The limitation of ten rounds per magazine is in no way a compromise, because there is quite literally no authority from which the supporters of these limitations have to argue. The supreme court has stated twice already that the second amendment pertains to matters of defense, not hunting, thus meaning the entire paradigm of the argument has shifted against those who support firearm restrictions. They are no longer able to argue that one does not need a certain configuration for the purpose of hunting. Just as they are no longer able to argue that a person does not need eleven or more rounds of ammunition in a magazine. The news media has covered and reported on incidents where violent individuals have been shot more than ten times, and yet have failed to die immediately. That alone is reason why these proposed restrictions on magazine capacity are not supported. Once again, how exactly was it determined that not one single private individual in the united states, could ever possibly have a legitimate need or use for eleven or more rounds of ammunition? What was the exact methodology used in determining such? How is the amount not something chosen arbitrarily? What was the sound science that was used, that would prove the restriction was neither arbitrary nor capricious, in a manner that the supreme court would reject outright? This is a question that is going to continue being asked until someone can provide a legitimate answer, demonstrating that the amount was not selected in anything resembling an arbitrary manner, and that there was indeed a valid, scientific method involved.
So should all speed limits on public roads be abolished because there may have been one person in US history who needed to drive one mph faster than the posted speed limit?
If an individual has a legitimate need to exceed the speed limit, motor vehicles have that ability built into them. All motor vehicles are capable of going at least twice what the legal speed limit may be for a given location. Magazines, however, do not have the ability to hold an amount of ammunition that exceeds what they are designed to hold. If a person is in need of more than ten rounds, then they are out of luck. Beyond such, matters such as speed limits, and blood alcohol levels when operating a motor vehicle, are in relation to the safe use of a motor vehicle. It can actually be demonstrate that such are legitimate in nature to restrict reckless behavior that puts others at risk. However there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that demonstrates the legal use of a firearm is reckless and puts others at risk when the number of rounds in a magazine is greater than ten. There is quite literally no correlation between magazine capacity, and whether the operation of a firearm is safe or unsafe, that conclusively proves that limitations on magazine capacity are of a legitimate nature.
We understand that is the will of the left to eventually get it down to one round. That way they can say it does not infringe on 2A rights. This is exactly why 2A supporters won't budge on any gun control efforts.
I once entered a fight with exactly 500 rnds.... I used them all. I would have preferred many times that number... perhaps more lives would have been saved....
You have obviously never had to defend your life or those of your family or friends. Life looks good from an armchair.
You made an assumption. I was not a member of any military; I was 13 yrs at the time. Translate my user name for a clue and use it to Google along with the date August 1969 and we will see if you make another assumption. By the way, it can happen here and is why the FF considered the 2A important...
It's not about bravery. It's about multiplying force. Any honest cop will tell you that they are bad shots in a high stress situation. Their hit percentage is only 20%. So 20 x 53 equals "pretty sure someone will hit him." Not only that but having 53 cops at your door really makes you rethink your life chioces.
Do you have evidence that a ten round magazine limit would work? What would you do with all the 30 round magazines floating around?
I need more than 10 because real gunfights and combat are not as neat and clean as TV. See the 1986 Fla FBI shoot out.
You fail to realize that AR Rifles are not limited to 5.56 / .223, and are available in a huge variety of calibers, any round can be modified as to FPS, frangible bullets, etc, the AR Rifle is most user friendly and versatile and easy to modify, very inexpensive, and has the most parts available. It is hard to understand how anyone could mistake an AR Rifle as not being suitable for Defensive purposes or Hunting, Target and all other legitimate reasons.
and I am guessing if you and the NRA would object if you all were restricted to 7 30 round magazines as well.
Your explanations are not legitimate. The unwillingness to compromise is why your side is increasingly getting steam rolled in legislatures and courts. Enjoy the cold dark.
I didn't explain anything. I asked a question of you regarding your proposition. What would be the point of limiting any American to 7 30 round magazines?
Indeed. The AR15 is likely the most versatile firearm platform in the world, suitable every legal purpose someone might have for a gun. The exception might be hunting waterfowl. - - - Updated - - - Never mind it is impossible to compromise with people who want to limit your rights and have nothing equal to offer in return.
The basic platform is adaptable to a huge number of configurations for various use categories which is one reason it is as popular as it is. At one point I had several rifles, each for a different game category, from varmits to elk. With an Ar lower, merely swapping the upper and magazine allows me, at less cost, to meet the needs of most of my former collection.
Actually, we've been winning pretty handily since about 1994. Unless you live in a few states (CA, CT, NY, and MD primarily), gun rights (not gun control) have increased. There are fewer federal restrictions today than there were in 1994 (and our crime rates are lower). The majority of states have 'Shall issue' concealed carry permits, meaning that if you meet the requirements, you have to be issued a permit, without having to have a specific reason to have one. Many more states have constitutional carry (meaning that you can carry concealed without a permit). The SCOTUS cases of Heller and McDonald affirmed an individual right to own a firearm, that is applicable to the states. We aren't getting steam rolled in most of the country.
