The Idiocy of Legislatively Reduced Magazine Capacity

Dave Champion and Bill Carns illustrate the difference between a 17 round magazine and an 8 round magazine. The video clearly shows that the motivation behind such restrictive legislation is designed to limit Americans' rights.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/
2A Radio w/ Bill Carns: M-F 9-10am CT
The Dave Champion Show: M-F 3-4pm CT

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• guns
• firearms
• weapons
• self-defense
• defense
• gangs
• Dave Champion
• Dave Champion Radio Show
• Bill Carns

[CDubSD]

@LiberalViewer: What happens when a law abiding citizen has a 10 round magazine and the criminal is using an illegal 30 round magazine? The law doesn't protect the citizen but rather aids the criminal.

[blownone1]

The same crime just took place twice. One was 1.75 seconds slower than the other. You couldn't pull out your mobile phone and dial 911 in that time. Let's stop the BS! Reducing magazine count is about getting a foot in the door and THAT IS ALL!!!

[aermotorstudio]

I hate living in California.

[jasonbruneck]

the new world order wnats us all DISARMED

[jkirbster]

@jkirbster And as to those saying its not much of a difference, you are right its not in the short go and in the self defense aspect most of us will never ever in our lifetime need to go through even close to one clip however its the thought that more and more of our rights are being taken away. Not so much the fact of the clip size!

[jkirbster]

We allow them to reduce them this time and then they decide to reduce them again and again and again. I'm tired of them trying to take away my rights. I feel that we should be able to pack our Legally Licensed Weapons the way we want where we want as the laws only hurt law abiding citizens. Those that choose to get Weapons (and other items) illegally will continue to get them and will continue to get larger clips as well.... When is enough enough?!?!

[Kclaybond]

Thanks Dave and Bill you articulated "played-out" on the range what I've been telling friends: the lunacy of this clip legislation. I see my self on the left politically- but love my guns (and big clips). Black sheep, I guess.

[reaperflynn3]

They (the government) needs to read the 14th amendment.

[Luburium]

But what if the target is running and he has more bullets than less, obviously if he misses his target with the bullets he has he will have to reload, the higher capacity you have you get more chances to hit the the target.

If the magazine was less and he'd miss he'd run out of bullets.

[TheSouthJersey]

and the law wouldn't also limit Loughtner, cause remember he's a criminal and came to kill, so he already has more loaded magazines. The good guy only has his loaded firearm to save himself in the smaller chance of encountering a self-defense situation. Happy your government put restrictions on saving himself?

[TheSouthJersey]

@ndelta

Nobody tries to stop the shooter unless a.) They're within reach of the gun or b.) They themselves have a firearm. Imagine your at the Arizona shooting where Jared Loughtner killed those people. In the heat of a gun fight and movement, a good samaritan in the audience who is a concealed weapon owner, engages Jared in a shootout. Samaritan has a limited round count of 8 and he misses with the 8. I'd rather my government had allowed that good guy to have 17 rounds instead of 8.

[TheSouthJersey]

Your 'imagining' something that's never going to happen. You might get one 'hero' who rushes a gun, which almost will always turn into a failed attempt, but even those odds are small. Look at 4 different airplanes on 9/11, out of hundreds of combined passengers, one small group on ONE plane, decided to NOT BE AFRAID of a box cutter. Try finding someone who's not insane, to rush at a shooter. Fight or flight instincts virtually always flight from a firearm.