Pelosi will define "high capacity" magazines as 10 bullets...we told you...they use magazine limits as back door gun bans.

[2aguy]

To the foolish people who thought, "Gee, the democrats have a point when they want to limit magazine size," .......we told you...this isn't about saving lives....this is simply a way to ban guns without actually banning the gun.....

I posted over and over that the reason they went to 10 bullets is because they know that vast numbers of pistols hold 15-19 bullets as normal.........by going with 10, they make those pistols illegal...without passing a law banning or confiscating them...

Can you then make magazines that hold 10 bullets for those guns?

But that costs more money, more time...and until the gun and magazine makers get production up...those guns are illegal...

I, and other intelligent people, knew that 10 rounds wasn't going to be the end....too many guns, especially the dreaded concealed carry handguns, designed specifically to be carried concealed....carry 10 rounds...

So...the democrat have gone to the next step to get those guns........as we told you they would....

The gun control package proposed by House Democrats identifies “high-capacity” magazines as holding 10 rounds or more.

The proposed new limit on ammunition clips is part of the six-piece gun-control package that the House Judiciary Committee is marking up Thursday during an emergency meeting.

Pelosi’s gun control package defines a high-capacity magazine as 10 rounds

The gun control package proposed by House Democrats identifies “high-capacity” magazines as holding 10 rounds or more.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[two_iron]

I don't want that drunken sot making any decisions that affect me.

 

[2aguy]

Oh.....and for those who are dumb and think..."Well, the democrats will be happy when those guns have magazines that only hold 9 bullets.....and then they will be done with gun control..."

Those guns will still be able to hold magazines that hold the normal 15-19 rounds.....when they are used in a mass public shooting....and the democrats will be praying to their god, "government," that children will be killed in that attack.......they will state....it just isn't enough to limit the magazines.....we now have to ban those guns completely....they are just too dangerous...

Any fool who doesn't stand against any infringement is just a fool....

 

[pknopp]

Zero chance of passing unless Republicans decide to go along.

But as I have long noted, the idea should not be 10 people dead as opposed to 15. It should be zero dead.

The killer in Texas had an hour at that. One can change out many magazine's in that amount of time.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Zero chance of passing unless Republicans decide to go along.

But as I have long noted, the idea should not be 10 people dead as opposed to 15. It should be zero dead.

The killer in Texas had an hour at that. One can change out many magazine's in that amount of time.

He had an hour and a half....
Thanks to the leftard chief of police who is now no longer cooperating with the investigation.

 

[pknopp]

He had an hour and a half....
Thanks to the leftard chief of police who is now no longer cooperating with the investigation.

He said he is cooperating but even if not, he would simply be doing what cops do. People have to file expensive lawsuits to get information out of them all the time.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He said he is cooperating but even if not, he would simply be doing what cops do. People have to file expensive lawsuits to get information out of them all the time.

Why would they have to do that?
Why not just cooperate with the investigation?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they have to do that?
Why not just cooperate with the investigation?

Cops never cooperate when it makes them look bad. Generally they are supported.

 

[task0778]

Zero chance of passing unless Republicans decide to go along.

But as I have long noted, the idea should not be 10 people dead as opposed to 15. It should be zero dead.

The killer in Texas had an hour at that. One can change out many magazine's in that amount of time.

True. Whether it's 10, 15, 20, or whatever, it only takes a few seconds to hit the eject button for the magazine and load a fresh one. A shooter with just a 10 round clip can still kill a heckuva lot of people in a few minutes. One gun, 20 clips with 10 rounds each, that's 200 shots probably before the cops even show up.

 

[Darkwind]

Clips?

CLIPS?

We don't need no stinkin clips.

1,000 rounds SAIGO AEG Drum Magazine.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Cops never cooperate when it makes them look bad. Generally they are supported.

Or when they know they are in deep shit.

 

[Ringtone]

Zero chance of passing unless Republicans decide to go along.

But as I have long noted, the idea should not be 10 people dead as opposed to 15. It should be zero dead.

The killer in Texas had an hour at that. One can change out many magazine's in that amount of time.

So you would ban guns of any capacity? Would you elaborate on your point? I follow task0778's point. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[pknopp]

So you would ban guns of any capacity? Would you elaborate on your point?

Bugger off. Don't put words in my mouth when you are only able to understand what your party tells you.

 

[surada]

To the foolish people who thought, "Gee, the democrats have a point when they want to limit magazine size," .......we told you...this isn't about saving lives....this is simply a way to ban guns without actually banning the gun.....

I posted over and over that the reason they went to 10 bullets is because they know that vast numbers of pistols hold 15-19 bullets as normal.........by going with 10, they make those pistols illegal...without passing a law banning or confiscating them...

Can you then make magazines that hold 10 bullets for those guns?

But that costs more money, more time...and until the gun and magazine makers get production up...those guns are illegal...

I, and other intelligent people, knew that 10 rounds wasn't going to be the end....too many guns, especially the dreaded concealed carry handguns, designed specifically to be carried concealed....carry 10 rounds...

So...the democrat have gone to the next step to get those guns........as we told you they would....

The gun control package proposed by House Democrats identifies “high-capacity” magazines as holding 10 rounds or more.

The proposed new limit on ammunition clips is part of the six-piece gun-control package that the House Judiciary Committee is marking up Thursday during an emergency meeting.

Pelosi’s gun control package defines a high-capacity magazine as 10 rounds

The gun control package proposed by House Democrats identifies “high-capacity” magazines as holding 10 rounds or more.

www.washingtontimes.com

Ramos had 1600 bullets.

 

[Ringtone]

Bugger off. Don't put words in my mouth when you are only able to understand what your party tells you.

Calm down. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was asking a genuine question. That's why I edited it per task0778's observation to make it clear. I was thinking the very same thing as he; i.e., I thought that's what you were getting at as well but wasn't sure. I edited it for clarity only to then read bugger off in your next post.

 

[pknopp]

Calm down. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was asking a genuine question. That's why I edited it per task0778's observation to make it clear. I was thinking the very same thing as he; i.e., I thought that's what you were getting at as well but wasn't sure. I edited it for clarity only to then read bugger off in your next post.

You are getting that because you follow the cults who are only interested in dividing people as opposed to solving issues. There is only banning guns or expanding guns according to Republicans and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats are far more of a threat to this country than a rare mass shooter.

We need to discuss what we can do to address people with mental health issues.

 

[Open Bolt]

The Supreme Court has put off their decision on whether to hear a challenge to New Jersey's 10 round magazine limits until after Justice Barrett issues her opinion on the New York gun case.

The Supreme Court has also put off their decision on whether to hear a challenge to California's 10 round magazine limits until after Justice Barrett issues her opinion on the New York gun case.

That almost certainly means that as soon as she issues her ruling, they intend to announce that they will hear those cases in their next term.

That almost certainly means that they plan to rule that ten round magazine limits are unconstitutional.

Off topic for this thread, but probably still of interest:
The Supreme Court has also put off their decision on whether to hear a challenge to Maryland's "assault weapon" ban until after Justice Barrett issues her opinion on the New York concealed carry case.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Bugger off. Don't put words in my mouth when you are only able to understand what your party tells you.

Where did he put words in your mouth?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where did he put words in your mouth?

Common Fucknob...where did he put words in your mouth?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Common Fucknob...where did he put words in your mouth?

Come on Fucknob!!
You still havent shown where he put words in your mouth.