HIGH CAPACITY

[SharonAnne]

Please stop using the term HIGH CAPACITY. Our magazines and firearms are NOT high capacity, they are STANDARD CAPACITY. As long as they are what they are designed for they are STANDARD CAPACITY.  Eugene Stone designed the 20 AND 30 round magazines for the AR15 (which the military renamed the M16). They are the STANDARDS for it.

My Para P14-45 holds 14 or 15 depending on which ParaOrd/Para-USA you  buy. They are STANDARD CAPACITY. I will agree that a 20 round magazine sticking way below the grip of the P14 is high capacity. Para did not design it. If Para designs a 20 rd magazine for the P14-45 it will not be high capacity. It will be a STANDARD CAPACITY or perhaps and OPTIONAL CAPACITY but if the designer of the firearm designs a magazine of whatever capacity for a firearm then it is STANDARD CAPACITY.

Now the military is using the  100 rd Beta Mag and the Surefire 60rd magazines then they become OPTIONAL CAPACITY for the AR15 too. As long as someone of authority makes a particular magazine part of the standard or optional kit then it becomes STANDARD or OPTIONAL CAPACITY for that firearm. I think the US Army and the USMC are authorities for the M16/M4 and by extension the AR15 and derivatives.

Only when someone other than the designer, manufacturer or major user (like our military) comes up with a higher capacity magazine can it be PROPERLY  termed 'high capacity".

Please, let us bury the term HIGH CAPACITY.

[Mikey]

Oh all right.....

[SharonAnne]

LOL

[Ranger99]

well ma'am. . . .
i'm afraid i'll still have to use it
when buying clothing for myself

[SharonAnne]

Mr. Ranger sir, I am referring to ONLY firearm magazines. In everything else please, use whatever term fits.

[Ranger99]

no problem here.

[Mike in Virginia]

Sharon, I respectfully disagree.  High capacity (in the gun world) is a term referring to a firearm that will accept more than 10 rounds.  Why is 10 rounds the marker?  Ask any politician or anyone who lives in California.  A pistol that is capable of firing 15 rounds is definitely not "standard capacity," or "low capacity."  That many projectiles from a gun that can be concealed on the person, is a for sure and for certain a high capacity weapon.  Such guns are "standard capacity" only in the sense that the maker built it that way.  If Colt came out with an AR that had a 100 round magazine, would it be "standard capacity?"  I think not.  The term "high capacity" might be detrimental to our wishes in the political arena, but it is what it is. 
At some point, a weapon has standard or high capacity.  I think it's 10.   If a weapon, particularly a pistol, accepts more rounds than that, it negates the need for an extra magazine.  Those who carry a 1911 must certainly carry an extra magazine, which gives them 15 or so rounds.  Those who chose a different platform, can have that many rounds in the gun.  That is certainly "high capacity."     

[Mikey]

Mike:  I thinnk I have to disagree with you.  The 'high capacity' phrase and designation came about, as I recall, from a anti-gun reporter during or just after a interview with the late Bill Ruger.  I believe the question was put to Ruger by the interviewer as to how much ammunition someone would need in a magazine and he replied that you wouldn't need any more than 10 rounds in a magazine.  I believe his reply was based on the number of rounds usually expended in some of the more popular target matches of the day, as well as the number of rounds his 22 caliber pistols were designed for. 
Many agree that the question put forth by the interviewer was one of those 'trick' questions, and ol Bill fell right into it, not expecting something coming out of his blind side, and the result is the 'high capacity' magazine bs that the media and anti-gunners love to tout. 
We need to learn to quit compromising away our rights, and it is our right I believe to own and enjoy the same type and caliber of firearm as the military and police use, so as not to be subjected to a force of superior firepower in the exercise of our rights.  The government would be a lot less worried about engaging and disarming armed civilians if all we could own were shotguns, muzzle loaders or single shot rifles but since we can own what they use, the situation is much different.  It has been said that if every Jewish man in Germany owned a Mauser rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition, adolf hitler would be a little known footnote in history, which is true as most of the European military was armed in a similar manner, with bolt action rifles. 
If every family in America owned at least one semi-automatic rifle with a standard capacity magazine of 20 or 30 rounds, it would put any oppresive government at ill ease in their thoughts about disarming Americans.
We need to stop caving in to the media and anti-gun crap.  All they need is one gun owner to agree with them, even in principle, to run amok with their agenda.  If someone had simply kicked sarah brady in the azz the first time she squealed about gun control and then invited her to watch her husband's (and Preident Reagan's) assailant hang from a lamp-post, things might be different but sadly not.  Same could be said for Carolyn McCarthy from Long Island, but we have far too many 'easy to sway nice guys' who own guns who are easy targets for the anti-gunners.
I dunno, maybe the guys the interviewers hit on think they can convince someone in a short skirt to see things differently and instead of watching a young seemingly 'breathless' honey take a deep breath before asking as question theswe guys should think about how many hidden handguns she could be carrying in her tank-top.
Get with it.  Anti-gunners have one item on their agenda and that is 'equality'.  If we don't own guns then everyone is equal.  Anyone see the irony in that??

[SharonAnne]

Mike in Virginia, high capacity (in the gun world) was Never considered to be over 10 rounds. Ten rounds was first offered as a 'standard' by antigun forces that were in part responsible for the totally wrong "Assault Weapons Ban". You sir cannot find any authoritive source in the firearms industry that ever proffered 10 rounds as a standard and anything over as 'high capacity'.

Mike In Virginia, you sir, are WRONG. Not wrong in my opinion, wrong in fact.


Mikey, what you said.

[SHOOTALL]

This is funny as much as we have spared in the past we have agreeded twice this week.
All of us shooters must correct the wrong or poor terms used to decribe our guns .
BTW when a banana is still green is it tatical ? 
 
 

[Dixie Dude]

I agree with Sharon and Mike.  When I was a kid, we had 18 round 22 rifles.  We had Browning High Power 9mm pistols with 13 rounds.  We had M1 Carbines with standard 15 round mags.  We also had 22's with 15 round mags standard.  Lots of so called "high capacity" today were standard back then.  When the 10 round assault weapon ban limit was passed, Bush Sr, who was in WWII tried to get them to at least make it 15 rounds because of all the M1 Carbines out there.  Clinton of course finally signed it. 

[SHOOTALL]

Like the guy on John Boy and Billy said  if the first 2-3 bullets get ya what difference does the next 28 matter ?

[SharonAnne]

I saw a movie about nuclear arms reduction. One woman said something about 'aren't we safer with only 1000 nukes than 3000?'  An agent took all the rounds from his magazine and had only the one in the chamber. He pointed his pistol at her head and asked "do you feel safer?".



the words are sparred and agreed (not spared and agreeded), sorry, I was married to an English teacher for 22 years.  Tactical bananas,  oh my goodness 

[Old Syko]

What our illustrious over educated media refuses to acknowledge is that the term high is a relative term.  Ten feet up a tree to a kid is high, but an astronaut........


What is high capacity in terms of a belt fed M2 I wonder?  10 rounds?  Well maybe on the left coast.  

[SharonAnne]

high capacity on an M2 would be more than "the whole 9 yards" would it not?

I am reminded of the late great President, Ronald Reagan. To paraphrase, 'much of what the left know is wrong'.

They just 'know' that gun control will reduce crime; in spite of decades of FBI crime statistics proving just the opposite.
They 'know' that an "Assault Weapons Ban" will reduce crime. They do not know what an Assault Weapon is but so what? Ban them anyway. And anything that even looks like them.
Ban any magazine that will hold more than 10 rounds. It will make us safer. Even when it doesn't.
They count on the FBI to provide crime statistics that 'prove' all of their hypotheses. When the FBI Uniform Crime Report proves all of their whacked out ideas wrong, then the FBI 'MUST' be wrong. 
They are right, they are RIGHT, THEY ARE RIGHT. Like a child having a tantrum they will repeat what they know is wrong often enough that people start to believe them.

