Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

[Wry Catcher]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?

It's the first number with double digits

[ask a stupid question, get a stupid response]

 

[The Original Tree]

To defend ourselves against Mentally Ill and Triggered Snowflakes produced in DemNazi Public Schools.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?

It's the first number with double digits

[ask a stupid question, get a stupid response]

So the one who came up with the magic number is able to predict your future and know 10 bullets is all that you will need.? Interesting. Hell why not just make an ammo restriction 10 is the max you can own at one time. To get more you need to return the spent casing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013

This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.

There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"

All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.

Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?

It's the first number with double digits
[ask a stupid question, get a stupid response]

Thank you for admitting what we already knew - you have no idea why the limit should be 10, you just mindlessly follow along with it.

 

[easyt65]

Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

Because Republicans say they do.

ACTUALLY, the argument is quite the opposite.....High Capacity Magazines are NOT needed...because Democrats / snowflakes say they aren't.

Many things aren't 'needed', but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed / banned. Many snowflakes don't see any 'need' in owning rifles to begin with. The concept of target shooting / recreational shooting, for example, makes no sense to them, and if THEY don't see any need for 'it' then they want it to go away.

It's interesting (for a lack of a 'better' word) that the Democrats fight for things THEY think is a good idea or think should be accepted / acceptable....such as post-birth abortions or open borders / federal law-violating Sanctuary cities....but things they don't support - like Constitutional Rights (freedom of speech, right to bare arms, protection from illegal govt spying, etc...) they ignore / trample / attempt to outlaw.

 

[karpenter]

America Is Not A 'Need' Society
Why Do You 'Need' A High Performance Car
To Get A Gallon Of Milk At The 7-11
Or 'Need' A 4500 sq ft House

I Have, Because I Felt Like It

 

[toobfreak]

A well regulated militia is todays military.

I advise you to read the supreme court decision Heller vs DC

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes

there is no excuse for your ignorance, its settled law

I know what that decision was. Dred Scott was a supreme court decision too.

Bace-Raiter knows what the decision was (sure he does), he just lives in an alternate reality where he thinks his own separate set of rules apply!

 

[toobfreak]

Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine? Because Republicans say they do.

There goes Donald Trump, talking in Deantard's head again! And no, Dean, we don't want to see you carrying a gun. You cannot be trusted with that responsibility. You actually LIKE the idea of the government deciding for you how to live.

 

[toobfreak]

Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?

The words "arbitrary" and "capricious" come to mind.

Considering that any reasonably practiced shooter can exchange magazines in two seconds, I'm not sure what limiting a magazine to 10 rounds accomplishes? What next? Then limiting the number of magazines one can own? Again, all this feel good crap sounds well to the Left as a "first step" except that it is the law breakers who don't obey laws in the first place who are really the problem, not those who would actually obey the law.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats CREATED the scary term 'assault weapons' to call weapons they saw no point in having / owning and wanted banned. Make no mistake 'assault weapons' are not even the real target of Democrats, as proven by the fact the Democrats are not just attempting to ban 'assault weapons' but are attempting to eliminate the ability to buy ammunition, ammunition for more than just 'assault weapons'.

Years ago (more than a decade) Democrats attempted to pass a bill outlawing citizens owning 'missiles'. Buried in the extremely long bill was a few sentences that attempted to define bullets / ammunition as 'missiles' - 'solid-propellant projectiles'. It was discovered, and the politicians scrapped the bill quickly. It was not the 1st time politicians ever tried to sneak something into law and won't be the last.

Democrats / snowflakes can not even push back against this argument anymore because we have endured years of Democrats lying to the American people while snowflakes ignorantly mocked Conservative concerns of Democrats 'coming for our guns' only to have 2020 Hopefuls Beto and Kamala openly declaring, 'YES, we are coming for your guns!'

For Harris and Beto - and it is almost assuredly the same for the vast majority of Democrats who continue to crusade against the 2nd Amendment - their driving motivating force is not the burning question / lack of understanding over why a high capacity magazine is or is not needed. Their driving goal is to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment Right.

