Hi cap mag ban - change your carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's "this proposed ban?" Haven't seen one yet. And we shouldn't need to change carry; I doubt we'll not be able to keep and carry our already-owned 11+ round mags. Typically, if it's the SIG P-228 I'm packing, 15-round Mec-Gar mag, one up the spout with a Mec-Gar 18-rounder on the belt in reserve. With the 226, 18-round mags with a 20-rounder on the belt. When I go .45 (about half the time), it's the Series 70 or LW Commander, with two Wilson 8-rounders on the belt.
 
What's "this proposed ban?" Haven't seen one yet.
Click to expand...

I think they are talking about the one that Diane Feinstein, Obama, Chuck Schumer, and the entire liberal media elite have been talking about non stop for the last month.
 
You're not going to see confiscation of double stack magazines and CCW won't be impacted in general since those are all state rules and not federal.

IOW, if you have them now you'll be able to carry them then.
 
Psh, G21 with .50 GI conversion kit. Yeah it might only have 8 or 9 rounds instead of 10, but I'd feel like I'm "sticking it to the man" by carrying a .50 cal because the ban made the reason to go 9mm go away.
 
Seeing as how my main carry seems to be a revolver, nothing changes. Except for more idiots chiming in on "gun control" that they know nothing about.
 
If that happens, assuming no grandfathering, then smaller 9x19 guns with 10 rd mags, or an increase in .45ACPs with 10 round mags. More backup mags.

Think of all the time and money our leaders spend trying to figure this simple issue out. Mag bans don't accomplish any decrease in crime, yet cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
 
Breaking the law (hould it become one)"just for spite" does as much for this cause as does the nut jobs who shoot up schools. It simply hurts us and makes us look bad.

BREAKING the law is never a form of protest that should be done or that is taken seriously by anyone other than dirtbags. It makes the rest of us working hard to get things changed legally and maturely look like dirtbags.
 
Email, I'm pretty sure people had to break the Jim Crow laws back in the day to get seggregation banned. They're looked at as heroes nowadays.
 
If a 10+ ban comes it would almost certainly allow for higher cap mags to be grandfathered so it would not affect me. I've even purchased high cap mags for guns i don't yet own just in case.
 
My Steyr S40 only holds 10 rounds now so I probably won't change any time soon. Although I'll probably start looking into a 1911 CCO in 10mm.
 
I think laws that go against direct verbiage in the consitution ...
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Click to expand...
..."

is SLIGHTLY different.... Now before EVERYONE attacks me be VERY CLEAR I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendement but honestly that "ALL MEN" statement cannot really be construed in ANYWAY to have exemptions for blacks or any other race. the statement " 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." can be interpreted in many ways.

Some say it leaves NO room for discrimination of machine guns or suppressors or SBR's or 100rd drums, etc. It does not specifically exlude them does it?

Others, (such as those anti-gun politicians going after a renewed AWB) would disagree and would say it was written at a time when 17rd Glock's and 100rd AK47's were not even imaginable, therefore they are not protected under the 2nd amendement of the constitution.

While I am sure virtually everyone in this forum disagree's with their opinion (as do I and I have made that opinion very clear to my local and state elected officials)I think we can also agree that they (anti gunner's) are right in the fact that the AK47's and AR15's and Glocks were unimaginable when the constitution was written! Therefore they can and do argue that it intended to merely protect single shot muzzle loaders and is long out of date with advances in technology.

I think the best form of protest of any gun bans or legislation is to write our elected officials and urge them to stand against it or let them clearly know they will NOT have your vote next time. Parading around blatantly ignoring the rules only makes those other gun owners looks like "law breaking redneck cowboys" which adds fuel to the media's already raging fires.
 
WE (law abiding productive members of society who carry guns) already often times get lumped into the gang bangers and scumbags who run around with disregard to the law using guns to rob, cheat, steal and murder.

We certainly do not need to fuel that by taking good members on the law abiding side away from our fight and allowing them to be rightfully lumped int othe ones that disregard the laws.

I am sure the well organized groups like the JPFO and NRA and USCCA and any other's would NOT want you to protest by way of criminal activity.
 
emailforforum84 said:
Breaking the law (hould it become one)"just for spite" does as much for this cause as does the nut jobs who shoot up schools. It simply hurts us and makes us look bad.

