Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[candycorn]

Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

 

[Papawx3]

What an idiotic question. It's not about whether the gov't thinks anyone does or doesn't need a 30 round magazine. It's about an individual's Constitutional right to buy what they think they need. I don't give a tinker's damn what some gov't bureaucrat thinks when it comes to what I buy, sell, own or trade. IMO the gov't has no business sticking their noses into the private affairs of law abiding citizens.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

let's see if YOU will answer the question that RDD_1210 refuses to answer...

if you got half a dozen armed gang bangers after you and you only have two magazines to choose from....one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds......which clip would you need to load into your gun in order to protect yourself the best way possible.....?

 

[candycorn]

Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

let's see if YOU will answer the question that RDD_1210 refuses to answer...

if you got half a dozen armed gang bangers after you and you only have two magazines to choose from....one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds......which clip would you need to load into your gun in order to protect yourself the best way possible.....?

I wouldn't have a gun in the first place so it doesnt matter. If I did have a gun, I'd prefer one that shot more rounds but since it's an idiot's question, it's a non starter. You may as well ask, if you had a dozen countries firing their nukes at you, what megaton nuke would you want to fire back, 20 MT or 40 MT?

The preferable alternative is to not have the nukes in the first place since it assures that both you and they will be equally dead.


I'd prefer that the likelihood that the "dozen armed gang bangers" don't have arms to start with. If we impose the "mayhem" tax, eventually that likelihood would, in fact, dwindle. As we saw with cigarettes.


It really isn't that hard for you to figure out, is it? Oh what, I forgot whom I'm talking to.

 

[candycorn]

What an idiotic question. It's not about whether the gov't thinks anyone does or doesn't need a 30 round magazine. It's about an individual's Constitutional right to buy what they think they need. I don't give a tinker's damn what some gov't bureaucrat thinks when it comes to what I buy, sell, own or trade. IMO the gov't has no business sticking their noses into the private affairs of law abiding citizens.

George Wallace thought the same way. People evolve...you should come along.

 

[DiamondDave]

Except that taking weapons out of the hands of the law abiding does not take the weapons out of the hands who will ignore that very law just as they ignore others

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you mean the tactical vest and gear that the police have now and wear, you don't think they need them if the citizens can't and/or don't have them ?????? You are kidding me with this response right ?


I think that the criminal minded citizen out there, would be less likely to think of himself as invinsible and as bad ace as they do, if they didn't have the gear they have been wearing with their weapons carried lately. Also it would make it much easier for anyone who is carrying that is a good guy, to take the critter down without them having this gear to wear to begin with. How this nation got to the point that it figured that people need this kind of gear to protect themselves as ordinary citizens, is well beyond my paygrade of thinking, especially with common sense in life.

Having weapons/guns is one thing, but having body armor is rediculous as well as extremely un-nessesary for a citizen to need or have such as this in their life, and it should be highly illegal to have (imho)..

When I was young, we were not a police state. In those days, the police wore a uniform and carried a service revolver. I remember getting red lighted in Covina, near the boarder of Glendora. If I made it across, I could avoid the ticket, because Covina cops only had authority in Covina.

Things are different now. In today's police state, the modern police wear head to toe body armor, and carry fully automatic M4's, taser at their side. The concept of jurisdiction is long gone, despite names, the police are nationalized, Covina cop, Azusa cop, Chicago cop, they all work for the same group, outfitted with federal dollars as they seize assets such as cars and houses. Cops are not part of the community, they are to enforce the will of the rulers.

Now the militarization of police was just to respond to rising crime, right? Uh, crime has been declining since the 1930's. So that isn't it. Why then, did the police become a nationalize paramilitary force? Who are the police at war against, if not the citizenry?

So yes, I want a citizenry that is as well armed as the police, or more so. Here in California, the police kill people on a daily basis, they are the most violent and dangerous of all the street gangs.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

let's see if YOU will answer the question that RDD_1210 refuses to answer...

if you got half a dozen armed gang bangers after you and you only have two magazines to choose from....one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds......which clip would you need to load into your gun in order to protect yourself the best way possible.....?

I wouldn't have a gun in the first place so it doesnt matter. If I did have a gun, I'd prefer one that shot more rounds but since it's an idiot's question, it's a non starter. You may as well ask, if you had a dozen countries firing their nukes at you, what megaton nuke would you want to fire back, 20 MT or 40 MT?

The preferable alternative is to not have the nukes in the first place since it assures that both you and they will be equally dead.


