I don't believe it would accomplish very much at all as far as criminal gun acts are concerned. By far most gun murders are committed with handguns and only a few shots are fired. That's the biggest gun issue there is and almost none of the "sensible regulations" address it at all.
Is it addressable, in your opinion?
Bulletproof said:I believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves. There are situations where magazine capacity could be advantageous. If you look at the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict, I believe it would be advantageous in holding off a mob.
You want to hold off a mob by spaying with 30ish bullets as opposed to 10ish? The mob is still charging you after you discharge 7 bullets, but stops after 27?
Bulletproof said:The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about the people's right to resist the government. As laughable as many find that idea, I believe an armed populace is a deterrent to an abusive government. Limiting magazine size limits that deterrent.
IF we do have a military coup, I don't think it will be citizens with rifles defending us. If anything, more of them would join the coup than fight it.
At any rate, the government we currently have is already highly abusive. They just don't use martial law to accomplish it.