Don't even try to say it is NOT - Bill Clinton already passed a ban on these weapons, and it did NOT make hardly any difference at all! Passing another assault weapons ban is not going to be different this time.

What IS different this time is that the Leftist Extremists are finally out of the 'closet', openly declaring what they want to / plan to do: 'YES, we are coming for your guns!'

.

 

[toobfreak]

Democrats CREATED the scary term 'assault weapons' to call weapons they saw no point in having / owning and wanted banned.

Leftists are scared of anything they don't understand including anyone who doesn't think like them. Here are the people trying to decide whether you need a gun or not:

Post-modern Democratic America:

As compared to the OLD America, before we knew how "bad" guns really were:

Today, this kid would have an entire building in horror, screaming, in lock-down, with hundreds of people fleeing, hiding under their desks in terror screaming, running for their lives with a SWAT team on the way, with the child soon to be arrested, charged and expelled.

Welcome to the new Progressive America that the Left have given us!

 

[easyt65]

Part of the reason the NRA exists is to cure / eliminate stupidity like this....

Just sayin'....



(BTW, Feinstein received this particular weapon from her good friend Xi, the ChiCom President, for Christmas years ago.... )

 

[Cecilie1200]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.

You too... Are you too lazy to read the instruction manual for your country and learn WHY they wrote the Constitution the way that they did? It's all there.. 100s of quotes about self-defense and gun possession.. ALL PRINTED and verified...

But you don't care.. You THINK liberty and freedom and the Constitution are just impediments to you telling everyone how to live and think and speak....

Excuse you, Mr./Ms. Kneejerk-Attack-No-Reading-Comprehension-Needed. If you have any proof of me ANYWHERE ever saying that the Constitution doesn't enshrine self-defense and gun possession, or saying anything to indicate that "freedom and the Constitution are impediments" to me "telling everyone how to live and think and speak", then you had better pony those quote up right the fuck NOW, or apologize for running your gums before engaging your brain.

God forbid you let reading and understanding what's being said and what it's in response to get in the way of a glorious opportunity to emote all over the place.

 

[flacaltenn]

That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.

You too... Are you too lazy to read the instruction manual for your country and learn WHY they wrote the Constitution the way that they did? It's all there.. 100s of quotes about self-defense and gun possession.. ALL PRINTED and verified...

But you don't care.. You THINK liberty and freedom and the Constitution are just impediments to you telling everyone how to live and think and speak....

Excuse you, Mr./Ms. Kneejerk-Attack-No-Reading-Comprehension-Needed. If you have any proof of me ANYWHERE ever saying that the Constitution doesn't enshrine self-defense and gun possession, or saying anything to indicate that "freedom and the Constitution are impediments" to me "telling everyone how to live and think and speak", then you had better pony those quote up right the fuck NOW, or apologize for running your gums before engaging your brain.

God forbid you let reading and understanding what's being said and what it's in response to get in the way of a glorious opportunity to emote all over the place.

I think I reacted because EVEN IF the Founders "didn't include" supporting arguments in the simple and clean version of the Constitution, THere's literally 100s of scholarly books written on exactly what they were thinking and well delivered arguments on what they meant...

And I had already challenged C_Clayton_Jones to produce all those relevant commentaries that makes the 2nd Amendment only about milita.. So a REAL discussion about "intent" would actually get into all that..

I DO apologize for leaping and hissing at you... I realize you were trying to get ACTUAL discussion out of another poster. It's one of those hurried replies that maybe should have been tempered a bit...

 

[Rigby5]

What would the militia be back 100 years before police existed in the US?
While we know the federal government was given the authority to call up the militia in a federal emergency, the militia most often was used by states, cities, and homes, for local defense.
And I do not see how the creation of police a century later changes that, since police inherently do not do a very good job, or either defense or remaining uncorrupted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

View attachment 279075

^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.

You too... Are you too lazy to read the instruction manual for your country and learn WHY they wrote the Constitution the way that they did? It's all there.. 100s of quotes about self-defense and gun possession.. ALL PRINTED and verified...

But you don't care.. You THINK liberty and freedom and the Constitution are just impediments to you telling everyone how to live and think and speak....

