Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[ScreamingEagle]

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)
I
(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

One word:

Zombies

not to mention FEMA camps....

 

[Uncensored2008]

got a link to where is says regulated by the government? i didn't think so. try again

In the parlance of the time; "well regulated" simply meant "well armed." Jefferson used the term "regulated" to denote that the people were to have access to regulation arms, i.e. military grade weapons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You wouldn't do shit and we both know it. You're all talk and I'd be surprised if your fat ass could lift asword and move at the same time let alone kill multiple moving targets with it.

The fucking fantasy world you all are in must be amazing where you're all rambo with ninja sword skills.

Spoonman isn't insane dickwad, so you're right that he wouldn't do anything. BUT, and this is key, shit fer brains, an insane person with a machete can slaughter an unlimited number of children. The panic and horror would be as great or greater than in a shooting.

Prior to America, the social structure was a ruling aristocracy, with a disarmed populace, the promise being that rulers would "protect" the general population. This is what you leftist desperately seek to recreate. You paint a fantasy of communism and sharing the wealth, but ultimately the left seeks to reestablish feudalism. Disarming the public is the first step.

 

[RDD_1210]

You wouldn't do shit and we both know it. You're all talk and I'd be surprised if your fat ass could lift asword and move at the same time let alone kill multiple moving targets with it.

The fucking fantasy world you all are in must be amazing where you're all rambo with ninja sword skills.

Spoonman isn't insane dickwad, so you're right that he wouldn't do anything. BUT, and this is key, shit fer brains, an insane person with a machete can slaughter an unlimited number of children. The panic and horror would be as great or greater than in a shooting.

Prior to America, the social structure was a ruling aristocracy, with a disarmed populace, the promise being that rulers would "protect" the general population. This is what you leftist desperately seek to recreate. You paint a fantasy of communism and sharing the wealth, but ultimately the left seeks to reestablish feudalism. Disarming the public is the first step.

More fantasy world bullshit from the insane. Please give me more of your fantastic history lesson. I can use a good laugh.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No it isn't. Tell me what logical grounds it's irrelevant and I'll happily select another country that proves my point and meets your arbitrary criteria.

Why are you so fucking stupid I have explained the difference. You didn't understand it when I did so I tried another way and you still don't understand it.
Japan is an island with no means of escape or to hide if you commit a crime. Japan suicide is an honorable death, Japan until the mid 20th century was ruled by an emperor they have a subject mentality. Their culture is different, their laws are different, their views to life is different.
Now about our neighbors to the south?

LOL, OK then, How about the UK? Perhaps Germany? I'm sure you'll have extremely valid reasons to discount those as well. Face it, gun controls when implemented properly do in fact work.

gun controls do NOT really work....unless you count draconian controls like in Japan...

Japan....their murder rates are low but in addition to their cultural difference their totalitarian police force keeps everyone in line....how would you like that?......would you like your home inspected on a regular basis...not only for guns but everything else....? i doubt it...

Great Britain......used to have low crime rates BEFORE gun control was pushed upon the country over the years....the crime rate there now is higher than it used to be when there were few restrictions....

Germany and Switzerland......why is it that Switzerland has three times more gun ownership than Germany but the Swiss have lower murder rates....?

Russia, Brazil, Mexico.....all have very strong gun laws but their gun violence is high....their murder rates are higher than the U.S.

Israel, Finland, New Zealand......all have HIGH gun ownership and LOW murder rates....

The great gun control fallacy | Thomas Sowell | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[martybegan]

You wouldn't do shit and we both know it. You're all talk and I'd be surprised if your fat ass could lift asword and move at the same time let alone kill multiple moving targets with it.

The fucking fantasy world you all are in must be amazing where you're all rambo with ninja sword skills.

Spoonman isn't insane dickwad, so you're right that he wouldn't do anything. BUT, and this is key, shit fer brains, an insane person with a machete can slaughter an unlimited number of children. The panic and horror would be as great or greater than in a shooting.

Prior to America, the social structure was a ruling aristocracy, with a disarmed populace, the promise being that rulers would "protect" the general population. This is what you leftist desperately seek to recreate. You paint a fantasy of communism and sharing the wealth, but ultimately the left seeks to reestablish feudalism. Disarming the public is the first step.

