Simple Question: Why Do You Need a 30 Round Ammo Clip?

[Junkdrawer]

Besides going on a mass-murder spree?

:shrug:

[hedgehog]

1. Duh! In case 30 burglars show up!

[appal_jack]

141. true enough

I have read stories from Mexico (such as: http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/11/mexican-marines-reconstruct-death-of.html ) that have described situations where a good person might face 30 or more opponents with bad intent. Preparing for such a contingency may indeed be a reason for a citizen to possess 30-round magazines.

Or how about the herdsman whose sheep (or goats or calves) are vulnerable to attack by feral dogs and wild coyotes? Such attacks are woefully common where I live. More herdsmen with AK's & AR's = fewer problems with livestock mortalities.

Alternately, a target shooter might just wish for a magazine that allows sustained shooting without the need for reloading. Why should anyone else deny such shooters their pastime?

Or maybe a citizen wants such things, and does not feel the need to explain their desire. That's OK by me too. The nice thing about Constitutional rights is that they may be exercised without first filling-out forms in triplicate. Why would anyone have a problem with this, as long as the magazines were used for lawful and proper purposes?

-app

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Good luck. I tried asking this a few times and got my butt handed to me.

I hope you get the answer so many are seeking.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NuclearDem]

4. If I'm hunting and 30 birds fly by...

Or if Sarah Palin is hunting and six caribou come by

[NOLALady]

5. In case you miss your target

29 times.:shrug:

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Everything not forbidden is compulsory? n/t

[Brilliantrocket]

7. That's the thing about freedom

Not always having to justify every action.

[WillyT]

17. Very True... In America, People Have The Freedom To Be Irresponsible Assholes

What a country.

:evilfrown:

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Great idea! Lets also eliminate OSHA, EPA, FDIC, SEC, ATF, FDA

and all of the other regulator5y agencies.

Then we can be truly FREE!!

[lfairban]

136. I get it.

That is like, "Love means never having to say you're sorry."

[BillE]

8. For those who are

Reaalllly bad shots.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Bad shot? nt

[Still a Democrat]

10. Foreign invasion

You never know when the Canadian army may come pouring over the border.

[NuclearDem]

15. They'd be doing us a favor...

Knock it ooooof, eh!

[Still a Democrat]

34. Bastards could be bringing health care for all

I say mow 'em down and preserve our right to die of our diseases, gun in hand.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. ^^ this ^^

[NuclearDem]

46. Could be a war of aggression...

For all of our internet money!

[salinen]

11. It won't be considered a murder spree

if only liberals are killed. From what I hear on the radio, liberals are vermin to be eliminated.

[flvegan]

12. Why do I? I don't. I'm a good shot.

It would also drastically throw the weight of the gun off for me (this is for handguns exclusively, though). I also don't see why we need so many military bases and two ongoing wars. Seems violence is too deep a part of being American.

That said, I understand why gun advocates are against banning them. It creates that "slippery slope" we like to talk about so much.

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. "slippery slope" vs "well-regulated" militia

We need to put regulations on corporations to keep our food/air/economy/etc safe, but we argue for free reign of gun ownership?

Seems to be at cross purposes to me.

[Rage for Order]

31. Well-regulated = well-maintained

Otherwise, why weren't there a myriad of gun ownership restrictions in place in 1795?

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. They didn't have semi-autos with 31 round capability

Back then, they loaded their muskets one round at a time.

[beevul]

69. The DID actually have repeaters.

Besides that, They didn't have internet television or radio back then, iether.


And don't bother saying "speech" never killed anyone. The last week has been awash with blame on speech.

And voting too. Theres a few million dead iraqis that might say votes kill people, were they alive.

[Ruby the Liberal]

99. There is no question that speech kills

in my mind.

Why I refer to 'dog whistles' so often.

Who knows how many the IWR killed.

:(

[lepus]

209. I have said it before and I'll say it again

Freedom is dangerous. There are risks living in a free society.

Everyone likes to gloss over how dangerous free speech is. Free speech has killed more folks than all the 30 round handgun magazines in history. Hitler rose to power on his ability to speak to the masses.

Freedom of the press? Even worse. Mao's little red book? Mein Kampf? The Communist Manifesto? Those books are responsible for over 50 million deaths in the last century alone. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a contribution to the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

I have only pointed out the obvious ones, but there are plenty more.

Give me a weapon and I can kill people. Give me a podium and I can inspire others to do it for me. author unknown

In the interests of safety, we must reign in free speech and the free press.

[YllwFvr]

153. they had semi autos with 20 round tubes

[SteveM]

198. And they didn't ink up their keyboards to blog.

And had to post one stamp at a time.

[flvegan]

36. I'm not advocating for magazines like this.

I'm also not going down the "regulations on corporations" v "regulations on individuals" road.

I could do a car analogy, but I don't think it would matter.

[Ruby the Liberal]

43. Safety regulations?

How are they different?

Better question, can you answer the OP's question?

[flvegan]

53. Gun owners are end-users.

Should we ban the sale of large SUVs? They're worse for the environment and far more dangerous to the general public, especially in the hands of an idiot.

[Ruby the Liberal]

58. Can you answer the OP's question?

[flvegan]

67. I did.

I don't need one. I have no clue how I can be more clear on that, but do keep asking.

[NuclearDem]

60. Depends on what they're using them for

I'm all for SUVs being used as Sport/Utility Vehicles (OMG it's almost like they were called that for a reason). When they get used as daily commuters or mall crawlers, I just facepalm.

