Welcome to GSL

This login is for the website administrators.

Please use the member login link in the main navigation bar to access the members sections.

Member Login
Lost your password?

Why standard capacity magazines? Multiple attackers… like these

May 21, 2013

When trained police officers only hit about 20% of the time in their rounds fired, what’s the average civilian supposed to do when faced with multiple attackers?

It’s hard enough to thwart a violent attack without nanny-state legislators tying one of your hands behind your back with arbitrary restrictions on your ability to defend yourself and your family!

Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

 

PHILADELPHIA (FoxNews) – A disabled veteran is targeted by thugs in a home invasion. It happened overnight on the 9400 block of Ashton Street in Northeast Philadelphia.

The thieves took $200-dollars and a television.

Police say the 58-year-old former Marine was roughed up, but is expected to be OK.

“He is a disabled veteran from the Marines. He’s bed-ridden. He stated just before midnight there was a knock on his door. He believed it was his neighbor when he buzzed the person in. It was five to six males who rushed him, punched him, struck him in the face several times, made him lay on his stomach and put a gun to his head,” Chief Inspector Scott Small said.

4 Responses to Why standard capacity magazines? Multiple attackers… like these

  1. Larry Shurbet on May 21, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    With Chicago gun control this wouldn’t happen there under their watch… right!

  2. Seven on May 21, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    Run for your life from anyone questioning mag capacity. It is only the tip of the iceberg of their distrust and hatred of the self-reliant.

    When someone says, “you don’t need 11 rounds to protect yourself”, know that he means, “you don’t need to protect yourself”. Or, if you must know that he honestly believes you can do so with reduced capacity, know that he addresses a reality not your own, and endangers your life and your family’s lives through his blindness, willful or otherwise.

  3. Ashrak on May 22, 2013 at 9:13 am

    If limiting the number of rounds in a magazine passes muster then limiting the number of magazines to only one MUST be permissible ALSO. This MUST BE true BECAUSE the supposed “justification” of “public safety” is limiting the NUMBER OF BULLETS FIRED in a particular timeframe. If a person is limited to ONE magazine and there IS the eventual malfunction (all mechanical components fail eventually) we are all then left with essentially a weapon relegated to a permanent broken state. That weapon is essentially trigger locked – permanently.

    The REASON to KEEP and BEAR standard capacity magazines (PLURAL) is simple. It has ZERO to do with numbers of attackers or any other such statistics. It is a privilege (alongside the immunity from prosecution for exercise of it) called the ENUMERATED RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS (again plural).

    Remember, the free standing INTEREST BALANCING APPROACH (which is the HEART of magazine limitations and bans) has ALREADY BEEN dispelled debunked and destroyed as “justification”, as crime stats are not germane to the point – numbers if criminals is not germane either. I OWN the RIGHT to keep thirty five thirty round magazines even if NO criminals EVER enter home in attempt to do my family harm.

    • TSgt B on May 22, 2013 at 10:32 am

      AshraK: I agree with everything you state EXCEPT: THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS IN NO WAY A PRIVILEGE. A privilege is “granted”, and may be revoked or suspended; a RIGHT is incumbent, and cannot be.