We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The answer is obviously, "no!" The situation in this suit makes that clear, but further, the situation where an Antifa mob threatened Tucker Carlson's family last year is a good argument for having automatic weapons.
As the practical level you have to ask yourself "10 rounds of what".
10 rounds of .22 will almost never be enough to stop a determined attacker *in time to save yourself". He may bleed out later, but you don't need later, you need now. You also might get him in the eye sockets, but don't bet on it.
OTOH I guarantee you that if the mother in the crawl space had put 6 rounds of 00 buck into the problem she was facing...yeah, he wouldn't have run away.
I would go so far as to suggest that given a modicum of training and practice if you can't solve your problem with 10 rounds of 00 buck then you REALLY bit off more than you could chew.
If the police feel the need to carry more than 10 rounds - whether in a pistol or a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15), why should I not have that freedom as well?
We have a perfectly good constitution. It is not lawful to make laws that are clearly contrary to the constitution. While our Supreme Court has clearly in the past made ruling that were political and not based on the constitution that does not change the very clear wording and intent of the 2nd amendment. We may lose this right if we do not stand up against those who would take it from us. But make no mistake, they want to take that right from us for exactly the same reason every government and leaders have done it in the past. They intend to rule over you and they do not want you to have the ability to stop them.
Are 10 rounds "enough"? Yes, if you've spent anywhere near enough time at the range, practicing. But California politicians don't care about "10 rounds"; they only care about banning the stock magazines for many handguns, which contain 11 or 13 rounds. Back-door gun banning.
But if I'm going to be limited to 10 rounds in the magazine, it's going to be 10 BIG rounds. .45 caliber, LOTS bigger than those wussie .35 "9 mm" bullets.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat."