1054
They want to ban magazines over 10 rounds with this bill (media.patriots.win) 🛑 Corrupt Commies 🛑
posted ago by kratomlol ago by kratomlol +1054 / -0
Comments (149)
sorted by:
89
TrumpWonByALandslide 89 points ago +89 / -0

There's no reason why any civilian needs a gun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

I can think of at least one good reason.

49
fskfsk 49 points ago +50 / -1

For a long time I thought "Who needs a gun that can fire a lot of rounds?", but with all the rioting and looting, I see a valid reason.

10
ModernKnight 10 points ago +10 / -0

Indeed. I started carrying 3 extra mags with me wherever I go, just in case people get a hankering for burning, looting, and murdering outside the city.

9
fskfsk 9 points ago +9 / -0

I read about a guy who knew there was looting and decided to carry extra mags that day. That was used as evidence he intended to cause trouble when he was arrested at the protest.

You have to carry the extra ALL the time, because if you just carry it one day, that can be used against you.

8
ModernKnight 8 points ago +8 / -0

I carry the extra every day. All the time. They're always within arm's reach now. Doesn't matter if I'm going into the city for some reason (an increasingly rare occurrence) or just going out to help my dad load seeds into the grain hoppers, I now ALWAYS have the extra mags on me.

7
HoppyHap 7 points ago +7 / -0

No survivor of a gunfight has ever said, “I wish I hadn’t carried those extra magazines.” The fact of the matter is, you will never know how many rounds you need until you need them. In a gunfight, you would be surprised at the number of misses. I have seen good shooters send 33 rounds downrange to get 14 hits in a firefight. In firefights, the piece of paper shoots back.

The carry weight for 9mm is 1 lb for every 38 rounds. If carrying a 45 then that number of rounds falls to 21. Stop before you say something absurd “if I can’t get it done in six rounds, something’s wrong” or “I deserve what I get”.

I am often asked if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight how much ammo would I carry? “If I knew I was going to be in a gunfight, I wouldn’t go!” I know a few cops that carry 145 rounds. It is a personal choice but I do not leave home without at least 45 rounds in tow.

5
Trump2024 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm providing security at this very moment. Abused woman and child. The abuser thinks a protection order is for starting fires and has violated them numerous times in the past. I've got my 1911 with 5 extra magazines with extra capacity within arms reach. I'll be here until the state can find a woman's shelter. Might be a bunch too many but better than not enough.

3
HoppyHap 3 points ago +3 / -0

Keep them safe and yourself.

2
Trump2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks fren. Neighbor saw him twice and called the police. I changed the lock and put on a deadbolt when this first started.

When every second counts the police are only minutes away!

3
Wolfebane84 3 points ago +3 / -0

I carry 5 mags with me in a shoulder rig. I mainly got the 4 mag side rig because 2 spare mags wasn't enough to easily counter the weight of my 1911.

4
HuggableBear 4 points ago +4 / -0

You should see a reason without all the rioting and looting.

You should a fucking fantastic reason right here in this bitch's tweet.

27
Oback_Barama 27 points ago +27 / -0

I can think of 75 million good reasons

17
firestorm117 17 points ago +17 / -0

pretty sure she and people like her are the reason civilians need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

10
TheRealTurdFurgeson 10 points ago +10 / -0

I can think of at least 10 good reasons.

My life is very valuable to me. I need to protect it from whomever comes for me and my liberty.

3
MasterOfIllusions 3 points ago +3 / -0

I need whatever I decide that I need. I don't need to explain it to anyone.

79
Mpower88 79 points ago +79 / -0

The fact they want to limit magazine size is exactly why we need larger magazines.

18
hallway_monitor 18 points ago +18 / -0

So you're saying we need to print out 50rd mags instead?

20
Based_in_Space 20 points ago +20 / -0

Yes 3D printing out mags kinda makes this capacity limit moot.

1
Gonzotron5000 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cant stop the signal.

1
Based_in_Space 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep

11
firestorm117 11 points ago +11 / -0

modern problems require modern solutions

45
Formerlurker92 45 points ago +47 / -2

I'll give up my guns when you walk unarmed and unguarded through every street in your district.

40
AlabamaSlamma 40 points ago +40 / -0

I like that.

I still won't though. They can fuck themselves.

15
ObamasLooseButthole 15 points ago +15 / -0

Shhh... we tell them we will and then we don't. It's not like most of them would survive walking through their districts anyway so they wouldn't even know we lied.

