Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[Spoonman]

The fuck is the difference? The items you want to "restrict" would be effectively banned.

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a fucking MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

 

[longknife]

So that when the GD Feds come to your house to take your weapons you can go out in a heroic hail of return fire!

 

[tjvh]

LOL, it's 30 uneducated rednecks against me and I have been called every name in the book, and I'm the childish one? That's rich.

How is it that 30 so-called uneducated rednecks have a far superior understanding of the Constitution than such an educated liberal hack like yourself?

You're the same people who don't know the difference between communism, socialism, marxism, and being a Nazi. So forgive me if I don't take much stock in your interpretation of the Constitution.

Care to provide a link to a USMB post where you thought I did any of that? No... You're just making stuff up (lying) in a vain attempt to make a point. For one who has no problem calling others uneducated... You're pretty damn stupid.

 

[RDD_1210]

which too violate the 2nd amendment. and how will they make a difference? you can't stop a guy with a machete, how are you going to stop a guy with any gun? restrictions? big deal. and out right ban didn't even work.

the objective is to stop sensless killings. gin bans or restrictions do not, have not, have never been proven to, stop that problem.

show me an valid example where they have. I know, you can't

and show me how you can gaurantee my safety by limiting my ability to protect myself. show uw a plan

I could point to a dozen other countries that have figured out how to drastically reduce gun violence but what's the point. We both know you don't care.

by all means, show us. but please include before and after figures. I've seen this argument discredited way to many times.

If I thought you were able to have a rational conversation I would be happy to, but to be totally honest I don't think that's in your DNA. So it's just not worth my time.

In the meantime I'll continue to poke holes in your fantasy scenarios and wait for people who are able to have a mature conversation.

 

[Spoonman]

People are being harmed by people. Inanimate objects cannot hurt anything. More people die in car accidents but you don't want to ban them? Despite that, how come you haven't addressed the fact that criminals don't obey laws so all you are really doing is preventing law abiding citizens from being on an equal playing field as criminals.

Zzzzz

Cars have a purpose in society that doesn't involve killing.

If criminals are just going to violate laws, why have any laws at all?

How many times should I repeat myself?

I have no problem with having zero laws against owning any inanimate objects. Unfortunately for you, killing has been happening, and by need, since the dawn on man. We have been surviving with killing a lot long than with cars.

You want to try and legislate morality into society and it will not work. Keep your beliefs to yourself and quit giving up your freedoms so fucking willingly.

he just wants to legislate what he personally disagrees with.

 

[LibertyLemming]

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a fucking MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

So we should let government test people to decide what government will let us retain and who among us can vote for people in government. Sounds brilliant. Government isn't big enough already...

 

[Spoonman]

I could point to a dozen other countries that have figured out how to drastically reduce gun violence but what's the point. We both know you don't care.

by all means, show us. but please include before and after figures. I've seen this argument discredited way to many times.

If I thought you were able to have a rational conversation I would be happy to, but to be totally honest I don't think that's in your DNA. So it's just not worth my time.

In the meantime I'll continue to poke holes in your fantasy scenarios and wait for people who are able to have a mature conversation.

nice cop out. ok, i got it you can't. you're just a troll

 

[RDD_1210]

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a fucking MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

If that were the case we'd have very few people voting in this country.

 

[tjvh]

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a fucking MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

But of course they should be the ones who determine who gets to administer the test... Fucking tyrannical loons.

 

[bornright]

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

The senator is from a state that has given us a good reason to have the 30 round clip. We only have to think back to the Rodney King riots when the police backed off for political reasons because of how it would look to have so many black americans lying dead in the streets. By them backing off the unruly mob moved through neighborhoods killing and stealing. If this happened in your neighborhood would you be satisfied with a 5 rd clip to defend you and your family. The government officials will withdraw the police leaving you to defend yourself. We are just a "agitating news media story" from this happening anywhere in america.

 

[LibertyLemming]

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

The senator is from a state that has given us a good reason to have the 30 round clip. We only have to think back to the Rodney King riots when the police backed off for political reasons because of how it would look to have so many black americans lying dead in the streets. By them backing off the unruly mob moved through neighborhoods killing and stealing. If this happened in your neighborhood would you be satisfied with a 5 rd clip to defend you and your family. The government officials will withdraw the police leaving you to defend yourself. We are just a "agitating news media story" from this happening anywhere in america.

Supreme Court already ruled police do not have to protect people.

 

[Spoonman]

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

If that were the case we'd have very few people voting in this country.

and obama would have gotten 6 votes

 

[RDD_1210]

How is it that 30 so-called uneducated rednecks have a far superior understanding of the Constitution than such an educated liberal hack like yourself?

You're the same people who don't know the difference between communism, socialism, marxism, and being a Nazi. So forgive me if I don't take much stock in your interpretation of the Constitution.

Care to provide a link to a USMB post where you thought I did any of that? No... You're just making stuff up (lying) in a vain attempt to make a point. For one who has no problem calling others uneducated... You're pretty damn stupid.

Sorry if I generalized and lumped you in if I shouldn't have. I was going with the averages.

Let's figure it out real quick though.

Is Obama a communist, socialist, marxist, nazi, or none of the above?

 

[RDD_1210]

i guess by that logic we should be able to determine who can vote and who can't. we should test people for their eligiblity to vote and determine if they have a true grip on the issues or they just regurgitate something they heard on the street.

If that were the case we'd have very few people voting in this country.

and obama would have gotten 6 votes

Let me guess, you voted for Romney.

 

[eflatminor]

Is Obama a communist, socialist, marxist, nazi, or none of the above?

Just another nanny state meddler that's just SURE his way will lead to prosperity, all previous attempts at central planning be damned.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Obama is an authoritarian who is trying to balance capitalism and socialism

 

[JustTheFacts]

The fuck is the difference? The items you want to "restrict" would be effectively banned.

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a fucking MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

Good Lord what is you stupid? We already have laws which limit some people from having guns .

How difficult is it? If you have A you don't get B. We know B is guns, so let's define what A is.

Childishly ranting that everyone should get to own guns is as stupid as childishly ranting that no one should have guns.

sad that you can't see that.

There are absolutely people in this country who should not have a right to own guns.

Oh, and I also agree with limited voting as well, as I see you mentioned in a later post. Take welfare queens out of the voting booth , for instance.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama is an authoritarian who is trying to balance capitalism and socialism

his scale is broken

 

[LibertyLemming]

Obama is an authoritarian who is trying to balance capitalism and socialism

his scale is broken

Quite right. I don't mean authoritarian in the likes of Hitler or Mao but he certainly is more that than he is libertarian.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 2nd amendment was designed so that the American people can defend themselves from a tyrannical government you numb-nutted puke.

Right, that's why I support your right to own a single shot musket.

Which part of the constitution gives you the right to own a semi-automatic gun with a 30 round clip?

Answered multiple times, idiot!