For what it is worth, my take is that when the neutral person gets two presentations for the AR:
1. Sporting gun
2. Weapons of War
- they will go with #2. They certainly if buying into sport, will go for the mag ban.
Again I do not disagree in general terms. I have had success sorting this out on a one to one basis with people that are on the fence or only provisionally in the anti camp. The ones firmly in the anti camp, that I have talked with, have no tolerance for reason, logic, or differing points of view. Many of the people that know me are probably tiered of my relentless talking on the whole gun control subject, but I am not giving up anytime soon.
I have a harder time with the magazine capacity issue. I do not currently have any of the long guns under scrutiny and not many hand guns with high capacity magazines. But I am doing my best to advocate for all gun owners not just the guns I own. When asked about the need for the magazines I am at a bit of a loss. I can not think of many reasons I need one that do not sound like I want to be prepared for an armed insurrection, I try not to scare the receptive people in the middle or give ammunition(pun intended) to the anti crowd. But I also can not think of any reason I should not have them.
If someone could help me clarify my arguments on the magazine issue I would be grateful.
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.
No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.