- Messages
- 1,495
- Reactions
- 1,528
The proponents of high capacity STANDARD capacity magazine [corrected due to public shaming from the term checkers ] bans have for years, decades actually, argued that one of the reasons for the 10 limit is actually quite simple. When the bad guy only has 10 rounds and has to reload it gives every brass nut in the room a split second opportunity to rush the shooter and disarm them. Just like in the movies! I've heard the argument in media and politics repeatedly. I remember hearing it because it has always irked me a little.
Fast forward to our little BM 114 debacle. Now we have a federal judge implying during proceedings that if you want to effectively defend yourself there is no reason that you can't simply carry multiple 10rd mags. So you can just reload if you need more ammo while defending yourself. What was once a distinct disadvantage for arguments sake is now a viable option for self defense.
So which one is it? Mag banners used one side of the argument to push their case to the gullible public and got a law passed. Now it would seem that they are using the other side of the logic to defend the new abomination........................
So IRRITATING! Rant over.
Fast forward to our little BM 114 debacle. Now we have a federal judge implying during proceedings that if you want to effectively defend yourself there is no reason that you can't simply carry multiple 10rd mags. So you can just reload if you need more ammo while defending yourself. What was once a distinct disadvantage for arguments sake is now a viable option for self defense.
So which one is it? Mag banners used one side of the argument to push their case to the gullible public and got a law passed. Now it would seem that they are using the other side of the logic to defend the new abomination........................
So IRRITATING! Rant over.
Last Edited: