Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[Ringel05]

Sorry, I missed that clause that said citizens should have access to the latest small arms technology.

Also, which part of that states that anyone NEEDS a 30 round magazine?

But please, "educate" me some more!

Sorry, I missed that 2nd Amendment clause that says citizens can't have access to the latest small arms technology or own a 30 round magazine.........

Remember this thread is about "NEEDS" per the subject thread. Feel free to start your own thread about your perceived rights.

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Who are you to tell anyone what the do or do not need? A politician?
And if you're talking about needs then why bring up legal clauses? Hell by doing such you're the one who opened the door....... Duh!
BTW I need 10 cars, if nothing more than as an ostentatious display of wealth..........

 

[Rinata]

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

And how many times were any of you involved in these two situations?? You're all nuts!!!

 

[Koios]

No. They were nobles, and often land owners,

False on both counts. They were indeed professional warriors, and all land was owned by the crown. They were land HOLDERS who could be stripped of their holdings in a matter of seconds, should they displease the sovereign. Knights were exclusively from the nobility, as arming the peasantry was viewed as an invitation to insurrection. Knights were sworn to the defense of the lands.

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.

Occasionally. Mostly this is mythology created by the monarchs to justify their rule. Occasionally a knight would rise to Baron or even King. But mostly the Royals were spoiled aristocrats who never faced any sort of danger. Obamaesq blowhards taking credit for victories they had no hand in.



ROFL

Ah the left, more than willing to rewrite or fabricate history to serve their cause. Yes, Knights had the task of providing security for the lands - 100% of the responsibility, in fact. Commoners were ignored since they were non-combatants, unless conscripted as fodder. An invading army had no qualm about slaughtering the peasants, but no real drive to either.

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

ROFL

Sure sparky.

Of course should you leftists get your way, we all will be able to experience feudalism first hand. Every last one of you leftists are convinced you will be in the aristocracy - but many will find that not to be the case.

I'd advise it, strongly

Says the guy not fully grasping that the defense of medieval lands fell on the landed gentry...

The thing is, U '08, I'm pleased you're playing above your head. It's how to get better at shit. But it will be challenging.

So rule of the Anglo-Saxon kings, who ruled by the pleasure of thier subjects, many of whom indeed owned land, was replaced by William the Conqueror, the brutal Norman bastard-child-turned duke-of-Normandy, and then King of the Anglo-Saxons / England, had his agents take an accounting of all lands, buildings and animals OWNED by Anglo-Saxons, for what reason? Hmmm? Whadaya think Mr. I-Googled-It-Just-Now-And-Think-I-Know-Shit?

 

[RDD_1210]

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...

Sorry, I missed that clause that said citizens should have access to the latest small arms technology.

Also, which part of that states that anyone NEEDS a 30 round magazine?

But please, "educate" me some more!

I get your drift.

Gun control is PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL in most places.

For instance, in Mexico, the Mexican mafia and narcos have access to AK47's and 60 round magazines.

The law abiding citizens have no access to firearms.

So, see, the law in Mexico has been partially successful.



.

Right and the U.S. with more guns than any other country IS the safest. So yes, I see how an increase in gun ownership directly relates to a safer society.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sorry, I missed that 2nd Amendment clause that says citizens can't have access to the latest small arms technology or own a 30 round magazine.........

Remember this thread is about "NEEDS" per the subject thread. Feel free to start your own thread about your perceived rights.

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Who are you to tell anyone what the do or do not need? A politician?
And if you're talking about needs then why bring up legal clauses? Hell by doing such you're the one who opened the door....... Duh!
BTW I need 10 cars, if nothing more than as an ostentatious display of wealth..........

I'm not telling anyone what the need or don't need. You people just can't say why you need 30 round magazines. I say that there is no need for them, and not one person has provided reason to think otherwise.

 

[Ringel05]

Remember this thread is about "NEEDS" per the subject thread. Feel free to start your own thread about your perceived rights.

