation is a loaded term.
Speculating, but those counting on court intervention to support 2a are delusional.
We need to fight any new limitations on magazine capacity with cold, hard facts.
Okay.
The coldest hardest fact is that smaller mags do in fact reduce the firepower one person can deploy. No getting around it, it's true, that's why large mags exist. Reduced firepower is what anti's are looking for, as the another increment in control, under the guise of 'common sense' restriction.
Arguing that smaller mags won't prevent mass shootings, or even change their outcome, while also true, sounds to most people like a weak excuse for Rambowannabees to have them, instead of a compelling argument.
Another hard cold fact we should face is that larger mags really make no difference for the good guys (as well as the bad guys), police/war excepted. Anti's know this and are selling it. They also know that a large cap ban won't help, which they neglect to mention.
And when the mag bans don't reduce murders, as they cannot, anti's plan to move on to the next thing. Goodbye semi-autos.
Final hard cold fact is that people are sick these mass murders, and heartsick about Newtown. We all are. They are ready to do something, and reducing firepower makes 'common sense' to them.
This will be a hard fight to win. Knucle draggers like I saw on CNN, and too many of the other 'gun people' I see, don't help.