5
Formerlurker92 5 points ago +5 / -0

If a politician say 'I'm banning guns', and then pulls this stunt they won't make it, and they know it. Hence the gauntlet being thrown

6
Skeeter_N_CO 6 points ago +6 / -0

Degette could probably get away with this in Denver, because nobody knows who she is and she looks like your average ugly liberal next door.

36
old_empathise 36 points ago +36 / -0

"Shall not be infringed", there is nothing in the 2A about what a person needs other then their own prerogative, if she wants to not buy magazines larger than 10 rounds fine, leave me the fuck alone.

11
Formerlurker92 11 points ago +13 / -2

I'm sure the privately owned cannons at the time were nice

7
Cdope45 7 points ago +7 / -0

I bet the Gatlin guns were nice too.

11
RolandDelacroix 11 points ago +11 / -0

I'm sure the privately owned, fully armed and staffed modern (for the time) warships were pretty cool.

6
AtheistTrumper 6 points ago +6 / -0

This. This is what they meant by arms.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
NavySTG 3 points ago +3 / -0

Want in on a secret? It's been infringed for nearly a decade.

33
ca18det 33 points ago +33 / -0

This is a back door pistol ban. Almost every standard pistol is a 15+ round capacity.

16
Barbs 16 points ago +17 / -1

California has a 10 round limit already and that didn’t affect the availability much.

The way they essentially “banned” pistols here though was by first creating a gun registry of “safe” handguns, then they created rules to get new pistols on the registry that no manufacturer can comply with. They want the shell castings to be stamped with the gun’s serial number every time it’s fired, in two places, and the primer doesn’t count (no firing pin stamp). Anybody who knows anything about guns knows that’s an impossible feat of engineering.

So now as old models get discontinued they fall off the registry, and no new models are added. We can’t even get a Glock past 3rd gen.

12
kratomlol [S] 12 points ago +12 / -0

California needs to be its own fucking country. Most Americans don't want to be california yet dems have packed it for years and they get an automatic 55 electoral votes

12
ancroidubh 12 points ago +14 / -2

No, it doesn’t. California needs its laws dragged into compliance with the rest of the country and the constitution.

5
Jackpotsevens 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm old enough to remember when CA was a red state. It's a shame we lost it, it has beautiful weather and great surfing & beaches.

3
c0mpl3x 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank Reagan’s amnesty

3
LostViking1985 3 points ago +3 / -0

Best part about the roster? It was supposed to be a list of safe guns. And then they exempted cops from it. So cops are allowed to use unsafe guns as service weapons. Because of their super duper advanced training don't you know. No you can't ask to be exempted too, silly peasant. You thought this was actually about safety? Hahaha...

3
ippwndu 3 points ago +3 / -0

And then you can buy the "unsafe" guns from cops for a huge markup.

14
kratomlol [S] 14 points ago +14 / -0

exactly

2
Jackpotsevens 2 points ago +2 / -0

THIS!!!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LostViking1985 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh... shotguns don't spread anywhere near as much as you're implying. You can't sweep a huge crowd and kill hundreds with a few shots of buckshot. What you can do, at the most common engagement ranges for shotguns, is massively fuck up a single target. The spread at defensive ranges is only about the size of a fist.

So, with that in mind, you're left with a manual action weapon, that isn't mag fed, and typically holds no more than 7 or 8 rounds. Decent for home defense due to the punch behind each shot, not so great for crowds.

Now, a mag fed, semi auto shotgun... that's a beast. But also the least common type of shotgun owned because they're pricey.

1
Harsh_Truth2 1 point ago +1 / -0

DP-12. Problem "mostly" solved.

1
LostPWLostVALOR 1 point ago +1 / -0

And mag fed shotguns don’t cycle for shit in my experience. Middle of the road quality and down you will jam more often than you would like. Unless you have thousands of dollars for one I’d stick with an AR or something similar. Also mini-14s are essentially “less scary” ARs that don’t always get the “assault weapon” stigma.

23
Gonzotron5000 23 points ago +23 / -0

How many lives are saved in the 2-4 extra seconds it takes to fire 30 rounds now? If they can claim it saves lives it should be quantifiable.

24
kratomlol [S] 24 points ago +24 / -0

The average person voting for these things couldn't even think that far as you just did. They know nothing about guns.

17
Razehope 17 points ago +17 / -0

My favorite is,"you can keep your hunting rifles, just not your hunting rifles."

