1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Paincakesx, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. Paincakesx

    Paincakesx Well-Known Member

    I've read the thread on how not to sound like an insensitive moron when debating about magazine capacity limits, but my brother and I got into a bit of a debate on this.

    His claim was that people don't need them for self defense and they only cause more harm than good. I tried to point out that the 1994 AWB as well as a majority of shootings (including Columbine and Va Tech) were not committed with weapons with high capacity magazines.

    He's not anti-gun per se, and doesn't believe in the confiscation of firearms. He does, however, believe that standard capacity magazines should be banned. There are probably threads on this and I apologize if I missed any, but any advice on what can be said here?
  2. 76shuvlinoff

    76shuvlinoff Well-Known Member

    I don't even know why it's an issue. There are 60 rd mags out there and at the last gun show I went to I saw a double drum for an AR. There are also mechanisms to attach two mags side by side. You could always tape them together and just flip them end for end ...old school.
  3. Paincakesx

    Paincakesx Well-Known Member

    I understand that his argument doesn't make much sense to those of us who are pro-gun. Given all the anti-gun hysteria going on, I'd like to earn my own kin as an ally to this movement :)

    He got pretty heated, whereas I was calm as a cucumber. Could be a sign that he knows his argument doesn't ring true and is just too stubborn to accept it. Or maybe I'm over reading it...
  4. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Well-Known Member

    Why do we need sports cars?
    they guzzle gas and some people want to race them which in turn kills innocent people

    Why do we need golf courses?
    They take up land which could be used by wildlife, or for better housing.

    Why do we need alcohol?
    Too many people die each year from alcohol related matters.

    Why don't we have cell phones which shut off when people are in the car?
    Too many texting related accidents.

    Where do the assaults on our freedoms stop?
  5. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Well-Known Member

    It's all about freedom from Government intervention. It means you can eat a double whopper with cheese instead of a tofu burger. A 4 wheel drive truck with a 6" lift instead of a Smart Car. Going to New York City and finding a bootleg Thirstbuster 64 ounce soda instead of a 12 oz drink.

    We don't complain that a 1911 only has a 7 round magazine because it was meant to be that way. The same with a 30rd Magaine for an AR.

    You "need "and it because your are a free man with all the glorious gluttony that comes with being free. Pass me another mag brother!
  6. Paincakesx

    Paincakesx Well-Known Member

    I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

    This actually surprised me given he's generally been more libertarian in the past.

    Apparently the fact that the 1994 AWB did nothing to curb violent crime isn't relevant.

    Perhaps he's a lost cause. :-/
  7. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Well-Known Member

    Just starting? Banning things because they're not practical or not needed is about as anti-Libertarian and statist as it gets. I don't need to, but if I wanted to, I could buy two sports cars and keep them idling on my grass until the cars run out of gas and it kills the grass.
  8. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    You might be a failboy.. no slight intended. There is such a thing as an "inelastic" demand product/good.
  9. HOOfan_1

    HOOfan_1 Well-Known Member

    Indeed...Libertarians want LESS government interference.

    Look at Demolition man...it is basically a Libertarian protest...
  10. MistWolf

    MistWolf Well-Known Member

    This is America. It's not about what we need.

    You don't need freedom of speech.
    You don't need freedom of religion.
    You don't need protection from unreasonable search & seizure.
    You don't need a trial by our peers.
    You don't need any of the liberties & freedoms guaranteed to us by our creator.
    All you need is a place to sleep and two meals a day. You don't need freedom to survive. There are plenty of prisoners in the world who get by every day without them
  11. p2000sk

    p2000sk Well-Known Member

    This is an article written by a well known THR member. It is a very informative read, however if you are looking for the spot about magazine capacity restriction, page down 9 times, near the bottom is a paragraph that starts like:
    The entire article is worth reading, and gave me insightful ideas about discussion with fence sitters and antis.
  12. Sniper66

    Sniper66 Well-Known Member

    It is always the intellectually lazy who opt for the easiest "solution", which is to simply "ban" something....guns, alcohol, sports cars, high capacity mags, the list could be endless. Fact is, human beings want all of these things. When my wife used to ask, "do you need another gun", I used to try to explain why I wanted it, but now I just say "Of course not, but I really want it." We want all these things and society has to figure out ways to live with and manage that reality.
  13. Warp

    Warp Well-Known Member

    The Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
  14. Sky

    Sky Well-Known Member

    We hunt pigs or used to around here. A typical load-out was one or two 10 round mags and two 30 rounders. Easy to carry; does not need a bunch of special clothing to carry and is much quieter than a box of rocks or bullets. Convenience and ease of use..

    Many people who lack an understanding of something simply because they have never walked in the end user's shoes.
  15. nazshooter

    nazshooter Well-Known Member

    "Why do you need it" is the wrong question. When you are talking about a constitutional right the burden is on those who wish to infringe to prove that the infringement they are seeking is necessary and also the least invasive way of achieving their goal.

    The gun grabbers may be able to show that gun control reduces gun crimes but they cannot show that it has ever reduced overall violent crime, murder rates or overall mortality rates.

    Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
  16. Warp

    Warp Well-Known Member


    And it isn't just for Constitutionally protected rights, it is for criminalizing anything. THe burdon of proof is always on those who want to illegalize/criminalize/ban/restrict something.
  17. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    I think a certain given/saying is "there's unlimited desires and limited...".. something like that.
    it's same ol' times
  18. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    David Gregory wants to ban all magazines like the 30 round AR-15 magazine he waved during his interview with Wayne LaPeirre, as that banning will stop bad people from getting them. The magazine he was waving around the studio is currently banned in the city in which this interview was conducted. Obviously a ban did nothing to stop a mere reporter from getting one - how will it stop a real bad person?:neener:
  19. Highcaliber

    Highcaliber Well-Known Member

    Last time I checked it was called the "Bill of Rights" not the Bill of Needs.

    I suppose your brother doesn't realize just how many 30 round magazines stood idle, doing no harm to anyone, on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting. :banghead:
  20. tomrkba

    tomrkba Well-Known Member

    The answer to this question is in The Federalist Papers.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is war against governments. Self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting are nice, but we're supposed to be organized into militias and training.

    We're supposed to have more than semi-automatic rifles too. Cannon were held privately during and after the Revolutionary War. A pair of idiots were standing in for Sean Hannity today and they continually argued that citizens cannot have RPG's. Well, they're wrong. If the Constitution authorizes cannon, which makes sense in modern warfare, then we can have bazookas.

    But, people refuse to form militias as is proper:

    Last edited: Dec 26, 2012

Share This Page