Would a ten round magazine limit be OK? - Page 3

Webleymkv · January 20, 2013, 06:17 PM

Quote:

It is for the idiots ripping people off with a $5 GI Magazine for $35-$75. It needs to be said... the only thing that most 2nd A defenders care about is to protect their opportunity to steal.

Funny how defending the 2nd A is more important than obeying the 8th Commandment!

The 8th Commandment is Thou shalt not steal. The most common definition of the word steal means to take wrongfully or without permission and without the intention of returning. To say that someone is stealing from someone else because they charge more for a good, which is purchased voluntarily, than you feel it is worth is disingenuous. No one has stolen anything from anyone in the situations you cite because both the buyer and seller must have agreed upon the price before the purchase was made.

If we use your own logic here, it could be argued that by insisting that the seller accept $5 for an item that can be found nowhere else for less than $35-75, if it can be found at all, that it is you who is attempting to steal. The people who are buying so-called "$5 magazines" for inflated prices are more than free to shop around and educate themselves as to the value of the products they purchase. After all, in the computer age such information is only a few keystrokes and clicks away. As such, if people pay more for an item than said item is worth, they have no one to blame for their foolishness but themselves.

Now, I'm not necessarily willing to pay inflated prices for guns, ammo, and accessories either, but I recognize that I have a choice in the matter and, as such, I'm not going to accuse anyone of stealing. I understand the laws of supply and demand and accept that in the current climate, I have three options: pay the inflated prices, wait for prices to come down, or simply do without. Complaining and giving lectures on the Ten Commandments isn't going to improve anything and serves only to alienate possible allies in the fight for our rights.

wet · January 20, 2013, 08:45 PM

FYI
I just got done e-mailing my congressmen that I would take personal offence and hold them responsible if any more restrictions were placed on guns or ammo.

P1090 · January 20, 2013, 09:36 PM

I would just like to drop this link to a school shooting that happened not so long ago that everyone has seemingly forgotten about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardon...chool_shooting

I live in the area, so it jumps to mind whenever I hear about shootings. For those who don't feel like following the link, the shooter used 10 rounds of .22LR in what was the deadliest shooting from 2005 until February 2012. The weapon was either a Ruger MKIII or a .22 revolver. One of the teachers who ended up helping a victim had a bullet proof vest and a HAMMER. I bet he would have been armed if allowed. Those who want to go on a killing spree will always find a way to accomplish their goal. Magazine limits accomplish nothing.

Kreyzhorse · January 20, 2013, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Had one, now have 7....

10 is a subjective (objective really) number that will do nothing to save lives over a higher capacity mag. As Brian pointed out above, once you allow them to start defining capacity, you have just set yourself up for that capacity to be lowered to another subjective (objective) number.

The objective of course is to disarm you and I.

So no, I do not accept a capacity limit.

skeeter · January 21, 2013, 12:07 AM

The point is not do we need a 30 round mag. The point is we the people are not children and should not be told what we need and don't need because of a few nut-jobs.

According to the anti's we do not EVEN need guns. They will tell us what we need and should have. All the while Feinstein is able to get her concealed carry permit in California and most other people can not. Trump is able to get his VERY rare NYC Carry Permit.

Why is obuma's Secret Service not limited to 10 round mags in their full auto weapons? Because his life is more valueable than your's or your familie's lives? I am sure he thinks so but I disagree.

For those who have enough money to spend $20,000 plus $200 for the stamp will they be limited to 10 rounds to their Thompsons?

Personally I think anyone who is OK with being TOLD a 10 round mag is enough should be limited to only a single shot weapon or maybe a bow and arrow.

wet · January 21, 2013, 12:39 AM

Personaly as long as they don't limit magazines to under 4500 I won't screem too loudly, sorry for those of you that own GE 134's, I could be persuaded to raise the limits to 6000. Seriously is there any rational reason to put a legal limit of any size? Just trying to understand the thinking.

dlb435 · January 21, 2013, 12:54 AM

Skeeter, good point and you are right. Anyone with money to burn can get anything they want. These laws would only be of consequence to those of us that are not among the top 1%. I think most Senators and Congressmen fail into that top 1%.

Creek Henry · January 21, 2013, 01:23 AM

If the manufacturers are smart or savvy, they are churning out all of the high cap mags that they can before the ban comes.