Excuse you, Mr./Ms. Kneejerk-Attack-No-Reading-Comprehension-Needed. If you have any proof of me ANYWHERE ever saying that the Constitution doesn't enshrine self-defense and gun possession, or saying anything to indicate that "freedom and the Constitution are impediments" to me "telling everyone how to live and think and speak", then you had better pony those quote up right the fuck NOW, or apologize for running your gums before engaging your brain.

God forbid you let reading and understanding what's being said and what it's in response to get in the way of a glorious opportunity to emote all over the place.

I think I reacted because EVEN IF the Founders "didn't include" supporting arguments in the simple and clean version of the Constitution, THere's literally 100s of scholarly books written on exactly what they were thinking and well delivered arguments on what they meant...

And I had already challenged C_Clayton_Jones to produce all those relevant commentaries that makes the 2nd Amendment only about milita.. So a REAL discussion about "intent" would actually get into all that..

I DO apologize for leaping and hissing at you... I realize you were trying to get ACTUAL discussion out of another poster. It's one of those hurried replies that maybe should have been tempered a bit...

One more time for those whose logic has been terminally crippled by their flooding hormones: LOOK AT THE POST I WAS RESPONDING TO BEFORE FLAPPING YOUR GUMS. Do NOT give me a fucking lecture about the historical wonders of whatever the fuck you ASSumed I was talking about before making some kind of effort to find out what I actually WAS talking about.

Since you are CLEARLY too absorbed in your glands and the joys of righteous indignation, I will do you this one favor and use my clearly superior brain to substitute for yours. Here is the post I was responding to:

and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote

And here was my response:

And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.

Now, unless you were, in fact, trying to defend the notion that the Founding Fathers were all hunky-dory with slavery and the US Constitution prohibited women from voting, and that the Second Amendment is therefore invalid because the writers weren't perfect and laws only count when written by perfect people, you owe me TWO apologies: one for your unfounded personal attack and one for wasting my time blathering like a fucking dumbass trying to defend your attack.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, here it is again, gun grabbers. Why I need a hi-cap magazine:

Home defense.

A group of armed gang-member burglars approach and attack my home looking for loot and Thor knows what else.

It's dark, and I am taken by surprise.

Gun Grabber's Scenario:
I have a handgun next to me with a 10-round magazine. I have other magazines, but it is dark and I cannot find them. A shoot out errupts. I take 2 shots at the first intruder, who fall dead. Two other intruders take cover and return fire. I now have 8 rounds to fight off 2 armed attackers.

That sucks. I will probably die.


Constitutional Scenario:
I have an AR pistol chambered in .300 Blackout with a 40-round magazine nearby. First to shots takes down intruder 1. I now how 30 more opportunities to eliminate the threat than I would under the gun grabber scenario.

Which would you choose?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, here it is again, gun grabbers. Why I need a hi-cap magazine:
Home defense.
A group of armed gang-member burglars approach and attack my home looking for loot and Thor knows what else.
It's dark, and I am taken by surprise.

It doesn't need to be a group - it needs to be just one.
Anti-gun loons, in their eternal ignorance, assume a single hit with a handgun will immediately incapacitate an intruder/assailant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, here it is again, gun grabbers. Why I need a hi-cap magazine:
Home defense.
A group of armed gang-member burglars approach and attack my home looking for loot and Thor knows what else.
It's dark, and I am taken by surprise.

It doesn't need to be a group - it needs to be just one.
Anti-gun loons, in their eternal ignorance, assume a single hit with a handgun will immediately incapacitate an intruder/assailant.

Or that every shot will automatically hit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, here it is again, gun grabbers. Why I need a hi-cap magazine:
Home defense.
A group of armed gang-member burglars approach and attack my home looking for loot and Thor knows what else.
It's dark, and I am taken by surprise.

It doesn't need to be a group - it needs to be just one.
Anti-gun loons, in their eternal ignorance, assume a single hit with a handgun will immediately incapacitate an intruder/assailant.

Or that every shot will automatically hit.

Out the other side of their mouths they bleat on about 4 policemen firing 58 rounds at an unarmed black man, get 6 hits, and guy still gets away.