Clinton Has Cost Me $55 With His 10 Round Clip BS

I went a gun show to find a banana clip for my 22 rifle and low and behold I found one. I just about fell on the floor when I saw the price of $69(normally they are $14). I asked the girl “what the heck is the deal with the price?” She said it was Clinton’s fault. He supposably passed a law that limits clips to 10 rounds. Supply and demand she said.

What’s up this bs? In his liberal mind it is ok to shoot 10 people but not 30? I mean if I was going to terrorize a Luby’s, it wouldn’t with a 22(that would just piss people off.

What would algore do if he got in make it a one round clip? Boy that sure would be shooting a gun then huh? Load shoot load shoot load shoot load shoot load shoot load shoot load shoot load shoot if that is getting on your nerves reading it imagine having to do it?

I think this 10 round clip SUCKS! I wonder if Bush can get it changed back? After all we don’t have that stupid double nickel speed limit anymore so maybe there is hope.

Oh yeah, there’s the answer - more ammo! Boy howdy, I jest cain’t wait ‘til one of ours {nudge nudge wink wink} is back in that there big ol’ white house, boy!



I know the feeling, WB. I used to get those cheapie yellow see-through bananas for my 10/22 and just throw them away when they (inevitably) cracked. Now I’m polishing the darned things. I’ve oiled them, too. I’ve thought of how much money I could have made reselling the ones I’ve thrown away.
IIRC, you can still find HiCaps for sale in magazines and such, but 70 bucks sounds a bit steep.

I think the rationale for limiting the magazine capacity is that anything greater than 10 rounds makes it a weapon capable of mass indiscriminate killing, and thus included in the class of weapons like bombs and mortars and full-autos. I suppose 10 is the limit on folks you can kill before reloading. It sounds just as silly no matter how many times you read it.

The folks over at HCI have lots of brilliant ideas just like that one. Smart folks, they. :rolleyes:

I hear ya…
There is nothing worse than those who have nothing to do with guns, and probably know nothing about them, setting the rules for those with them.

The good news is that the Bill imposing most of these BS laws has a sunset clause in it. It dies sometime in 2004 if I am not mistaken. Hopefully we can stop them from extending it any further.

Question for you gun collectors.
I’m not actively opposed to gun collecting, btw. Sure they may be potential dangers, but my internal reaction is the same as that of people who collect pictures of dogs playing poker. Kinda tasteless and silly, but thats it.

Anyway, why do you need these banana clips? From the topic I assume you actually shelled out the cash for one.
As a cost-benefit analysis, what activity so required the big clip that you were willing to pay for one? Why not just use several smaller ones?

I haven’t done much target shooting (only with pistol and single shot 22 years ago, and shotgun once recently) so, is there some particular course that requires a big clip?

IIRC, on the target I used for my marksmanship qualification (for .22) had 10 targets, and you were supposed to shoot three rounds at each. Thus, 30 rounds. If you’re all “slinged up” it’s annoying to have to adjust too much from your posture in order to reload. You want to keep yourself as consistently positioned as possible. Of course, when we did it, we didn’t use big clips, and I did OK. YMMV.

OK, I have to ask…why is placing a limit on the number of rounds in a clip a bad idea? What are people shooting that makes “shoot load shoot load shoot load, etc.” impractical? Or, perhaps more accurately, what are people shooting that makes “shoot (repeat 9 times) reload” impractical?


You know how it is. You go into a public place to do some mass kill’en because you are posessed or pissed at the world and you have to reload after shooting only 10 people. I mean what’s the point? Might well drive my car into a crowd killing many many more. I’m sorry I just couldn’t resist.

But seriously it is fun sqeezing off 20 to 30 rounds at a target(not people). It is exihilarating you should try it. Plus it is a pain to reload the little clips and fit them in the 22 only after 10 shots.

Plus if you are rabbit hunt’n, sometimes you need 30 shots fer them fast hares. :wink: :smiley:

Wildest Bill said:

Well, that’s where I go for my information – a gun show! Yup, they always have the most accurate and up-to-date legal info. This is especially true of people who have marked up a $14 item to $69. I’m sure they have no motivation to blame it on somebody else. :rolleyes:

Wow! He did this all by himself? It’s amazing that the Republican Congress managed to avoid it somehow…

Afraid you have it backwards, my good canine…here in the Land of the Free, it’s up to those seeking to restrict to justify the restriction, not up to the free to show why they need the freedom.

Great point MAX!

As far as justification goes, I believe that it was along the lines of “reduced potential for harm” or some such. Whether or not that argument washes is up to your own individual tastes, but I’m pretty sure it represents an imperfect compromise between the extremes who want every citizen to be able to carry everything up to and including unlicensed nuclear accelerators and those who would rather that cigarette lighters be legal only when accompanied by background checks and anal cavity investigations.

Originally posted by Mauve Dog

Afraid you have it backwards, my good canine…here in the Land of the Free, it’s up to those seeking to restrict to justify the restriction, not up to the free to show why they need the freedom.

So what’s your opinion of Roe v. Wade? JDM

JDM, for the record, I am anti gun control and pro choice, but:

If you agree with the sentiment you quoted, you should say so and admit its connection to the OP. What good does bringing up a separate issue do?


If I may quote…


Limiting clip size is not infringing upon the right to keep or bear arms. It is, perhaps, infringing on the right to bear ammo, but even that would be stretching it, since you can apparently have as many 10-round clips as you like. A freedom is not being removed from anyone.

As for “those seeking to restrict to justify the restriction,” it would seem to me that such justification has already been made by the Powers That Be, if it has been passed into law.

So again I ask, why is this a bad idea?

Well, I’m a proponant of gun control, but I’ve always thought that this specific law was misguided. All it does is cause people to buy higher caliber guns, or smaller, easier-to-conceal guns. I’d rather be shot by a 9mm than by a .44’ magnum.

Well, I for one think it’s a bad idea because it is a pain in the ass to have to reload 3 times as much as you used to have to.

In addition, I don’t think it serves any useful purpose.


Freedom2 wrote:

The Federal Firearms Act of 1994 ends in 2004?! Really? Show me the code section that says this – I wanna see it for myself!

It’s not entirely relevant, but here in Finland a major reason for the restriction on self-loading (ie. semiautomatic) hunting weapons’ clip sizes was that if you couldn’t kill your prey with the allowed 3 shots, you shouldn’t be out there hunting in the first place.

I just wanted to show that not all gun restrictions are based on silly assumptions…

Man I hate getting asked to provide hard to find cites. I mean…I think I have been the model of reliabilty on this board, why do I need a cite?:slight_smile:
Ok…I’m off to look. Be warned though, I just noticed that I now have my own electoral college thread to participate in, so I don’t know how much time I’m going to have:)