10 rounds is fine for me, but this is NOT the cure for this issue. Notice that all of the these mass murderers were on anti-depressants and realize that maybe just giving people pills does not solve their issues. If Obama were the genius he is supposed to be, he'd make this a health-care/Obamacare issue and actually try to solve it. So, the mag-cap is smoke and mirrors, imo so I'll fight it.

wayneinFL · January 21, 2013, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Just a thought here....what if all new mags were no longer "drop free"?
You could still get a hi-cap mag but when you pushed the mag release it would not just fall out. You would have to use two hands to hold the release and pull the mag out. This would slow a mass stooter way down but would still let me use hi-cap mags. Any thoughts?

I don't care about slowing down a mass murderer to 7 rounds or 10 rounds or 5 rounds between reloads. I want him stopped. Forget the mag restrictions and let me carry wherever I go.

As a preventative measure for mass murders and the everyday murder that kill thousands every year- If someone really is crazy, ridiculously crazy, like several of the recent whackos, put him in a facility under supervision. If someone is a violent felon, put him behind bars. Don't let these people run rampant with the hope that we can legislate less effective weapons, or legislate fewer weapons among them.

stevelyn · January 21, 2013, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Would a ten round magazine limit be OK?

NO!!!! Never again!

**Bud Helms** · January 21, 2013, 05:39 AM

It appears the choir is singing this tune in two different places in this forum.

We will close this one. Let's take further comments to the thread on this topic that started two days before this one: One reason why we need more than 10 rounds...

January 20, 2013, 09:36 PM	#53
P1090 Member Join Date: July 10, 2012 Location: NE Ohio/NE Georgia Posts: 43	I would just like to drop this link to a school shooting that happened not so long ago that everyone has seemingly forgotten about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardon...chool_shooting I live in the area, so it jumps to mind whenever I hear about shootings. For those who don't feel like following the link, the shooter used 10 rounds of .22LR in what was the deadliest shooting from 2005 until February 2012. The weapon was either a Ruger MKIII or a .22 revolver. One of the teachers who ended up helping a victim had a bullet proof vest and a HAMMER. I bet he would have been armed if allowed. Those who want to go on a killing spree will always find a way to accomplish their goal. Magazine limits accomplish nothing. __________________ Handgun stopping power is a myth. If you want stopping power, use a Buick. Last edited by P1090; January 20, 2013 at 09:44 PM.

January 21, 2013, 05:39 AM	#61
Bud Helms Staff Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia Posts: 12,912	It appears the choir is singing this tune in two different places in this forum. We will close this one. Let's take further comments to the thread on this topic that started two days before this one: One reason why we need more than 10 rounds... __________________ "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995

January 20, 2013, 08:45 PM	#52
wet Member Join Date: October 2, 2011 Location: ID. Posts: 66	FYI I just got done e-mailing my congressmen that I would take personal offence and hold them responsible if any more restrictions were placed on guns or ammo.

January 21, 2013, 12:07 AM	#55
skeeter Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 1999 Posts: 858	The point is not do we need a 30 round mag. The point is we the people are not children and should not be told what we need and don't need because of a few nut-jobs. According to the anti's we do not EVEN need guns. They will tell us what we need and should have. All the while Feinstein is able to get her concealed carry permit in California and most other people can not. Trump is able to get his VERY rare NYC Carry Permit. Why is obuma's Secret Service not limited to 10 round mags in their full auto weapons? Because his life is more valueable than your's or your familie's lives? I am sure he thinks so but I disagree. For those who have enough money to spend $20,000 plus $200 for the stamp will they be limited to 10 rounds to their Thompsons? Personally I think anyone who is OK with being TOLD a 10 round mag is enough should be limited to only a single shot weapon or maybe a bow and arrow.

January 21, 2013, 12:39 AM	#56
wet Member Join Date: October 2, 2011 Location: ID. Posts: 66	Personaly as long as they don't limit magazines to under 4500 I won't screem too loudly, sorry for those of you that own GE 134's, I could be persuaded to raise the limits to 6000. Seriously is there any rational reason to put a legal limit of any size? Just trying to understand the thinking.

January 21, 2013, 12:54 AM	#57
dlb435 Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2009 Posts: 654	Skeeter, good point and you are right. Anyone with money to burn can get anything they want. These laws would only be of consequence to those of us that are not among the top 1%. I think most Senators and Congressmen fail into that top 1%.

January 21, 2013, 01:23 AM	#58
Creek Henry Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2009 Location: Dallas Posts: 244	If the manufacturers are smart or savvy, they are churning out all of the high cap mags that they can before the ban comes. 10 rounds is fine for me, but this is NOT the cure for this issue. Notice that all of the these mass murderers were on anti-depressants and realize that maybe just giving people pills does not solve their issues. If Obama were the genius he is supposed to be, he'd make this a health-care/Obamacare issue and actually try to solve it. So, the mag-cap is smoke and mirrors, imo so I'll fight it.