Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[martybegan]

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

As a member of a militia they would also need them.

Nope. The militia is of the "well regulated" variety. Hence, not needed.

Just because the states have not recently mustered the milita does not mean the PEOPLE lose thier right to keep and bear arms.

 

[eflatminor]

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

As a member of a militia they would also need them.

Nope. The militia is of the "well regulated" variety. Hence, not needed.

The Supreme Court disagrees. But I'm sure YOU know better...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

As a member of a militia they would also need them.

Nope. The militia is of the "well regulated" variety. Hence, not needed.

Well Regulated does not mean what you think it means

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The Militia is free from Government control until the government may need them.

 

[PredFan]

Someone is missing the point....again. Let me see who it I'm talking to. Oh, DiamondDave. Ok that explains it.

The point is you want to ban something that is indeed protected in the constitution.. even if your feeble brain can not understand the language it was written in....

And even though I would love to see idiotic loudmouth liberals like yourself banned from speaking, your stance and right is also protected, regardless of my wish to have you shut up and go away.... But I fully understand and support the right as granted in the constitution, unlike you with the second amendment

Seems like the constitution is only good when it supports your opinion.. typical for a progressive

You all are not convincing anyone that assault weapons and magazine clips are good for anything but gunning down masses of people.

Yes, actually he is convincing people. It's true that he's preaching to the choir though.

At least some of these are going to be banned so you might want to give them up now and not risk the consequences.

Don't hold your breath.

I know I am sick to death of hearing about mass shootings. These innocents are in no way responsible for their collective fate because Republicans are crazy enough to want these maniacs walking around with them.

Wow what a fucked up strawman you've built there. Which Republicans want maniacs walking around with children?

 

[Crackerjack]

I know I am sick to death of hearing about mass shootings.

In that case, I respectfully suggest turning off your television.

 

[PredFan]

I have answered everyone who responded with something even close to resembling something meaningful. "Make fun of him, because thats what I do" hardly qualifies.

Bull shit.
"Make fun of him, that's what I do" came after your refusal to address my answers to your questions.

I'm sorry, which legit question of yours did I miss?

It wasn't a question. One was an answer to your question, the other was a response, an answer of sorts, to your point.

You said that you would be willing to give us the provisions of the Constitution as it was originally written. I stated that blacks and women couldn't vote, and the federal government couldn't usurp the rules and policies of the states aside from the provisions of the constitution at the time.

You want to go back to that do you? You cannot say that the 2nd Amendment ONLY is subject to that restriction.

 

[saveliberty]

A lot of those "hillbillies" are the military dimwit.

They also make car parts, run large farms and are as employable as most of America.

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

They have a right, the need is up to them. Ever try to shoot a ground hog by the way?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of those "hillbillies" are the military dimwit.

They also make car parts, run large farms and are as employable as most of America.

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

They have a right, the need is up to them. Ever try to shoot a ground hog by the way?

Using this as a defense for the second amendment needs to stop. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[RDD_1210]

Bull shit.
"Make fun of him, that's what I do" came after your refusal to address my answers to your questions.

I'm sorry, which legit question of yours did I miss?

It wasn't a question. One was an answer to your question, the other was a response, an answer of sorts, to your point.

You said that you would be willing to give us the provisions of the Constitution as it was originally written. I stated that blacks and women couldn't vote, and the federal government couldn't usurp the rules and policies of the states aside from the provisions of the constitution at the time.

You want to go back to that do you? You cannot say that the 2nd Amendment ONLY is subject to that restriction.

Right, and amendments were made to fix those issues. Just as I would advocate for an amendment to restrict the types of guns that can be legally owned.

 

[RDD_1210]

A lot of those "hillbillies" are the military dimwit.

They also make car parts, run large farms and are as employable as most of America.

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

They have a right, the need is up to them.

I'm not arguing it's a right. I am arguing if it's a need. Because this is one "right" that is resulting in innocent people dying. Now that, isn't right.

Ever try to shoot a ground hog by the way?

Nope, I have a day job.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

They have a right, the need is up to them.

I'm not arguing it's a right. I am arguing if it's a need. Because this is one "right" that is resulting in innocent people dying. Now that, isn't right.

Ever try to shoot a ground hog by the way?

Nope, I have a day job.

The Government kills more innocent people than any mass shooter ever did yet you not only dont want to disarm them, you want them to have even more weapons. Brilliant.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry, which legit question of yours did I miss?

It wasn't a question. One was an answer to your question, the other was a response, an answer of sorts, to your point.

You said that you would be willing to give us the provisions of the Constitution as it was originally written. I stated that blacks and women couldn't vote, and the federal government couldn't usurp the rules and policies of the states aside from the provisions of the constitution at the time.

You want to go back to that do you? You cannot say that the 2nd Amendment ONLY is subject to that restriction.

Right, and amendments were made to fix those issues. Just as I would advocate for an amendment to restrict the types of guns that can be legally owned.

and that is the proper way of doing it, not trying to use unconsitutional laws to infringe on the right, and then hoping to get lucky with the federal courts.

