High Hi Capacity Magazines
Dan Z. for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post


In my view, it’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon,” as well as the cosmetic features that are employed to define exactly what type of firearm might qualify as such a weapon. All too often, proposals seeking to regulate or ban “assault weapons” focus on cosmetic characteristics, such as the existence of flash suppressors, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, external magazines or overall “military styling.” These add-ons and designs do not meaningfully impact the firearm’s functionality or how potentially deadly the firearm might be. …

There is one functional feature of many so-called “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shooting situations — high-capacity magazines. Unlike regulating cosmetic features such as flash suppressors, a ban on high-capacity magazines would be a functionally meaningful step to reduce the potential damage that a firearm can cause in a mass-shooting scenario.

There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus-round magazine for his or her firearm of choice. Moving to create a regulatory environment where the possession, sale and manufacture of such magazines could be legally phased out over time would be a substantial advancement from a harm-reduction standpoint. Such a move could include a multi-year plan where low-capacity magazines would be made widely available to law-abiding gun owners before anything was banned outright.

— Mat Gendle in To Reduce Gun Violence, Focus On Function Instead Of Form

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “In my view, it’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon,” as well as the cosmetic features that are employed to define exactly what type of firearm might qualify as such a weapon.”

    I could not agree more. It’s time to STOP obsessing about it all and start dealing with the reality that AR15’s are NOT assault riles and magazine capacity means NOTHING. One 30 round magazine is NOT any more dangerous than three 10 rounders. Too many people so focusing too much on ridiculous things.

    • If anything limiting to 10 just forces everyone to get better at magazine changes as a functional necessity of shooting. Also seem to remember virginia tech was all 10 rounders or less but I am not qualified to talk about #thescience or whatever nonsense they will use to stifle any logical argument against their agenda.

        • 𝑫𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚? 𝑻𝒉𝒂𝒕’𝒔 𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒋𝒐𝒃 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 $200 𝒕𝒐 $300 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒒𝒘𝒆03 𝒅𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒆.
          𝑨𝒑𝒑𝒍𝒚 𝑵𝒐𝒘 𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆__________𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒉𝟭.𝒄𝒐𝒎

      • And don’t forget James Hodgkinson used a smith and wesson shield and a SKS to shootup a baseball field

        Definitely not “hi capacity” firearms

    • The 18 year old cretin Cruz had all 10 round magazine’s when he slaughtered student’s in Floriduh. It made it easier to hide the magazines. Ditto Colorado Columbine. With a freaking Hipoint rifle!

      • Add the Arurora COloradotheatre shooter, Fort Hood One, Sandy Hook Elementary school, the Riverside California Christmas party pmassacre (remember, that WAS in California……), the ClackamasTown Centre Oregon mall incident, and don;t forget the pair of dirtbags terrorised Washington DC for a few weeks with bolt acion rifles, five five round non-detatchable mag wells….. the guy who shot nine at an upstairs church meeting in I think North Carolina, the Sutherland SPrings church massacre, and the West Feeway Baptist Church shooting, where the guy used a pump shotgun with five round capaity in non-detachable tube mag. The Texas Tower univertisy massacre, where they guy used a standard five round capacity non-detatchable mag hunting rifle, the recent NY and DC pothot creep, who urdered a handful of homeless.

        • The Aurora Theater shooter had a 100 round mag. He ditched his AR when it jammed after 79 shots were fired. The DC Snipers used a Bushmaster XM-15 with a 20 round mag, although the size of the mag was irrelevant as only one shot was fired at each scene. The Sutherland Springs shooter also used an AR. Police found 15 empty magazines capable of holding 30 rounds each. Authorities stated Kelley fired approximately 700 rounds during the estimated 11 minute long shooting. The Fort Hood shooter used a handgun.

        • The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter (who’s trial starts today, *finally*) used 10-round magazines, if memory serves, and he murdered 17 people…

        • if i’m not mistaken the “DC dirtbags”used an AR-15….not that it mattered…

      • Actually the Parkland scumbag had ‘limiters’ (forgot the correct name), that only allowed the magazines to hold 5 rounds. He had a bag full of ammo and had to stop and reload his magazines.

    • Why I do declare mat gendle why don’t you just go right on ahead and convince the cotton picking slaves they don’t need no firearms at all? And while you’re at it just go ahead and convince Jews they don’t need no firearms at all? And if you cannot politely convince them with your nasty-nice Gun Control scheme you’ll just have to get tough and burn their slave shacks down, lynch the survivors or put them all on trains destined for concentration camps. gas chambers, ovens, etc.

      The question is…Where will pompous busy body closet pervert armchair quarterbacks like mat gendle be while you and yours are cornered by a criminal or criminals? The answer is where pompous busy body closet pervert armchair quarterbacks like mat gendle always are…NOWHERE.

    • Prndll, the first time I heard the term “assault rifle” in reference to a semi-auto military style rifle was in the ’70s. I would of been about 14. It was the common name in use at the time by POTG. Everyone from an average firearms owner to the guys writing for the major periodicals of the time and authors of books that are timely today used it. Except, now mainstream media have begun to use the term. It’s now verboten among the POTG. I don’t understand. You can call a dog a K-9, but it’s still a dog. The media calls it an assault rifle. So do I. Because everyone I’ve ever known since before I could drive knew just exactly what I meant when I said it. And before anyone starts gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes, I know a real “assault rifle” fires an intermediate caliber and is capable of full auto. I seen one, or two. Magazine capacity. There’s a non-issue for the left to hitch a wagon too. It’s true that most of my handguns that I touch every day have a capacity of between 5 and 9 rds. Not because I have to carry ten or less. It’s that the pistols I prefer for every day carry hold that many rounds. Disclaimer: Depending on weather, that handgun could be a 442 or a 1911. Rifle magazines for my “assault rifles” start at 20 rds. and go to 35. I have a lot of them. However, if you are limited to a ten rd rifle magazine, I highly recommend an AK platform with steal mags. When you’re out of ammo you can remove the magazine and beat your enemy to death with it. Hit a man with an AR magazine and you’re just going to piss him off. And he may have a rifle that works. At either end.

      • That is exactly what I’m talking about. BOTH sides engage in this nonsense. Why do you think the left gets so easily confused? POTG should know better but yet we have so many people that just cannot be real with it. A spade is a spade. If they think their lies will convince me that I’m seeing 5 lights when there are only 4, the problem is NOT mine.

        Call it what it is!

        It isn’t K-9, it’s canine. As in a family of mammals the dogs belong to. The term “K-9” is just a shorten abbreviated way cops say it (and some dog trainers). Probably just because it’s cheaper to make the label for cop cars.

        • Prndll. You are correct. All my pets were dogs. All but one or two were rescues. K-9s belonged to a couple of guys I worked with. They were all still good dogs. Especially Max.

        • @ Gadsden Flag
          Best dog I ever had was a female boxer mix named Daisy. I miss her. That was almost 20 years ago. Several efforts to adopt another dog just never panned out. Currently it’s a couple cats from a shelter.

      • “..It’s now verboten among the POTG. I don’t understand…”

        That pretty much explains a major difference between POG/Conservatives and Gun Control/Leftists. The leftists do understand the power of words and of labeling. And they use it to great effectiveness to move people at a fundamental level to their wants and desires. There is a reason Billions is spent on marketing every year, because it works.

        Everyone has their faults, and for Conservatives it is their cock sure arrogance and their inability to recognize (until recently) the left has been for quite some time at war.. full on, no quarters offered, war.

        Conservatives are very much stuck in their ways, the old dogs who can not pivot well or learn new tricks, so they stubbornly cling to calling Firearms, Weapons (negative connotation) Leftist, Liberals (actually a good thing, root word Liberty) and in Gadsden case Rifles, Assault Weapons (very negative connotation).

        The Left’s collectivism (and fact they only loves themselves and never fall in love with terms like “assault weapon” unable to use any other description) makes them very agile when the narrative needs changing. Within the period of a week, they can completely change their messaging from “Defund the Police” to “Reimagining Policing”. From “Gun Control” to “Gun Safety”.

        Conservatives still very much play by the leftist rules and by the left’s definitions. And if you allow others to define you or you accept their definition of themselves, you will never truly understand them, and you will be stuck in an endless war where every battle you win, you will later suffer a defeat.

      • that “assault rifle” thing probably got started when people couldn’t tell the difference based on external appearance…if it looked like one it must be one

        • Assault Rifle is a valid term referring to an intermediate caliber carbine with select fire capability. Assault Weapon is, on the other hand, a political term relating to a scary appearing carbine with certain features such as detachable magazine, pistol grip, muzzle device, etc. Features will vary according to who is doing the scaring at the moment, at times including every firearm that’s semi auto, such as a 10-22, or Auto-5

    • Gendle fails to notice that the criminals are traveling in packs now, like hyenas. Maybe one 10-rd magazine is enough for one, but when there are four coming at you, it definitely is not.

      • ATF and FBI and cops in general also travel in packs. Just saying. It’s not criminals that are going to enforce gun laws. Or maybe, technically, it is.

        I’ll take “Things we need more than 10 rounds for” for 500, Alex

      • Also failed to note the much publicized case just a couple of years ago of a cop who scored 17 hits with his .45 acp pistol on a bad guy who refused to quit shooting back even though he had 17 .45 caliber holes in him. It wasn’t until the cop was able to put one in his brain bucket that the perp decided to lay down and stop shooting back. Cop is quoted as saying he is going to switch to a 9 mm with standard 17 round magazines. He really found having to switch mags in a firefight was distracting.

    • “Too many people so focusing too much on ridiculous things.”

      Yeah, crazy I know, but it’s almost their real goal isn’t stopping crime or saving lives. I’m sure it’s just coincidence.

  2. “There is No Legitimate Use for Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds”

    This again?

    People in love with magazine capacity limits believe magazine changes are difficult, time-consuming, prone to error, and provide a serious window of time for people to run away from the shooter.

    How is it that children in adult guise have become the majority influence in this country?

    • Live long enough and you’ll see all the dead horses get beat over and over again as younger people and people who are newly activated by some confluence of cause and moment recycle the past as though it was new or fresh. Rarely one of these clowns will recognize the past failure of their ideas but rather than drop their nonsense they reassure us this time it’ll be different.

        • There are gas stations every block or so, therefore there is no need for gas tanks to hold more than five gallons. If you need more than that to get to your destination, find somewhere closer to go. If you absolutely are afraid of running out, you can easily carry a spare five gallons in an easily stored, approved container. Oh, and all agencies are also forced to abide by this rule.

        • A five gallon can is too heavy for many to safely handle, you would not propose that if you were not a racist! No vehicle should need more than 3 gallons!

        • “…there is no need for gas tanks to hold more than five gallons. If you need more than that…”

          One gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter (both available everywhere without a background check) can murder over 100 people in a movie theater… 🙁

      • “Moving to create a regulatory environment where the possession, sale and manufacture of such magazines could be legally phased out over time …”

        This is the entire point of beating the dead horse. They finally realize one horse is dead (“assault weapons” and switch to another one that seems more lively – magazine limits.

        What they are really looking for is the magic bullet (pun intended) that sneaks legislation through even though it is obviously and blatantly a violation of “…shall not be infringed.”

        All they are seeking is a chink in the Second Amendment armor that they can exploit so that further little infringements can be snuck through on its coattails.

      • “…as younger people and people who are newly activated by some confluence of cause and moment recycle the past as though it was new or fresh.”

        Yep. The cycle of life on display.

    • These are the same people who don’t think any true self defense happens with a gun, “don’t buy a gun, you will just kill yourself with it or someone will take it from you.” People must be too dumb to protect themselves…

      Yet a policy decision on capacity is needed because they think the average victims will either be able to flee or tackle/disarm the shooter during a mag change. Wishful thinking much? Now who is living in la-la land?

      • “Yet a policy decision on capacity is needed because they think the average victims will either be able to flee or tackle/disarm the shooter during a mag change.”

        It’s what you get when you are approaching the third generation of children raised to remain children.

      • I believe it’s spelled Grundle.

        Definition: A gluteal motor boat.
        AKA: A “Steam Boat Willy”.

    • People might think that 30 rd mags are dangerous. In my limited experience, it is the larger mags that jam. Now, I haven’t played with any larger mags for a loooooong time, so maybe they are made better now, but why not be more sure of not getting a jam and learn how to change out mags faster?
      But I feel that way about many things. Why hang things from your rear view mirror, tint your windows dark, use the wrong color lights on your car as extra lights or install illegally bright lights? You are just asking to get pulled over.
      Don’t be stupid, you can get away with much more.

      • My own personal view: It’s nobody’s business what I choose to arm myself with. The 2A is a Constitutionally guarantee of a GOD Given Right. The “Need” was stated in the Declaration of Independence, and that was the ability to change or replace a Government that has become Tyrannical or an attack by an outside threat. Nothing about hunting deer anywhere in out Founding Documents exists.

      • Hey, now…..

        All the things you mentioned are my fashion statement to the world. My way of saying, “Willie Boy was here, and you need to know it!”

        When you are old, pleasures are few. Leave me alone to have a low-rider 1968 Ford station wagon that sizzles.

  3. I have a feeling police are going to balk at those 10 round limits. We get what they get and vice versa unless they want second class citizens. Oh wait, these are the people who despise equality. The fight for trans rights is a virtue-signaling distraction as they deny you your rights. Remind me what right I have that a trans person doesn’t have?

    • We almost had that apply to police back when the SAFE act limited us to 7 rounds. But double standards come standard here.

      • believe the term “mag-dump” originated with the cops…and they have demonstrated as much on numerous occasions…..

        • In all fairness that was probably NYC with 10 pound+ triggers and a host of other issues.

    • Exactly this. If there are no legitimate uses for ten round magazines, then certainly it’s highly suspicious that the government is reserving them for their own use. For what illegitimate purposes would they use them?

      This is similar to logic proposed for “assault weapons bans”. Proponents say that those weapons exist to “kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.” At the same time, all the proposals include carveouts for law enforcement. I would like to know the scenarios under which law enforcement requires the ability to “kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.”

      • I would like to know the scenarios under which law enforcement requires the ability to “kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.”

        Duh. You should already know that there is systemic racism for police to kill as many Black people as possible. Preferably by shooting them in the back while they’re unarmed, like William Scott, or sending a barrage while they’re standing unarmed in a hall in the middle of the night during a no-knock raid, like Breonna Taylor. Given a typical officer’s poor marksmanship, they need at least a half dozen rounds to murder a Black citizen.

        • Anymouse,

          Yes, exactly. These people would have us believe both are true simultaneously. That’s why I’d love to hear someone ask them these questions when they make these pronouncements. If they don’t want us to draw that conclusion which follows from what they say and do, then they should tell us what they do intend.

  4. If 10+ round magazines were banned and rounded up, then there would be a push for 5+ round magazine bans, then 2+ round magazine bans…………never stops….never works. A two second mag change is no deterrent to causalities.

    The only savings from 10 round magazines is the cost of mag dumps.

    • Tickman:
      “The only savings from 10 round magazines is the cost of mag dumps.”
      And THAT is why I got a couple of ten round magazines for my Mini 14. Slows down the rapid depletion of expensive ammunition at the range.

      • “Slows down the rapid depletion of expensive ammunition at the range.”

        Understand your intention, but isn’t the “slow down” predicated on only having “a couple of ten round magazines”? What if you had four, or 10. How much “slow down” would you experience? Aren’t we talking about a “slow down” of seconds, vs. minutes?

      • a 10 round (or even a 5 round)…is fine for the range…but little else….except maybe hunting…

  5. High Capacity is another made up term. So many firearms today are developed specifically with a certain magazine capacity. This varies from six to thirty, even 50 rounds. Some are set up to accommodate magazines of various capacities, such as the AR or AK series. Who gets to decide what “High Capacity” is? The person purchasing the items, That’s who! Arbitrarily constraining capacity to ten leaves some under armed. Consider the victim of a Home Invasion. Gone are the days of criminals operating individually. the common attack seems to consist of three or more in a crew and they are explosive events, not leaving time for a reload. A thirty round mag in an AR pistol would truly come in handy in such a circumstance. As would a Glock with 17-33 rounds in the mag!

  6. So, why specify 10 round magazines? Why not a dozen rounds? Two dozen rounds? Or a half-dozen rounds? Why is a 10-round limit the magic number? What facts and studies support the rationale that 10 round magazines save lives while 11 round magazines do not? At what point do arbitrary limits become unconstitutional infringement? Sound reasoning based on cogent arguments must be made if constitutional rights are to be limited by law. Gendle means well, but executes poorly.

    • Ten is a nice, even number that sounds reasonable to someone who knows virtually nothing about the subject. Remember the Puppet’s brilliant plan of 100 days of masking (lol)? Do you think the Party of Science had scientists come up with that number?

        • In defense of the indefensible, Bill Ruger’s argument was sort of the author’s only from the opposite side of the coin. They wanted to ban his Mini 14 among others. He figured the industry could ride out a magazine ban (which it did) but halting the production of a whole line of rifles would be much more difficult to jump back from after 10 years. And as it turned out there was never a problem acquiring higher capacity magazines since everyone ramped up production before the law went into effect.

          Now not making higher capacity magazines available to the public (only LEOs while Bill ran the company) was just dumb. You could purchase unreliable ProMag mags, but I think that had a lot to do with the AR-15 supplanting the Mini 14 as America’s favorite semi-auto rifle. That and because Colt let the parents run out the Mini went from cheaper to more expensive.

    • There are only two arguments that justify limiting any right: forfeiture of rights by committing a crime; or eminent domain (under extraordinary circumstances that don’t apply here).

    • No, the Gelding does NOT mean well. He is a dirtbag attempting to “justify” a serious infrongement on our right to self defense, and/or to keep government in check. Go back and READ your history. BOTH of these concepts were solidly in view as our Founders haggled over the exact precise wording of what became the Second Article of Ammendment. The very term “arms” ment in that time, and still does today, weapons of military usefulness that can be carried about and deployyed as needed. Do these current clowns know there was in fact a forty round repeating rifle availalbe and in use during our War for Independence? It was VERY dear, as it was complicated, but once made ready the user could fire up to forty .59 calibre ball without reloading , each one fired by a single press of the trigger and nothing more.

    • Dude’s right about the “reasonableness”. (I’d guess this particular proposal was long-ago focus group tested to death.)

      The reason behind that is in how people intuit numbers when assigning weights to objects.

      Generally speaking, people assign “bad” to things that they perceive to be dangerous and “good” to things that they perceive to be either non-threatening or beneficial.

      Once weighted as such people, unless otherwise trained, tend to pick basic numbers that are easy for their brain to deal with. Good items they’ll tend to pick “large” numbers for and “bad” things they’ll tend to pick small numbers. Though it should be noted that context matters to some degree here and is usually based on familiarity with the object.

      Is 10 cars a lot of cars? Mostly no, because people have repeatedly seen large parking lots. In a single person’s garage? Maybe that is a lot, depends on the person and context, a mechanic with an out-building being different than a collector. But even here, people tend to allow for “a lot more” (Jay Leno) because they don’t perceive cars as bad. The reverse might be true for a hardcore greenie who sees cars as bad.

      You can see the same thing with other things. 10 is a lot of wolves because wolves are individually perceived as dangerous so 10 must be loads of danger, right? 10 housecats or cattle are perceived as far less threatening so the threshold for “a lot” is much higher. Maybe you need 100 buffalo before the average person in a normal sample says “That’s a lot of buffalo”.

      When something’s easily demonized the number drops. So, in this case many people will agree that “10 is a lot” because bullets are seen as dangerous. And again, context matters. 20 people hell-bent on killing them and the average person sees a 30 round mag as small. A single mass shooter with a 30 round mag and the same mag is very large.

      People do the same thing with their perception of time but that’s only tangentially linked here.

      Dude’s point is well taken, a number has been selected that seems eminently reasonable to the uninitiated and innumerate. It’s “a lot” in most circumstances that most people can see themselves in but it’s less than most guns actually carry in a standard magazine. Therefore it’s perfect. It forces a redesign of mags, imposes cost on “bad people” and makes things “safer” in terms of perception but is still “a lot” for most unthinking people briefly considering the topic. So, why would you ever need more?

      And it opens other doors for propaganda efforts using the gun community against itself. We talk about x shots per DGU. Is that conversation usually <10? Yes. We have wheel gun guys who love revolvers that rarely hold more than six and 6<10. So, quite clearly, only lunatics would argue against such a level headed policy that’s supported by the gun community itself.

      Is that bullshit? Yup. Do they care? No, because this method is effective at muddying the waters in a discussion where they hold the upper hand emotionally from the jump in terms of most people. In tennis terms: Advantage, antis.

      And you can see that the political Left uses this tactic all the time on other topics too.

      But back to numbers perception. You can see this in the CoV-2 polling that was done a few times. Democrats tended to massively overestimate this while other people were much closer to the truth but the interesting part of it is how the numbers worked out.

      If you actually go back and look at the numbers generated from such polls as means derived from a group (the average IFR/hospitalization rates) you’ll find three oddities.

      First, the percentage of people who had a clue what was going on was low. Odd considering the news coverage, no? Almost like the news and public health folks were lying. But is that entirely true? No, part of this also has to do with how often people hear about a “danger” and how that influences their perception of the danger. If the news never shuts up about Danger X, then Danger X must be really high. That’s innate programming in our brain that takes active work to overcome. And the converse is true too, if you never hear about it then Danger X must be quite low. These are due to our natural heuristics in how we perceive danger and rank order various dangers.

      Secondly, the numbers fell into one of two spots as mean. They either fell quite close to a “nice number” 10%, 1%, 2%, 5%, 50% or they fell right smack in the middle of two “nice” numbers. ~7.5%, for example.

      As a general rule this tells you that people are not actually processing data, they’re guessing. That guess is based on what information they do have and what seems reasonable based on that information. Generally the numbers tend to fall into “nice” numbers or 1/2 nice numbers based on the overall zeitgeist of the group in question. This tends to become very obvious when you sample in a manner designed to make a normally distributed sample from a skewed population (kinda the point of stats in many regards).

      But what’s really going on in many cases is that people are using their lack of information to make what you might call an “informed guess” about the topic. The danger seems low based on what I’ve personally seen but the news can’t shut up about it so it must be higher than I see in my own life so… 5-10%? But unconsiously people have taken the bounds of that range as the options. Some people say 5, some say 10. Nearly no one says 6.213645!

      The more the news beats this the closer you get to 10%. The reverse is also true. If the news doesn’t talk about it then 1-5% seems reasonable. When things are split fairly evenly you get numbers like 2.5 or 7.5.

      So… that’s kinda primer on how they pick numbers like this, which can also relate to push-polling later on. This is one of the reasons I harp on weaponized psychology so much. It matters. A LOT.

  7. All of this stuff can be stopped with a law that states that law enforcement is required to follow these gun laws. No mags with higher capacity than 10 rds for LE. Lets take it further and enforce this on a state level. If a citizen of a state can’t have it, LE can’t either.

    Remember, LE is not military, they are citizens just like us. Take away the special immunities and special rights, pretty soon, we will get them back for all.

    • They’ll claim that would result in the cops being outgunned by the criminals. They won’t however offer a reason why it’s OK for the citizens to be outgunned by the criminals.

      • Peasants………….erm citizens have no need of firearms let alone high capacity magazines to begin with. They lack the proper training and would only hurt themselves. Criminals are obviously well trained as they never seem to have these problems and are less of a worry than armed citizens who wouldn’t be able to properly defend themselves even if they were armed……….did I cover all the typical talking points #AMIDOINGTHISRIGHT?

    • Lol
      Defund the police?

      The military all comes from the common stock of civilian populous. It’s more that some individuals are born with a destiny of service.

    • I think any law restricting citizen firearm use (in any way) should apply to LE for 10 years prior to applying to other citizens, in order to hear the professionals’ opinions of its validity. The final 3 years applying to military as well, for the same professional input. Try to imagine. But, 2A applies to THE PEOPLE, not LE or the military, clearly this would be reasonable, if it is not in some instance, simply retract the proposed law.

  8. There certainly can be made a good case for banning high cap magazines and the horrific mass murder slaughters are numerous. Paddock mass murdering 60 some people and crippling 200 In Los Vegas or the Orlando nightclub massacre of 50 some people or the Colorado Theater massacre, the list is so long you would need a computer run out just to list them all.

    Seconds count when law enforcement are trying to stop a madman and when he can blaze away without reloading with a 100 round drum as was done in Dayton Ohio the bodies fall faster than rain drops.

    But the Far Right will scream “Losses can never be to high” because we just do not give a damn.

    High capacity magazines are weapons of war and designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time and they are not necessary for hunting or self defense and most civilized societies ban weapons of war and their accessories. But in Capitalvania life is considered cheap and expendable

    • Did Paddock even use a high capacity mag? Don’t know, don’t much care if he did. He is not the example you are looking for. He spent days planning, and brought multiple weapons. Big deal, if he were limited to 10-round mags, he was just going to bring however many mags he thought it required.

      Oh, wait. Are you another of those idiots who thinks it takes 90 seconds to swap mags? The most broke down, junky gun you can find can be swapped in 2 or 3 seconds.

      One more time: The second amendment isn’t about hunting, and it’s only peripherally concerned with self defense. The 2nd is all about citizens standing up to the government. The 2nd gives us a fail safe method of removing government. When all else fails, we can storm Washington, with weapons just as good and reliable as government owns.

        • He’s the one demonstrating he’s into sadomasochism, necrophilia, and bestiality. He’s the one truly flogging the dead horse.

      • bestto ignore the Dackie Boy. Not woth the finger wear to “respond” to hum. He might even be getting paid by the number orf responses he generates with each noggin dump.

        • My guess would be your assessment being correct. I simply cannot fathom someone paying per word, given the majority being a geyser of unintelligible simpleton drivel that spews forth.

          Only the daft dregs of society would be persuaded by such transparent idiocy.

    • Normally I would not reply to dacian–I am making an exception in this case since he lobbed an irresistible slow pitch.

      High capacity magazines are weapons of war … and most civilized societies ban weapons of war and their accessories.

      Whew! It’s a good thing that Ukraine’s civilized society did not allow their citizens to possess “weapons of war”: they have saved dozens of lives from fellow countrymen on killing sprees.

      • uncommon,

        Beat me to it! Such an obvious thing, but dacian the stupid is incapable of recognizing the obvious. And then Ukraine, which had intentionally DISARMED its own citizens had to “re-arm” its citizens (with the help of the rest of the world). Any guesses whether Ukrainian citizens will be allowed to RETAIN those weapons, after the Russia conflict is over??? (Side comment: Any Ukrainian who did receive a weapon for this conflict, and “turns it in”, is too stupid to survive. Darwin at work.)

    • I guess if you have a gun you are expected to be accurate enough with 10 rounds in a stress situation. Please tell the person that is being attacked by multiple people, 10 rounds is all you need.
      This is nonsense and totally arbitrary number. How many lives are saved by having more than 10 rounds? Just think about it for a minute, none of it makes sense.

    • The third highest body count mass shooting in US history was carried out with ban compliant 10-round magazines. Just Google the details of the Virginia Tech shooting. He brought 19 10 round magazines for his Glock with him in a purse along with a couple of extra boxes of ammo. The 10-round magazines made no difference whatsoever in how many people the gunman was able to kill how quickly he was able to do so. He also brought a 22 semi-automatic that was equipped with 10 round magazines but I don’t know if any of the victims fell to that gun.

      The highest body count single person mass shooting ever committed worldwide was carried out by a police officer in Korea in the late 70s or early 80s where he killed 108 people with a 38 revolver over a period of several hours. The families of the 108 murder victims were very relieved when they found out that the United States was the only country where mass shootings occur and all of the victims were immediately brought back to life once they were informed of that fact by the New York Times and CNN. They were also very relieved when they discovered that only the police are allowed to have firearms in their country since it kept all of them so safe.

      I’m also reminded of a mass stabbing that occurred in an adult movie theater in Sweden during the 90s where gay men hung out. A man went down the rows in the theater and killed 21 men with a knife before the men at the front row noticed blood pooling at their feet and got out of there. The patrons of the theater were used to the floors being sticky but the blood of 21 men was even gooier than they were used to. Not a single man killed was able to make a sound as they died or at least the sounds they made were mistaken for sounds of pleasure by the other patrons in the theater.

      • Just some minor corrections. Korean guy killed 56, had a couple M2s and hand grenades. No revolver. He was the deadliest lone gunman until the Norway guy in 2011.

        People have no clue that the 5 deadliest mass shootings in the world and the vast majority of the top 50 have all been outside of the US.

        • North Korea, not the shooting in South Korea. I know the one you’re talking about but that’s not the one I was talking about.

    • There certainly can be made a good case for banning high cap magazines and the horrific mass murder slaughters are numerous. Paddock mass murdering 60 some people and crippling 200 In Los Vegas or the Orlando nightclub massacre of 50 some people or the Colorado Theater massacre, the list is so long you would need a computer run out just to list them all.

      Well. There is a logic to this. If 10 is “safer” than 100 rounds, or safer than 30 rounds, then 5 rounds is safer than 10. And if 5 rounds are safer than 10, then 2 rounds are safer than 5, and if 2 rounds are safer than 5, then 1 round is safer than 2, and if 1 round is safer than 2, then zero rounds is safer than 1. This is why we don’t care about “safety.” This is why we don’t care about your, or the left’s opinion on safety. Because “freedom” has value, and a cost. And that cost … IS safety. Further, again, you blame freedom. e.g. – “It’s because he was ‘able’ to get high capacity mags.” – “It was because he was ‘able’ to get a firearm.” – “It was because he was ‘able’ to obtain things we are going to label as, weapons of war.”

      You don’t pursue the bad guy. You don’t pursue the ideology that made the decision. You don’t pursue the cause of the decision itself. Instead, you people, point at the word – “able.” He was able to do it. So you target the freedom itself. And this is why you are immediately dismissed by us.

      Seconds count when law enforcement are trying to stop a madman and when he can blaze away without reloading with a 100 round drum as was done in Dayton Ohio the bodies fall faster than rain drops.

      Right. So it’s “safer” if he is only “able” to have a single shot break over rifle, or even better – no rifle at all. See prior paragraph explanation.

      But the Far Right will scream “Losses can never be to high” because we just do not give a damn.

      This pretty much sums it up for me, when it comes to sacrificing MY freedom, for what some immoral garbage inner city human does to someone else, with or without a gun. Your endless blaming of MY freedom for what someone else “decides” to do, is lame, annoying, and so very old.

      High capacity magazines are weapons of war and designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time and they are not necessary for hunting or self defense and most civilized societies ban weapons of war and their accessories. But in Capitalvania life is considered cheap and expendable

      High capacity magazine, or standard capacity magazines, which is what we call them, because 30 or 40 rounds was their standard design, is most definitely used for defense. Any military protecting their their nation, with armed soldiers against other nations, will be having magazines such as these. Thus is it self apparent, that their usage for defense, is superior than a lesser capacity magazine. Would you issue the military M16s with 5 round mags for the common defense of our nation? No you would not.

      Again with your nonsense. The problem apparently isn’t that people are “deciding” to hurt/kill/murder others. It’s that I have this “freedom” to buy a weapon. It’s so tiring and old. Just so lame, and so old. I would have thought you guys could have come up with a new argument over the last 100 years. Alas no.

      • M-16’s started out with 20…[see “Full Metal Jacket” and notice the numerous mag changes]…then graduated to 30 which seemed the most practical size…same thing happened with other weapons..M1 carbine, Thompson SMG etc…..drum mags are often unreliable, which is why the Seals rejected that 100 rounder…

        • I still prefer 20, that’s what I got used to in the ’70s. 30-rd mags are too long in prone, interfere with target selection/acquisition. Sure, I have dozens of 30s, but 20s are most close at hand, I cannot imagine a need for more than that in any defense situation, if defending against tyranny I would have plenty of time to switch.

    • Then normal police should not have “high capacity” mags either. We need SWAT for some takedowns and they should be elite units of special state police forces, not local police. They should be to only ones with more than what is allowed normal citizens and then only by special warrants.

  9. Nothing like getting legislative advice on the regulation of a product from people who have never used or even held said product in their hands.

  10. Yeah well, some of us just get tired of reloading magazines all the time, so phuk y’all!!

  11. Who the hell is stupid enough to come up with this bullshit? These brain-dead leftists and liberals still haven’t realized most criminals get the highest capacity of whatever they can for whatever they’re using. There’s more than one instance where a private citizen benefitted from having a higher capacity magazine than lower. The only thing that needs to be phased out are the gun haters as they know nothing about firearms whatsoever and never present a reason that’s legitimate that truly justifies anything they whine and complain about. I can guarantee you none of their bodyguards have 10 round magazines and are exempt from such ignorant restrictions.

    I just bought a new Glock 23 and one extra mag. I think I’ll go buy at least a half dozen more in this clown’s honor. Stupid idiot.

    • The 10 round versions are often a bit more expensive and oddly more difficult to load with the alterations needed to being with so just an extra fuck you for trying in the occupied states.

  12. Yet another idiot with an agenda. The hell with him. I’ll do what I damn well please.

  13. Maybe we should introduce a dirty word to the discussion: suppressing fire. Bastid is trying to kill me, but he’s in a bad spot to do it from. If I can keep firing into his position, he’ll keep his head down, thereby not kill me. Each and every moment that his head is behind whatever obstruction he took shelter behind is a moment he’s not killing me.

    Since cops respond to every emergency situation within 15 seconds, a 50-round magazine should save my life, right? /sarcasm

  14. They want to move the goal posts so we only can have 5 rounds capacity in the near future.

    • 15 Rounds? What would you ever need 10 rounds for, I can’t believe you are allowed to own 5 round magazines, now turn in your single shots.

      • Yes, this is where it’s headed. If we allow the gov’t to set one arbitrary limit, they can just as easily set another lesser one.

        • Well, the 5-round limit has been conclusively proven to save 100 million lives every year in Delaware alone, clearly we should try a 2-round limit worldwide! If we would stop believing obvious lies, decisions would be easier.

      • This and other objections from people like the author of this, all derive from a desire to limit Rate of Fire (rounds per minute). Reducing mag capacity is one way to do that. It began with the 1934 NFA, and has continued to this day. All anyone needs to do to understand the goal, is listen to what they say. Eventually they will come right out and introduce legislation that will specify arbitrary permitted rate of fire, regardless of the type of firearm. That will necessitate a timing device in the firearm or confiscation of the firearm.

        • in a real live fire situation no one ever fires contiuously anyway. As the movements progress, there ar e times when one side does not know where the oter side is, thus are not firing. Good opportunities for a “tactical reload”. DOn’t wait till our gun says CLICK before you change that mag, of whatever capacity. Because then you not ony have to change the mag, you also have to put a new round into battery manually, taking more precious time, and not being ready to return fire until you do. So normal cap ags really do not increase the actualrate of fire by any significant margin.

        • Of a “smart” firearm, where a computer allows it to fire, based on its reading a fingerprint, each. time. it. fires.

      • “15 Rounds? What would you ever need 10 rounds for, I can’t believe you are allowed to own 5 round magazines, now turn in your single shots.”

        Hush. You are saying the quiet part out loud; ruining the game for others.

  15. Let us change this up a bit…. No one needs a car that has a gas that can hold more than 10 gallons…. No one needs more that 10 pairs of shoes….. No one needs…… They all start out with someone else’s belief being forced on others.

    • “No one needs more that 10 pairs of shoes….”

      Yeah, try telling that to some women…

      *snicker* 😉

    • “They all start out with someone else’s belief being forced on others.”

      Which is the entire point of having unlimited power.

    • Oh, trust me, Greg, the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) will get to that. Some have already tried. We’ll get there, if we let these Leftist/fascist morons continue their encroachments on our rights.

    • “No legitimate reason for a 600 horse power Dodge on the street either.”

      Whoa, there !

      Now you’ve gone from telling the truth, to meddling.

    • not these days…the “muscle car era” is over and street-racing…once quite common…is no longer tolerated…

      • Au contriere, Penzoil breath. Just this morning, I totally blew the doors off a Prius at the corner light with my ’03 Alero 2.4 injected naturally aspirated, beefy P205-60-14s up front, tall skins P195-75-15s out back for that wind cheating forward rake.. Eyed the cross traffic yellow in a SUV’s windshield glare, timed my green, screamed off the line, and blew across the intersection ust ahead of our new red. Had the Little Alero wound up tight!!! Tomorrow, I’m going hunting for the Little Old Lady from Pasadena in her Volt. Those ECs are torquey, but driver skill and preparation carry the win.

      • Month or 2 back, got into it with some manner of Aston Martin while in my stoked BMW, I don’t think we even broke 100 but it was huge fun! If you don’t approve, try to find someone who cares!

    • Absolutely true, when an 807 hp version is available. Plus why are the greedy corporations even ALLOWED to charge extra for more HP, the 807 HP should be standard!

