10rd Magazines, Law of the Land.

[SexualChocolate]

A 10rd limit will turn into a 5rd limit, which will turn into a 1rd limit, which will turn into semi-autos being useless and then banned. If we let them keep taking our guns an accessory or feature at a time, we will end up with single shot .22s, which will lead to no guns at all.

There are way too many "gun owners" on this board that don't seem to understand this fact.

And I could not agree with you more.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

This may have been brought up already, it's a long thread.

When discussing whether or not a mag limit of (some arbitrary number) should be agreed upon by gun enthusiasts to show willingness to compromise it should be considered that in most states of the union a full auto only requires the writing of a check to be legally owned and used.

I can agree that a 100 round mag on a semi-auto doesn't seem to be remotely useful or even fun compared to most smaller alternatives, but if I just spent my future child's college tuition on a legal select fire rifle I know I sure as hell would want the option of buying a beta mag.

There's still that pesky "shall not be infringed" bit.

[wjc]

20 round mags.

I needs my precioussss....

[blazeaglory]

Folks,



How would you feel if 10 round magazines became the rule? For everyone in the US, good thing? Bad thing?. I enjoy my AR15 NM/A2 rifles with 10rd magazines. Is the "standard capacity magazine" protected by the 2A ?. The shooting has cause me to pause and think, does anyone really need a 100rd Beta C magazine?.
I understand the reasons that people might offer to say they "need" them. I wholly and absolutely DO NOT want the AR/AK platforms to be banned, removed or otherwise taken away from the Citizens, but does anyone need that kind of firepower for recreational, or sport shooting?. All replies are welcome, I can dish it, I can take, flame suit is on. A2

Good thing considering I know a friend of a friend who has an entire cache of 30 rndrs buried somewhere secret

[SilverTauron]

Wow. I read all 6 pages and the only conclusion I can come to is that there seems to be two strict groups. You can either be in the "that seems reasonable as long as we get something in return" camp, or you can be in the "forget that, over my dead body, I'll fight to the death, anybody that believes anything different than me in any way should be shot for treason!"

The simple fact is this, you cannot look at it as if this is a black and white issue. I'm sure I'll get flaming responses about how the 2A is black and white, etc., but the truth of today is nothing is fair. Nothing works the way it should, the constitution is severely twisted in every way possible, and none of this downward spiral has been reversed. I'd love to sit here and yell about the absolute nature of the 2nd amendment and how it clearly means we can own whatever we want, but I can't do it. I'm being a realist. Being on the extreme end is not going to help our cause either way.

This is a polarizing issue within the community, and understandably so. A previous post mentioned to an excellent point, that we have never received any kind of compromise in our 2A restrictions. It's all about "take, take, take". This is absolutely unreasonable, I completely agree. That said, I don't feel as though eliminating an existing restraint on our rights in trade for another restriction is a yes or no proposition either. This is another one of those "it depends" arguments. If the proposition was to limit magazines to standard capacity, i.e. 30 rounds, in trade for 100% shall issue and reciprocity, I personally would back that. Why? Because it's a step in the right direction, and it beats the hell out of playing the absolute card and losing another increment. I look at this question from a strategic standpoint, and a 50% win is better than a 100% loss, with each round played diligently and strategically.

This is my personal opinion, of course. I do not feel the need to convince others to feel the same way I do, and I certainly don't feel the need to divide our community even further by resorting to calling fellow gun owners "liberal anti-gunners" simply because my view differs from theirs.

The reality of the situation we face is that we, those who cherish the right to keep and bear arms have NO CHOICE but to be radical to the hilt, as that is the nature of our opposition.

The anti-gun side is not interested in negotiation.

The only acceptable magazine load to our opposition is ZERO. The thought of compromise doesn't exist to them-and indeed, they don't have to negotiate. All they must do do is dance in the blood of the victims and get the right people in office on their side.

For our part, we must watch the polls and ensure we match their furor with our own. The Brady's of the nation won't stop even if every gun in civil hands were destroyed, and as such we must not stop fighting for our rights, not even when we win the day against the illegal status quo in CA and other places.