9
AtheistTrumper 9 points ago +9 / -0

If they expect people to follow the law, why not just make it illegal to go on a shooting spree using a 30-round magazine?

2
NoStumpyTrumpy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I misunderstood and was thinking, "who can shoot 30 rds in 2-4 sec on a semi-auto?" Lol.

19
TexasPiper 19 points ago +19 / -0

Why 10 rounds? Why not 15? Why not 5? Why not 1?

There is no logic to ANYTHING these motherfuckers do. The only thing they do is chip chip away at our rights.

Anyone else ready to end this shitshow?

8
yurimodin 8 points ago +8 / -0

It was Bill Ruger's dumbass that suggested it back in the day.

4
LostPWLostVALOR 4 points ago +4 / -0

He was just mad he never got a US military contract

1
yurimodin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well he couldn't seem to build a rifle that got better than 8 moa back then

3
LostPWLostVALOR 3 points ago +3 / -0

And they still can’t make a magazine larger than 10 rounds that fits a 1022 properly

2
ancroidubh 2 points ago +3 / -1

It’s their hidden (maybe not so much anymore though) agenda. And, it’s the only way because HR 1 and Dominion.

2
FrankDrebin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just one step at a time in their books. It's the boiling frog analogy. Sure a lot of normies might nod in agreement today and then bam! A few years later its "you only need a bolt action rifle for hunting, peasant."

17
AlabamaSlamma 17 points ago +17 / -0

"How many bullets are in your guards guns?"

Woops, you lost the argument immediately.

But we all know we're not getting out of this with clever arguments, facts and logic.

That's why we need the standard capacity magazines.

16
Dominion4UsAll 16 points ago +16 / -0

Good thing I've got 20 mags lol..

10
AlabamaSlamma 10 points ago +10 / -0

I really wish I would have picked up a case of pmags when they were $700. 100 mags.

9
TheSwampFox 9 points ago +9 / -0

Fuck you cunt

9
P3POd 9 points ago +9 / -0

Already is 10 in New Jerky. 🤬

8
colers 8 points ago +8 / -0

To defend against people with more than 10 rounds in their gun?

To defend against more than 10 people?

To have a fast shooting competition with my mates?

My aim is hot trash but I still like to hunt?

Because it literally doesn't matter because there is basically no environment target rich enough that limiting the amount of bullets to 10 will reasonably result in less casualties, just more frequent reloads?

Because anyone who trusts you to be the only person with access to high-capacity magazines probably has already lost all their money to a bridge in brooklyn?

3
NoStumpyTrumpy 3 points ago +3 / -0

These people seem to think self defense equals 1 bullet per attacker. Life isn't a movie or video game, the danger doesn't disappear with a single shot. Hence target shooting with numerous rounds to the chest to improve grouping.

5
FrankDrebin 5 points ago +5 / -0

At least in my day in the army, when ambushed, you dumped a 30 round mag in no time as suppressive fire. Pretty much sure as shit weren't going to hit anyone but it was to keep the enemies head down to start to manoeuvre. 10 rounds? Gtfo

Tell me again why we allow ignorant assholes to write shitty unconstitutional legislation?

1
NoStumpyTrumpy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, you shooting that troupe of Shakespearean actors in the park gave them a few talking points.

3
TBGJC 3 points ago +3 / -0

Because you want to

Why do people need the newest iphone? Or 8 slices of pizza instead of 6?

It's a mistake to use self defense as a reason for the right to bear arms. You don't have to justify wanting something in a free country

8
Themodsrfags 8 points ago +8 / -0

Somebody will shoot a place up with a 6 shooter

8
Mildad 8 points ago +8 / -0

high capacity

It’s normal capacity. 30 rounds is normal capacity you absolute fucking retard. Fuck these idiots

8
EvilGuy 8 points ago +8 / -0

I spent the first stimulus on mags, I am all good now motherfuckers. Come and take them.

Well actually how it went was, I originally donated it to the stop the steal campaign, but then the RNC fucked Trump so I did a chargeback at my bank a few months later, and THEN spent the money on mags.

8
CynicalTwit22 8 points ago +8 / -0

Copy & Paste gun control Tweet...in a couple years it'll be 8 rounds...

5
yurimodin 5 points ago +5 / -0

NY actually tried for 7 with the safe act. Manufacturers told them to pound sand since 10 was as low as they were going to bother accommodating.

7
Tripin 7 points ago +7 / -0

Shall not be infringed means any restrictions on gun ownership is against the constitution.

