So, now an "Assault" weapon is any gun holding more than 10 bullets...we told you...

[progressive hunter]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

You can shoot a big guy three times unless your using a 45 maybe..and he can keep coming at you. Especially because in those situations people are running on pure adrenaline. Three guys break into your house or business? well, you know.. its safer just to give up every time right? just hope they don't hurt you.

The law allows for ten. Why are you telling me THREE is not enough?

because I figured you had enough sense to add up what happens if there are three assailants. maybe you dont need to fire any shots. maybe you just need to point it at them and they will back on off, but at least you will have the confidence that you have ten rounds in your gun and you can afford to miss with a couple and not be defenseless.

Ten is enough to discourage three bad guys.

not if those bad guys have guns with 30 rnd mags

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

Derp....for protection.

 

[OldLady]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,

there are millions already in the public domain

and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people

Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.

 

[progressive hunter]

there are basically 3 groups of people using guns to kill people

criminals
police/governments
private law abiding citizens for self defense

so why is it these laws only effect the ones using them legally???

no criminal to date has cared what the law says

 

[progressive hunter]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

thats closing the barn door after the cows got out,,,

there are millions already in the public domain

and it doesnt work anywhere in the world,,,every country has people killing other people

Are you talking about larger mags? They exist so they will always be around? For awhile they will, but if they're so necessary for defending ourselves against all those roving bands of bad guys, I can only imagine they will quickly be used up.

HEY OLD LADY!!!!

MAGS DONT GET USED UP THEY GET RELOADED


do you need me to call the nurse to change your diaper

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

It's illegal to have a shotgun that holds that many shells for migratory game birds.

 

[2aguy]

OK, what are you going to do when ten rounds hit him and the baddie doesn’t stop?

Why one cop carries 145 rounds of ammo on the job

The problem is that nothing is 100% guaranteed in real life. My own preferred weapon is the .357 Magnum. When fired, the round has nearly double the kinetic energy of the .45 used by the police officer who fired just about every single round he had on him at the baddie. He reloaded his pistol twice during the shootout. Now, the cop was using a round he believed to be superior, and extremely effective, but the baddie despite having multiple hits to “vital organs” which were “kill shots” stayed on his feet, and continued attacking.

There is no such thing as one size fits all. You make your choice, weapon, capacity, and caliber. You roll the dice that your choice was correct in that horrific moment that pits your life against the life of an attacker.

This is one of the ways in which we differ. I believe you should be free to make whatever choice you feel proper for your personal safety, and protect. I don’t encourage you to follow my reasoning. I will give you mine if you like, but in the end, it’s your life, and your choice.

As I said my Magnum is roughly twice as powerful, using the Kinetic Energy calculations, as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 used by the cop, but has similar “one shot stop” statistics from real world shootings.



Notice if you bother to watch the video, there is no weapon, none, that has a 100% one shot stop result from real world shootings. None have even as 90% one shot stop result. The best you can say is that it is a coin toss. Heads, you’ll stop the baddie, tails, you won’t. In some cases, nothing you can shoot him with will stop him. The cop from above, shot the man in the head, and he still lived at the scene.

Now, imagine you are fighting for the lives of your loved ones. You fire your ten rounds, and then what? Perhaps you stopped one baddie, but what if there were just one more baddie? They tend to travel in packs you know. We call these others accomplices.

Even if you are fortunate, and you like the cop fire your ten rounds of .45 ACP, and the baddie doesn’t stop, do you have time to reload? Or do you just toss the gun over your shoulder and accept your death?

I want you to have every tool available for your safety, I do not feel so arrogant that I believe I know what is best for you. I would never foist my choices or beliefs upon you.

If you believe ten rounds is enough, then make your play, but don’t push your belief on anyone else. Your rights end, where mine begin. That has long been the truth of equality under the law.

Sorry, but gun owners' rights END where innocent civilian lives are being taken, on a daily basis. You people need to wake up.
You don't need to worry about it anyway--you've got a Magnum.

My rights end when someone else abuses theirs? How totalitarian of you.

You aren't losing your rights by being restricted to ten bullets at a time.

Do you lose your first amendment rights if you're restricted to publishing 100 words or less at any one time? If you're restricted to only using dialup speeds to write on a debate board? Words are deadly too. Should we only allow licensed writers to write opinions?

