LibertyLemming
VIP Member
I'd much prefer a society without laws I think
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong.No one needs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
The Gov't had Muskets so the People had to be armed equally.
If the Kings Army had .50 cal machine guns, then the Founding Fathers would have had them too.
Then you would be here saying; "I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a .50 cal Machine Gun, nothing more."
The point of the 2nd Amendment is for the People to armed in such a manner that Gov't won't even consider trying to violate your rights.
The 2nd amendment was never intended to give people a right to murder U.S. federal, state, or local government officials you idiot. Our system of governing is what protects our rights, not any supposed right to gun down any government agent who does something you perceive as violating your rights.
Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor
(crazies will not stop)
(2) Multiple aggressors
(gang bangers don't play nice)
Read more: Articles: Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
That's just what we need, more 30 round magazines in gangland.
Wrong.No one needs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
The Gov't had Muskets so the People had to be armed equally.
If the Kings Army had .50 cal machine guns, then the Founding Fathers would have had them too.
Then you would be here saying; "I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a .50 cal Machine Gun, nothing more."
The point of the 2nd Amendment is for the People to armed in such a manner that Gov't won't even consider trying to violate your rights.
So every citizen should have their own missiles and nuclear weapons?
There is a lot of things in life you do not need.
Does that mean you should not want what you do not need?
I don't need a 30 round magizine, I own many of them.
I don't need more than one pistol, I own nine.
I don't need more than one long rifle, I own twelve.
I don't need a Thompson 1928 submachine gun (full auto) but I own two.
I don't need an M16 with a tri-burst pack, but I own one.
I don't need to be a firearm collector, but I enjoy collecting and shooting firearms.
You don't need to like it and no one is forcing you to.
Great point! You should be able to own a nuclear device as well. Maybe biological weapons as well. Who are we to tell you that you can't have your own nuclear weapons.
A nuclear warhead is considered artillery, which was held in common, in the armory by the milita. It has never been considered an "arm" which since the advent of the proto-modern infantryman (circa 1500's-1600's) has always been a shoulder mounted firearm. Starting with muskets, progressing to rifled muskets, and through the single shot rifles to today's modern semi-automatic and automatic rifles.
Biological weapons would probably be considered artillery as well, as that is thier preferred means of dispersal, and thus not an "arm" and thus not covered under the 2nd amendment.
Wrong.
The Gov't had Muskets so the People had to be armed equally.
If the Kings Army had .50 cal machine guns, then the Founding Fathers would have had them too.
Then you would be here saying; "I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a .50 cal Machine Gun, nothing more."
The point of the 2nd Amendment is for the People to armed in such a manner that Gov't won't even consider trying to violate your rights.
So every citizen should have their own missiles and nuclear weapons?
Sounds good to me.
Of course not, but there are steps that can be taken to intervene in between the bullying and suicide. There's not exactly a lot of time to persuade a bullet to not hit a child.
That is true.
Eliminate GUN FREE ZONES.
No one can guarantee than even then, he/she will be 100% safe.
.
Gun Free Zones do nothing.
Of course not, but there are steps that can be taken to intervene in between the bullying and suicide. There's not exactly a lot of time to persuade a bullet to not hit a child.
In the case of Newtown, considering the cops took 10 MINUTES to respond, the attacker probably could have used your cherished musket unloaded as a club and kill just as many people. Should we limit people to nerf versions of all blunt objects?
Extremely Doubtful.
Yes, people don't own nuclear weapons because of some law that forbids it.Great point! You should be able to own a nuclear device as well. Maybe biological weapons as well. Who are we to tell you that you can't have your own nuclear weapons.
So people should be allowed to own Nuclear weapons, right?
In the case of Newtown, considering the cops took 10 MINUTES to respond, the attacker probably could have used your cherished musket unloaded as a club and kill just as many people. Should we limit people to nerf versions of all blunt objects?
Extremely Doubtful.
Once he bludgeoned the female teachers, how was a bunch of kids going to stop him?
Life is not a Hogger Raid (Warcraft reference, look it up)
No one needs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
If that was the case I get a few cannons also.
Your interpretation counts for nothing.
There is a lot of things in life you do not need.
Does that mean you should not want what you do not need?
I don't need a 30 round magizine, I own many of them.
I don't need more than one pistol, I own nine.
I don't need more than one long rifle, I own twelve.
I don't need a Thompson 1928 submachine gun (full auto) but I own two.
I don't need an M16 with a tri-burst pack, but I own one.
I don't need to be a firearm collector, but I enjoy collecting and shooting firearms.
You don't need to like it and no one is forcing you to.
Great point! You should be able to own a nuclear device as well. Maybe biological weapons as well. Who are we to tell you that you can't have your own nuclear weapons.
I didn't realize until now that you were Truthmatter's relative.
No one needs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
Yeah, like sure, OK. OMG. Declaration of Independence! Of course that makes sense now! Right to bear arms, declaration of independence, scattered unconnected thoughts.The 2nd amendment was never intended to give people a right to murder U.S. federal, state, or local government officials you idiot. Our system of governing is what protects our rights, not any supposed right to gun down any government agent who does something you perceive as violating your rights.
Yeah.. they did not have the declaration of independence in their minds AT ALL
Oh.. and BTW... war is not murder...
Killing a government official because you think he violated your rights is murder and taking up arms against the U.S. Government is an act of rebellion.
So why don't you get a gun and go shoot the government agents that took your rights? You think the Founders gave you the right to bear arms so you could kill government agents to protect your rights but you're too chicken to do it?And our system of government has shown to take away our rights as well..
What is your fixation on the size of a magazine?
I can do the same damage with 3 10 round magazines in almost the same time frame as a person with 1 30 round mag.
Why don't you just be honest for once and say you want to ban all semi auto rifles?
What is your fixation on the size of a magazine?
I can do the same damage with 3 10 round magazines in almost the same time frame as a person with 1 30 round mag.
Why don't you just be honest for once and say you want to ban all semi auto rifles?
When did I say I was against laws in general?
Well you're arguing that criminals will just ignore them. So why have any laws?
Playing stupid again I see RDD_1210.
Actually no, I'm not. I'm arguing that a law forbidding a person from owning a nuclear weapon is silly.When did I say I was against laws in general?
Well you're arguing that criminals will just ignore them. So why have any laws?
And you were about to tell me what nuclear weapons had to do with thirty-round magazines ... right?
No one needs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
And every american should be able to enjoy thier freedom of speech using a 1790's printing press, handwritten text on paper, or standing on the steps of city hall, nothing more.
Oh, and police can't search cars, even with a warrant, because cars were not around then. Come to think of it, planes didnt exist either.... PLANES ARE UNCONSITUTIONAL!!!
/sarcam.
Hey, you're the ones that love to bring up the constitution everytime someone threatens your precious guns. Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous that argument is.