Free High-Capacity Magazines Given Out at Gun Rights Rally

Gun rights supporters protesting gun restriction legislation are gathering at the Vermont Statehouse, urging the governor not to sign the bill.Police estimate hundreds of protesters turned out Saturday to show their opposition a day after the Vermont legislature passed the gun restrictions package.

Protesters were giving away 1,200 30-round magazines. The legislation would ban high-capacity magazines and rapid-fire devices known as bump stocks, in addition to raising the legal age. It would also expand background checks for private gun sales.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-01 at 2.15.26 PM.png (799x521, 404.45K)

Wish I could have been there, damn.


Good catch.. 30 rd magazines are standard capacity. 42+ round magazines are high capacity.


Attached: doggo.jpg (640x640, 97.4K)

Anything more than a single shot is "high capacity", Depends on who you ask.

Attached: infringment.gif (229x263, 783.85K)

Attached: seems based on emotion not reason.png (742x720, 618.29K)

Welp when the gov decides to make everyone a felon for not destroying or turning in their shit you can bet real machine guns start getting made in huge numbers.

Define "capacity" in firearms.
If you define "capacity" as "the amount of cartridges a magazine can hold" then i'm going to ask the question "Why don't you define capacity as the amount of energy a certain type of magazine is able to sustain" which the answer will be "I have no idea" to which you can just say "well why don't you learn some more things about firearms then before you go asking for legislation on things you are clearly uneducated on"

30 rounds of .22 and 30 rounds of .223 are very different and by this definition of "high capacity" 30 round .22 magazines will be illegal which begs the question "why does the size of a magazine denote how dangerous a firearm is? Why does it matter if he can have a magazine with 30 rounds when he can just carry multiple 10 round magazines which he can still kill people just as effectively with, if not more? (lower ammunition in each magazine causes the shooter to conserve ammo which in turn means he's going to only take shots that he knows are going to hit meaning he will have a higher kill ratio per shot fired)

So, by limiting the amount of rounds in a magazine, they're making mass shooters pick their targets more discriminately, meaning they will have higher kill counts because they're going to make every shot count because they have lower magazine sizes.

People advocating for the """""""""""""high capacity""""""""" magazine bans are the true evil in this scenario

i'm drunk af and can easily pick apart why banning STANAGs is a stupid idea imagine how stupid and uneducated about firearms you have to be in order to come to the retarded conclusion that less bullets in each magazine = less deaths

This is exactly the same argument as banning blades over a certain amount of length.
If you make it illegal to own swords/whatever long bladed weapon you'll just stop all sword enthusiasts from living in your country while the criminals will carry on using smaller sized knifes (see the relation to magazine capacity) like they always fucking have.

If you were to compare guns to swords, the action of a gun is like the hilt/handle and the shape of the blade.
The magazine capacity is how long the knife/sword is.
And we know from experience that a longer knife/sword does not mean "more killing power", it's just a different method with a different ethos.

Banning AUTOMATIC firearms is something i agree with, because in a real life rebellion against the US government by smaller militia units they will just easily find any machine shop and make all their semi autos into fully automatic within a single month, so banning automatic firearms makes sense within the scope of the 2nd amendment because you're not infringing on the right to own firearms, just the type of firearm which you can own, which was not explicitly stated in the 2nd amendment.

They did this with the AWB last time (and the time before that) and all the gun owners cucked out so what makes you think it'll change this time?
Do you really think they'll be a rebellion if the 2nd amendmant is repealed? there wont, they'll be groups of militias getting BTFO by higher funded and higher trained military/federal agencies while getting demonised by all the the controlled media (including the "right wing" media) because most of there memebers said nigger on facebook at one point and millennials see a white persons face next to the word nigger and automatically make the "enemy" connection in their head and walk on down to the local recruitment office to sign up to kill some "fuckin racist SOB just like my grand pappy did with those fuckin nazis"

I see they hired you D&C shills already. Must be planning something. Do you have any inside knowledge, or just follow the script your given?

You're a fucking cuck if ever i saw one, you're confronted with a concept you are unfamiliar with so you bring out >muh shills like the cuckold you are.
If you have any real points or anything you'd like to point out in a substantive way go ahead but low energy posts like this make you look like a weak minded faggot who can't help but parrot the other people he see's on Zig Forums.

That's not legally how a limitation of power works. If the government does not have the power to infringe on weapon ownership then they can't ban ANYTHING. This cringing and bargaining with gun rights is a joke. They have no right to ban anything. There should not be any compromise because giving these people what they want is not a compromise, it's just capitulation. Are cannons banned in your state? Because cannons are arms, they existed at the time of the founding fathers, and they can do shit tons of damage. fuck automatic weapons, just get a cannon.

You better start following the Bible to the letter, after all, following hundreds of year old scripture to the letter and taking it literally is what you're advocating for, and you do live in a christian nation, and after all, america is one nation under god as i'm sure you'd agree.

Democracy is the essence of compromise.
It allows different groups to come together because they're all guaranteed a voice and political power, which includes the right to amend the constitution, which is something that was done within the first 5 years of it existing.

Attached: Unhingedtruly.png (573x573, 382.32K)

Oh hek, Vermont is Driving Distance =/
I literally sat home, drank like 5 gallons of beer and shot up 60$ of blood into my Weed… I had Nothing to do this whole weekend and Just now I find out, there where like 6 gorillion people doing the exact same thing, but with Guns and hookers…
Thanks for Inviting me fugg


I smoked a lot of weed, I tried to make a Joke… about shooting up weed… I failed thanks.

Here is a fully functionally 2mm pinfire pistol. So the government can ban all other types of guns and as long as they don't ban these they aren't violating the 2nd amendment according to your logic.

Attached: miniaturerevolver_002.jpg (900x611, 476.14K)

No because anybody with 2 braincells can obviously see that a 2mm pinfire isn't going to be able to be used to arma malitia unit, where as AWB semi auto AR-15s and derivatives can easily be converted into automatics.

Revolvers aren't semi automatic, you nogun faggot.

Dif. user here.
Shut your fat Fucking virgin face you impotent pussycat goon.

Gonna get BTFO in a bit. You just slowed us down.

Attached: 8a09bc83983b6df97a266777e1f5f7f4fdd61c8eb42c17910e536d5ee4065f84.jpg (903x485, 146.34K)

now THIS is a shill post if ever i saw one.