Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

 

[Youch]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Yeah, the "nobody needs" argument is stupid. Society is not predicated on needs. Nobody needs a car that can go 120MPH. Nobody needs lots of things. So what? "I want" is perfectly sufficient and it's up to the banners to show that banning that item would do some public good.
So far they have failed utterly. We had a ban under Clinton. It did nothing, zero, for crime. When it expired it had no effect on crime. Bans on guns are worthless.

 

[rightwinger]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

 

[rightwinger]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Actually, yes

The courts will evaluate "need" for privately held firepower in determining whether a firearm can be banned. Even your beloved Heller decision affirmed that

It was a key consideration in banning machine guns and other military weapons in private hands. You need to demonstrate a legitimate need for that weapon

 

[Youch]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Why are police allowed to have additional firepower? Can you point to the last time an officer needed 30 rounds?

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Actually, yes

The courts will evaluate "need" for privately held firepower in determining whether a firearm can be banned. Even your beloved Heller decision affirmed that

It was a key consideration in banning machine guns and other military weapons in private hands. You need to demonstrate a legitimate need for that weapon

Gee, I own a machine gun so the "ban" must not have been very effective. I never had to demonstrate any need for it either.
As usual you're talking out of your ass about shit you know nothing about.

 

[rightwinger]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Actually, yes

The courts will evaluate "need" for privately held firepower in determining whether a firearm can be banned. Even your beloved Heller decision affirmed that

It was a key consideration in banning machine guns and other military weapons in private hands. You need to demonstrate a legitimate need for that weapon

Gee, I own a machine gun so the "ban" must not have been very effective. I never had to demonstrate any need for it either.
As usual you're talking out of your ass about shit you know nothing about.

Access to automatic weapons depends on the state you live in. If your asshole state allows citizens to buy machine guns then let them deal with it

Doesn't negate the fact that you are still denied access to most military grade weapons and that your lack of a "need" for those weapons is a determining factor

 

[rightwinger]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Actually, yes

The courts will evaluate "need" for privately held firepower in determining whether a firearm can be banned. Even your beloved Heller decision affirmed that

It was a key consideration in banning machine guns and other military weapons in private hands. You need to demonstrate a legitimate need for that weapon

Gee, I own a machine gun so the "ban" must not have been very effective. I never had to demonstrate any need for it either.
As usual you're talking out of your ass about shit you know nothing about.

Access to automatic weapons depends on the state you live in. If your asshole state allows citizens to buy machine guns then let them deal with it

Doesn't negate the fact that you are still denied access to most military grade weapons and that your lack of a "need" for those weapons is a determining factor

OK, so you admit you were wrong when you said there was a ban. My state allows all sorts of fun toys. And guess what, no one has ever been shot with one. In fact the only case of someone killing someone else with an NFA weapon was a police officer.
I am not denied access to much of anything, except by reason of the stuff being priced out of my reach. Please do some research before you spout bullshit.
Rabbi Rules #2!

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

So why do police carry 30 round magazines if there is no legitimate reason for them to?

 

[Youch]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

So why do police carry 30 round magazines if there is no legitimate reason for them to?

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Libs want the populace to be less defended/protected/armed than the government. Which is, of course, the opposite of the thinking of our founding fathers. So why support libs?? Really?

 

[Youch]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

The question was who, and when. Answer: countless comrades-in-arms in the various iterations of the GWOT.

But I don't think that is what you meant.

The term you used, and the term that the anti-gun crowd often uses is "needed" or need. The problem the pro-gun crowd has with that is, it infers that the government will determine "need." And I for one have a HUGE problem with that. More so as it/they grow out of my diminishing liberty.

Actually, yes

The courts will evaluate "need" for privately held firepower in determining whether a firearm can be banned. Even your beloved Heller decision affirmed that

It was a key consideration in banning machine guns and other military weapons in private hands. You need to demonstrate a legitimate need for that weapon

Gee, I own a machine gun so the "ban" must not have been very effective. I never had to demonstrate any need for it either.
As usual you're talking out of your ass about shit you know nothing about.

Access to automatic weapons depends on the state you live in. If your asshole state allows citizens to buy machine guns then let them deal with it

Doesn't negate the fact that you are still denied access to most military grade weapons and that your lack of a "need" for those weapons is a determining factor

OK, so you admit you were wrong when you said there was a ban. My state allows all sorts of fun toys. And guess what, no one has ever been shot with one. In fact the only case of someone killing someone else with an NFA weapon was a police officer.
I am not denied access to much of anything, except by reason of the stuff being priced out of my reach. Please do some research before you spout bullshit.
Rabbi Rules #2!

Amen, bro!!

 

[Wildman]

so why do police carry 30 round magazines in their full auto weapons, if there is no legitimate reason for them to do so ?

we average every day Conservative Second Amdt. supporters should also be permitted to own and use one

 

[Youch]

so why do police carry 30 round magazines in their full auto weapons, if there is no legitimate reason for them to do so ?

we average every day Conservative Second Amdt. supporters should also be permitted to own and use one

Yessir!!!

 

[rightwinger]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

So why do police carry 30 round magazines if there is no legitimate reason for them to?

Because we allow police more lattitude than we allow civilians. Same as we allow the military more lattitude than civilians

Sucks to be you doesn't it?

You don't get to play army the way you want to

 

[Youch]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

So why do police carry 30 round magazines if there is no legitimate reason for them to?

Because we allow police more lattitude than we allow civilians. Same as we allow the military more lattitude than civilians

Sucks to be you doesn't it?

You don't get to play army the way you want to

Horse shit.

Free citizens desiring the STANDARD 30rnd magazines has nothing to do with the police. It has everything to do with the bad guys, and the freaks that want to weaken the U.S.

But your dangerous and socialistic contention that somehow government grants "permission" to carry what is required by the individual, is preposterous..

 

[The Rabbi]

I do! Any lessor magazine gets empty too fast.

Our growing government does not want it's citizens to protect themselves. So much can be inferred from such a circumstance.

When was the last time you, or anyone for that matter, needed 30 rounds to protect yourself?

I dunno. Lots of polcice departments issue ARs and every one of them has a 30rd magazine. Even in NY and CA where those things are illegal. Why do suppose that is?

I'm glad to hear that police are allowed to have additional firepower.

Care to point out the last time you or any other private citizen needed 30 rounds to protect themselves?

Wait, you asked that question of me, I answered it, and you have no reply, and instead move on to someone else?

I did answer your question

You claim the government does not want its citizens to protect themselves and I responded that there are no cases in which 30 round magazines were necessary for private citizen protection.

So why do police carry 30 round magazines if there is no legitimate reason for them to?

Because we allow police more lattitude than we allow civilians. Same as we allow the military more lattitude than civilians

Sucks to be you doesn't it?

You don't get to play army the way you want to

We dont allow police more latitude. What an absurd statement. When confronted with facts you reply with garbage. Typical.

 

[ChrisL]

Agreed. I don't argue they need to change, although I would argue they have given up part of their culture and made their citizens less safe. Recall the rioting by "youths" in Britain and Norway about 1 or 2 years ago. People had to get baseball bats to defend themselves. Bunch of citizens with shotguns patrolling the streets would have ended that real quick.
But in the US we have the 2A, so it is a right.

So the odd riot should mean everybody should be armed to the teeth? How many people died in those riots? Your solution to the problem is way over the top.

And how many die in mass shootings, percentage wise? The answer is less than 1%.

Telling people they can't defend themselves in the face of threat is simply not acceptable for any decent society. I had friends who went through the Crown Heights riots. They were terrified and scarred probably to this day. Some of them were old Europeans who remembered Nazi pogroms and relived that period. It is simply offensive for someone to suggest, well not many people died so it's OK. It's not OK. It's never OK.

More people die from drowning than from mass shootings, so why don't these people want to ban swimming pools? Many, many more children die in swimming pools than in mass shootings every year.

That is horrible to hear. Maybe we should do something about swimming pools to make them safer. We could fence them in, make rules for how they are built. keep non-swimmers out of the deep end, have life guards
Wait, we already do that

But when we try to make rules concerning guns....we get whiny threads like this one

The only one whining is you though! Lol! If we didn't have people who constantly whined about guns when they are obviously not even the most dangerous thing and do not take anywhere near the amount of lives as some other activities and things, then these threads wouldn't be necessary.

What exactly is your proposal anyway and how do you think it would stop criminals, or those intent upon killing a large number of people?