Just say no to a magazine capacity "compromise"

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by CrazedJava, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. CrazedJava

    CrazedJava New Member

    848
    0
    0
    I've seen some comments on other websites and some people I know that think limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds would be a good "compromise".

    This is a terrible compromise. It is in effect a stealth AWB. While most of the legislation around "Assault Weapons" attacks cosmetic features, magazine capacity actually affect function even if it does not affect lethality.

    Go check out www.assaultweapon.info if you have not already. The whole purpose is for gun grabbers to get their foot in the door. No more compromises. If you have not already communicated to your representatives, make it clear that any such compromise is unacceptable.
     
  2. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,368
    164
    63
    It's by design. Once they can "limit" the amount of rounds a magazine can have. They will publicly pat themselves on the back and claim "our streets are safer". Then after the next school shooting, they will claim they need more laws against gun owners, until the shooting public is declawed.
     

  3. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    223
    63
    No compromises on basic civil rights.
     
  4. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,358
    26
    48
    Scenario:
    Your kid is out in the woods with your dog.
    A pack of coyotes comes around.
    Do you think 10 rounds in your AR are enough to protect your little one?
     
  5. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Compromise on NOTHING. Each time we give in without a fight it simply encourages the antis to press for more.