[flvegan]

70. An excellent point.

What's wrong with owning a big SUV to tow a boat or use to get equipment around a rural area, or even to drive in the winter to use their 4wd?

[beevul]

66. Well regulated militia...

"well regulated militia "has no bearing on a restriction on governmenntal power.

[Ruby the Liberal]

103. Define 'regulated'

Of who and more importantly, by who.

[beevul]

120. The bill of rights...

The bill of rights, is a list of restrictions on governmental power.

Enumerated rights are protected, by a concept of government being generally forbidden from interfering with them.

Heres the preamble of the bill of rights itself:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

They decided when they wrote the constitution, that government might misconstrue or abuse its power, and that "declaratory and restrictive clauses" should be added to prevent it.

Infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, quite obviously, was viewed by them, as a misconstruction or abuse of governmental power, so they added the second amendment to prevent it.

They did so BECAUSE they viewed a well regulated (well equipped/trained) militia as necessary to the security of a free state.

None of this is because I say its so. The preamble itself says as much.


Can you now see that into a restriction on government, you read a restriction on people?

[X_Digger]

137. In this context? Well functioning..

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

[hack89]

170. Regulated in the context of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do

with rules and regulations. It is an old fashioned definition that means well trained and well equipped.

[Junkdrawer]

24. So... Absolutely no new weapon restrictions even though it might save some lives..

and it represents no (???) loss for legitimate gun owners?

[flvegan]

48. I certainly didn't say that.

Let me put it this way:

I don't like extended magazines like the ones we're talking about and I'd rather folks would opt to not have them. I won't participate in owning one. Also,
I don't like animal agriculture and I'd rather folks would opt to not eat them. Would I like to ban either? Not for me to say.

Which one do you think would save more lives? I know...silly, but didn't want to leave it out there.

That said, am I against *any* new weapon restrictions? Absolutely not, but I want to see what the restriction is and how it would provide a positive end result. To draw that back to my above analogy, while I'm not for banning the right to buy meat at a supermarket, I certainly support restrictions against factory farms. But I want to know the ins and outs of it before I vote on it.

If the will of the people were to put these magazines to a vote, I'd be happy to vote against their existence. But not by my word, but by ours.

Sorry if this was a long response, but I wanted to be as clear as possible.

[jeff47]

147. We have a representative democracy

We don't put things to a vote. We vote on people to handle things. If we don't like the way they handle it, we vote to replace them.

As such, why is it sinister for Congress to ban 30-round clips, but just fine for "us" to do so?

[flvegan]

150. I trust the vote of the people

over the bought and paid for reps we (for the most part) have.

[jeff47]

152. Those reps are the result of the vote of the people. (nt)

[one-eyed fat man]

181. How about Congressional bait and switch?

The Eighteenth Amendment banned the distillation or importation of intoxicating spirits. In simple terms it banned whiskey making.

Congress went considerably further when passing the Volsteadt Act to implement the Eighteenth Amendment by outlawing not only the distillation of intoxicating spirits but the production of "beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors" meant any beverage that was more than 0.5% alcohol by volume. The Act also stated that owning any item designed to manufacture alcohol was illegal and it set specific fines and jail sentences for violating Prohibition.

The effects of Prohibition were largely unanticipated. Production, importation, and distribution of alcoholic beverages — once the province of legitimate business — were taken over by criminal gangs, which fought each other for market control in violent confrontations, including mass murder. At his peak, Al Capone controlled 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida. Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of prohibition.(Sound familiar?)

It ushered in an unprecedented era of lawlessness, while making rich men of gangsters and corrupt politicians. The widespread corruption undermined the public's confidence in police, judges, and politicians at every level. Never before had any law been so widely disregarded by ordinary people.

Also, one anomaly of the Act as worded was that it did not actually prohibit the consumption of alcohol; many people actually stockpiled wines and liquors for their own use in the latter part of 1919 before sales of alcohol became illegal the following January. So the rich who stockpiled their booze before Prohibition went into effect were hardly inconvenienced. The working stiff who'd like a snort after work resorted to other means. To meet a sudden booming demand for grape juice, California grape growers increased their area about 700% in the first five years of prohibition. The juice was commonly sold concentrated as "bricks" along with a warning:

"After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not add yeast, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn into wine."

One grape block producer sold nine varieties: Port, Virginia Dare, Muscatel, Angelica, Tokay, Sauterne, Riesling, Claret and Burgundy.

[beevul]

72. Do legitimate gun owners have a voice in this?

If they do, they might claim the burden is on those that wish to restrict to justify it.

And rightfully so.

Or are all gun owners that hold that opinion "illegitimate" gun owners?

[jeff47]

148. We already did justify it.

Our justification is that we'd like to slow down the crazy guy in the middle of his mass-shooting spree. We'd actually prefer to stop the possibility of mass-shooting sprees, but reducing clip size seems a reasonable compromise.

So what's the legitimate gun owner's voice in this?

[YllwFvr]

156. that it wont make a difference

they are already out there, they are already available, and most mass shooters dont use them anyway. the VT incident was one of our countries worse shootings and he didnt use them. He used low capacity ones. He reloaded 17 times. Jared was taken down because high cap mags tend to malfunction, which his did, and they then took him down. A reload isnt enough time to get the shooter. I doubt a man on the ground could even stand up and advance in the time it takes anyone with practice to reload. Besides some guns come with 19 round mags and they arent high capacity they are standard capacity. The mags are flush with the frame, thats just how many it holds.

[beevul]

200. Justification is more than just stating what you'd "like" to do.

"Our justification is that we'd like to slow down the crazy guy in the middle of his mass-shooting spree. We'd actually prefer to stop the possibility of mass-shooting sprees, but reducing clip size seems a reasonable compromise."

Justification is more than just stating what you'd "like" to do. Justification, is actually showing and PROVING that what you are proposing will actually ACCOMPLISH what youd like to do.


Neither you not anyone else has done that. Beyond that, you used the word "compromise". What do we get in return?

Nationwide CCW reciprocitrty?

Reopening the NFA registry?

Sorry, but tragedy or not your not getting any more gun control for free.

"So what's the legitimate gun owner's voice in this?"

You just heard it.

[RSillsbee]

133. They've tried restricting high capacity magazines

In ten years zero effect was shown on crime.

I remember reading somewhere that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

[YllwFvr]

155. unintended consequences, or perhaps not.

when you say no 30+ round mags people usually say nothing over 10. They say that sounds "reasonable". But consider that almost any gun comes standard with magazines of a higher capacity than that. One consequence of that would be that nearly every gun manufacturer would have to revamp the system they have to manufacture different magazines. This also doesnt limit only pistol mags, many rifles have magazines are well over that limit. Even tubular magazines can be over 10 rounds. It makes an impact on the entire gun industry, worldwide. Then they say you cannot sell those magazines, using the current legislative wording attempting to be passed. This means if I ever want to sell my pistol, I cant sell the mags with it. The person buying it has to have the added expense of going out and buying new mags, and I now have magazines that dont go to anything and are worthless. Its a huge impact, and a very real loss. Thats ignoring the fun we derive from a mag full of ammo.

Ive had one of these mags, I got rid of it. But I see no reason to ban them. It wont make any difference at all. They will use smaller mags and reload. You cant attack someone while they reload in any normal situation. Jared's was a special case where he had a malfunction with his magazine.If that hadnt happened things would likely have gone very differently. Mag count means nothing. VT shooter used low capacity mags and reloaded 17 times. Dont you think if it was possible someone would have attacked him? They were also very close to him just like in Arizona.

Is there a self defense reason to have a magazine that big? I would say no, and I doubt you will find anyone who carries them for self defense. But some guns carry 19 rounds from the factory, then when chambered that brings it to 20. Thats not "high capacity" thats standard capacity. Yes it can take a lot of shots to defend yourself. I read of an officer who shot a man 22 times, 17 in the chest, taking several hits himself and the man still didnt go down for a good while. He wasnt on drugs either. Guns arent as deadly as people seem to think, a single shot doesnt guarantee a serious wound, and several shots dont guarantee an incapacitating wound. I saw a officer get assaulted by a man and the cop shot him three times point blank in the chest, the guy took the cops gun away and beat him bloody with it.

Banning large capacity mags will have zero impact on crime.

[Sanity Claws]

13. 30 groundhogs doing a line dance?

[jakeXT]

14. Why is it always an odd number like 15, 17, 19 or 33

MAG. CAPACITY
Standard: 15
OPTIONAL
17 / 19 / 33


http://www.glock.com/english/glock19_tech.htm

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. One in the chamber, balance in the magazine.

[jakeXT]

29. Feng-Shui ?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Lots of guns only hold a maximum of even rounds in thier magazines.

1911's often hols 8 rounds in non-extended mags. I believe CZ SP0's only hold 18. Most 40 caliber mags only hold 14 rounds due to the larger bullet.

Also, don't forget that every gun can hold +1 chambered round. so glocks actually hold a maximum even number of rounds.

[beevul]

80. Yep.

Thats what I own, except mine isn't the brigadeer model.

1 in the pipe and 11 in the mag.

If they ban them, I'd be effected by 1 round...not a huge difference...not that I think thats a good reason to give them a beachhead though.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

85. 11 in the mag? I had an M92/M9 that held 15 rounds...

what gives? is it single stack mag?

[beevul]

128. The model 96...

The model 96 is chambered in 40 S&W. Thats where the difference lies.

Though I have been considering swapping out barrels and doing some feedramp polishing to convery it to .357 sig - to lower reloading costs, and fire a hotter faster lighter round. Part of the case on that diameter cartridge is unsupported near the feedramp on that beretta design, so a lighter round might save on wear and tear on the gun itself, plus might translate to more reloads before a case starts to balloon in that area.

When done, it uses the same mags, essentially just a barrel swap, because .357 sig is a .40/10 mm necked down case.

FWIW mine was tricked out by Ernie Langdon at Langdon Tactical (he no longer is in busines afaik, and is now Director of Federal Law Enforcement & Military sales for S&W, last I heard anyway) a few years back, with a 96d recoil and hammer spring, and a trigger package, and a skeletonized hammer, and was made into a really nice smooth reliable accurate shooter in the process.

Ernie Langdon knows his stuff, where handguns are concerned.

[Endangered Specie]

138. coincidence, many models hold 10,12,14,16

10=glock 26
12=cz-82
14=cz 75 compact
16=cz-75

[YllwFvr]

157. simply frame size

[Taverner]

16. If you're in a gunfight with someone who is using a 30 Round Ammo magazine

[Bragi]

42. Why then are rocket launchers illegal?

If the criteria for having something is the need to defend against someone else who may have that weapon, then why are rocket launchers or missiles illegal?

