CDZ What is a "high capacity" gun magazine...how many bullets?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks? They have to be kept in an armory.

 

[rightwinger]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety.

Wrong....we do not show the government why we need a Right....the Government has to show why that Right needs to be reduced....and they need a really good reason.....not just because some people don't like it...

Wrong

The courts would decide whether the compelling interests of the Government to secure peace outweigh the compelling interests of citizens to protect themselves

That is why you can't own a machine gun or RPG

 

[Humorme]

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks? They have to be kept in an armory.

This is in error. You got fed some bad dope:

Soldiers' Private Guns - FactCheck.org

 

[Humorme]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety.

Wrong....we do not show the government why we need a Right....the Government has to show why that Right needs to be reduced....and they need a really good reason.....not just because some people don't like it...

Wrong

The courts would decide whether the compelling interests of the Government to secure peace outweigh the compelling interests of citizens to protect themselves

That is why you can't own a machine gun or RPG

What a load of horse manure! You can own a fully automatic machine gun in the United States.

Secondly, the founding fathers would never have handicapped the people so that they could not defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

 

[pismoe]

Heller established that the Second is not absolute and that Government can restrict access to certain weapons if they have a compelling interest

Public safety is a compelling interest. The Government has ample statistics of where high capacity magazines are used in multiple mass killings. Banning those magazines would reduce the impact of those mass killings

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety. I don't think they can do it

To counter, gun enthusiasts would have to demonstrate a compelling interest as to why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety.

Wrong....we do not show the government why we need a Right....the Government has to show why that Right needs to be reduced....and they need a really good reason.....not just because some people don't like it...

Wrong

The courts would decide whether the compelling interests of the Government to secure peace outweigh the compelling interests of citizens to protect themselves

That is why you can't own a machine gun or RPG

------------------------------------ of course you can own machine guns RWinger .

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks? They have to be kept in an armory.

This is in error. You got fed some bad dope:

Soldiers' Private Guns - FactCheck.org

Your article has nothing to do with what I said. Try reading for comprehension next time.

My daughter is a Army officer and lives on post at Fort Hood Texas. I live just off post at Fort Knox KY. My son was an Army Sergeant and lives just off post at Fort Lewis WA. I think I know what I am talking about.

Your article has nothing to do with the fact that soldiers are not allowed to possess weapons on post. Remember the Fort Hood shootings? My other daughter lived just down the road in base housing from where the shooting occurred, as my son-in-law was assigned to a helicopter unit there.

Only the civilian police and MPs are allowed to be armed unless they are on a training range.

 

[danielpalos]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

[Humorme]

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks? They have to be kept in an armory.

This is in error. You got fed some bad dope:

Soldiers' Private Guns - FactCheck.org

Your article has nothing to do with what I said. Try reading for comprehension next time.

My daughter is a Army officer and lives on post at Fort Hood Texas. I live just off post at Fort Knox KY. My son was an Army Sergeant and lives just off post at Fort Lewis WA. I think I know what I am talking about.

Your article has nothing to do with the fact that soldiers are not allowed to possess weapons on post. Remember the Fort Hood shootings? My other daughter lived just down the road in base housing from where the shooting occurred, as my son-in-law was assigned to a helicopter unit there.

Only the civilian police and MPs are allowed to be armed unless they are on a training range.

Let me quote what YOU said:

"Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks?" (emphasis mine, of course.)

As such, the article I quoted is applicable to what you said. You simply didn't want to be proven wrong. You misspoke. Had your sentence limited arms to on base housing, you would have a case. You didn't and so you don't.

When an individual enters the military, their Rights are temporarily suspended and / or restricted. This was anticipated by the founding fathers. But, when it comes to private individuals owning firearms and keeping them in their homes, that was an objective of the founders of this country:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

I'm not sure how to take that.

-Are you saying only active members of the Guard be allowed to keep their guns according to the exact wording of the 2nd?

-How about Army reservist?

(Obviously the founding fathers were still alive in 1810 and let people keep their guns so while I believe that is what they wrote, it is not what they intended)

Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks? They have to be kept in an armory.

This is in error. You got fed some bad dope:

Soldiers' Private Guns - FactCheck.org

Your article has nothing to do with what I said. Try reading for comprehension next time.

My daughter is a Army officer and lives on post at Fort Hood Texas. I live just off post at Fort Knox KY. My son was an Army Sergeant and lives just off post at Fort Lewis WA. I think I know what I am talking about.

Your article has nothing to do with the fact that soldiers are not allowed to possess weapons on post. Remember the Fort Hood shootings? My other daughter lived just down the road in base housing from where the shooting occurred, as my son-in-law was assigned to a helicopter unit there.

Only the civilian police and MPs are allowed to be armed unless they are on a training range.

Let me quote what YOU said:

"Did you know that active duty military personnel are banned from keeping their own personal arms in their homes or barracks?" (emphasis mine, of course.)

As such, the article I quoted is applicable to what you said. You simply didn't want to be proven wrong. You misspoke. Had your sentence limited arms to on base housing, you would have a case. You didn't and so you don't.

When an individual enters the military, their Rights are temporarily suspended and / or restricted. This was anticipated by the founding fathers. But, when it comes to private individuals owning firearms and keeping them in their homes, that was an objective of the founders of this country:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry

Bravo Zulu! You got me!

I stand corrected.

Hey libs! This is how you admit when you messed up! Try it sometime!

 

[Uncensored2008]

My experience is that anything over 20 feeds poorly and tends to jam. I oppose any laws on capacity, but my personal experience is that 20 round magazines work better in AR-15 and Mini 14 rifles.

That's why you use an AK instead. You can use a 100rd drum mag and those things never jam. I had 30 rd mags and mine never jammed one time.

So speak for your 20 rd limit with your POS AR-15. Get a real gun!! Go full Taliban!!!

Mr Kalashnikov himself with his pride and joy:

Realistically, a hundred round drum of 7.62 mm ammo will add so much weight that the rifle would be difficult to control.

I don't care for the 7.62 X 34 round in general. Too much mass with too little velocity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

The second is properly worded.

{
During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the US Constitutionwas ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force,[6] leaving significant control in the hands of each State government.[7][8]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9](Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10]}

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

That the left lies in their lust to revoke civil rights does not make the LAW poorly written.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

And being the preferred magazine in 1,500,000 self defense shootings.....vs the hand full of mass shootings...all of which could have been done with revolvers and shotguns show you have no case.....or a rental truck.

A rental truck has murdered more people than all of the rifles and pistols with standard magazines.......so you have no case.

1.5 million self defense shootings used large capacity magazines?

You fantasizing again?

1.5 millions shootings?

You're democrating again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No.....law abiding citizens don't have to justify having a Constitutional Right. We can already arrest anyone, with any capacity magazine if they use it to commit a crime. And since magazine size has no bearing on criminals getting them, or mass shooters murdering people...there is no rational reason to ban them for law abiding citizens.

Come on

We know you read Heller. Even Heller acknowledges citizens do not have a Constitutional right to any firearm they desire. The Government must demonstrate a compelling interest in why these weapons or accessories are a threat to public safety
In the case of large capacity magazines, they would have little difficulty in demonstrating a compelling interest while gun owners would have a difficult time demonstrating why large capacity magazines are needed for personal safety

There is no compelling reason to ban standard magazines......there are close to 100 million of them in private hands.....and only a few are used to commit crimes....and if you are concerned about crimes committed with these magazines we already have the remedy.....we can lock up people who use them to commit crimes....you know, actually dealing with the criminals, and we won't have to impact the Rights of law abiding people to do it.

Being the preferred magazine in multiple mass killings is a compelling interest

Correct, a compelling reason to ensure good guys do not have to deal with a tactical disadvantages against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules.

Good point!