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Who are you to tell anyone what the do or do not need? A politician?
And if you're talking about needs then why bring up legal clauses? Hell by doing such you're the one who opened the door....... Duh!
BTW I need 10 cars, if nothing more than as an ostentatious display of wealth..........

I'm not telling anyone what the need or don't need. You people just can't say why you need 30 round magazines. I say that there is no need for them, and not one person has provided reason to think otherwise.

And yet, other than espousing personal bias, you haven't proven some have no need for a 30 round mag................

Oh and as to your claim you're not telling anyone what they need or not:

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Wow, coulda fooled me........

 

[RDD_1210]

Who are you to tell anyone what the do or do not need? A politician?
And if you're talking about needs then why bring up legal clauses? Hell by doing such you're the one who opened the door....... Duh!
BTW I need 10 cars, if nothing more than as an ostentatious display of wealth..........

I'm not telling anyone what the need or don't need. You people just can't say why you need 30 round magazines. I say that there is no need for them, and not one person has provided reason to think otherwise.

And yet, other than espousing personal bias, you haven't proven some have no need for a 30 round mag................

Oh and as to your claim you're not telling anyone what they need or not:

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Wow, coulda fooled me........

Well 53 pages in this thread and not one reason why anyone needs a 30 round mag tells me that its not needed. I didn't say that, the deafening silence did.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not telling anyone what the need or don't need. You people just can't say why you need 30 round magazines. I say that there is no need for them, and not one person has provided reason to think otherwise.

And yet, other than espousing personal bias, you haven't proven some have no need for a 30 round mag................

Oh and as to your claim you're not telling anyone what they need or not:

Again, no one NEEDS a 30 round magazine.

Wow, coulda fooled me........

Well 53 pages in this thread and not one reason why anyone needs a 30 round mag tells me that its not needed. I didn't say that, the deafening silence did.

Logical fallacy...... I was unaware anyone could major in that. Congratulations!

 

[RDD_1210]

And yet, other than espousing personal bias, you haven't proven some have no need for a 30 round mag................

Oh and as to your claim you're not telling anyone what they need or not:


Wow, coulda fooled me........

Well 53 pages in this thread and not one reason why anyone needs a 30 round mag tells me that its not needed. I didn't say that, the deafening silence did.

Logical fallacy...... I was unaware anyone could major in that. Congratulations!

So we agree then that you, I and seemingly no one else NEEDS a 30 round mag.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry, I missed that clause that said citizens should have access to the latest small arms technology.

Also, which part of that states that anyone NEEDS a 30 round magazine?

But please, "educate" me some more!

I get your drift.

Gun control is PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL in most places.

For instance, in Mexico, the Mexican mafia and narcos have access to AK47's and 60 round magazines.

The law abiding citizens have no access to firearms.

So, see, the law in Mexico has been partially successful.



.

.

Right and the U.S. with more guns than any other country IS the safest. So yes, I see how an increase in gun ownership directly relates to a safer society.

Unfortunately, in certain areas of the Country, like Connecticut , the government declares GUN FREE ZONES, thereby making the citizens in those areas DEFENSELESS.

 

[RDD_1210]

I get your drift.

Gun control is PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL in most places.

For instance, in Mexico, the Mexican mafia and narcos have access to AK47's and 60 round magazines.

The law abiding citizens have no access to firearms.

So, see, the law in Mexico has been partially successful.



.

.

Right and the U.S. with more guns than any other country IS the safest. So yes, I see how an increase in gun ownership directly relates to a safer society.

Unfortunately, in certain areas of the Country, like Connecticut , the government declares GUN FREE ZONES, thereby making the citizens in those areas DEFENSELESS.

Another great point! It's been statistically proven that 98.2% of all murders happen in Gun Free Zones. Columbine, Aurora, FT Hood, Virginia Tech, the Oregon Mall, the Sikh temple. All Gun Free zones!