I have no issue with someone trying to change the amendment, considering what the cliff is to get to that point. Also expect me to fight you politically tooth and nail to prevent that from ever happening.

 

[g5000]

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

Asking why someone needs a high-capacity magazine is like asking why anyone needs gay midget porn.

The nature of an inalienable right means it is not required to justify our particular kink to exercise our right.

If someone wants to limit our rights, they must show the societal harm of gay midget porn or high-capacity magazines.

 

[RDD_1210]

They have a right, the need is up to them.

I'm not arguing it's a right. I am arguing if it's a need. Because this is one "right" that is resulting in innocent people dying. Now that, isn't right.

Ever try to shoot a ground hog by the way?

Nope, I have a day job.

The Government kills more innocent people than any mass shooter ever did yet you not only dont want to disarm them, you want them to have even more weapons. Brilliant.

I do??? Thanks for letting me know.

In reality, I want us to stop with all the needless wars and drastically reduce the size of our military. If that's me "wanting them to have even more weapons" then so be it.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'm not arguing it's a right. I am arguing if it's a need. Because this is one "right" that is resulting in innocent people dying. Now that, isn't right.


Nope, I have a day job.

The Government kills more innocent people than any mass shooter ever did yet you not only dont want to disarm them, you want them to have even more weapons. Brilliant.

I do??? Thanks for letting me know.

In reality, I want us to stop with all the needless wars and drastically reduce the size of our military. If that's me "wanting them to have even more weapons" then so be it.

Well if any kind of gun is banned, who do you think is going to be rounding them up and collecting them?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm sorry, which legit question of yours did I miss?

It wasn't a question. One was an answer to your question, the other was a response, an answer of sorts, to your point.

You said that you would be willing to give us the provisions of the Constitution as it was originally written. I stated that blacks and women couldn't vote, and the federal government couldn't usurp the rules and policies of the states aside from the provisions of the constitution at the time.

You want to go back to that do you? You cannot say that the 2nd Amendment ONLY is subject to that restriction.

Right, and amendments were made to fix those issues. Just as I would advocate for an amendment to restrict the types of guns that can be legally owned.

Agreed , and that amendment should read that you can own any damned weapon you please.

As long as you follow certain guidelines.

All your ban this and ban that talk is forgetting a few key facts

First and foremost , the act of murder is already illegal. So do you REALLY believe that murderers will just up and say "oh **** it, they guns illegal? I'm not gonna kill anymore?"

Second, and this is the same argument I make with the fools who want to collect all the illegal aliens rather than work to get them within the system. Do you REALLY think that collecting every gun in this country is even possible?

Third, have you given ANY consideration to the financial ramifications of outlawing guns? Literally millions of people would be out of a job, and those millions spend money that support millions of others of people.

Fourth, 99.99% of gun owners weapons will NEVER be fired in anger. What you propose is tantamount to banning cars because a few people speed. Or more aptly, banning booze b/c quite a few idiots drink and drive. You want to punish the many for the actions of a few.

Fifth, drugs are currently illegal. I know for a fact that the average teenager can acquire about any drug they wish in a matter of hours if not less. Do you really think obtaining a gun would be any more difficult?

Sixth, there is a segment of our population that simply put would simply transition into illegally bringing guns into this country if they were illegal. The last thing we need is to become some dumping ground for illegal third world arms.

Now, none of this is to say that the idea of no regulations is equally stupid, but banning guns is retarded.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks to the .0002% of replies that actually tried to respond meaningfully. The rest are the typical "you're dumb" responses were what I would expect from some low brow uneducated rednecks.

Everytime one of you posts, it only further reinforces my point that we as a society are not mature enough to have high powered guns at our disposal.

Well you must have been frighten of this response

For some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia 30 round magazines are a necessity

I was waiting for someone to translate that in to English for me. But yes I was very frighten of your response.

I guess you need to find a lawyer to translate it. Since "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" came from Miller vs U.S. ruling.
Therefore for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it would need to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and that would also include any attachments connected with that firearm, including magazines.

 

[g5000]

The ponderings of the totalitarian mind:

Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?

Why does anyone need an 8 mpg car?

Why does anyone need disposable plastic grocery bags?

Why does anyone need gay midget porn?

Why does anyone need 10 gigabytes of email storage space protected from a government search? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, amiright?

Why does any white person need to marry a black person?

 

[kwc57]

the government kills more innocent people than any mass shooter ever did yet you not only dont want to disarm them, you want them to have even more weapons. brilliant.

i do??? Thanks for letting me know.

In reality, i want us to stop with all the needless wars and drastically reduce the size of our military. If that's me "wanting them to have even more weapons" then so be it.

well if any kind of gun is banned, who do you think is going to be rounding them up and collecting them?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Great, in the military they should have those weapons. They're not needed to make car parts or run a farm the last time I checked.

They have a right, the need is up to them.

I'm not arguing it's a right. I am arguing if it's a need. Because this is one "right" that is resulting in innocent people dying. Now that, isn't right.

yet you avoid questions where a semi-automatic would be needed......as in a gang attack....