I'd prefer that the likelihood that the "dozen armed gang bangers" don't have arms to start with. If we impose the "mayhem" tax, eventually that likelihood would, in fact, dwindle. As we saw with cigarettes.


It really isn't that hard for you to figure out, is it? Oh what, I forgot whom I'm talking to.

Then you would most likely die.

You really are not very bright.

The nuke analogy is rather weak and not at all comparable to the question.

Whether the gang bangers were armed or not is irrelevant, they could still kill you. You choose to have nothing to defend yourself except your bare hands. Me? I'd rather have my Colt 1911 or better yet my SW40E with a 14 round clip + one up the pipe for a total of 15 shots.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What you mean the tactical vest and gear that the police have now and wear, you don't think they need them if the citizens can't and/or don't have them ?????? You are kidding me with this response right ?


I think that the criminal minded citizen out there, would be less likely to think of himself as invinsible and as bad ace as they do, if they didn't have the gear they have been wearing with their weapons carried lately. Also it would make it much easier for anyone who is carrying that is a good guy, to take the critter down without them having this gear to wear to begin with. How this nation got to the point that it figured that people need this kind of gear to protect themselves as ordinary citizens, is well beyond my paygrade of thinking, especially with common sense in life.

Having weapons/guns is one thing, but having body armor is rediculous as well as extremely un-nessesary for a citizen to need or have such as this in their life, and it should be highly illegal to have (imho)..

When I was young, we were not a police state. In those days, the police wore a uniform and carried a service revolver. I remember getting red lighted in Covina, near the boarder of Glendora. If I made it across, I could avoid the ticket, because Covina cops only had authority in Covina.

Things are different now. In today's police state, the modern police wear head to toe body armor, and carry fully automatic M4's, taser at their side. The concept of jurisdiction is long gone, despite names, the police are nationalized, Covina cop, Azusa cop, Chicago cop, they all work for the same group, outfitted with federal dollars as they seize assets such as cars and houses. Cops are not part of the community, they are to enforce the will of the rulers.

Now the militarization of police was just to respond to rising crime, right? Uh, crime has been declining since the 1930's. So that isn't it. Why then, did the police become a nationalize paramilitary force? Who are the police at war against, if not the citizenry?

So yes, I want a citizenry that is as well armed as the police, or more so. Here in California, the police kill people on a daily basis, they are the most violent and dangerous of all the street gangs.

Where do you live? Here in Texas the only time you see an officer with that kind of gear on is if they're members of a SWAT team or preparing for a raid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where do you live? Here in Texas the only time you see an officer with that kind of gear on is if they're members of a SWAT team or preparing for a raid.

I'm in Southern California. I commute by train from Orange County to Los Angeles. The police look like this;

On the trains and in the stations, you WILL be stopped, searched, and demanded the papers be presented.

 

[Ernie S.]

At the time the Constitution was written citizens had the same weapons as the military. Where's my tank?

Can you afford one? Government didn't provide MY weapons.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

Or to shoot back at them.

 

[Ernie S.]

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

let's see if YOU will answer the question that RDD_1210 refuses to answer...

if you got half a dozen armed gang bangers after you and you only have two magazines to choose from....one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds......which clip would you need to load into your gun in order to protect yourself the best way possible.....?

I wouldn't have a gun in the first place so it doesnt matter. If I did have a gun, I'd prefer one that shot more rounds but since it's an idiot's question, it's a non starter. You may as well ask, if you had a dozen countries firing their nukes at you, what megaton nuke would you want to fire back, 20 MT or 40 MT?

The preferable alternative is to not have the nukes in the first place since it assures that both you and they will be equally dead.


I'd prefer that the likelihood that the "dozen armed gang bangers" don't have arms to start with. If we impose the "mayhem" tax, eventually that likelihood would, in fact, dwindle. As we saw with cigarettes.


It really isn't that hard for you to figure out, is it? Oh what, I forgot whom I'm talking to.

We'd all prefer that but the fact remains that they do and limiting my ability to fight back won't affect that one iota. The fact that you have so little regard for your own life that you would refuse to defend yourself from a dozen gang bangers doesn't bother me that much, but I have balls and will defend myself, my family and my possessions.