To you, no one is being harmed by restrictions, but that's not your call.

We should have a debate sometime on whether the pen is mightier than the sword. But as much as some here might wish it, their words have not killed me yet. And that Constitutional right is also restricted -- heard of hate speech or incitement to riot?

Yes......it is restricted when it is used to violate the Rights of someone else...same thing with guns...when you actually use a gun illegally, then it is restricted.....you don't get to restrict it prior to violating someone's Rights.

 

[OldLady]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

maybe its you that needs to move to a country more to your liking since you hate it here so much

Nice try, militia man. I'd rather improve this country by making sure assholes like you don't make things any worse.

 

[2aguy]

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

They are not "knee jerk" arguments, in fact, they are carefully formulated and the go into detail as to why those laws would do nothing to stop criminals and only hurt law abiding people...you don't care about the facts, the truth or the reality, which is why you claim pro-2nd Amendment people make knee jerk arguments....

The actual Knee Jerk Argument... if you can't hit your target with 10 rounds, you don't get more....that is knee jerk and emotional....with no basis in objective reality.

 

[OldLady]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

It's illegal to have a shotgun that holds that many shells for migratory game birds.

Why?

 

[progressive hunter]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

maybe its you that needs to move to a country more to your liking since you hate it here so much

Nice try, militia man. I'd rather improve this country by making sure assholes like you don't make things any worse.

what did I do???

its the gun free zones that have harmed people

now go eat your pudding

 

[Pilot1]

Tapioca more likely.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

It's illegal to have a shotgun that holds that many shells for migratory game birds.

Why?

doesnt matter since the 2nd isnt about hunting

 

[OldLady]

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

They're not paper targets, nicely lit and standing still like you see at the gun range. Have you ever tried hitting one or more moving targets in the dark when you fear for your life or the life of a loved one?

Have you ever seen the police take down an armed threat and the number of bullets they use? In a life or death situation, you don't have the luxury of taking a shot, stopping to see if you stopped the threat, then taking another. The police will empty their weapons to make sure the threat is neutralized.

It takes less than 3 seconds to change a mag, according to many posters here, who have told me that time and time again.
The point is, we are NOT police. We are not at war. If you're so goddamned worried about numerous targets in the dark, MOVE.

Of course it can only take a few seconds, under ideal circumstances and with no threat to your own life. How long would it take at 2:00 in the morning, after waking from a deep sleep, and trying to find a second magazine because you're not allowed to keep the firearm and ammunition together?

Let's be charitable and say 10 seconds. That's a lot of time for someone to act against you. And no, we're NOT police, and they're not going to be there in that situation, so you're on your own.

BTW, I don't own a gun. Don't want to, don't feel the need to. I can understand why people do, though.

I can understand it too, but every time there is legislation that would make gun ownership in this country just a little safer for the unarmed and possibly make it a little harder for criminals and psychos to kill us, the gun owners such as are posting here ALWAYS make the same knee jerk ridiculous arguments and say NO. Unreasonably. They're going to pay for their unreasonableness. Compromise and reason would have been better.

They are not "knee jerk" arguments, in fact, they are carefully formulated and the go into detail as to why those laws would do nothing to stop criminals and only hurt law abiding people...you don't care about the facts, the truth or the reality, which is why you claim pro-2nd Amendment people make knee jerk arguments....

The actual Knee Jerk Argument... if you can't hit your target with 10 rounds, you don't get more....that is knee jerk and emotional....with no basis in objective reality.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. You guys always seem to think I'm being emotional, but I'm not. Then if a guy gets on here and says exactly the same thing, suddenly it's not emotional anymore.
You're all a bunch of emotional misogynists, to be truthful.

 

[progressive hunter]

Tapioca more likely.

I like tapioca

 

[2aguy]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

What does anyone want more than 10 gallons of water during a house fire, unless they are just there to play with it?

Self defense is not where you question how many bullets you may need to save your family..... law abiding people don't use their guns for crime, they do not increase the gun crime rate.....criminals can already be arrested if they use guns to commit rape, robbery and murder. Those laws are all we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the problem comes when the same people who want to ban guns, keep letting violent, repeat gun offenders our of jail, and out on the streets on bail, right after they are arrested....stop that, and you don't have to worry about gun crime.

If you can't hit a bad guy with 10 bullets, you shouldn't have a gun.

And that is still a dumb comment every time you guys say it...... self defense is not something that you can determine before the violent criminal tries to rape, rob or murder you, they may be armed too, there may be more than one, and the more bullets you have as the innocent victim, the less need you have to reload your gun...the gun you are using to save your life, or the life of your family members. That means that if you are injured, or merely dealing with the adrenaline surge of combat, you will have more bullets before you have to take the risk of changing your magazine...something made infinitely more difficult when someone is trying to rape or kill you....

Yet again this moron claims he needs large magazines for self defense while saying that large magazines are no advantage for mass shooters.

Hypocrite much?

Because the two situations are completely different. Research into mass public shootings and eye witness accounts of the survivors state that the mass public shooter is calm, and takes his time.....shooting helpless, unarmed people, without anyone shooting back. This means he can change magazines or guns easily and without interference....so there is no impact on his ability to murder helpless people.

The individual under attack, by one or more criminals, who will likely be armed.....is on his own, has to deal with a surprise attack, an adrenaline rush, and having to fend off a violent physical assault....which means changing a magazine is 1000% harder for him than for a mass public shooter, especially if they are injured during the attack....

Those are the facts, you don't like them but those are the facts.

 

[caddo kid]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

Well, we all know that Virginia is a worthless state so, let them screw their peeps.

I reside in a pro gun state.

Screw Virginia.

If folks don't like it where they reside, they can move some where else.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

It's illegal to have a shotgun that holds that many shells for migratory game birds.

Why?

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-shotguns-limited-to-three-shots

 

[2aguy]

We have 22,000 gun laws already on the books with HUGE restrictions on what is considered to be a Natural Right. Most of these restrictions are infringements and ILLEGAL. However, all those laws don't stop criminals who by definition don't care about yet more laws.

So more laws won't add to safety, nor security. It will only reduce the law abiding from being able to be more safe, and secure by further restricting their ability to defend themselves.

With the # of rounds in a mag limited to 10 in this country, they won't be sold and therefore, they will be much harder for criminals to obtain. Just like everyone else. Why do you think terrorists in Europe are using knives and vehicles and IED's? BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO GET/USE A GUN there.
If it works everywhere else in the world, it can work in this country. But you folks seem to want to keep some imagined natural right to kill people.

A criminal doesn't need 10 bullets to rape a woman, rob a liqour store or rub out a rival gang member.....a mass public shooter will bring more than one gun or calmly change magazines..

It is the law abiding citizen, alone and under attack who needs as many bullets as they can carry in their gun, since that will be all they have to depend on when their life or the life of their family is on the line....

Terrorists in Europe use fully automatic miltiary rifles...which are completely banned and illegal in Europe....as well as grenades because they can get them easily. I have posted articles from European police that state that fully automatic military weapons are the weapon of choice for European criminals....they said it, not me....

You don't under stand the issue....your arguments are not based in facts or the reality on the ground.

 

[OldLady]

Yep.....democrats are gun grabbers to their core. They will take guns one gun, bullet and piece of equipment at a time...and as they do this the definition of each item will change to make the next grab easier.....as we now see in Virginia....it used to be the mythical "assualt" weapon was a scary looking military gun....now, it is any gun with a magazine that holds more than 10 bullets....

So...good buy to your semi automatic pistols....they are now "assault weapons."

This is the back door gun ban they dream of....one step in many to take our guns...

Smelling Blood: Virginia Democratic Governor Readies New Anti-Gun Package

Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) and Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria) are also sponsoring a ban on assault weapons, defining them as any firearm with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

That these laws are unConstitutional is without question....as stated in the 2nd Amendment, as ruled on in D.C. v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago, Caetano v Massachusetts and Scalia specifically stating that the AR-15 civilian rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

What does anyone want more than 10 bullets for, unless it's for an assault?
And don't say duck hunting. That's another kind of bullet.

It's illegal to have a shotgun that holds that many shells for migratory game birds.

Why?

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-shotguns-limited-to-three-shots

I appreciate it, HWGA