Senate Democrats Introduce Legislation to Ban High-Capacity Magazines

[Old_Me]

They've reached the bottom of their grab bag of tricks. Next thing they'll want to do is tax shipments of tea.

NOBODY better touch my Red Rose tea......

 

[Old_Me]

Rinse and repeat with a new HR number and year

My question is who are “they” that came up with the number 10 as being acceptable rounds and anything else is a high cap????

I mean if a Glock 19 mag sits flush and holds 15 all here probably agree that’s a “standard” magazine!!!

my "best guess" is that "they" feel better knowing that with only 10 rounds, only "up to" 10 people will be injured or killed, rather than 100's..???

 

[ECS686]

my "best guess" is that "they" feel better knowing that with only 10 rounds, only "up to" 10 people will be injured or killed, rather than 100's..???

As we all know that’s faulty thoery and conjecture….you can reload 10 round mags quite fast too!

 

[WellArmed]

And the answer would be? For sure, the answer is not to stop voting. If you really want to lose all your gun rights, let the Democrats and the Far Left gain control of everything.

I guess the answer is to keep voting the same way, doing the same thing, and complain about getting the same results.

And in voting, there are only 2 choices, Republicans or Democrats. I did throw away a vote once in 1992 (Ross Perot - Independent), I’m sure a lot of others did too…resulting in a Clinton win.

It's a thrown away vote because everyone collectively has subscribed to there only being two options and they have to pick the lesser evil. The reality is voters can collectively choose whomever they want, but they choose to primary pick between two parties. Then they act like victims and it's not their fault when they knowingly chose someone that they really didn't like.

 

[WellArmed]

As we all know that’s faulty thoery and conjecture….you can reload 10 round mags quite fast too!

Their logic is that the second(s) of time that it takes to reload could be the amount of time needed for someone to escape or stop the shooter.

No point in trying to make sense of it. Their goal is to limit gun rights and access to guns anyway possible. They just come up with "common sense" reasons that sound good to voters who don't know much about guns that will connect the dots. Kind of like an activist judge who already knows how they're going to rule before the case is even heard has to invent an argument to connect dots to their foregone conclusion despite the facts of the case.