Hey! How about instead of limiting the rights of law abiding citizens, we make breaking the law, illegal?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

To shoot more bullets at what/who you're aiming at; be it school kids as we saw last year, people in a movie theater as we saw last year, your fellow classmates as we saw 2 years ago, jocks who bullied you as we saw in Colorado or just patrons at a McDonalds.

let's see if YOU will answer the question that RDD_1210 refuses to answer...

if you got half a dozen armed gang bangers after you and you only have two magazines to choose from....one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds......which clip would you need to load into your gun in order to protect yourself the best way possible.....?

I wouldn't have a gun in the first place so it doesnt matter. If I did have a gun, I'd prefer one that shot more rounds but since it's an idiot's question, it's a non starter. You may as well ask, if you had a dozen countries firing their nukes at you, what megaton nuke would you want to fire back, 20 MT or 40 MT?

The preferable alternative is to not have the nukes in the first place since it assures that both you and they will be equally dead.


I'd prefer that the likelihood that the "dozen armed gang bangers" don't have arms to start with. If we impose the "mayhem" tax, eventually that likelihood would, in fact, dwindle. As we saw with cigarettes.


It really isn't that hard for you to figure out, is it? Oh what, I forgot whom I'm talking to.

well at least (amongst all the insults) you give an honest answer.....you would pick the clip with 30 rounds....smart girl...

of course it's your choice to not have a gun but don't force your choice on others....

speaking of nukes.....how's that "no nukes" policy working with Iran these days......

there is NO WAY to disarm the country without having a totaliterian fascist police state to enforce it....criminals will still have guns and law-abiding citizens won't.....or is totaliterianism what you really want....?

 

[MikeK]

The topic question is a tickler. Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine?

If I had an AK-47 or an AR-15 I wouldn't need a 30 round magazine. But in addition to the lesser capacity magazines, I would want one. Why? No compelling reason. It's an interesting accessory and they cost only twenty bucks.

Would I ever have "need" for it? Probably not. Nor is it likely I would ever have need for the AK-47 or AR-15. I can't say for sure if I would or wouldn't. But it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. So if I have one, why not go all the way?

 

[RDD_1210]

The topic question is a tickler. Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine?

If I had an AK-47 or an AR-15 I wouldn't need a 30 round magazine. But in addition to the lesser capacity magazines, I would want one. Why? No compelling reason. It's an interesting accessory and they cost only twenty bucks.

Would I ever have "need" for it? Probably not. Nor is it likely I would ever have need for the AK-47 or AR-15. I can't say for sure if I would or wouldn't. But it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. So if I have one, why not go all the way?

Only took 59 pages for an actual answer.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The topic question is a tickler. Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine?

If I had an AK-47 or an AR-15 I wouldn't need a 30 round magazine. But in addition to the lesser capacity magazines, I would want one. Why? No compelling reason. It's an interesting accessory and they cost only twenty bucks.

Would I ever have "need" for it? Probably not. Nor is it likely I would ever have need for the AK-47 or AR-15. I can't say for sure if I would or wouldn't. But it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. So if I have one, why not go all the way?

Only took 59 pages for an actual answer.

so you finally agree.....?

that it's better to have a 30 round mag and NOT NEED it.....than to NEED a 30 round mag and not have it....?

 

[Papawx3]

What an idiotic question. It's not about whether the gov't thinks anyone does or doesn't need a 30 round magazine. It's about an individual's Constitutional right to buy what they think they need. I don't give a tinker's damn what some gov't bureaucrat thinks when it comes to what I buy, sell, own or trade. IMO the gov't has no business sticking their noses into the private affairs of law abiding citizens.

George Wallace thought the same way. People evolve...you should come along.

Thank you. I'm honored that you mentioned me and ole George in the same sentence. And I mean that truthfully. Many folks didn't agree with his politics, but at least he wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed.

 

[beagle9]

Where do you live? Here in Texas the only time you see an officer with that kind of gear on is if they're members of a SWAT team or preparing for a raid.

I'm in Southern California. I commute by train from Orange County to Los Angeles. The police look like this;

On the trains and in the stations, you WILL be stopped, searched, and demanded the papers be presented.

Is this not a pic of a swat team deploying for possible action on a call of duty in this degree ? Be honest now...

 

[Contumacious]

Where do you live? Here in Texas the only time you see an officer with that kind of gear on is if they're members of a SWAT team or preparing for a raid.

I'm in Southern California. I commute by train from Orange County to Los Angeles. The police look like this;

On the trains and in the stations, you WILL be stopped, searched, and demanded the papers be presented.

HUH? OMG.

Those look like big guns to me.

I will be so glad when Diane Fiendstain (D-USSR) abolish those military type rifles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For Pete's sake.

.