[Taverner]

49. Isn't that a big jump from a 30 round magazine?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NuclearDem]

68. Yeah, I was just thinking the other day...

Gee, I'd really like to set those people on fire over there...but I'm much too far away to get the job done.

[beevul]

87. Oddly enough, flamethrowers are considered agricultural implements...

Oddly enough, flamethrowers are considered agricultural implements, in the eyes of the law.

[NuclearDem]

54. They shouldn't be

I need adequate protection if someone robs my house in an Apache or a tank.

[beevul]

83. They aren't illegal.

See the national firearms act of 1934:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[NuclearDem]

91. There's quite a few things that are surprisingly legal...

Flamethrowers and miniguns being among them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html

[beevul]

121. LOL, yep.

I love cracked, btw lol.

[GreenStormCloud]

173. Rocket launchers aren't illegal. Explosive rockets are tightly regulated.

A rocket launcher can be something as simple as a rope between two trees, or an empty stovepipe. Kind of hard to ban those. Instead it is the high explosive for the warhead that is controlled.

[Bragi]

179. Well how can I defend myself if a criminal has one?

Surely it is wrong that a law-abiding person like me cannot defend myself against criminals with high-explosive warheads.

[GreenStormCloud]

193. Let us know when it happens. N/T

[mimitabby]

18. to overthrow the government!

that gives me a warm and fuzzy knowing the kind of kooks that have guns for just that purpose..

[bluerum]

20. It's good exercise hauling them around. Try holding and aiming a pistol with 30 rounds.

I am convinced that the unwieldiness of a full 30 round magazine, and shit 4 brains unfamiliarity with guns allowed him to be disarmed. I suspect he would have fumbled with a 10 round magazine as well. A full 30 round magazine is heavy and awkward to handle when one is in a hurry and not highly trained.

[NuclearDem]

21. So you can reenact Dirty Harry

Did he fire 29 or 30 rounds? Do I feel lucky? WELL DO YA.

PUNK

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Dirty Harry never had that much ammo

[NuclearDem]

Dirty Harry cranked up to 11

Because if we've learned anything from certain Hollywood producers, MOAR IS BETTERER.

[beevul]

132. Dirty Harry used a 44 magnum revolver, FWIW.

While loughner would only have been able to shoot 6 people at the most with one, people don't generally survive being shot in the head with one.

I'm not saying you said or implied otherwise...

Just musing is all.

[SteveM]

199. Uh, more like 5 or 6 depending on your punk luck.

Culture war has been much of the undoing of modern "liberal" politics. This "controversy" over 33 round magazines is like arguing over the deck chair arrangement on the Titanic: no real reasons cited for a ban, but a lot of Dirty Harry references, "toter" love of 2-foot magazines, etc. You can bet the GOP will be using this issue, again and again.

The most addicting substance is prohibition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. For the zombie invasion, doh!

[Still a Democrat]

26. Maybe a mass injury spree?

If you can manage not to kill anyone it isn't murder!

[spanone]

27. cause those you are shooting at might tackle you if you have to RELOAD

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. Competition, recreation, and possibly incase I miss an attacker 29 times.

Using a firearm under duress can be difficult. While a good shot at the firing range (95%+ on a human target in a competitive environment) my combat accuracy may only be 40% depending on lighting, moving targets, and evasive maneuvers. Also, a good practice is to fire two shots into the target in rapid succession (double tap) and assess the situation. Because 9mm is a fairly diminutive round a determined attacker or home intruder, especially one under the effects of narcotics, may need engaged up to twice with a "double tap" to quickly end the threat. It's also not unreasonable to expect that there may be a second or third accomplice engaged in the home invasion or robbery. Four attackers may be on the fringe of imagination, but three is more within the realm of possibility.
Added up, that's 12 successful shots/hits requiring 30 total expended rounds (at a 40% hit rate).

Personally, I don't carry my 30 round mags because they stick out of the gun awkwardly but I have carried a 30 round as a spare mag in my pocket (or keep it in my glovebox of the car). More typically, I carry 15+1 rounds in my Glock and a spare 15 round magazine for a total of 31 rounds.

Also, they're called a magazine. personally, I don;t give a shit if you ban 30 round "clips". I don't even think there are such a thing as 30 round clips.

[Crystal Clarity]

32. We don't.

And I say this as a gun owner.

[Codeine]

33. Why is it a matter of need?

I don't "need" the internet. I don't "need" hummus and some nice warm pita. I don't "need" a bigger bass amp and some new roundwounds. But I'd like to have all of those things.

It is not the responsibility of the person who wants something to provide a compelling argument as to why he should be allowed to purchase it, but rather it is upon the person who wants to deny everyone the right to purchase that item to provide a compelling and logical argument - sufficient to convince society - as to why that item should not be owned by their fellows.

At no point does "need" enter the equation.

[jeff47]

149. Because it seems like a reasonable restriction to non-gun owners

Those seeking to limit clip size wish to slow down the attacker during a mass-shooting rampage. It would appear to be a reasonable restriction that doesn't significantly affect legitimate gun owners, as the only obvious benefits are 1. Makes mass-shooting rampage more effective, and 2. Don't have to reload as often on the range.

Asking "why they're needed" is an attempt to understand those who object to such a regulation.

