WSJ Poll: Should high-capacity ammunition magazines for rifles be banned?

[indykid]

Entered my vote.

 

[superjoe76]

No, roughly 75% to 25% now!

 

[mikestripe]

a big NO from me

 

[colt22man]

NO

 

[Cemetery-man]

No way.

 

[RugerRog]

No from me.

 

[troycowan]

no

 

[Springer]

NO

 

[joejenders]

I voted NO. I wish I could feel confident that this poll would have some meaning beyond the Indiana Gun Owners

 

[JollyMon]

No, again. 73 vs 26. Keep it going fellas

 

[wakproductions]

Depending on what politicians call "high capacity magazines", the outcome could be good or bad. IMO, 10-rounds is a bit tight, but if they made it 15 rounds that would not affect the majority of gun owners. (Simply because 15 is the standard on a typical compact hand gun and should be more than plenty for 99% of gun fights.) Really, unless the United States government gets into an armed conflict with its citizens, there isn't much civilian use for a 30-round magazine other than the fun of literally blowing your money away faster at the range. (And if the US did have an armed conflict that was worthy of the citizens retaking the Federal government, we'd have factions of our military/police siding with the citizens so there would be plenty of guns to go around.)

If politicians enacted a 10-round magazine limit and stopped there, we should all celebrate. There are a lot worse things they could do - such as requiring registration, THE precursor to confiscation.

 

[Bapak2ja]

NO! Now 76% for and 24% against (rounded to nearest whole number).

 

[bloodandgutsmurphy]

Not only no, but hell no

 

[Riflemen14]

No, no, no, no, no!

 

[jb1911]

Depending on what politicians call "high capacity magazines", the outcome could be good or bad. IMO, 10-rounds is a bit tight, but if they made it 15 rounds that would not affect the majority of gun owners. (Simply because 15 is the standard on a typical compact hand gun and should be more than plenty for 99% of gun fights.) Really, unless the United States government gets into an armed conflict with its citizens, there isn't much civilian use for a 30-round magazine other than the fun of literally blowing your money away faster at the range. (And if the US did have an armed conflict that was worthy of the citizens retaking the Federal government, we'd have factions of our military/police siding with the citizens so there would be plenty of guns to go around.)

If politicians enacted a 10-round magazine limit and stopped there, we should all celebrate. There are a lot worse things they could do - such as requiring registration, THE precursor to confiscation.

If Patton were alive today he'd slap your face!

 

[marcweid]

nope
76 no
24 yes

we win

 

[IndyAK]

If Patton were alive today he'd slap your face!

Best line of the day.......



Voted No in the poll.

 

[wakproductions]

If Patton were alive today he'd slap your face!

It's my nerves sir!

It actually does concern me that the government is considering taking such action. I was not in favor of the Clinton ban and am glad that it expired. However, I believe that if Obama were to only pass a 10-round magazine limit and move on, we should consider ourselves lucky that he did not do worse damage to 2A.

 

[indyrun]

Recorded my NO vote. Currently 74% Agree with NO

 

[VERT]

It's my nerves sir!

It actually does concern me that the government is considering taking such action. I was not in favor of the Clinton ban and am glad that it expired. However, I believe that if Obama were to only pass a 10-round magazine limit and move on, we should consider ourselves lucky that he did not do worse damage to 2A.

I disagree can not think of anything worse then a 10 round magazine limit. Especially if they include possession of the magazine. And here is why. If a criminal decides to do harm the only thing between that person and your family is what is in your hand or on your person. Personally I want as many cartridges as possible.