Repeat a lie often enough, loud enough, people will believe.
Sadly they will believe.

Dear Mr. President Reagan, you were right, you  were    right.

[Dixie Dude]

I believe the left today was the spoiled brats of yesterday.  They were never diciplined as children.  They were given in to by their parents.  When it comes down to it, the left today is nothing but he elitist liberals, college professor types who never really worked in the real world.  They are the minorities who still think it is the 1920's or 1930's.  They are the unions.  They are the gullable college students who are lead by the elitist liberal professors.  None of these people know how the real world works.  We have to start thinking like they do to defeat them.  For instance I do not believe in abortion.  However, I think if the right pushes enough to get late term abortions illegal, then it could be worked down to 5 months.  (After 5 months the baby can live outside the womb).  Incrementally like the left does.  If we start calling standard magazines, standard, instead of high capacity, then we might convince some of the left to back off. 

[Mikey]

I feel it all goes back to the civil rights act of 1964, which it took schools out of the position of loco parentis (when the teacher/principal could wallop the schmidt outta someone for mouthing off or doing something wrong or stupid) and later on with the repeal of the draft (when the country should have been drafting everyone as Isreal does). 
Tain't nothin' like a dose of reality to straighten yer azz out, whether administered by a teacher, parent or drill sargeant.  I believe that had such a practice had been maintained the obvious differences between the left and the right would be so clear and the gap so large that the left would be largely ignored.
I still believe that bob costas has spent too much time in a locker room.
 
But what do I know.........

[Dixie Dude]

I think the downfall of America actually started in 1963 with the Supreme Court taking prayer and bible reading out of the schools. 
In 1960 only about 10% of kids had sex by 18.  Drugs were virtually non-existant, and STD's were almost eliminated.
By 1970 70% of kids had sex before 18, drugs were rampant, and STD's were on the rise.
Yes, taking schools away from local authority.
Hippy movement, draft problem, drugs, free sex, etc.
Roe v Wade legalising abortion.
Then Nixon doing away with the gold standard about the same time as the Arab oil embargo resulting in high inflation.
Nixon reckognising communist China.
Then continued high inflation and unemployment with Carter.
Reagan gave us hope and a reprieve.
Then the "free trade agreements" with the giant sucking sound taking our industry out of the country.
Then the housing fiasco, 911, and the Patriot act.
Then the crash and Obama, with Obamacare and his "fair" doctrine over what actually works. 
 
No. 1 is turning back to God.  However, we must adapt some of the methods the left uses.  Use Standard capacity vs high capacity.  Use Partial Birth vs plain old abortion.  Use new unique human life form vs fetus, etc, etc.  Use illegal immigrant vs "undocumented workers". 
 
We must work at the local level to work up the ladder.  From Sheriffs to dog catchers, city councils, county commissions, etc.  Make them accountable.  We must take our country back before it is too late.
 
When we began our revolution for independence, only 1/3 of American colonists favored independence, 1/3 were loyalists, and 1/3 didn't care.  The persistance of the 1/3 for independence won over the 1/3 who didn't care, and some loyalists moved to Canada.  Surely we have enough patriots to push for our beliefs.  Problem is we are the ones who are still working.  We need to give up TV time at night and get active in our community.  I decided not to waste time watching TV.  When I do, I sit and clean primer pockets in brass, or sharpen knives, or clean guns.  We are going to get an exercise machine and exercise while watching something.  Sometimes we eat our meals.  We record shows we want to watch and watch them at our convenience, like "Doomsday Preppers, Dual Survival, Man Woman Wild, documentaries.  Good wife irons, sews and mends stuff and walks on treadmill.  Treadmill is getting too hard of joints, we we are opting to get some type of recumbant bike and/or Bowflex. 
 
Anyways, not watching crappy TV shows helps with not being so mentally lazy.  Wife worked for a state senator once helping him with election. 
 
Sorry to get off topic.