[one-eyed fat man]

172. Perfect point!!

One could ask them why they feel they are the designated arbiters of "need."

"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people."

William Howard Taft

[aikoaiko]

37. Magazines with capacities > 10 are useful when there 2 or 3 home invaders for example.

There are other low frequency SHTF situations were I would want the good guy to have the magazine of their choice.

I know 10 is rather low given that some of my full size carry pistols have standard (nonextended) magazine capacities of 15, 18, and 19.

[Kablooie]

40. So you can shoot a whole flock of birds and leave people wondering.

[doc03]

41. Why do people need a 6000 pound SUV that gets

8 MPG? Families are smaller today so why do they need a home twice the size they were in the 50s?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. You know what's messed up? 5000lb+ four wheel drives that guys wreck nature with...

"Four wheeling" I think they call it. Just go out and burn 5mpg while fucking up the landscape of some park or wildlife area. Nothing says manly like hosing down the natural scenery and rock formations with a bunch of tire tracks, testosterone, and empty beer bottles.

But hey, just cause I don't like it or understand it doesn't mean I'm proselytizing against other people who enjoy the activity.

[NuclearDem]

56. You're generalizing about four wheeling

I go four wheeling all the time, but I've made some serious modifications to my truck to make it more eco-friendly. I'm also one of those who do it not only for the sport, but to actually enjoy the scenery. I've had to yell at my fair number of people for littering at camp sites or along the trails.

Look up an organization called Tread Lightly! sometime. There are plenty of responsible four wheelers out there...they're just not the ones making the news.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

73. Actually, I couldn't give a crap about four wheeling.

Done a bit of it myself. Smaller ATVs though... no jeeps or buggies. I just posted that to illustrate how easy it is for people who don't understand something to give knee-jerk reactions. Ignorance sucks.

;)

[NuclearDem]

75. Ah, I see.

I figured I was missing something :hi:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. There is no such thing as a 30 round ammo clip

Did you mean magazine and which firearm or type of firearm are you asking about.

[Az_lefty]

52. Your of course correct...

the media keeps calling it a "clip" because they don't know the difference

[SteveM]

201. I think MSM does, they just refuse to let an opportunity by to "dig" at 2A defenders.

[jeff47]

151. In a world where people use "2" to abbreviate "to"

Do you really have to ask why people use the shorter slang term?

[petronius]

158. But "mag" is even shorter than "clip"

:)

[ManiacJoe]

168. It is not slang. It is just wrong.

Clip and magazine are two different things.

[Bluebear]

47. You must be a liberal gun-grabber!!!!1

:silly:

[Autumn]

50. I might need one if

30 coyotes came over the hill after my chickens.:shrug: Other than that my 22 and my 30-30 are all I need.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. First boom, worst case second

Coyotes are scattering.

And you know that dang rifle was designed for that....a glock, not so much...I'm sticking to zombie invasion. BRAINS!!!!!!!

[Autumn]

86. When a couple of them come around if they get too close

I just fire a shot and they take off. I really like the little guys (at a distance) and I don't want to hit one, they keep the rabbit population down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Of course they do

at distance they are also quite intelligent and pretty.

Hell, even my local rattlers are fine (at distance)... I have no issue with varmints... oh and rattler, on a serious note, is good eating if you got to.Oh and yes they are slow enough that you could get them with a gun if you are a decent shot... no, don't look at me.

[HockeyMom]

57. To shoot a herd of buffalo

and feed your town for the next year?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Nope, not enough penetration

Guns are really not designed for hunting...rifles are.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Indeterminate actually. The OP did not specify which kind of firearm

[SteveM]

202. I think the Jennings rifle (Civil War) held over 20 rounds in an integral magazine.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

61. Duh!

So you can protect yourself and your family when a Mossad snatch squad storms your trailer at the behest of the United Nations to take your children and redistribute them to gay couples in California.

[CountAllVotes]

62. the only reason is to kill baby kill

similar to drill baby drill. :puke:

:dem:

[doc03]

64. Just in case a gang of 30 broke into my home n/t

[cbc5g]

71. Ask this question again

When there is a serious natural disaster where armed thugs come to your home, an invasion ...or the bankers turn the very poor against you and they come for you in your nice middle class home. People can become ravenous and murderous with only a couple weeks without food + desperation.

See if the police will come help when they are missing or gone. See if the government or military will help. No one is going to help you in those situations, no one is going to come for you..its only you.

In extreme cases, more is better.

[DainBramaged]

77. Oh Jesus, here we go, the end times doomsayers of ZERO

Earth has a better chance of the dinosaurs coming back than YOU or anyone you know encountering that situation, and THAT is why you all sound ridiculous.

[AsahinaKimi]

88. Thirty Rounds are great for taking on a

T-rex...


Then again..maybe not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. With that skull thickness

30-06 is the lowest... I'd prefer a nice 50 cal...

:-)

pitiful 9mm parabellum (It means for war), no, not really.

[YllwFvr]

160. 9mm against a rex? gimme 5 dozen guys with mp5s

Youd be surprised though. I read of a guy in alaska who shot and killed a grizzly that rushed him and his girl with a 1911. I couldnt believe he dropped a grizzly with a few shots of 45. Ive seen reports of hunters hitting grizz with 6 shots of point blank 357 mag and the bear doesnt flinch.
30-06? better have a few guys with you, best of luck!

