Since people here keep complaining about a limit of 10 rounds how about 5 rounds? It may not be perfect, but at least it is an improvement. Less death and injury can be caused by 5 rounds than 10 rounds.
Whats the difference between (1) ten round mag and (2) 5 round mags, given that it takes approx 2 seconds to reload?
OP, yes 5 round mag makes perfect sense...if your a fascist dem. The fascist dems are using death by a thousand cuts method of gun confiscation in CA and hope to extend it across America one day. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-new-state-laws-20160102-story.html
Please provide the scientific study that shows this. Also please show how this wouldn't violate both Miller and Heller. Lastly, explain how effective this would be in a country where there are already millions of magazines > 10 rounds, in a country where drugs and people flow unimpeded across our border, and in a country where 3D printing is growing. How many more federal agents would be needed to enforce it?
only chance that has is maybe in Cali, but its clear they are all crazy there to begin with. I don't think 10 is enough, so 5 would be something i'd not just be against, i'd actively oppose it.
What kind of special logic are you using that would lead you believe that those against a 10 round limit might find 5 rounds as an improvement? Tied to the jungle-gym logic? .
Nope one round at a time, load, fire, open gun, load another round and fire ... repeat. If you want a home defense weapon get a shotgun one round should deter any sane intruder. And I have no issues with various other options like pepper spray, tasers and the like.
Let's limit your excercise of free speech to 5 words a post.... tax any number of words over 5 at $1000 ea.
Do it for yourself. Don't allow any gun in your house that holds more than 5 rounds. Also, tell every single military and police force on the planet to change all of their every day carry guns to comply with your demands.
What if there is more than one intruder and they are violent psychopaths and/or are on narcotics? Such "raging bulls" kicking down your door and coming at you also have little issue with pepper spray and even tasers.
Pray tell what is this? A proposal for repercussions for those that disagree with the notion that no individual has need for more than ten rounds of ammunition at any given time? They believe ten rounds is not enough, so you propose forcing them to make due with even less because they disagree? The state of New York attempted such a proposal when they were implementing the so-called safe act. They attempted to outlaw ten round magazines, and declare that legal magazines had to be limited to seven rounds or less. They quickly found out that very few handguns actually used seven round magazines, meaning they were only made for a few specific models, thus necessitating them to change the legislation to state that a ten round magazine could only be legally loaded with seven rounds of ammunition. The second circuit court of appeals overturned this stipulation, saying that the state of New York lacked the authority to make such a declaration about magazine capacity, meaning that ten rounds is the absolute least amount of ammunition that a law abiding individual can be restricted to in a single magazine.
What exactly is a "sane" intruder? Ever use a shotgun with buckshot? Here's a huge hint. I'm not interested in "deterring" an intruder. Besides he/she is exactly supposed to know that I have a single shot scattergun exactly how? More liberal gibberish.
Considering there are millions of high capacity magazines already sold and taping together two five round magazines give you ten rounds very quickly your solution seems kinda moot to me.
this sort of nonsense shows why you can never compromise with the malignancy of the Make Criminals working conditions safer movement - - - Updated - - - what are those rights that you think should be infringed?
