H.R.308 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 91-104 of 104 total comments.

Torqued 02/07/2011 11:26pm

I do not know if I even want to put my 2 cents in on this topic. If possessing magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds is going to be enforced as a Federal law, It is going to make a lot of Americans “criminals”. I believe it will be too many freedom loving Americans that will not want to give them up. We are not fools, we know that once the high cap mags are banned, soon the firearm will be banned. One little bit by bit “they” will erode them away… either that, or Civil War. Would really suck to have to sign the Declaration of Independence all over again as the result of silly laws made by silly politicians.

Spam Comment

sgtmac_46 02/10/2011 9:35am
in reply to Patriot16 Jan 20, 2011 6:18pm

She’s a typical tragedy-pimp.

bdg333 02/11/2011 11:13am
in reply to JackCox Jan 25, 2011 1:29am

The right to bear arms is useless without the right to bullets. If we do not have the right to bullets, then the right to bear arms would be useless and not serve the purpose the founders intended. Without the right to bullets, we do not truly have the right to bear arms. Therefore, by the fact we have the right to bear arms and logic, we have the right to bullets.

Freedom of speech would be void if we could not speak or freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is pointless without paper (etc) or the freedom of speech.

A lot rights could be undone by saying “Oh, well, this idea isn’t included in the constitution and therefore is not a right, even though it makes certain ideas and rights in the constitution pointless and ineffective”

We have the right to life, but who said we had the right to exist, eat, drink, breath, etc? It is implied due to its neccessity to allow the rights to actually be rights.

bdg333 02/16/2011 2:28pm
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Feb 03, 2011 3:02pm

Lets assume your point is true that officers only carry up to 8 rounds. By the laws of probability, if this is the amount of ammunition an officer needs to defend himself and others, then the average civilian and an expieranced shooter will need more just to have the same probability of an officer being successful in defending him or herself. This is assuming only two things in the end:
1) officers are better trained than the average civilian and expierenced shooters (who are not officers, just civilians as well in this point) in how to handle a gun and defend themselves and others

We, as a society, should hope that is true.

2) Officers carry around 8 rounds

You stated it…

You might be wanting to state that the expierenced shooter may be better than the officer, but the average civilian, by assumption 1, should not be, and officers are probably still better than expierenced shooters, at least most of them.

MayorofAngryTown 02/10/2011 10:32am
in reply to sgtmac_46 Feb 10, 2011 9:31am

The argument was that civilians need extended magazines in order to protect themselves. My argument was that the amount of people killed (homicide) by firearms is 45 times more likely than justifiable homicide by a civilian. None of your statistics REMOTELY support the notion that extended magazines better help people protect themselves or their community. The simplest of arguments I tried to make was the amount of times firearms are used resulting in death or injury justifiably or not. Explain to me why you , as a civilian, need a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds. If its a genuine argument I will eat my words.

aaestep 04/07/2011 3:53pm
in reply to kevinmcc Mar 12, 2011 5:18pm


visera01 11/14/2011 6:34pm

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” this is a second amendment issue you can not make common sense a law this 2nd amendment was put in place for LAW ABIDING citizen to have and keep arms that were on par with the military has we are the best defense for this country congress has no right to say how much ammo we can have in our weapons at one time

kevinmcc 03/12/2011 5:18pm
in reply to dankennedy73 Mar 10, 2011 12:14pm

I suppose when the federal government decides on the standard that every soldier carries a nuke into battle, we’ll have them at home.

Just look at what is happening in Libya. That is exactly why we have a second amendment.

JackCox 01/25/2011 1:29am

Please tell me Where in the constitution does it specify a right to bullets? You may have the right to bear arms but you have no right to bear bullets.

bdg333 02/12/2011 7:08pm
in reply to MayorofAngryTown Feb 11, 2011 12:15pm

I know we have the right to bullets, but he (Jackcox) was implying that we, for some reason, didn’t, so I was just showing an arguement against him, that is all.

MayorofAngryTown 02/11/2011 12:15pm
in reply to bdg333 Feb 11, 2011 11:13am

But you do have the right to bullets. You’re making it seem as if bullets are rationed or even outlawed under this bill. As for freedom of speech….the day you put paper in a gun and kill someone is the day paper is then closely monitored.

Why is everyone jumping to the exaggerated conclusion that this bill outlaws bullets. It outlaws the capability to dispense a large amount of them in a single serving. You still have every right to buy as many guns AND AMMO you want.

bdg333 02/12/2011 7:16pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 09, 2011 3:04pm

And is protected by a set of ideas (for us, the constitution) whose truth is taken for granted to ensure that the rights of the many and few are protected.

therebeunicorns 03/01/2011 7:28am

Heh. I’d better start stalking up soon as I can. Our government is headed towards tyranny. They have no right to say how big my clips can be or how many rounds I need. I’m not saying everyone needs to load up, but we should be able to buy what or as much as we need in case of a war on home turf and citizens need to become warriors. Heck, if the government goes to tyranny, they’re the ones I’ll be unloading my clips on.

On the other hand, I agree that I don’t see how you need a bazillion rounds for defense from criminals. If you are a good shot, you only need a few. All citizens should attend gun training, or some sort of self defense training. :D

Vote on This Bill

17% Users Support Bill

164 in favor / 778 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments