Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[RDD_1210]

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...

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!

 

[Koios]

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....

How did they come about. What events, and which rulers made the decrees that fostered it? (upside of reading and not searching images online.)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

How did they come about. What events, and which rulers made the decrees that fostered it? (upside of reading and not searching images online.)

it started as a monastic order after the First Crusade in order to provide protection for the pilgrims visiting the Holy Land.....King Baldwin provided space for them in the royal castle on the Temple Mount which was a captured Muslim mosque....which was thought to be on top of the old ruins of the Temple of Solomon....

the order evolved and lasted for a couple centuries....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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...

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!

scenario in which RDD_1210 is quickly educated....

suddenly RDD_1210 is attacked by a band of half a dozen armed and nasty gang members....

he's got two clips sitting there.....one with 10 bullets and one with 30 bullets....

which one do you think he's going to NEED to load first....?

 

[Koios]

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....

How did they come about. What events, and which rulers made the decrees that fostered it? (upside of reading and not searching images online.)

it started as a monastic order after the First Crusade in order to provide protection for the pilgrims visiting the Holy Land.....King Baldwin provided space for them in the royal castle on the Temple Mount which was a captured Muslim mosque....which was thought to be on top of the old ruins of the Temple of Solomon....

the order evolved and lasted for a couple centuries....

Templars (clerics / knights), perhaps. But that's not where it first evolved, socially. Thus: fear not further reading. Interesting as all get out.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How did they come about. What events, and which rulers made the decrees that fostered it? (upside of reading and not searching images online.)

it started as a monastic order after the First Crusade in order to provide protection for the pilgrims visiting the Holy Land.....King Baldwin provided space for them in the royal castle on the Temple Mount which was a captured Muslim mosque....which was thought to be on top of the old ruins of the Temple of Solomon....

the order evolved and lasted for a couple centuries....

Templars (clerics / knights), perhaps. But that's not where it first evolved, socially. Thus: fear not further reading. Interesting as all get out.

what do you mean.....? .....oh wait....you meant the knights in general......OK.....i was speaking only about the Templars....

 

[Ringel05]

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...

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.........

 

[Spoonman]

I used multiple high capacity magazines this weekend. about 2500 rounds shot and no one was killed. go figure

 

[JustTheFacts]

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!

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.........

Not to mention I see nowhere in the 2nd that says "If you can prove you have a legitimate need for..........."

 

[Koios]

I used multiple high capacity magazines this weekend. about 2500 rounds shot and no one was killed. go figure

No worries. Your aim will improve with practice. Lots and lots of practice, if 2500 rounds for VITAL personal protection are fired and hit exactly zero bad guys.

Maybe have your eyes checked, first.

Just getting your back.

 

[Ringel05]

I used multiple high capacity magazines this weekend. about 2500 rounds shot and no one was killed. go figure

Still shootin' blanks, eh?

 

[Koios]

it started as a monastic order after the First Crusade in order to provide protection for the pilgrims visiting the Holy Land.....King Baldwin provided space for them in the royal castle on the Temple Mount which was a captured Muslim mosque....which was thought to be on top of the old ruins of the Temple of Solomon....

the order evolved and lasted for a couple centuries....

Templars (clerics / knights), perhaps. But that's not where it first evolved, socially. Thus: fear not further reading. Interesting as all get out.

what do you mean.....? .....oh wait....you meant the knights in general......OK.....i was speaking only about the Templars....

Not orginally. The response (of mine) which you quoted had a braoder context, authored by you.

No 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!

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.........

Not to mention I see nowhere in the 2nd that says "If you can prove you have a legitimate need for..........."

This thread is about NEED. If you wish to discuss RIGHTS, feel free to start a thread and I will happily comment on why peoples RIGHTS should not be wide open when it comes to gun ownership.

 

[Contumacious]

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...

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.



.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't "need" a 30 round magazine.

I'll just tape pairs of 15 round mags together "commando style"

Why are you so hung up on magazine size when I have illustrated over and over that one guy with 3 10 round mags can inflict the same damage in virtually the same time as one guy with 1 30 round mag.

I'm sure your girlfriend has told you that size doesn't matter well in the case of rifle magazines it actually is true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

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.

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...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I used multiple high capacity magazines this weekend. about 2500 rounds shot and no one was killed. go figure

I wouldn't fire off 2500 rounds. I'm hoarding, since I can't seem to find ammo anywhere.

 

[Spoonman]

I used multiple high capacity magazines this weekend. about 2500 rounds shot and no one was killed. go figure

Still shootin' blanks, eh?

the steel targets got a good work out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Templars (clerics / knights), perhaps. But that's not where it first evolved, socially. Thus: fear not further reading. Interesting as all get out.

ROFL;

{The knight was one of three types of fighting men during the middle ages: Knights, Foot Soldiers, and Archers. The medieval knight was the equivalent of the modern tank. He was covered in multiple layers of armor, and could plow through foot soldiers standing in his way. No single foot soldier or archer could stand up to any one knight. Knights were also generally the wealthiest of the three types of soldiers. This was for a good reason. It was terribly expensive to be a knight. The war horse alone could cost the equivalent of a small airplane. Armor, shields, and weapons were also very expensive. Becoming a knight was part of the feudal agreement. In return for military service, the knight received a fief. In the late middle ages, many prospective knights began to pay "shield money" to their lord so that they wouldn't have to serve in the king's army. The money was then used to create a professional army that was paid and supported by the king. These knights often fought more for pillaging than for army wages. When they captured a city, they were allowed to ransack it, stealing goods and valuables. }

THE MIDDLE AGES: THE MEDIEVAL KNIGHT

RDD is uneducated and ignorant - you're just bullshitting to promote your filthy party.