Democrates Propose Nationwide 10+ Round Magazine Ban

[Warren Sear]

The magazine banners owe a great debt to Bill ruger for blazing the trail. In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Bill Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to
outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms
(which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to
prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete,
and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of
defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The
large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes
the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could
prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these
objectives."

In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by
"The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview
with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by
saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and, "I
never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

Ol' Billeh has passed on to his eternal reward. He is gone, but never forgotten. His legacy of banning magazines continues.

 

[stansdds]

I thought all elected or appointed officials, military, law enforcement, judicial swear an oath to uphold and to defend the constitution. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Supposed to? Yes.
But if told by their supervisors or elected officials to do something that violates the constitution, will they? That is the question. They certainly did in New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
Do not expect rank and file LEO's or service members to be constitutional scholars. They do as they are told, that is their job.

 

[CALREB]

With this new breed of politicians, if that's what you call them, the only thing to do is fight every possible new law, rule , change, language, with any means NRA, state politicians, money , but the biggest is to get out and vote-in people that stand for our beliefs. These newby politicians want to outlaw cows that fart, Heck I could be next.
If Ruger had made his statements during the cell phone/computer era,Im sure he would have ate his words (or letters) or suffered with his business .

 

[usmc2427765]

Get ready! This is only the beginning and what happens in 2020 could be a total disaster for the 2A.

 

[Sistema1927]

Many of our elected officials believe that the Constitution is a "living" document that can now be interpreted according to the prevailing winds of public opinion and a shifting culture. So, they can swear to uphold it, and then proceed to shred it while believing that they are honoring their oaths.

Pernicious, despicable, and treasonous. There is a reason why the oath that I swore (and from which I have never been relieved) mentioned "enemies, foreign and domestic".

 

[g-dad]

There is a reason why the oath that I swore (and from which I have never been relieved) mentioned "enemies, foreign and domestic".

Folks need to remember this, especially the domestic part.

 

[500SNW]

Get ready! This is only the beginning and what happens in 2020 could be a total disaster for the 2A.

While it certainly would not help...I seriously doubt any radical firearms related legislation would get past the Supreme Court in its present incarnation. The primary threat to the Second Amendment has always been one of interpretation of its text and meaning. Who gets to be the interpreter is the sticking point. There is a tendency, as we have seen elsewhere, to reinterpret and even re-invent or rewrite other historical writings to keep them relevant in light of progress and scientific/technological advances. Luckily, the current lineup of justices will have a tendency to uphold an individual Citizen's Right To Keep and Bear Arms. My own interpretation of the 2nd is the following: "Because it is necessary for the nation and/or government to maintain a standing army...an Armed Citizenry is necessary to counteract that force and maintain a balance of power."

 

[brjr51]

While it certainly would not help...I seriously doubt any radical firearms related legislation would get past the Supreme Court in its present incarnation. The primary threat to the Second Amendment has always been one of interpretation of its text and meaning. Who gets to be the interpreter is the sticking point. There is a tendency, as we have seen elsewhere, to reinterpret and even re-invent or rewrite other historical writings to keep them relevant in light of progress and scientific/technological advances. Luckily, the current lineup of justices will have a tendency to uphold an individual Citizen's Right To Keep and Bear Arms. My own interpretation of the 2nd is the following: "Because it is necessary for the nation and/or government to maintain a standing army...an Armed Citizenry is necessary to counteract that force and maintain a balance of power."

Should be the case, but the Supreme Court don’t mean squat when states are attempting and passing more and more draconian firearm restrictions and for the most part getting away with it right now.
The grabbers have recognized that individual state laws are where the advances are to be made, not the federal level.

 

[10ring]

Changed my mind and deleted.

 

[photoman]

My own interpretation of the 2nd is the following: "Because it is necessary for the nation and/or government to maintain a standing army...an Armed Citizenry is necessary to counteract that force and maintain a balance of power."

This bears repeating...

 

[Old Arkansawyer]

I saw where the shooter yesterday in Illinois used a laser sight, those will
be next on the list to be band. Someone said, "blaming guns for killing
people is like blaming my pencil for misspelling words".

 

[DevilDog72]

I have seen the enemy and the enemy is.... us. My Uncle, an avid outdoorsman, hunter and firearms champion is of the same opine as S&WsRsweet's original position. No one needs more than 10 rounds, for any reason. He and I have had very heated discussions on this subject and the chipping away of our rights.

We constantly bicker amongst ourselves... open carry, concealed carry, extra ammo or not.... pocket, IWB,OWB..... how to respond to the general public about our choice to carry.... round in chamber/no round in chamber..… it goes on and on. When one faction cries foul the other responds in kind. We need to band together and support each others choices.

The 2nd A. was not for hunting, self protection from near-do-wells, although they are side benefits, but, for WE The People to defend ourselves from an overbearing government. Our founding fathers saw this first hand, responded with The Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, fired the first shots at Lexington...…

The Constitution is not a fluid document that our duly elected and sworn in "leaders" (sic) can manipulate. I see more trouble in our future.

Alas, the ramblings of an older gentleman. I took the same oath.

 

[g-dad]

My Uncle, an avid outdoorsman, hunter and firearms champion is of the same opine as the OP's original position. No one needs more than 10 rounds, for any reason. .

I'm the OP and this is NOT my position. I merely passed on an article that was written as a forewarning to us to be aware of the continued attacks on the 2A.

 

[DevilDog72]

I'm the OP and this is NOT my position. I merely passed on an article that was written as a forewarning to us to be aware of the continued attacks on the 2A.

My apologies Sir, I was mistaken.

I only have excuses, not reasons for my blunder. I have corrected my post.

 

[delcrossv]

In penning that letter, Bill Ruger was a short sighted fool.

The safety of the sheepfold is the antithesis of liberty. As our schools turn out more sheep, we need to expect liberty to be curtailed.

Devil Dog's comment demonstrates the problem. It's the misguided notion that the government has our best interests at heart. They have their interests at heart.

 

[eb07]

Laws wont stop evil.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Great idea...

I think its a great idea as the second amendment was written at a time when no one could fathom a firearm holding 20 plus rounds .It wouldn’t effect me personally and might keep the anti gun folks off my back for a while at least .

But everyone else had a single shot firearm at that time, but projecting this thought further: given their position that all guns are evil, what does a 10 round say to us, that they want to limit the number of people shot to 10? What is the real motive and expectation with "legislation" of this kind?

 

[handejector]

Okay, we've been made aware that some Democrats somewhere want to take our guns and/or limit mag capacity.
I did not know that!


As directed here- Sticky: READ this > RULES on HOW to use the 2A Forum
show me a bill number I can call my congressman or senator about.
Since we've all re-avowed our support for the 2A, analyzed the Constitution, and reviewed Revolutionary history and only have the general state of our society and current politics to go into, which we DON'T do on this forum, I think we're done here.