More fantasy world bullshit from the insane. Please give me more of your fantastic history lesson. I can use a good laugh.

European history is actually based on the government or ruling classes' control of weaponry, armor and other military related items. The concept was the government kept all the weapons, and only issued them to you in time of war. Using the conscript armies of prussia for example you were trained on them, and then they stayed in the armory under government control until there was need for them. Going back to medival times the primary armed unit, the knight, was a member of the aristocracy, with men at arms only being given thier arms when needed.

The one exception to this was the english ongbowman, which is interesting because this is the tradition, a non noble citizen/subject having his own implement of war, and being trained on it.
It is from here we see the basis of our armed citizenry concept.

 

[Uncensored2008]

More fantasy world bullshit from the insane. Please give me more of your fantastic history lesson. I can use a good laugh.

I'll keep in mind that it's "bullshit."

I wonder, if you leftists had successfully completed 4th grade, would you have a better grasp of history and political systems?

 

[blastoff]

Best reason for a 30-round clip is the absence of 35-round clips.

 

[RDD_1210]

More fantasy world bullshit from the insane. Please give me more of your fantastic history lesson. I can use a good laugh.

I'll keep in mind that it's "bullshit."

I wonder, if you leftists had successfully completed 4th grade, would you have a better grasp of history and political systems?

Please, tell me more!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Please, tell me more!!

You haven't the retention to make a difference; ergo your failure to successfully complete 4th grade.

Seriously, you didn't even know the basic social contract of feudalism - that is a level of ignorance beyond the pale.

You well demonstrate that leftism is a manifestation of abject stupidity.

 

[RDD_1210]

Please, tell me more!!

You haven't the retention to make a difference; ergo your failure to successfully complete 4th grade.

Seriously, you didn't even know the basic social contract of feudalism - that is a level of ignorance beyond the pale.

You well demonstrate that leftism is a manifestation of abject stupidity.

Tell me more about the barons!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Tell me more about the barons!!!

Tell me more about the knights.

 

[RDD_1210]

Tell me more about the barons!!!

Tell me more about the knights.

I wish, but I haven't passed 4th grade yet apparently. I need your wisdom!

 

[Koios]

Tell me more about the barons!!!

Tell me more about the knights.

Okie doke. Bill (the conqueror) bein' a Norman ruling the Anglo-Saxons brought a little French culture to the British Isles. Namely: chivalry. So the more skilled warriors, especially the higher classes, were knights, which included a nice benny should they fall to a rival: not killed, and indeed, given safe passage. Kinda was the thing that got the notion of Class Systems ingrained in the minds of Brits.

That help?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I wish, but I haven't passed 4th grade yet apparently. I need your wisdom!

It is clear that you lack even a 4th grade education.

{ Vassalage

Before a lord could grant land (a fief) to someone, he had to make that person a vassal. This was done at a formal and symbolic ceremony called a commendation ceremony, which was composed of the two-part act of homage and oath of fealty. During homage, the lord and vassal entered into a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces. Fealty comes from the Latin fidelitas and denotes the fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. "Fealty" also refers to an oath that more explicitly reinforces the commitments of the vassal made during homage. Such an oath follows homage.[11]

Once the commendation ceremony was complete, the lord and vassal were in a feudal relationship with agreed obligations to one another. The vassal's principal obligation to the lord was to "aid", or military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, the vassal was responsible to answer calls to military service on behalf of the lord. This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship. In addition, the vassal could have other obligations to his lord, such as attendance at his court, whether manorial, baronial, both termed court baron, or at the king's court.[12]}

Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of us learned all this in grammar school. You, did not. Detroit? Chicago? Some other leftist shit hole that turns out illiterate morons?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okie doke. Bill (the conqueror) bein' a Norman ruling the Anglo-Saxons brought a little French culture to the British Isles. Namely: chivalry. So the more skilled warriors, especially the higher classes, were knights, which included a nice benny should they fall to a rival: not killed, and indeed, given safe passage. Kinda was the thing that got the notion of Class Systems ingrained in the minds of Brits.

That help?