6
FrankDrebin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Too bad the SC is too cowardly to ever take this shit up. Fucking bizarro world.

6
deplorablepatriot 6 points ago +6 / -0

"There's no reason why any civilian..."

So, the government can have the firepower and the citizens cannot.

Read the Constitution you dumb cunt.

5
FreeJack2020 5 points ago +5 / -0

next up, no books over 10 pages.

4
Jackpotsevens 4 points ago +4 / -0

Gas tanks that hold more than 10 gal

3
Jackpotsevens 3 points ago +3 / -0

Gatherings of more than 10... err, uh nvmd

5
hunterhiden 5 points ago +5 / -0

How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe this WHORE

5
Spawnlingman 5 points ago +5 / -0

"SAVE LIVES" is code for anything they do.

1
stealthboy 1 point ago +1 / -0

"COMMON SENSE"

4
CantStumpTheTrump 4 points ago +4 / -0

No reason:

What If I'm attacked by 11 of anything?

1
AtheistTrumper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gotta give the BLM/Antifa rioters a fighting chance I guess

1
Jackpotsevens 1 point ago +1 / -0

What if I'm attacked by 8 of something and miss twice ( I won't but some may lol)

4
j2daeww 4 points ago +4 / -0

There is no reason politicians should make so much money.

4
estimated_prophet 4 points ago +4 / -0

This commie cunt can eat a bag dicks.... Nullification is the way. All red state govs need to stand strong against this now.

3
cook_does 3 points ago +3 / -0

Who is this cumdumpster to decide and know what the civilian needs. How many rounds does the military magazine hold? I need atleast that many.

3
Rommsey 3 points ago +3 / -0

Same shit in Canada. They crept this nonsense in and started banning guns by "scary" factor.

3
_Cabal_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Reason: If I need to put 30 rounds into a commie piece of shit without having to change mags.

3
Slugbert 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wonder if their bodyguards will lead by example.

3
FrankDrebin 3 points ago +3 / -0

I can't fathom how stupid these people are. I refuse to believe they don't know why the 2A was written.

3
SuperDuty4x4 3 points ago +3 / -0

When the government says "you don't need more than 10 rounds", you NEED more than 10 rounds.

3
Hedonismbot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Federally, because in NY that's been "law" for quite some time. NY SAFE Act was passed in an emergency session after the Sandy Hook incident, which of course did not happen in New York State.

We as New Yorkers lost right because of a mass shooting in another state!

3
TheMAGAlorian787 3 points ago +3 / -0

Many States and Cities already ban high capacity magazines and the crime rate stays high. Wanna guess why?

3
Jackpotsevens 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'll take criminals don't follow the law for $1000, alex

2
OutcastSeal 2 points ago +2 / -0

We all know criminals totally follow the law and won't carry extended mags

2
Lordkek 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why 10? Such an arbitrary number.

2
TraumaHotel 2 points ago +2 / -0

These people are both stupid and evil

2
Mildad 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for giving me a reason to buy 4 more mags

2
Redpill-notCommieRed 2 points ago +2 / -0

So less than a handgun... what's next claiming a 6 shooter as a high capacity gun?

2
HenkZeilstra 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shall not fucking be infringed, the government has bo fucking say in this unless there is a constitutional amendment

2
schnazzmizzle 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact you want to take them is a good enough reason to have them.

2
chahn1138 2 points ago +2 / -0

INFRINGEMENT!

2
FrankDrebin 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Founding Fathers would have privately owned tanks and various pieces of artillery and heavy MG's if they were here today.

These people don't have a clue.

2
LettucePray 2 points ago +2 / -0

Even the 9th Circus ruled this was unconstitutional.

2
Reebot2021 2 points ago +2 / -0

If civilians don’t need them then why does the government? Are people that work for the government better?

2
yurimodin 2 points ago +2 / -0

If 11 rounds is a felony then so is drilling the 3rd hole and home brewing a suppressor too........go ahead cross that fucking line commies.

2
Wess-mantooth 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good luck with that in Texas, lol

2
Isolated_Patriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

You. YOU are the reason.

2
Unsilent 2 points ago +2 / -0

Freedom. You don’t have to have a reason to have things.

1
Covfefe1984 1 point ago +1 / -0

Always with the "congress must act immediately". Don't think, don't analyze, don't give them time to react. Just do what we tell you, to save lives....

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Firespawn 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tyranny is a great reason why, dumb bitch.