Note carefully that in a glorious future where national CCW exists and the NFA statutes are of value only to historians we cannot afford to step back and cease being vigilant. Even in Vermont , a state which literally follows the "shall not be infringed" statement, the state Democrats have tried time and again to get the ball rolling on gun control. Each time the VT citizenry makes their wishes explicitly clear.

[Shapes And Colors]

The reality of the situation we face is that we, those who cherish the right to keep and bear arms have NO CHOICE but to be radical to the hilt, as that is the nature of our opposition.

The anti-gun side is not interested in negotiation.

The only acceptable magazine load to our opposition is ZERO. The thought of compromise doesn't exist to them-and indeed, they don't have to negotiate. All they must do do is dance in the blood of the victims and get the right people in office on their side.

For our part, we must watch the polls and ensure we match their furor with our own. The Brady's of the nation won't stop even if every gun in civil hands were destroyed, and as such we must not stop fighting for our rights, not even when we win the day against the illegal status quo in CA and other places.

Note carefully that in a glorious future where national CCW exists and the NFA statutes are of value only to historians we cannot afford to step back and cease being vigilant. Even in Vermont , a state which literally follows the "shall not be infringed" statement, the state Democrats have tried time and again to get the ball rolling on gun control. Each time the VT citizenry makes their wishes explicitly clear.

That's why my scenario was hypothetical. If that scenario were to be presented, that is how I would feel. I realize it's not all that likely. The key to my hypothetical is the current political system in which our absolute unwillingness to negotiate anything is used against us. It paints us as steadfast fanatics, we appear less logical than their "sensible control", and as a result, people follow them. They play on emotions, the most primal part of people, we hold our piece of paper. An emotion is relatable, a paper is not. Is this current movement in society an abomination? Absolutely, but it is what it is. I'm aware that my hypothetical isn't realistically possible, it was just a thought.

Vermont is a great example of the meaning behind my point on a state basis. They have been extremely pro gun for a very long time, and as a result, the citizens know it is supposed to be that way. Trying to get the ball rolling is much harder than keeping it rolling, so of course they get shut down every time they introduce control measures. However, California's ball has been rolling at an alarming rate for years now, and we as 2A supporters have to convince a vast majority of the state and the representatives that they need to undo everything they already did. Vermont has a pro gun society uninterested in change, California has an anti-gun society uninterested in change. We've even had restrictions imposed on us that were, at least in part, drafted by the NRA themselves.

[supersonic]

In my earlier post, I kinda went off the deep end (gotta keep working on those knee-jerk reactions, dammit!), and I tend to get a bit too harsh at times. Let me say that several posts following mine were saying the same thing, but with more restraint and eloquence. To the OP: sorry if you felt I was being a bit harsh. Like I stated above, "I'm a'workin' on it. Promise."

[USM0083]

I say show them what it feels like and spearhead a movement to ban all cars that can go over 70mph..they dont need a car like that...its too dangerous and cars kill people

Every American shall be issued a Chevy Volt. Your only color option shall be blue.

[Falstaff]

I don't "need" 550 horsepower in my roadster but it sure is fun. I could be irresponsible and accelerate recklessly and endanger others; perhaps we should ban Ford racing's crate motor line up or mandate restrictor plates...

This "people don't need" meme is flooding the media lately, what I'm hearing here is word for word the same talking point coming outta Michael Savage and oreilly- is it that simple? You hear a couple sell outs like that and you let them sway you?

[M.A.B]

yes more laws for the law abiding gun purchaser, that will show the phycos and criminals

[supersonic]

I don't "need" 550 horsepower in my roadster but it sure is fun. I could be irresponsible and accelerate recklessly and endanger others; perhaps we should ban Ford racing's crate motor line up or mandate restrictor plates...

This "people don't need" meme is flooding the media lately, what I'm hearing here is word for word the same talking point coming outta Michael Savage and oreilly- is it that simple? You hear a couple sell outs like that and you let them sway you?

Well, according to this guy (because I made a very similar statement in another thread) you are looked at as a "nut" by the average public with that attitude:

See, you switched to "gun nut" mode. This is how the non-gun people will hear you out.