[DonP]

174. It's all about shot placement

There was a story a few months ago about someone taking down a black bear with a .22. I tried to find it again and can't now. But depending on where he hit the Grizz, I can believe it.

I have some 10 round extended magazines for my 1911, my Beretta 92 comes with 15 rounds standard and I have some 17 and 20 round flush fit magzines. I will use 30 rounders for my AR's for target practice, just to save time, but a 30 round magazine gets in the way of a good prone position, so I switch to 20 round mags for competition.

[RSillsbee]

176. Make up your mind

taking down a black bear with a .22.

depending on where he hit the Grizz,

[DonP]

185. Two issues - poorly worded responses

1. I can't find the damn article on the black bear but

2. The poster mentioned a story of someone taking down a Grizzly with a 1911 .45ACP

[RSillsbee]

191. taking down a Grizzly with a 1911 .45ACP

I remember that story it happened in Alaska I think. I don't think he killed it I think he drove it off

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. mp -5 is a 9mm parabellum

again we go into size of shot.

Give me a 50 cal. Not a sniper system either.

[YllwFvr]

190. oh yes I agree, for something that size

i would feel far more comfortable with bigger. And I WILL take a sniper system, further away is farther out of range. 20mm rifle :)

[RSillsbee]

192. If you're that far away why kill it at all?

Run!!!!!

[YllwFvr]

197. *jeff foxworthy accent*

How much does it cost to mount a 'Rex?

[Upton]

96. If society ever does break down

for whatever reason, you're not going to have the authorities to go running too. In that case, it will be your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones.. The teabaggers and the extreme RW are ready, we should be too. What's wrong with being prepared for the worst?

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. We are, extended clips ain't gonna make that much

unless the break down comes from Zombies... BRAIIINNSSSS!!!!!

[DainBramaged]

139. The wet dream of the gun clan, armageddon

as bad as the End timers.....

[SteveM]

203. You feel that way about 80,000,000+ fellow Americans? nice. nt

[YllwFvr]

163. its already your responsibility to protect your loved ones

its no ones job but your own. afaik if you call 911 the cops dont even have to show. Im sure department policy would smack the officers but there is nothing that says they have to help you.

[YllwFvr]

162. la riots nt

ill add, a waco or ruby ridge like incident where the gov attacks you without reason. I suppose those events are debatable however.

[DainBramaged]

166. Really, without reason.....

:eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

78. Sounds like an argument for guns, not 30 round magazines for handguns....

I'm trying to figure out why 2nd Amendment folks are defending extended magazines with such vigor.

[DainBramaged]

81. Because they think the Supreme court has given them sovereign rights over all others...

And thre is the paranoia to go along with the ego...

[SteveM]

204. I'm trying to figure out why some controllers want to ban them. nt

[spanone]

92. you need 60 round clips ...30 extra for your paranoia

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Paranoid much? I say this as a GUN owner.

[Ramulux]

143. I have got a reality check for you

If society breaks down to the point where there is no law enforcement and there are roaming gangs of criminals killing and raping everything in their path, you are fucked. Regardless of whether or not you have 1 gun, 10 guns, or 100 guns, whether you have 1,000 bullets or a million bullets you are fucked. If we no longer can count on basic law enforcement, this country is over and no amount of weaponry is going to keep you any safer. The only thing keeping any of us safe in this country is the rule of law, if that breaks down, criminal cartels with more weapons than any of us could imagine would easily take everything over, its a fantasy for anyone to think that they would be able to protect themselves if society were to collapse.

[YllwFvr]

164. if it ever got ugly

the cops would tell you to screw off and run home to the wife and kids, and id think its a pretty damn good idea. either way i wouldnt exactly welcome the police with open arms either. I recall almost a half dozen who got there jollies by gunning down random people trying to get help

[GreenStormCloud]

195. Reality check for you. Rodney King riots.

The breakdown can be local a limited to a few days, but if you are there then, you are on you own. During the RK riots, Korean store owners protected their stores with rifles and they didn't get torched.

[struggle4progress]

74. Some people think it increases your odds when playing Russian Roulette

[petronius]

142. That's pretty funny, when you think about it...

:rofl:

[YllwFvr]

165. i agree

but ive seen something like that. guy loads a 6 shot revolver with 5 rounds, spins the cylinder and hands it to a friend who put it to his temple and blew his brains out.

[struggle4progress]

187. .

:D

[Ghost in the Machine]

76. Why do you need a 72 inch TV?

Besides trying to compensate for an overly small penis?

[jakeXT]

79. If had one I would get a wireless keyboard and surf the net from a bed/couch

[Ghost in the Machine]

97. That would be some scary close-ups watching porn, huh?

[jakeXT]

119. I remember the 90's without popup blockers...one wrong click

[beevul]

89. I'm using a 37'' led lcd hdtv as a pc monitor right now.

Does that mean I'm not compensating?

If I switch back to my old 17'' crt will it grow larger permanently?


:evilgrin: :toast:

[Ghost in the Machine]

100. Heh!

Maybe it's just the right compensation... like carrying a snub-nose revolver??

:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. TV is sixteen year old

One of these years we will have to replace it... 72 sounds like WAY TOO BIG... now if I can use it for graphic design too....

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. EEEKK!! Jailbait! Jailbait!

:rofl:

I have a 25 inch tv that's probably about that old too.. I rarely watch it

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. This one my parents got

we got another one that is almost new in storage that is just 12 years old.