[Mike in Virginia]

sharon, don't get excited.  It ain't that big of a deal.  I didn't say 10 rounds is the limit to keep us under high capaciaty.  I said "I think it is."  That's just how I see it.  My carry guns shoot more times than that, but I'm not stupid enough to say they are not high capacity.  They most certainly are.  I suppose it's a term feared by those who fear politics.  And I suppose high capacity is a relative term.  Somewhere in each of our brains we have a number of rounds established as less than high capacity.  In mine, it's 10 rounds.  You can scream all you want about how the number was established, but you can't say that's how it was established for me.  I believe that a Ruger 10/22 with a fully loaded clip  and one in the chamber is high capacity.  But that doesn't mean I'm believe it's a threat because of the 11 rounds but that is actually a lot of firepower if one is shooting at squirrels or tin cans.  The term is offensive because it lends some false authority to the anti's.  If there is a "standard" number of rounds for a weapon, I don't know what it is, but I THINK it's ten.  Can I not please think that?  That doesn't make me "wrong."  You ought not to have said that, and no, I will not stop using the term "high capacity" based on your demand.
"Please stop using the term high capacity,"  you said.  Well, no, I won't stop.  It is what it is.  If a firearm with a chamber to fire ten dozen rounds, that is high capacity.  It might be standard for that particular weapon, but it's high capacity in the real world. 
I tell you what.  Because you are so adamant that I'm wrong, I think I'll change the term high capacity to any gun that shoots more than twice without reloading.  Where in the universe did you come up with the authority to tell anyone what high capacity means to all humans?  Back off when you think to speak rudely to me.  I won't take it without spitting back.   

[Old Syko]

  I believe that a Ruger 10/22 with a fully loaded clip  and one in the chamber is high capacity.   

This statement is quite telling in itself since the 10-22 is not a clip fed gun.  It does feed by way of a magazine.

[FPH]

Mike in Virginia, did you think 10 rounds were high capacity before there were 10 round magazines, the gov. limited magazines to 10 rounds,  then told you anything over was "HIGH CAPACITY"

[Mike in Virginia]

FPH, no, sir, I didn't think that.  It is simply a number in my simple mind that I hold as my own opinion.  I've been around guns more years than most of you have been alive.  When revolvers were popular, I didn't think my six-shot Smith was low capacity.  It was a term that didn't come up at all.  If you were a cop, you had a six-shot weapon.  When I first started in '70, reloading that revolver was done my means of extra rounds you kept in your pocket.  "High capacity" in those days referred to military arms.  An M14 with a 20 round magazine was high capacity, a much improved fighter over the M1 8-shooter. 
It's not really worth arguing about.  High capacity is a term each of us recognize.  We might have different notions as to how many rounds that is, but again, high capacity is what it is. 
A liberal news agency that reports an event where a "high capacity assault rifle" was used is totally ignorant of how many rounds can be stuffed into any particular rifle.  But if she says it was high capacity, if she reports that the gun fired 15 or 20 rounds without reloading, she is telling the dern truth.  A crazed killer cutting loose with an assault rifle in a pulblic place with a gun that shoots and shoots and shoots without reloading, is using a high capacity weapon, regardless of how the gun was manufactured.  Nothing political about it, except for those who are hung up on protecting their rights by bending to their opponents.  High capacity is not a term that will help or hinder the laws of the land.  If the assualt rifle ban comes back, it will address (as it did before) the number of rounds a magazine will hold.  It will have nothing to do with the relative term of high capacity.  FPH and Sharon, get over the assumption you've made about the 10 rounds I mentioned.  I don't take that number from gov't restrictions or any other entity.  That number is simply one I keep in my brain to distinquish between high capacity and non-high capacity.  Quit trying to make it something I did not say.  If a gun shoots more than 10 times, it's more times than a "low capacity" gun will shoot.  What's wrong with that?  I can type all night to answer accusations that spring from your own insecurities.  Understand that I want all of us to have firearms that shoot all day without reloading.  I'm a proponent of firepower and high capacity, but I'm not ashamed of it.  I am not a proponent of opposing the liberals with refraining from phrases that they like or dislike.  I'm not scared of telling the liberals that my gun his high capacity.  I'd never make a politician, because I won't back off of what is true just to satisfy or lessen the animosity of said liberals who will never be satisfied until all guns are gone.  Quit being sissies.  If my weapon is high capacity, I'm proud to announce it as such.  I'm glad to tell them that the number of bullets my gun spits out is higher than the number of their IQ.  I'm not one (like Sharon apparently is) to appease the liberals by terminology they are more prone to accept.     
Old Syko--you make a specific distinction between clip and magazine.  I see your meaning and I stand corrected. 
 

[FPH]

Mike, then  no weapon, that I know of, is HIGH CAPACITY (well I do have a tube feed .22 that holds 18 shorts)......only the mags. which feed it are high capacity if they hold more than 10 rounds in your opinion.

[SharonAnne]

How do I " appease the liberals" by taking their buzz words away from them? Simple, I am not. If you wish to think anything over 10 rds. is high capacity you are quite free to do so without my permission. What I want gun owners to do is take the inflammatory words away from the anti gunners. Even though I own several firearms that hold more than 10 rounds I do not own an "assault weapon".  Assault weapons are select fire weapons that although legal in 37 states, the vast majority of us don't own one.

Anyone is free to believe that a firearm holding more than 10 rds. is free to do so just are those who believe the world is flat. To me they are equally as wrong, but hey, that IS me.

Now,your statement "those who are hung up on protecting their rights": YOU ARE DAMNED RIGHT I AM HUNG UP ON PROTECTING MY RIGHTS, AND YOURS.  If we are not 'hung up' on protecting our rights who will protect them? NO ONE!

Believe what you will. By using the buzz words the liberals use to inflame the public you are assisting the anti gunners. By using correct terminology we will slowly educate the public about reality.

Nowhere in anything I have written have I in any way "appease the liberals". I don't care if they accept my terminology. It is the general public who are being 'educated in right thinking' that I want to educate. As I wrote earlier, tell a lie often enough, loud enough, people will believe. By using correct terminology I am calling the liberals liars. Appease the liberals, me? Not now, now ever.

Mikey, what do you know? I would say very very much.

Dixie Dude, to me you were right on topic. It goes a long way back.

[Old Syko]

The point of this little exercise is to not stoop to the the low levels of todays media by not allowing them to feed the undecided public more propaganda.  If we don't use proper terminology how can we expect them to?  They search for terms that will infect the minds of the weak to further promote their agenda.  As long as we can point out such terms as high capacity, for the liberal minded hyperbole they really are, we are throwing their own BS back in their faces by pointing out their ignorance.  We stand a chance of beating them at their own game with their own rules.  By using correct terminology we avoid poking the bear.


Mike although you may have the right to name things whatever you wish, you need to understand such things only help to promote the destruction of more of our freedoms.  Let's call a spade a spade without fueling an already raging fire.   

[Mike in Virginia]

It's like hunters who won't say "kill."  They prefer "harvest."  They don't want to offend the liberals.  I'm just not one to lessen the truth by compromising in any way with liberals.  It's my opinion that we give them more strength when we display a weakness.  If they get the notion that a 30 round magazine is standard capacity, what must they think high capacity means? 

[Old Syko]

No one here is trying to show weakness by playing PC games.  As a matter of fact just the opposite is true.  The proposal is to show strength by holding the liberals to a more exacting standard with the use of proper terminology. They need to know the term high capacity is merely a relative term that cannot be tied to a specific number no matter how they try.  Their intent is to link this innocuous term to something to be feared therefore instilling that memory permanently in less than logical minds. 


BTW I kill and eat animals because it is the proper thing to do.  I harvest only field crops even though I intend to eat them also.  Again, it is the correct terminology, is it not?  Nothing relative about it.  This is what crops and animals were intended for. 

[Mike in Virginia]

I don't think we can hold liberals to any standard.  And if we try to do it by backing away from reality, it just gives them cause to be even more unreasonable than they already are.  They will see our correct terminology as a weakness, and act on it.  I'm not willing to play politics with them.  It's clear that some are more than willing.  I, and this is just me, can't stand the notion that I have to speak or write specific terminology because liberals are so dangerous to our gun rights.  Terminology is such a weak way to fight them, it amounts to less than nothing.  I suppose we ought to be more coordinated in how we keep our rights, but I'm just not one to compromise or speak the language the liberals might tolerate. 
 
In other words, liberals cannot be appeased.  We can't give them anything that they'll acceot, we can't say the right thing, we can't do anything but stand up for the Constitution.  You own a gun, they want it confiscated.  You show a liberal a weakness, she'll take advantage of it.  Besides all that, look who is in office!  Who put him back in?  How did that happen?  Liberals made it happen.  They are out there in numbers superior to ours.  Why?  Because of our weakness and appeasment.  Well, not actually "ours," but yours.  I'll never give them an inch.  I won't play politics, and I won't say what they like to hear. 
 
That's just me.     

[Mikey]

Well then, if liberals cannot be held to any standard then they are, by definition, dangerous to 'us' as well as to society as a whole, not just gun owners, hunters or Constitutionalists.  If they are therefore, by definition dangerous to society, they must be eliminated or neutralized, like wild and dangerous animals, take your choice.  If they will not accept any reasonable option, they are not reasonable and if they are intent to carry on with their dangerous agenda, which apparently is to disarm America and thereby subject it and its peoples to oppression, they must be eliminated as the only  means to keep our rights, to maintain the Constitution and to allow the country as a whole to remain free from oppression.  They must therefore be treated like the Wolves in Montana and be reduced in number so as to be controlled and controlable.
There are not numerically superior.  It was not just liberals who put that abomination back in office, it was a conglomeration of narrow minded fools who voted on singular issues rather than the needs of the country as a whole who are at fault.  We were too damned quiet about it.  Liberals are, apparently more vocal and being so are heard by more of the weak and narrow minded than we are. 
We can either neutralize their voice or force them into positions of ineffectiveness where nobody takes them seriously.  This does not mean we are appeasing them or bowing to them.  This can be accomplished by turning their own words against them; even the most ignorant soon realize blather when they hear it and even if they choose to accept it, fewer will.  Haven't you ever noticed that the louder someone yells the fewer continue to listen?  Haven't you ever been to a large city and a train station where some mentally ill nummy off his meds is yelling out his personal platform; pretty soon people just walk away.
If you don't like using the term 'harvest' to depict your hunting ethos and prefer the word 'kill' because you think it is more accurate, then you can counter their use of the term 'kill' with the term 'slaughter' for those who eat at mcdonalds or burger king. Use data and statistics to render their arguement baseless.  If they complain about the 'killing' of thousands of whitetail every year during hunting season you can counter that with the number of Whitetail killed by cars and trucks every year or the number of cattle, chicken and pigs 'slaughtered' every single day just for fast food places.  If you perfer the term 'high capacity' rather than 'standard original equipment manufacture', you can probably counter their use of the term 'high capacity' with 'limited availability of ammunition capability'. 
You can waste your time and efforts arguing with us, individually, all you want or you can put your brain to defeating their arguements with simple reasoning.  Articles and letters to the editors in local newspapers are about the easiest way to accomplish this.  Liberals never use logic, it is beyond them, as they prefer to tug at the heartstrings of those who look for some 'reasonable' answer and it is far too easy to effectively counter their approach with a simple, logical and reasonable response. 
For example:  Wild geese populate a inner city park and lake, fouling the waters and chasing away patrons who come to enjoy the area - simple problem.  People complain, and liberals claim the geese are denying the people their right to enjoy the park and demand some response from the government. The government overreacts and responds with a proposal to trap and eliminate the geese - very stringent.  One reader suggests 12 gauge shotguns and recipes for cooked goose; and the war of words heats up.  Another more rational reader simply advocates dog owners use the park more often as the dogs will chase the geese off, which is exactly what happened and the people came back to enjoy their park. 
For example:  some idiot somewhere uses a 'assault weapon' with a 'high capacity' magazine to shoot half a dozen people.  In letters to the editor the emotional and liberals clamor for more and more restrictions including total gun bans and magazine limitations (nyc).  Others opposing call for arming the entire population in their own defense; and the war of words heats up.  Other more reasonable readers invite the general public to the local ranges for barbeques, picnics and 'family days' to learn about firearms, including 'assault rifles' with 'high capacity' magazines, and local gunshops wind up with 6 months of back orders for more and more 'assault rifles' by new purchasers.  Media propaganda defeated.
Let's quit whizzing at each other here and put our brains to how to counter the illogical and inappropriately emotional approach of the liberals. 
And the Old Syko is quite right, don't stoop to the low levels of the (liberal) media; do not allow them to feed more propaganda to the undecided public without our response.  Use your brains to counter their propaganda to get the public to decide for itself - they are usually better at this than either the media or the government is. 
SharonAnne:  you are far too kind.
 

