Just be honest and admit you got that number from the original AWB, and from Feinstein's current proposal.
Who says everyone who opposes gun restrictions is a conservative? One of the biggest pro-gun guys I watch on youtube is a self proclaimed liberal.
Who says gun control is as simple as left and right? Black and white?
Oh, that's right... You do.
Did you watch this? The explanation for law abiding citizens to have normal capacity magazines, which includes those over 10 rounds, can't be stated any clearer.
It should be easy for you to understand. It's a moving picture, with someone speaking to you. Or did you ignore that because it doesn't fit your agenda?
Criminals don't give a $hit about the law, they are CRIMINALS because they don't FOLLOW THE LAW. How much simpler can that be explained? If you limit Joe Citizen to 10 rounds (7 in New York), while Carl Criminal still has 12, 14, 15, however many more in his magazine, how does that make anyone BUT Carl Criminal safer? Explain it to me. Explain to me how limiting law abiding citizens makes them safer from criminals who don't follow the ****ing law to begin with?
Criminals LOVE gun control. It makes their job as criminals easier. Why is this so hard to understand? Are you THAT wrapped up in the Obama, far left propaganda that you can't think for yourself anymore?
You can't seem to grasp the difference between a magazine change with no opposition, and a magazine change when you have someone shooting back at you. Why? Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Why is that such a foreign concept to you? Disarming, or limiting, a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves or others does not make a bit of difference in the criminal world. Need examples? The last AWB.
Your assumption that quick mag changes somehow makes bans effective is flat out wrong. Demonstratively so.
Is there life more important than mine? I've already told you they have no duty to protect me or my family as individuals, but to protect society has a whole. So why are advocating restricting my ability to defend and protect myself from criminals who don't follow the law?
(In case you didn't know, this is where your argument falls apart.)
You think that at 3am when you have 15 seconds to save your life and your family from an armed intruder that the cops will make it to your house in time to save you.
You're delusional. You live in a fantasy world. You think that everything is going to be all rainbows and cupcakes, and if something turns to $hit, the police will be there to protect you. And that's fine, you go ahead and think that.
However, I will live in the real world, and realize that I need to protect myself and my family, because I don't have the time to wait until the police show up.
You go ahead, you have your 10 round magazines, and whatever other restrictions YOU believe are okay. But you leave my rights, and my ability to defend and protect my family the hell alone, because that is not YOUR responsibility, that is NOT the responsibility of the police department or sheriff's department (as upheld over 10 times by the SCOTUS), and guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.
Just because you (or the government) believe some bull$hit bans will work, doesn't mean that I agree, and doesn't give you the right to infringe on my rights to effectively protect my family.
More importantly, many have repeatedly stated capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change them.
Stop playing games and discuss this. Because you haven't actually even tried to yet. You post little snipets, play the race card, and jump to other unrelated incidents...I'll take being told by you I am melting down, because it is better than being a leftist anti-gun troll like you are.
Let me post it once more time for you, in bigger letters so maybe even you can finally get it.
YOU SEE SC, I actually pity you and your unbelievable arrogance in refusing to discern the difference between a crazed gunman shooting unarmed civilians, including children, with little or no opposition, and a soldier in combat facing multiple enemy combatants trying to kill him. Obviously, if no one is shooting back at you it would be easier to change magazines more often. Do I need crayons and poster board so I can draw you a picture you might actualy understand?
The funny part is you believe the Police, you know, the people who ILLEGALLY disarmed people in Louisiana that were trying to protect their own private property from looters, or like the Feds that killed Randy Weaver's son and executed his wife standing in the doorway of their home while holding their infant child in her arms, or have in the recent past executed black mask drugs raids on the wrong homes and killed the wrong people, or who shot at unarmed Amadou Diallo 41 times hitting him 19 times and killing him, should have firearms with "high capacity" magazines. WHY? They seem to have a pretty poor track record themselves of depriving people of their consitutional rights or even killing them.
Come on SC, I know you are already labeling me an extremist wack job. But that doesn't answer the question. But then again you never do, do you?