You're really doing a great job here proving your point, keep it up!

 

[Koios]

I get your drift.

Gun control is PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL in most places.

For instance, in Mexico, the Mexican mafia and narcos have access to AK47's and 60 round magazines.

The law abiding citizens have no access to firearms.

So, see, the law in Mexico has been partially successful.



.

.

Right and the U.S. with more guns than any other country IS the safest. So yes, I see how an increase in gun ownership directly relates to a safer society.

Unfortunately, in certain areas of the Country, like Connecticut , the government declares GUN FREE ZONES, thereby making the citizens in those areas DEFENSELESS.

And like in Texas, where all bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have guns = felony notices on the front door, by law, in Texas, that wacko lefty state, where in keeping with the prediction of that abject fucking moron LaPeirre, no one is safe in Texas bars. Folks are shooting up the poor defenseless drinkers /diners with impunity and frequency, becuase right on the door it says, in effect: Shoot us; we're unarmed.

In short: how fucking retarded are you Righties? Have you ever asked someone, just the get a handle on it? I think you should. You'd be surprised.

 

[Ringel05]

Well 53 pages in this thread and not one reason why anyone needs a 30 round mag tells me that its not needed. I didn't say that, the deafening silence did.

Logical fallacy...... I was unaware anyone could major in that. Congratulations!

So we agree then that you, I and seemingly no one else NEEDS a 30 round mag.

No, it's your own argument, it negates itself because it's based on biased personal justification therefore the non-conclusion applies to the presenter of the argument as well as the respondents. Hence a logical fallacy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The thing is, U '08, I'm pleased you're playing above your head. It's how to get better at shit. But it will be challenging.

So rule of the Anglo-Saxon kings, who ruled by the pleasure of thier subjects, many of whom indeed owned land, was replaced by William the Conqueror, the brutal Norman bastard-child-turned duke-of-Normandy, and then King of the Anglo-Saxons / England, had his agents take an accounting of all lands, buildings and animals OWNED by Anglo-Saxons, for what reason? Hmmm? Whadaya think Mr. I-Googled-It-Just-Now-And-Think-I-Know-Shit?

Again, I'm openly laughing at you. I believe that RDD is utterly ignorant and uneducated. But we both know you're just shoveling bullshit with both hands. You don't believe a word you post - nor does anyone else here.

Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects. They were neither elected nor could they be deposed save by force of arms (or sometimes force of the Catholic Church.) The Anglo Kings fighting the invading German Saxons with their Thanes taking Celt lands in the name of their various kings....

What childish absurdity you play at.

This ain't Queen Amadala (or whatever) elected by Jar-Jar Binks on Naboo, sparky.

 

[RDD_1210]

Logical fallacy...... I was unaware anyone could major in that. Congratulations!

So we agree then that you, I and seemingly no one else NEEDS a 30 round mag.

No, it's your own argument, it negates itself because it's based on biased personal justification therefore the non-conclusion applies to the presenter of the argument as well as the respondents. Hence a logical fallacy.

Sure, it's my argument. It's my hypothesis.....and thus far all evidence supports my argument. Feel free though to provide anything that explains why anyone would NEED a 30 round magazine.

 

[Koios]

The thing is, U '08, I'm pleased you're playing above your head. It's how to get better at shit. But it will be challenging.

So rule of the Anglo-Saxon kings, who ruled by the pleasure of thier subjects, many of whom indeed owned land, was replaced by William the Conqueror, the brutal Norman bastard-child-turned duke-of-Normandy, and then King of the Anglo-Saxons / England, had his agents take an accounting of all lands, buildings and animals OWNED by Anglo-Saxons, for what reason? Hmmm? Whadaya think Mr. I-Googled-It-Just-Now-And-Think-I-Know-Shit?

Again, I'm openly laughing at you. I believe that RDD is utterly ignorant and uneducated. But we both know you're just shoveling bullshit with both hands. You don't believe a word you post - nor does anyone else here.

Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects. They were neither elected nor could they be deposed save by force of arms (or sometimes force of the Catholic Church.) The Anglo Kings fighting the invading German Saxons with their Thanes taking Celt lands in the name of their various kings....

What childish absurdity you play at.

This ain't Queen Amadala (or whatever) elected by Jar-Jar Binks on Naboo, sparky.

Oh no!!! Not that!!! Jesuschrist; how will I cope. Pills? Therapy? NO!!!! BOTH!!!

Now then my retarded friend, in re:

"Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects. "

I guess you're right, what with them Romanovs being czars/czarinas and not kings per se. Good thinking.

PS: Anglo-Saxon Chronical; it's interesting shit, to Google, since you're using that to play catch-up.

And this you gotta love, what with Alfred the Great being so keen on public education (needed folks to be able to read what he wrote). So you see my Righty Friends, pub-ed isn't some lefty conspiracy. It's so folks can be communicated with in writing, not to mention, have some base knowledge that'll be handy for employers. It's business-support cost. And a whopper. But godforbid we tax them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh no!!! Not that!!! Jesuschrist; how will I cope. Pills? Therapy? NO!!!! BOTH!!!

Now then my retarded friend, in re:

"Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects. "

I guess you're right, what with them Romanovs being czars/czarinas and not kings per se. Good thinking.

PS: Anglo-Saxon Chronical; it's interesting shit, to Google, since you're using that to play catch-up.

And this you gotta love, what with Alfred the Great being so keen on public education (needed folks to be able to read what he wrote). So you see my Righty Friends, pub-ed isn't some lefty conspiracy. It's so folks can be communicated with in writing, not to mention, have some base knowledge that'll be handy for employers. It's business-support cost. And a whopper. But godforbid we tax them.

ROFL

And you wonder why everyone laughs at you....

Sparky, force of arms might well have been used against the Romanovs - moron.

Oh and Alfred the Great? He promoted education of the nobility, not the commoner as you dishonestly claim.. But integrity is not something you have been blessed with.

 

[Koios]

Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects.

BTW, Anglo-Saxon kings did. But then, Normans came and things became a bit more brutal (to say the least). Yet ironically, and if memory serves, the Norman, George II, not only wrote his own lengthy coronation speech, but published and distributed it throughout the kingdom. It had some nifty ideas, and was very progressive, and much of it was put into the Magna Carta, which indeed makes the monarch one who serves at the pleasure of the subjects, and how/why Edward after marrying Wallis Simpson could be banished from the Empire.

 

[Koios]

Oh no!!! Not that!!! Jesuschrist; how will I cope. Pills? Therapy? NO!!!! BOTH!!!

Now then my retarded friend, in re:

"Kings do not "rule" at the "pleasure" of their subjects. "

I guess you're right, what with them Romanovs being czars/czarinas and not kings per se. Good thinking.

PS: Anglo-Saxon Chronical; it's interesting shit, to Google, since you're using that to play catch-up.

And this you gotta love, what with Alfred the Great being so keen on public education (needed folks to be able to read what he wrote). So you see my Righty Friends, pub-ed isn't some lefty conspiracy. It's so folks can be communicated with in writing, not to mention, have some base knowledge that'll be handy for employers. It's business-support cost. And a whopper. But godforbid we tax them.

ROFL

And you wonder why everyone laughs at you....

Sparky, force of arms might well have been used against the Romanovs - moron.

Oh and Alfred the Great? He promoted education of the nobility, not the commoner as you dishonestly claim.. But integrity is not something you have been blessed with.

Simply not true. Upon creating the Chronical, he urged that all Anglo-Saxons learn to read. If what you think is on a Wiki somewhere, point me to it. I'll revise it and it'll stick.

 

[Uncensored2008]

BTW, Anglo-Saxon kings did.

Right, the very term "subject" denotes a free person not subject to - oops, bad turn of nouns..

ROFL

You're such a clown....