Is a magazine capacity limit compromise in the works?

[Liberty1911]

GOP, Dems Inch Toward Compromise on Magazine Clip Limits

 

[UncleMike]

IMO....
ANY "compromise" at this point is a sell out to the G/damn Liberals and deserves that the designation of Traitor be hung on anyone supporting such a measure.

 

[maxmayhem]

yeah ...i say screw 'em...i aint compromising to assuage stupidity...

 

[mik1202002]

Is this to limit how many we can own?

 

[mrortega]

Oh I hope the Dems are forced to vote on a bill to limit mag capacity. I do. I do. I do.

 

[Classic]

Obama and Biden are doing just what they said they were going to do. Using every tool they have to get their way, including using the press. Several articles on this same subject have appeared recently with the common theme that mass murderers would be able to kill as many with small magazines. What evidence suggests this? None that I know of. We are all being jerked around with the discussion in and around "compromise". It is a serious infringement period.

 

[ultra...good]

So tired of hearing about how it would reduce the amount of damage caused during mass shootings. Does nobody remember Columbine and Virginia Tech??
What is the difference between a 30 round magazine or 3-10 round magazines, about 9 seconds?
These morons completely disregard the fact that when an individual makes the decision to cause harm to others, they are not hindered by the device in which they utilize. Look t how many Tim McVeigh took out with fertilizer and diesel fuel.

No compromise from me. Stated this many times in recent posts. Thats it. No more immigration compromise, no more gay rights compromise, no more welfare recipient compromise, nothing. I always wondered how people were pushed into this train of thought, now I know first hand.

 

[SSGSAD]

"They" know they have to compromise, but either way, WE LOSE !!!!!

 

[UncleMike]

"They" know they have to compromise, but either way, WE LOSE !!!!!

That's part of our problem.
We don't have to compromise.
This crap of giving in to the lunacy in the name of fairness will destroy us.
There is no fairness in politics!!!!
Only winners and losers!!!

 

[Scutter01]

Wait, what are they giving up? It's not a compromise unless we get something in return. And by "something" I don't mean "asking for less crap". Less crap is still crap. So far, I've seen NOTHING being offered in return. Can we please stop calling it a compromise?

 

[CathyInBlue]

capitulation ≠ compromise

 

[TopDog]

Anything they get no matter what it is, is a victory for them, to be glorified by the Liberal Media. And every inroad they make into defiling the 2A brings them another step closer. What they call compromise is simply them getting what they want, infringement. Once it starts it wont end until the Liberal Democrats get exactly what they want, disarmament.

Remember if they only got Universal Background Checks and some kind of limit on magazines this time around they still have almost a full four years to keep introducing more restrictions.

 

[netsecurity]

C'mon guys, you all know that a magazine ban of some sort is inevitable. You can tell they are serious now since they are talking 15-20 rounds and no ridiculous AWB. It is going to happen and everyone knows it, otherwise pmags wouldn't be backordered 6 months.

Shouldn't we be asking for something in return then?

 

[Scutter01]

C'mon guys, you all know that a magazine ban of some sort is inevitable. You can tell they are serious now since they are talking 15-20 rounds and no ridiculous AWB. It is going to happen and everyone knows it, otherwise pmags wouldn't be backordered 6 months.

Shouldn't we be asking for something in return then?

You gave up pretty easily. I submit that nothing is inevitable. I will continue to write and call my legislators and ask them to reject this unConstitutional garbage, firmly and forever. You should do the same. Otherwise, it really is already over with.

 

[j706]

You gave up pretty easily. I submit that nothing is inevitable. I will continue to write and call my legislators and ask them to reject this unConstitutional garbage, firmly and forever. You should do the same. Otherwise, it really is already over with.

Same here. Plus I dont thing there will be any magazine bans or a so called awb..

 

[netsecurity]

You gave up pretty easily. I submit that nothing is inevitable. I will continue to write and call my legislators and ask them to reject this unConstitutional garbage, firmly and forever. You should do the same. Otherwise, it really is already over with.

I never gave up. I agree to fight, but you've got to have a plan B. As mentioned above, it isn't a compromise when you only lose rights, it is a sweeping failure. We must gain significant rights in return to have a true compromise, and to do that we must be open to discussing desirable outcomes.

At this point such discussions have been non-existent, so I suspect we have already lost our opportunity for a compromise. I am therefore bracing for the big fail.

 

[netsecurity]

Let me clarify. My idea of a "compromise" is to come out with more freedom than we're losing. For example, to include a ban on GFZ's and nation wide carry laws in the bill would clearly have a much bigger impact on our ability to protect ourselves than a 20 round limit on magazines. But the other aspect is that it would probably turn off 50% of the Democrat voters. Then they would vote down their own bill. The result would be that THEY would be forced to start compromising. I consider this taking the political "offense", rather than maintaining a strict defensive position of "no compromise". I believe that if you don't have tangible objectives than you are setting yourself up for defeat in the political realm.

 

[TopDog]

Let me clarify. My idea of a "compromise" is to come out with more freedom than we're losing. For example, to include a ban on GFZ's and nation wide carry laws in the bill would clearly have a much bigger impact on our ability to protect ourselves than a 20 round limit on magazines. But the other aspect is that it would probably turn off 50% of the Democrat voters. Then they would vote down their own bill. The result would be that THEY would be forced to start compromising. I consider this taking the political "offense", rather than maintaining a strict defensive position of "no compromise". I believe that if you don't have tangible objectives than you are setting yourself up for defeat in the political realm.

I understand what you are saying. And honestly I doubt very much that we will come out of this unscathed. But I will hold the line at not giving an inch for any reason. That is the position I present to the politicians I contact and that is what I present to anyone that asks my opinion.

Now if it comes down to you have to choose between this or this, that is a whole different situation. As of now we are not in that position. It appears the Democrats seeing they can not win on a national playing field want to do as much destruction within the states they control and terrorize. The Democrats see it as compromise because they want total absolute disarmament.

Here is a compromise I think we could live with. About a magazine limit of 150 rounds. No magazines that can hold 150 rounds at one time. That is about as far as I am willing to go on this. We have already compromised by adhering to the current infringements on the 2A. No more.

 

[Scutter01]

Here is a compromise I think we could live with. About a magazine limit of 150 rounds. No magazines that can hold 150 rounds at one time. That is about as far as I am willing to go on this. We have already compromised by adhering to the current infringements on the 2A. No more.

I know you're being facetious, but I will not agree to that. No compromises. And by "no compromises", I mean "ZERO", "NONE", "NADA", "ZILCH", "YOU LOSE. YOU GET NOTHING. GOOD DAY SIR."

 

[jgreiner]

"They" know they have to compromise, but either way, WE LOSE !!!!!

Only the dumb*ss republicans think we have to compromise. There should be no compromises on our constitutional rights. What's next? Are they going to start to limit speech?

This infringes on our rights.