  16. There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus-round magazine for his or her firearm of choice.” — Mat Gendle

    During the last few weeks, the Russian army executed countless Ukrainians who, if they were still alive, could articulate a crystal clear self-defense need for possessing and using 10-plus-round magazines in semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

    And before anyone starts screeching about how that does not apply to us here in the United States because we have our military, I direct you to the indisputable concrete fact that Ukraine has a military as well. I will also direct you to the indisputable concrete fact that Ukraine outsourced a GIANT element of their national defense (their nuclear missiles) to Russia and the United States–to their abject horror at this point.

    Outsourcing anything to government is a quaint idea: sometimes it works out fairly well and sometimes it is an abject disaster. When it comes to self-defense and national defense, I am not interested in gambling on whether or not government will save the day. Mat Gendle can kiss my rosy red @$$.

    • Hmm… I always imagined your ass to be lily-white. Probably hair as well.

        • I’m a touch concerned you’re interested in his ass enough to speculate on whether it’s hairy or not.

          (Guv, you walked right into that one… 🙂 )

        • It’s hard to think straight when your face is buried in Miss Stein’s boobs.

      • It is “rosy red rectum”, it is the special bleaching sessions that keep it tha way.

    • Yep, you can be sure they are so happy they gave all their nukes to Russia in return for a promise not to invade.

      • Rusty – Always Carry – Chains,

        And we can be sure that we will be very unhappy if we give up all of our firearms to our state and federal governments for a promise not to dehumanize us (where that dehumanization could take many forms which deny our inherent dignity and value as humans).

  17. How many incidents in Chicago are done with multiple attackers? If you look the city is kind of famous for having mobs assault and rob people. Maybe at that point you’d want some high capacity mags.

    As was once said the only time you’re going to wish you had less ammo is when you are drowning.

  18. “There is No Legitimate Use for Magazines Holding More Than 10 Rounds”

    I can attest to the fact that this is 100% false. I had a legitimate use for magazines holding more than 10 rounds, in fact, multiple magazines holding more than 10 rounds. I had to expend all my 15 round Glock magazines except for three rounds in saving my wife from the attempted abduction and rape and had to do so under fire from the bad guys. When it was over I had three rounds left in my last 15 round mag. If all I would have had was 10 round magazines my wife and I would have died that day.

    • .40 cal, not throwing lip at you, but I checked the article and it allows comments. You have a compelling real-life example, and I’d suggest you repeat your post there. Who knows, maybe the author will read it and open his mind a little.

    • .40 cal Booger,

      If all I would have had was 10 round magazines my wife and I would have died that day.

      And therein lies the rub: the Ruling Class doesn’t care if you and your wife would have died. In fact many of the Ruling Class actually prefer that you and your wife died–that means less people consuming resources and creating “pollution” on our planet.

      Note that many of the Ruling Class consider your biological functions a liability, such as breathing which consumes resources (oxygen) and creates “pollution” (carbon dioxide).

      We would be wise to STOP ascribing honest mistakes as the reasons for the destructive ends of the goals of the Ruling Class.

    • “There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus-round magazine for his or her firearm of choice.”

      I had “proper marksmanship training”, from accredited instructors (some who instruct government agency personnel under contract to the U.S. government) and a (retired) navy seal. Our local firing range is used by some of the alphabet agencies in the area for their training and qualifications. One of the firing range employees is a government (state and federal) certified and government (state and federal) contracted firearms instructor and routinely provides “proper marksmanship training” to various federal and state agencies personnel in the area and the owner of the range is a retired navy seal. He gives the training for others too for free, such as those who need it for a permit (we still have permits, not required, but some need them for reciprocity reasons), or for free for those who ask for it (if he can get at least five people together for the class).

      Ok, so I had this magical “proper marksmanship training” but still needed more than 10 round magazines.

      Self-defense by defensive gun use is not about “proper marksmanship”. Its about stopping the threat and not being a “marksman” but rather putting rounds in the bad guy in that very chaotic, frequently moving, sudden-swift-violent, very short eye-blink moment in time. It is not about “proper marksmanship”, its about how many rounds you need to put in the bad guy any place you can to stop the threat or repel the threat or suppress the threat and that can be, in some situations more than 10 rounds (and my situation above was a rare occurrence, most people only a fire a couple of rounds). But here’s the thing, no one knows how many rounds they will need until it happens, and its going to be a pretty depressing moment when you try to go bang for needed round 11 and nothing happens with the threat still a threat.

  19. Actually, if we are going to continue to wrongfully focus on the implement itself, the single “deadliest” features of a firearm are, first, the cartridge projectile system and, second, the rifled barrel. Eventually they will try to ban these as well; frankly they already try to when they make the fallacious argument that the 2nd Amendment is about muskets. Luddites cannot win the argument because its not about the implement, its about concepts of liberty.

    • ” the single “deadliest” features of a firearm are ”

      Actually, I’d say the single deadliest feature of any firearm is the person who is holding it.

  20. If that is true, why do police carry 15 round magazines and often at least three for their pistol. Why do police have 30 round magazines for their AR? Why do they have extended magazines on their shotguns? The odds are, on any given day, they will not need to use their firearms, but they have that capacity.

    Since the odds are, if I get attacked the police will not be withing fifteen minutes of my location, why shouldn’t I be armed the same way?

    • This is a reasonable response. The bad guys that make the cops think they need lotsa firepower are one to one the same bad guys we tool up to protect ourselves and families from.

      • “The bad guys that make the cops think they need lotsa firepower are one to one the same bad guys we tool up to protect ourselves and families from.”

        Yeah, but….

        If you go to nice places, where nice people gather, you won’t be bothered by bad guys. No one needs firepower in nice places. Besides, the nice places are gun free zones, anyway.

        • Yeah, I hear you, I mostly go to nice places only. And I carry my gun there every time, and you can just fuck off. I didn’t see any sign. I want a speedy jury trial as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I want it tomorrow.

    • A very valid question. I can answer it for you based upon personal experience (I related above in the comments and here > https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/training-dont-limit-yourself-to-ccw-qualifier-distances-at-the-range/#comment-5748966).

      Its like that motorcycle helmet people say is not needed. It may not be needed all the time but there may be that one time when it will act to save your life in a crash.

      Real life can not be lived according to statistics. People for that motorcycle helmet justify it not being used (in those areas not requiring it) by pointing to “statistics”.

      Real life isn’t like that. Real life is unpredictable when others around you can decide they want to do something that is contrary to your well being and safety and security.

      Before my incident I did not envision the need to carry more than two 15 round mags, one in the Glock and the other in its holder. I had read all the stuff about that most people only fire a few rounds, and the ‘statistics’ here and there. And in some past incidents before the attempted abduction and rape of my wife I had only fired a few rounds. But then that thing that is not ‘statistics’, that unpredictable thing, that real life thing happened and the bad guys tried to abduct and rape my wife at knife and gun point and it had to be stopped.

      I learned something in my incident when after a few magazines I was down to 3 rounds left when it was over, I learned the “what if…” thing as it relates to real life experience. And that “what if…” was “What if that guy with the gun and that guy with the knife were still able to move despite having been wounded and still able to move, and able to get to my wife, and I had to continue and out of ammo?”

      Now I carry four 15 round magazines. I might not need them all the time, but real life is not “statistics” and its not predictable especially when there are others who can decide they want to do something that is contrary to your well being and safety and security.

      And that’s why police carry 15 round magazines, two, three, or sometimes more, and you should too – because real life is not “statistics” and its not predictable when there are others who can decide they want to do something that is contrary to the police officers, and yours, well being and safety and security.

      • How many such episodes have you had/do you expect? This reads like action hero fiction, are you living in Sudan or something? Not at all sure I believe this.

  21. What do I think? I observe the Matt Gendle

    1: Is as stupid as one would expect of a college prof. Or Pshrinkology

    2: You can purchase a 650hp production auto

    3: Most of those “cosmetic” features are actually performance items – as “bayonet lugs” imagine the vapors if Gendle say a rifle with a bayonet mounted (as functional an item as might penetrate you abdominal cavity

    4: Gendle is as much of an overeducated moron as typical of a college prof.

  22. Another lost soul, searching for an answer to a challenge, that has nothing to do with the vast majority of firearm owners. How to prevent the use of firearms in senseless murders / mass-murders? They oddly went on to say, it would reduce the number of deaths by lowering the magazine count. So, it now seems they are not really concerned about preventing Mass Shootings, just lowering the body count. As most Responsible Firearm Owners KNOW: We have plenty of laws on the books to reduce senseless murders; the FAILURE is in the ENFORCEMENT. And also in enacting JUSTICE for those that have previously committed crimes against humanity.

  23. All the guy needs now is a steamy bowl of grits and to take a long nap…then he will sleep with nothing on his mind or much in his stomach…

  24. There is no news that cannot be reported within two pages, therefore newspapers need to be limited to two pages per day.
    There is no news that cannot be reported within ten minutes, therefore TV news shows will be limited to ten minutes per day.

    The funny thing is, with the direction many newspapers are going, they are fast approaching just two pages per day.

  25. It takes what? 2 seconds to swap a magazine? So, instead of 2 30 round mags., someone of bad intent carries 6 10 round mags.
    Next part, is if I or any other citizen is limited, so should be LE. Police, etc. are still civilians. Hypothetically, police are held to a higher standard in performance and training, but in reality, the average CCW permit holder has as good or better or at least more frequent training and practice with their weapons.
    Concern over magazine size, like nearly everything else the disarmament crowd gets fixated on, will have no effect in the real world on crime or mass casualty shootings.
    Truth of the matter is, even using century old lever or pump guns, with a pocket full of cartridges or shot shells could easily reload on the fly and cause as much damage as anyone armed with a semi automatic firearm. And, with several spare magazines, someone armed with a 7 round 1911 can also cause as much mayhem as someone armed with the latest generation Glock.

  26. a healthy handful of reasonable well chosen suggestions followed by the inevitable epic fail.

  27. I’m the only one that can determine how many rounds I need for self defense and the capacity of magazines to hold them.

    • Yup. Loaded mags are heavy, as well as expensive, and I have never yet needed a single round in the past 50 years I’ve been alert. Some may claim to have fired multiple times and near run out of ammo while heroically defending the bride, but I am sorry to say I don’t believe it happened within this country. I have an old (very old!) friend who for many years carried a .45 derringer with 2 shots, and found it completely adequate every time he needed it. Which was never. For most everybody, an LCP with 6 rounds of .380 will serve you for the rest of your life.

  28. Cool, so we take them away from the military and police first?
    After all they must be the most exemplary in following the law and also the easiest to access for such a new law so it can be enforced the fastest.

  29. This author lives in a little bubble free from violence.
    Show this guy some videos from Active Self Protection where more than ten rounds were needed to solve the problem.

    Those situations exist. The make a blanket statement that no scenario exists is pure ignorance.

  30. I would tell Matt Gendle to go tell that to the citizens of Ukraine….and see where it gets him.

  31. Wait, wait, wait for it….. There it is!!! “There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense “NEED” for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus-round magazine…..” Guess LEOs with their 13, 15, 17 round mags aren’t properly marksmanship trained. Note: civilians have a better hit-to-shots ratio than LEOs under actual lethal situations.
    Aw, the magical “NEED” ploy. I must have the V 1.0 of the Second Amendment. My copy has no “NEED” clause in it. Or, “less than 10 rounds”….”suitable for sporting purposes”…..”no full auto”….”no short barrels”….. Come on, Man. There’s a LONG list of NOTS my 2A doesn’t contain. Only NOT in my copy is “…..shall NOT be infringed.” No NEEDs and only one NOT. Pretty concise and to the point. Government, keep your damn hands off my “keep and bear.”

    OK, buckle up, lets, take one more lap around the reality course. Once again, Boys and Girls…..yeah, I used gender terms and proud of it, so you ITs STFU,….the Second Amendment does not convey the right for citizens to keep and bear. The right to self defense of God (word has it He’s pretty personally capable), family, country, and self was inalienably endowed at creation by our Creator. Yeah, and there is proof of that also. The 2A tells government to keep their damn laws off We The Little Peeps’ “keep and bear”…..aka “…shall not be infringed.” There is no “need” provision in the Second Amendment. But, just for the S&G sake of supposition, if a “need” were the criteria for citizens being armed, then, if the government has it, I NEED it just a little bit more. Tommy J. said something like, “Tyranny is that which is legal for government, but not for citizens.” No, I did not personally hear him expound same. I had stepped out to the concession stand for a latte and cappuccino. Saw it on evening news…..they were honest reporters back then. Therefore, my “need” exists for truly full auto weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, AR15s, M16s, high capacity mags, Barrett M107, Barrett MRAD MK22, thermal/NV optics, personal body armor, armored HumVees, F35s, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, SAWM249s, et el, et el. Joey said he has “F15s and nukes”, gonna need them also, put ’em in the cart. I’m gonna need a bigger barn, pasture, and lane with glide slope and catch wires. There, “need” satisfied. Puddin’ Boy currently (previously by Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chavez, Castro, et el, et el) re-confirmed my position, along with Jello-for-Brains Joey and our Resident Zip-for-Brains Laughing Hyena.

    “In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand as a rock against the current.” think ole Tommy J again…paraphrased. My Freedom, Rights, Liberties, “keep and bear” are not style points. We are going to have to make believers out of Libturds before they quit infringing. Longer the wait, more severe the cost. ATF is tightening the infringe noose with pending FRTs, 80%PMFs, receiver re-definition, braced pistols, slide fire stocks, and more in the wings, infringements piling on top of previous infringements full auto shortys, silencers, AOWs,….. Slippery slope in action.
    Even ole simple Forrest Gump memed, “In 1776, the British demanded that we surrender our weapons. We shot them.”

    • “Aw, the magical “NEED” ploy.”

      You realize that the Second Amendment is based entirely on need, right? There is a legitimate case for “need”. (But, not what the power-seekers think)



    • NTexas if your son goes out and knocks up the neighbor girl, do you ground your youngest son? If your Mother in Law cheats on her husband, do you divorce your wife?

      That is what you advocate when you restrict others for something they did not do.

  33. Another meaningless opinion piece by a progressive college professor published in a no name newspaper with limited distribution. Yawn…

    Opinions…everyone’s got one.

  34. The problem with this line of thinking is, once 10 rounds is determined to be what is needed, someone will come up with, there’s no reason to have more than 8 rounds, then 6, and so on. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right to ensure safety. Magazines are part of the arm being used.

    I can say no one needs more than one car that can only go up to 70mph. I bet those crying about mag limits wouldn’t care for that.

  35. I would ask if there is no legitamate use for these sort of magazines when the police and when the military are giving theirs up and going to 10 rounders.

  36. Why are police exempt from such limitations if there are no legitimate reasons? Are police lives more important than our own? Police have formal training and shouldn’t need standard capacity magazines if we’re going to cherry pick talking points. If the reason is that police are more likely to engage criminals then my argument would still be how much increased likelihood needs to be present for there to be a legitimate reason? And why 10? Is 10 a magic number like magic grits or Jack and the Bean Stalk seeds? (yes I went there) What actual scientific research with actual statics indicate 10 being an appropriate number? I’ll tell you why, because there is none. 10 is a feel good meaningless number just like the made up meaningless term assault weapons which is a made up term that means nothing. The number 10 along with assault weapons are meaningless but sound plausibly reasonable to those in the population who have no real comprehension of firearms or shooting tactics who couldn’t articulate the difference from select fire and semi-auto.

  37. I’ve never heard of the Right of Legitimate Needs. I am on the other hand, quite familiar with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and it’s history. Ms.Gendle is no different than the British or the Colonial Tories who supported them in their attempted to deny our Forefathers their Right to Keep and Bear Arms by any means necessary. And like what was necessary for Our Founding Patriot’s to secure their Rights. It may well be necessary to invoke a likewise response in Our time. In certain parts of our Nation. There will always be those who wish to deny Free People their Rights and the only way to limit them is to either take away their freedom or their lives. While this to many will seem harsh. It was the choices left to our Forefathers when their Freedoms were under assail. After many years of trying through the political forum to no avail. Their decision was made for them on a green field in Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19 1775. Although We are much removed from those times. ‘We the People’ still yearn no less, for the same Freedoms as those brave men who stood, fought and died. 246 years and 15 days ago. As we approach the anniversary of that momentous and hollowed day. Each must reflect on what Freedom means to them. As well as what each would do to secure that Freedom from those who wish to see it torn asunder. The decisions made that day did not include the great men who would later be heralded as the great leaders of the Revolution, but by ordinary men. Just men, who wished to be Free.

  38. I’d almost believe him, if such a thing wasn’t debunked (and has been. Many times) particularly with a simple magazine swap. There really isn’t that much of a size difference between 3 10-round magazines and 1 30-round magazine. And as soon as you include drum mags,there is even less of a benefit in size, weight, reloading, reliability… it’s just not applicable in a logical argument. Not that I propose any sort of ban on drum mags, they can be fun. But in a confrontational application? There is a reason they weren’t successful.

  39. The way their game plan works is: ban the 30-rounders. No reduction in crime. Just didn’t go far enough. Must go further. Ban 10-rounders, allowing only single shots. Wash repeat until no guns. That was the general layered-approach game plan Nazis implemented on Jews pre-WWII ending in confiscation…..the modern Nazi….er, Libturd, my bad…..agenda.

  40. “Such a move could include a multi-year plan where low-capacity magazines would be made widely available to law-abiding gun owners before anything was banned outright.”

    Weird how it always comes back to central planning the economy in some manner.

  41. Evil, mean magazines that hold more than ten rounds are much killier than kind, nice magazines that hold ten or less. That’s science, y’know. Also, if you wear a face mask, nothing can harm you. That’s also science.

    Welcome to America, where stupid has become science, and science has become stupid.

  42. Have a shirt that reads…..actually shirts cannot read. Shirt reads….oops, shirst cannot read, no eyes. Actually, it has printed upon it:

    “The real Pandemic is the stupidity of the Useful Idiot Masses”

  43. Since there is no legitimate reason to have more than 10 rounds, I’m sure the police will be happy to lead the way. If they can’t stop a criminal (with all their training) with 10 rounds, they shouldn’t be carrying a gun.

  44. @LarryinTX
    “No vehicle should need more than 3 gallons!”


    I can see that being turned into a “green” advertisement:
    “No vehicle should need more than 3 gallons! Ban combustion engines, and no vehicle will need more than three gallons of gasoline. Go green, go electric, save the whales.”

  45. “There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus-round magazine for his or her firearm of choice.”
    Need, he says. My need/want is really none of his business. Not everyone who takes “proper” marksmanship training qualifies as an expert; plus, not everyone takes training at that level. First assault rifle and now “low capacity magazines”. They are simply magazines nothing more nothing less. Where does Gendle get off dictating needs to POTG. Pompous a_s.

    • LEOs are trained. I read that on average, they have a 15% chance of hitting what they’re aiming at while under stress. So, with a 10-round magazine, odds are they connect once, maybe twice at best. I don’t get the training and practice of a LEO, so I need more magazine capacity than 10 rounds for self-defence.

  46. I wonder how many gun fights this jackass has been involved in to give such advise. I’ve been a street cop and an advisor in a war zone , Iraq and can tell you more bullets is always better.

  47. Why 10? I would like to hear a well thought out, scientific explanation backed up with empirical data why “10” is the magic number. Why not 8? Why not 6 or 5 like some revolvers. Hell derringers have between 2 to 4. Why not that?

    If they can’t answer this then I don’t get why 13, 15, 21, 33 should not be allowed.

  48. It’s a math problem. We recently moved out of Illinois, where we lived in the Chicago area. Crimes committed by multiple attackers are common there, usually 4 to a car. On average it takes 2 to 3 rounds to stop an attacker with a miss rate of 50% or more. That means you need 4 to 6 rounds to stop an attacker. On average 10 round magazine is good for stopping 2 attackers. What do you do when confronted by 4 gang members? I understand that every situation is different, but the point is that those pushing for 10 round magazines don’t address these types of scenarios.

  49. Can you really have too many bullets! There is a difference between having extras and too many.
    A person trained to shoot as Gendle suggest will also know how to make a magazine change quickly.
    I suppose Gendle thinks the victims are pausing to count rounds and are planning on an escape when they reach 10. Yeah….. sure!
    Next they will try to limit the number of magazines a person can carry, wait and see.

    • 100 rd mag for your 7.62 NATO is TOO DAMN HEAVY! Yes that is too many! A 30-rd in the gun and 4 more on the belt makes WAY more sense. Go to the range with a 100 rd mag and try to even cut paper offhand at 30 yards, it’s a joke.

  50. Remember his endgame is just control. Not Gun Control, rather Control of others. forcing them to bend to his will rather than the Freedom and Liberties Guaranteed by the Constitution, but granted By GOD. This the controllers do not accept. If they think a certain way they want to force others to do the same. This is why we need the 2A to protect our Rights and Freedoms from those who would usurp them if able!

  51. the “legitimate use” would be when the rioters, looters and arsonists are coming down the street…of course that could never happen …right?…right?…..

    • Start cutting them down at 300 yards, should get 3-4 mag changes even if they are running. If watching 30-40 of your fellow zombies lose their heads in front of you doesn’t cause you to rethink, I guess it’s just gonna be a bad day.

  52. The term “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” is liberal bullshit. If you use the term, you are allowing the Marxists (and they are Marxists) to control your vocabulary. In doing so, you have capitulated and are subject to their dominion and control. You have allowed them to define the battlefield, and on that battlefield you will lose.

    I caused a major eye glazing over episode for the father of a friend of mine when he told me back under Clinton that we had to get rid of these assault weapons. I responded by sarcastically but seriously responding by pretending to agree and noting that if I ever get shot, I hope it is with a non-assault weapon. He looked back at me in a confused manner as the idiocy of the term “assault weapon” tried to dawn upon him.

  53. The Parkland shooter was also using only 10 round magazines, because, that’s all Walmart carried at that time (due to a corporate decision made years prior). With the number killed at 17, and the number wounded at 17 as well, that means the shooter had to reload at least 4 times. Even for a novice, reloading takes at most 5 to 6 seconds.
    Let’s also not forget we had Capacity Limitations for 10 years (1994 to 2004). An honest assessment of the Cap Limits found it made no difference in the numbers killed during shootings.

Comments are closed.