[SharonAnne]

Mike in Virginia.  "If they get the notion that a 30 round magazine is standard capacity, what must they think high capacity means? "

Who cares what they think 'high capacity' means?  The magazine capacity is irrelevant. In England a man with a double barrel shotgun killed several people. What did the Brits do? They banned all semiautomatic long guns. Where is the logic in that? There is none. Antigunners are not logical.

We will never change the minds (what minds?) of the antigunners. They are irrational when it comes to firearms. It is the general public that we must reach. If every gun owner, no matter what kind of gun, voted for pro gun candidates, we would never have an antigun law passed again. We must reach the average gun owner who is apolitical and make them political. We need the duck hunter to know that antigun laws will reach him eventually. We need the skeet and trap shooters to know that their guns are in jeopardy. It does not matter what kind of gun any of us own. They are ALL on the antigunners list.

However the antis will still have their privileged Concealed Carry Permits (like Diane Feinstein) and their body guards carrying sub machine guns. Only those high minded enough know the average gun owner is too stupid to own a gun and needs to have them taken away for their own good. The antigunners think we need to be told what is good for us and what to do. They ARE the thought police. They originated Politically Correct. Politically Correct means thinking as they do. Free thought and free speech is WRONG. Think as they think, do as they do. They will take care of and protect us. We do not need the means to protect ourselves and by God we do not need to have the means to oppose the government no matter how wrong it is.

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, and saying and writing what they did in the 1770s they would be on Homeland Security watch lists and would probably be residents of Guantanamo Bay in orange jump suits.

What our government is doing is not only wrong, it is illegal and UnConstitutional!  However, we will have to survive as a nation until the next election because we will be prevented by all means from being heard in the Supreme Court. The obamanation in the Oval Office is bound and determined to destroy the United States of America. Never before has a sitting President bowed to any other sovereign. God forbid it ever happen again. The next four years are the most dangerous to our survival as a nation more than ever before in our history. The Nazis and the Empire of Japan were minor compared to him.

he has found a way to destroy us. Uncontrolled raising of the national debt. Soon the USD will be worthless. It will not be accepted even in our country and the economy will collapse. The Great Depression will be a minor economic hiccup in comparison.

I pray that God will protect us from our sitting president. I deliberately do not capitalize his name or "president" because I totally disrespect the man and him as the president. Has anyone else noticed the media always refer to him as "president obama" yet all prior Presidents were referred to as Mr. (fill in name here)? The Mainstream Media (MM) are totally brainwashed or are just complicit in the deception of his birthplace and every illegal move he has made.

I believe it will not be long before the internet is shut down. However there will be roundup of all those who wrote against the obamanation. It will not be in the news and we will be rounded up before an organized resistance can be mounted.

What does all this have to do with "HIGH CAPACITY"? Such terms are a symptom of the illness that grips our country. If we cannot get the truth out about firearms, we are TOAST. Without our guns we cannot resist the "enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC"

Rant TOTALLY intended!