[KrisKrinkle]

“Just between you, me and the fence-post though, the one feature we will have to be prepared to defend is the large capacity magazine.”

The standard capacity magazine seems to be 15 to 17 rounds these days, at least for 9mm. Thirteen rounds has been the standard capacity for the 9mm Browning Hi-Power since 1935.

So what is large capacity? Who gets to define it?

[absalom01]

They are going to go after:
1. full capacity magazines
2. “arsenals” (Yes, I know that even the term is misguided)
3. “Stockpiles” of ammunition
4. “Assualt weapons”: which will be defined as broadly as possible.

We’ve got a fight on our hands. We shall see if the gun-rights community can come together and fight these statists off, or if we’ll fall to infighting and squabbling.

[Trod Upon]

If they really wanted to cause trouble they would mandate minimum magazine capacity--make people stagger around with 75 round banana mags, or 200 round drums. Imagine trying to shoot off the bench at the range with that sticking out. This is such BS. Yes the kid used an AR-15, but there's no reason he couldn't have done it with a couple revolvers. If they let him walk through the door carrying a rifle, they weren't prepared to stop anything.

[tumblindice]

I can remember going into a gun shop in Joplin, MO early/mid `90s, and seeing they had Browning 13 round magazines with a $100 asking price.
The Browning Hi-power P-35 used to be state of the art. Recall that the Clintonistas limited pistol mag capacity to ten. My Ruger SR9 holds 16.
So there’s the rub: Who decides? It’s completely arbitrary with the left demanding the `We say so’ power.
So I’m saying—get ready. Get ready to reply to them:
“Who made *you* butchers the moral arbiters here? You kill children every day of the year!”