Show me the numbers of self defense requiring more than 15 rounds

The Man Who Stopped The Texas Gunman Is an NRA Member

Try again Comrade.

Your war on civil rights just requires perseverance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

Is not what, Comrade? Well armed (the meaning of regulated, as you have been shown dozens of times?)

 

[danielpalos]

feck special categories of people like 'police' and military setting up LAWS that the citizens and taxpayers that employ these civil servant and assumed experts have to follow . You don't mind being a Subject or designated peasant eh Toronado ??

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

Is not what, Comrade? Well armed (the meaning of regulated, as you have been shown dozens of times?)

Not necessary to the security of a free State, Comrade.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yup, I don't mind living in a country with some form of gun control.

On the far end, the founding fathers never wrote squat about me not being able to buy an armed and loaded Apache. Yet we have these laws limiting my freedom.

This is not a rhetorical question. It will give me a benchmark for your point of view which if you are honest, you can defend. Do you think I should be able to buy the Apache?

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

Is not what, Comrade? Well armed (the meaning of regulated, as you have been shown dozens of times?)

Not necessary to the security of a free State, Comrade.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Armed citizens are vital to a free state, and a major impediment to your parties attempts to end the free state.

The authoritarian dictatorship you and the rest of the democrats seek cannot truly come about as long as 110 million citizens hold the veto power of personal arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Keep and "Bear" arms....can you carry an apache helicopter?

That is funny I admit but don't get carried too far into reading the 2nd word for word, it is probably the most poorly worded of the Amendments.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So fine, if you are in the national guard or army reserve you can keep whatever gun you can carry because a militia is necessary for security. (Obviously that is not what the founding fathers intended but it is sure what they wrote)

Well regulated militia are necessary, the unorganized militia is not.

Is not what, Comrade? Well armed (the meaning of regulated, as you have been shown dozens of times?)

Not necessary to the security of a free State, Comrade.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Armed citizens are vital to a free state, and a major impediment to your parties attempts to end the free state.

The authoritarian dictatorship you and the rest of the democrats seek cannot truly come about as long as 110 million citizens hold the veto power of personal arms.

Nope. Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Realistically, a hundred round drum of 7.62 mm ammo will add so much weight that the rifle would be difficult to control.

I don't care for the 7.62 X 34 round in general. Too much mass with too little velocity.

Hmm you do realize that the AK has more muzzle energy than the AR? And the AK is deadlier at a longer range with that bullet in a sniper rifle configuration? The AR has high velocity but only at the muzzle. It bleeds off quickly.

You almost sound like you know what you're talking about yet the raw numbers make you kinda look like a fool. You don't NEED huge muzzle velocity when the hole you punch is twice as big.

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 - Wikipedia

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Realistically, a hundred round drum of 7.62 mm ammo will add so much weight that the rifle would be difficult to control.

I don't care for the 7.62 X 34 round in general. Too much mass with too little velocity.

Hmm you do realize that the AK has more muzzle energy than the AR? And the AK is deadlier at a longer range with that bullet in a sniper rifle configuration? The AR has high velocity but only at the muzzle. It bleeds off quickly.

You almost sound like you know what you're talking about yet the raw numbers make you kinda look like a fool. You don't NEED huge muzzle velocity when the hole you punch is twice as big.

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 - Wikipedia

The other poster obviously never took physics.

 

[Nosmo King]

This term comes up often in gun control debates...."high capacity" magazines. I submit that most people who hear that term think 100 round drum magazines, like the one used by the Colorado theater shooter...which ended up malfunctioning the rifle, saving lives....as people ran out while he tried to clear the jam. He then went to his pistol....having emptied his shotgun previously.....

So normal, uninformed Americans when they hear "high capacity" magazines think 100 round magazines. Those who push gun control.......use that term "high capacity" and then use it to push to get 30 round, standard magazines banned, using the ignorance of the uninformed Americans to push those bans.

So....what really is a "high capacity" magazine?

How many rounds were fired taking lives before the jamb began "saving" lives?