BREAKING the law is never a form of protest that should be done or that is taken seriously by anyone other than dirtbags. It makes the rest of us working hard to get things changed legally and maturely look like dirtbags.
Click to expand...
You've never heard of civil disobedience or revolution have you? Neither are "legal" under the laws or governments they're designed to change, but that doesn't make them immoral or wrong in any way, shape, or form.
 
I have heard of civil disobedience but once again say that civil disobedience by drinking from the wrong water fountain and by carrying a firearm that is completely illegal are tow totally different things.

So is the proper way to protest the strict and long wait times for SBR's to just say F it, build one and take it out to the range? Or the proper way to let city hall know you do not approve of red light camera's by running it over and over? That doesn't make you a winner, just someone with a criminal record who wont be able to carry ANY guns and will hold no validity because they will be disregarded as a criminal.
 
And one, or two clowns beebopping down the street intentionally breaking the law is CERTAINLY not in any way shape or form a revolution!!!!

If it is, then in every inner city in the US there are a group of revolutionaries. Hell then every gang, motorcyle club and criminal enterprise and dope head in America is basically Samuel Adams.

Last time I visited, our jail's were filled with miscreants and those who are unfit not to be treated like rabid animals....NOT heroes.
 
emailforforum84 said:
And one, or two clowns beebopping down the street intentionally breaking the law is CERTAINLY not in any way shape or form a revolution!!!!

If it is, then in every inner city in the US there are a group of revolutionaries. Hell then every gang, motorcyle club and criminal enterprise and dope head in America is basically Samuel Adams.

Last time I visited, our jail's were filled with miscreants and those who are unfit not to be treated like rabid animals....NOT heroes.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between dope addicts and patriots, for starters, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am a criminal, or intend to become one. My point was that you're speaking in absolutes, and that's not reasonable, and neither is your suggestion that restrictions or infringements on our right to bear arms are acceptable.

When drinking from the wrong water fountain was an act of civil disobedience, it WAS ALSO AGAINST THE LAW - That made those individuals criminals in the eyes of the law. When a handful of American Patriots banded together to begin fighting the American Revolution, they weren't patriots - they were criminals in the eyes of the law, and were treated as such by the "law abiding" british sympathizers. Your argument is invalid.
 
Rail Driver said:
There's a difference between dope addicts and patriots, for starters, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am a criminal, or intend to become one. My point was that you're speaking in absolutes, and that's not reasonable, and neither is your suggestion that restrictions or infringements on our right to bear arms are acceptable.

When drinking from the wrong water fountain was an act of civil disobedience, it WAS ALSO AGAINST THE LAW - That made those individuals criminals in the eyes of the law. When a handful of American Patriots banded together to begin fighting the American Revolution, they weren't patriots - they were criminals in the eyes of the law, and were treated as such by the "law abiding" british sympathizers. Your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...
Amen +1
 
Some say it leaves NO room for discrimination of machine guns or suppressors or SBR's or 100rd drums, etc. It does not specifically exlude them does it?

Others, (such as those anti-gun politicians going after a renewed AWB) would disagree and would say it was written at a time when 17rd Glock's and 100rd AK47's were not even imaginable, therefore they are not protected under the 2nd amendement of the constitution.
Click to expand...

That position would require one to reasonably believe that the framers of the constitution somehow thought that technological progress related to weapons would not occur in spite of doing so steadily since the beginning of civilization. Rather, the founders allowed for a method to amend the constitution as needed so that it could be changed if needed.

Now, in pragmatic terms i don't believe one can reasonably say the second amendment can apply to all arms unless they really believe people should have free access to weapons of mass destruction.
 
Nope ,no change I carry a single stack 9 or a 380 now less than 10, looking at a single stack shield 40 now less than 10 also.
 
My general carry is already a S&W snubbie, so no, my carry wouldn't change.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence"
George Washington

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,"
Gerald Ford
 
I guess we do not see eye to eye. I am not calling you a dirtbag or suggesting you are a criminal but if you do not follow laws that would then make you a criminal!.

Its unfortunate that this may come to pass but the only ones we have to blame are the pro gun people who did not vote or have not written to their ELECTED officials and those that are too ignorant to see the reality of what constitutes a criminal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top