So these knights then, were professional warriors who were supported by a population of serfs where the knights did no labor, but the serfs were legally barred from arms with the social contract that the knights provided all security? Since all lands were the legal property of the state, with vassals appointed to oversee the lands and the populations, as property of the crown..... Say, that sounds a HELL of a lot like the arrangement the left promotes; all belongs to the state, which takes care of our needs and our security...

 

[martybegan]

Okie doke. Bill (the conqueror) bein' a Norman ruling the Anglo-Saxons brought a little French culture to the British Isles. Namely: chivalry. So the more skilled warriors, especially the higher classes, were knights, which included a nice benny should they fall to a rival: not killed, and indeed, given safe passage. Kinda was the thing that got the notion of Class Systems ingrained in the minds of Brits.

That help?

So these knights then, were professional warriors who were supported by a population of serfs where the knights did no labor, but the serfs were legally barred from arms with the social contract that the knights provided all security? Since all lands were the legal property of the state, with vassals appointed to oversee the lands and the populations, as property of the crown..... Say, that sounds a HELL of a lot like the arrangement the left promotes; all belongs to the state, which takes care of our needs and our security...

Yes, property owned from the top, and passed down below, with each level adding more restrictions and debts owed to the level above.

Basically how the mafia operates/operated.

 

[bayoubill]

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.

sigh... it's so tiresome to try to educate each and every dumbfuck who comes along...

but here goes...

the Framers intended that all able-bodied and law-abiding citizens have access to the latest small-arms technology...


and, btw, it wasn't muskets that won us independence, but rather Kentucky long rifles, which were a home-grown advancement over the standard-issue muskets carried by the British soldiers...

 

[Koios]

Okie doke. Bill (the conqueror) bein' a Norman ruling the Anglo-Saxons brought a little French culture to the British Isles. Namely: chivalry. So the more skilled warriors, especially the higher classes, were knights, which included a nice benny should they fall to a rival: not killed, and indeed, given safe passage. Kinda was the thing that got the notion of Class Systems ingrained in the minds of Brits.

That help?

So these knights then, were professional warriors who were supported by a population of serfs where the knights did no labor, but the serfs were legally barred from arms with the social contract that the knights provided all security? Since all lands were the legal property of the state, with vassals appointed to oversee the lands and the populations, as property of the crown..... Say, that sounds a HELL of a lot like the arrangement the left promotes; all belongs to the state, which takes care of our needs and our security...

No. They were nobles, and often land owners, at a time that holding power, in large part, had to do with fighting ability. Kings of the day were monarchs, who ran countries, but were also very able warriors.

And no. Knights did not provide security for anyone other than themselves, vis a vis, Norman Chivalry. The common folks, when captured by the enemy, were killed.

This is of course cursory. Reading will give you a far greater understanding, and it's interesting as shit; thus enjoyable, too.

I'd advise it, strongly

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okie doke. Bill (the conqueror) bein' a Norman ruling the Anglo-Saxons brought a little French culture to the British Isles. Namely: chivalry. So the more skilled warriors, especially the higher classes, were knights, which included a nice benny should they fall to a rival: not killed, and indeed, given safe passage. Kinda was the thing that got the notion of Class Systems ingrained in the minds of Brits.

That help?

So these knights then, were professional warriors who were supported by a population of serfs where the knights did no labor, but the serfs were legally barred from arms with the social contract that the knights provided all security? Since all lands were the legal property of the state, with vassals appointed to oversee the lands and the populations, as property of the crown..... Say, that sounds a HELL of a lot like the arrangement the left promotes; all belongs to the state, which takes care of our needs and our security...

No. They were nobles, and often land owners, at a time that holding power, in large part, had to do with fighting ability. Kings of the day were monarchs, who ran countries, but were also very able warriors.

And no. Knights did not provide security for anyone other than themselves, vis a vis, Norman Chivalry. The common folks, when captured by the enemy, were killed.

This is of course cursory. Reading will give you a far greater understanding, and it's interesting as shit; thus enjoyable, too.

I'd advise it, strongly

there came to be different Orders of knights.....such as the famous Knights of Templar which fought in the Crusades during the Middle Ages and were known as very skilled fighters.....they are also well known for their white mantles with the red Cross....