Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?

[Sam Cade]

War just breeds more hate and suffering on both sides.

Winning a war, on the other hand, can bring both peace and prosperity.


Sometimes even for the losers.



germany

japan

 

[JustinJ]

Suppose several crazed thugs break down your front door and come in with guns blazing. Anyone who would think that five to ten rounds is the maximum the honest, law-abiding citizen should have can limit their guns all they want.

Suppose aliens invade and smoking crack is the only way to resist their mind control abilities. Do you keep a loaded pipe at the ready just in case? Unless you are the head of a drug cartel the chances of crazed thugs busting in your door, guns blazing, is so astranomically low it is absurd to even consider.

And unless your AR15 is permamently attached to you at all times you can have a 500 round magazine, it wouldn't do much good if these imaginary bad guys bust in with guns blazing.

 

[Bobson]

If you really want to see slavery, think about what losing a civil war would be like and thus losing the second amendment entirely.

If it ever gets to that point, I think it will be because we're about to lose the second amendment entirely. In other words, a civil war would be a last ditch effort to avoid slavery. Thus, if we fight and lose, it's over. If we don't fight at all... it's still over. In that scenario, wouldn't you rather take your chances fighting? Or is dialogue the better option?

Nobody's suggesting a civil war might be fought over our loss of the food pyramid.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

My nephew who spent 8 years in close quarters contact with the jihadists in both Afghanistan and Iraq would tell you that there are things worse than death.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I have a 15# Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher in my garage entrance. Why do I have such a large extinguisher when I could have one of those little First-Alert hand-held units worth a fraction of what I spent on the large one.

By the standards of many liberals on gun control, you are a fool for having a fire extinguisher in the first place, regardless of the size.

I mean, really...we have fire departments for crying out loud! All you need to do is call the fire department and they'll come right out and fight that fire for you! No need to carry around dangerous containers full of highly pressurized chemicals.

Sheesh, man! Get your head on straight before you kill someone with that extinguisher!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Other than food, shelter, and clothing, who really needs anything?

That's a stupid argument, easily turned around on anybody who tries to use it.

Who needs a vehicle, when there is public transportation?

Who needs a choice in the cut of beef they want to eat, when any cut of beef provides essentally the same nutritional value?

Who needs a four bedroom house so long as there is enough floor space to sleep everybody in the family?

Who needs an entire tub full of water when all they require is a single small bucket to bathe themselves clean?

Who needs anything more than water to drink, ever?


The point isn't whether or not a person actually "needs" a 30 round magazine...it's whether or not the government (you know...that "by the people, for the people" entity) can require you to justify such a "need".

For every argument the government can come up with why a person DOESN'T "need" a 30 round magazine, you or I could easily come up with an argument why a person WOULD "need" to have it. But as soon as we allow the government to say we must justify the need, then our arguments become null and void, whatever they may be.

 

[yzguy87]

"Who "needs" 30 round Magazines?"
I do. I only need one round for hunting and maybe only 2-3 per home invader but I'll use the rest of the mag to fend off rights grabbers that try to take away my property. Last I checked it was called the Bill of Rights NOT the Bill of Privilages.

 

[CoRoMo]

You won't win a war against the government.

Winning a war against the government is not the goal.

“This is all about the people’s ability to defend against tyranny. When the government knows that they have an armed populous and there would have to be some sort of bloodshed as opposed to just a pen to do their dirty work. The ability to win against a tyrannical government is not the goal. You don’t need to win against the American military; you just need to let the government know that we are armed and that there would be a grave problem for them.” Anthony Cumia

 

[Bovice]

While I do not really 'need' an AR at this time, I will probably buy one when the prices stabalize a bit more.

BUT, I want one.

Do you suppose Rosa Parks really 'needed' to sit in the front of the bus? Probably not, she she 'wanted' to, and now the world is a better place because of it.

That's debatable. The "civil rights" campaign has yet to end, despite agreeing to measures for equality. A good number of folks won't let it go and we are all still suffering.

The gun bills keep dying. The word is out, if they vote for it, they aren't getting reelected.

 

[evan price]

Who needs a street legal car with over 400 horsepower and/or a top speed over 85 mph?

 

[Well Now]

If the elected officials follow the oath they took for office "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States" like they should, we wouldn't have to debate the nonsense of mag capacities.

 

[j1]

It was thought for a while that the second bomber was wearing a suicide vest. How would YOU control a suspect who might be wearing a suicide vest? I would handle him with extreme care to protect my own life and safety. Bombers safety counts for little mine counts a whole lot.

 

[Akita1]

Raising both hands, and both feet, and…you get the idea.

 

[Skillet]

I argue with plenty of people on this issue, being a member of the armed forces, you get plenty of people from all over the country with all sorts of backgrounds. Many people, people who even shoot guns themselves, will ask why we need 30 round magazines. I try to explain, but they go on like they know what would happen if scenario A vs scenario B were to play out. they act as if they know what crime would be like (even if they don't know what current crime rates are) and they act like the know what would happen if the government were to ban guns all together, that the average Joe with an AR or an AK w/ a 30 rd mag doesn't stand a chance against the military (who wouldn't fight against their own families anyhow) with 50 cals, and much more. The ignorance of the "Why do we need ___" is just astounding.

 

[Piratesailor]

It's my right. There is no "need" about it. That's playing into the liberal fascist mantra.

 

[Piratesailor]

Skillet.. That's what was said at Concord and Lexington.

True, the military is mighty.. But not against their own citizens. If that were to happen, we'll have larger problems and the military would most likely be in the patriots side.