[beevul]

111. I know you and I disagree on the gun issue, but that doesn't mean we can't talk tv's.

Get yourself a true 1080p hdtv - and plug your PC into it.


Granted I don't do graphic design, but consider this:

You could then buy a cheapie blu ray drive or burner for entertainment and storage,

You could do graphic design in an area larger than your current desktop, while watching a movie or reading DU in another,

The picture quality for movies and games is flat out amazing,

The cost of hdtv's , even the newer led hdtvs in 120hz, has come down A LOT,


My own personal observations after using a 37 incher for almost a month now:

37 is a touch big for a desktop monitor, BUT, not by a lot. A 32 incher might be the best compromise. Depending on the size/orientation of your desk, of course.

The whites are VERY bright in a larger monitor, so thats a consideration too.

This is the one I picked up:



Its the LG 37LE5300 led lcd 120hz hdtv.

Newegg gets 899 for them now, but they go on sale on and off got under 600.

I saved a long time, to afford it, and so far, I feel it was entirely worth it.

Its a bedroom blu ray/pc monitor for me.

I run an adapter from DVI to HDMI and an HDMI cable, and it worked perfectly, no troubles with the interface.

[May Hamm]

82. Why does anybody need thirty rolls of toilet paper?

Besides going on a mass crapping spree?

Simple questions are not so simple.

[tabasco]

126. Simple minds are simple.

toilet paper = bullets

:dunce:

[formercia]

84. Beating off Human Wave Attacks from the PRC.

...besides, who goes hunting with a 9mm Semi-auto Pistol?

I must admit, a long ago friend had a cherry Schmeisser MP38/40. It was a lot of fun hunting varmints with that.

[NuclearDem]

94. Hehe, you said beating off

:evilgrin:

[formercia]

105. You get a free coupon for your next purchase of hand lotion.

Use it wisely. :evilgrin:

[beevul]

102. I don't "need" one, but I "need" them to remain unlegislated.

I don't want one, I'm happy with the ten and eleven rounders that fit my beretta flush. And, I don't "need" one, but I "need" them to remain unlegislated.

The relatively friendly legislative climate gun owners have enjoyed for the last 6-7 years may not always remain the way it is.


Should it change some time in the future, I'd prefer to see those with the prohibition addiction, having to walk "up hill both ways in the cold", rather that a short sunny walk in the park, when they try to feed it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. My Beretta 92F is designed for 15 rounds magazine. That is its STANDARD magazine

The artificial limitation in CA for new 10 round magazines is specious at all levels.

[beevul]

131. The 96 holds less...

The model 96 is chambered in 40 S&W. Thats where the difference lies.

[doc03]

144. My Springfield XDM has a bigger magazine than yours

(16 rounds), I keep it loaded with 10 rounds.

[jeff47]

154. This question sounds like hyperbole

but it not meant that way.

How many people need to die before there's any new restrictions?

Yes, I know. Sounds like a tug-on-the-heartstrings appeal designed to not be reasonable. But it isn't intended that way.

You've made a choice that I would not. What I view as an 'excessive' number of unnecessary deaths is OK with you, because of your objections to regulations on gun ownership. I'm curious if there is a line that would have you supporting new and narrow restrictions on guns. No matter how hypothetical.

Statistics easily demonstrate that increasing gun ownership does not reduce crime. In fact, the reverse is true - the murder rate is a lot higher where the rate of gun ownership is higher. (Yes, you can kill someone with a knife. However it's much harder to kill a lot of people with one knife.) I view a limit on magazine size as a reasonable and narrow regulation.

So where's that line? Or if your answer is 'there isn't a line', then you'd really be ok with large swaths of innocent bystanders getting shot on a regular basis?

[petronius]

159. The answer is simple - a magazine restriction will be reasonable as soon as

there are data and evidence showing that a specific limit has a meaningful effect on public safety. Thus far, the evidence doesn't exist - it's just guesswork and hypothesis and screeching about gun nuts and their penises.

Until the data to support a limit exists, it really doesn't matter why people want large magazines: if they prefer to reload less frequently, or they like the look, or they feel safer with more rounds, or fewer magazines are easier to store and transport, or whatever...

[jeff47]

183. What kind of proof do you need?

In virtually all mass shootings, the thing that stops the shooter is ammo. Either he's running out, or he has to reload. Smaller magazines make reloading more frequent, and make it more awkward to carry a lot of ammo (6 10-round magazines is a lot more awkward and expensive than 2 30-round). So why would you expect smaller magazines to not have an effect?

Scientific proof can't be made available without the restriction - as long as the extended magazines are available, mass shooters will use them. So is the result you'll never support restrictions until we force them through over your objections in order to deliver the proof?

[petronius]

186. That would be a start: how many shootings have been stopped because the shooter was reloading? (nt)

[X_Digger]

188. Umm.. no. What usually stops them is an armed response or a lack of additional victims.

The shooters have a tendency to pop themselves in the head when someone starts shooting back, or they run out of victims.

Hennard - Luby's
Cho - VT
Wong - Binghamton
Thornton - Hartford Distributors
Barton - Day trader killings in ATL
Ferri - 101 Ca Street shooting
Wesbecker - Standard Gravure
Kazmierczak - N Illinois U
Roberts - Amish school shooting
Weise - Red Lake Reservation

[SteveM]

205. How many "mass shootings" were committed using 33-round mags before Tucson? nt

[DonP]

175. Not really

"Statistics easily demonstrate that increasing gun ownership does not reduce crime. In fact, the reverse is true - the murder rate is a lot higher where the rate of gun ownership is higher."

One state or city over another, you'll always have one worse than another but ...

Actually we have had record gun sales for the last three years. 14 million new guns were sold last year alone. But according to the FBI UCR (Uniform Crime Report) violent crime is at a 40 year low for the third year in a row and keeps declining. We're going to have crime with guns no matter what we decide to ban.

You are entitled to you opinion, but the facts say otherwise. More guns do not equal more crime and, with 10 years to prove their case and a lot of $$$ from the Joyce Foundation, no one was able to show any impact on crime from the 10 year assault weapons ban that included 10 round new magazine limitations.

Gun owners might be open to magazine limit discussions, if anyone could produce a single scintilla of evidence that they result in less crime or violence. But starting from a position of "no one needs ..." isn't going to go anywhere.

[jeff47]

184. You are carefully selecting your stats to back up your opinion.

Especially using a very short time window. 3 years is nothing. More to the point, 3 years is the tail end of a trend that has been going on for the last 15 years or so, so whatever is causing that trend is continuing. But there's other stats that have held steady for a much longer period of time.

The gun ownership rate for the US is vastly ahead of all other developed nations. If more guns meant less crime, we'd be the safest nation on earth. We're not, and we're not by a long shot. That stat has been holding true for at least 30 years. Likewise, there are far more murders-per-capita in high gun-ownership states than in low gun-ownership states, and again that stat has been true since at least the 80s. Correlation is not causation, so we can't say guns cause crime. But we can say that increased gun ownership does not reduce crime.

As for the assault weapons ban, that really never had much of a chance. A ban like that only works over a long period of time, in that the law primarily restricted new sales. The only way it was reducing the supply of banned items was through attrition, and there's not going to be much attrition over 10 years.

One thing I find fascinating in this debate is the assertion that the "gun enthusiast" side keeps asserting absolute power by the "gun control" side. Jackbooted thugs, the most narrow ban will lead to the ban of all firearms, and so on. The gun control side couldn't get the assault weapons ban renewed despite the support of President Bush and a large majority of the public. Yet whenever someone brings up any possible restrictions, they're part of an all-powerful group trying to seize your firearms.

[X_Digger]

189. I think you're reading more into Don's response than is warranted.

I don't see where Don said that "increased gun ownership reduces crime". Rather I read it that it's fairly evident based on FBI and national firearms sales figures that "increased gun ownership does not increase crime", disproving the correlation

Regarding your claims about opposition to additional regulation, who are we to believe? Many gun control proponents have expressed their ultimate goal, and the means they intend to use to achieve it-

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Were they lying then, or are they lying now?

[RedArmy300]

104. I'm probably going to get flak for this...

But in essence a thirty round magazine is meant mainly for hunting of dangerous creatures, at least that's what my grandmother's bf has told me.

Things like coyotes and the like, course it also helps people like him, seeing as he has trouble getting around so I guess thirty rounds would mostly be to help handicapped hunters hunt? I dunno, I forgot what reason I was going to make.

I can think up a pretty petty reason though! There are a lot of military buffs in the world and they want their guns to look authentic so...

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. If you are using a side arm to hunt varmint

hate to point this out... one shot, one kill, and they are not designed for that... well except maybe... rattlers. Remember to cut the head off, and please either burn it or bury it.

If you are using a rifle if you did not get that varmint by the second shot... they are LONG GONE.

Go back to the range.

Target practice is a whole different story... and personally I don't get bothered by having to use regular mags... but that is just me.

[Upton]

107. I don't need to justify exercising my RKBA..

the prohibition minded anti gun crowd aren't really interested in just banning high capacity mags or "reasonable restrictions"..they just want to keep chipping away at the Second Amendment until there is virtually nothing left.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

[Edweird]

108. Why do you need the rite to speak freely - except to incite others to violence.

Why do you need the right to assemble - except to participate in mob violence and rioting?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

109. Some people just like owning that type of stuff.

They may go to the shooting range or just collect them or whatever. The vast majority don't go on a mass-murder spree.

[JoePhilly]

112. Because you are totally unqualified to fire a gun ... so you need a lot of bullets!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Hey... I should resent that comment

and no, we don't.

:-)

I'll take the advise somebody else gave me, and go practice first with a rental 22

[ProudDad]

122. BINGO!!! (n/t)

[moondust]

113. In case you come under attack by an army?

:)

[JoePhilly]

117. Or Zombies!!!!

I think the far right is very afraid that Zombies are on the march.

[doc03]

145. WOLVERINES!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

115. IMO it's not that gun-owners need HCMs, it's that they need NO RESTRICTIONS on weapons,

lest their 'firepower addictions' eventually take them to 'The Panic in Needle Park'

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=198486&mesg_id=213107 , which sums up my take on the dozens of weapons fanatics who un-recced my 'CHRISTINA'S LAW" thread.

K&R.

[Upton]

129. Sure..

like all the unrecs had absolutely nothing to do with your suggestion to use a young girl's death to further a political agenda.:eyes:

[beevul]

134. Let me correct that for you.

"IMO it's not that gun-owners need HCMs, it's that they need NO RESTRICTIONS on weapons"

Its not that gun owners by and large want NO restrictions on weapons, its that they want NO NEW on weapons.

Too many people on your side of the issue that push for and attempt to enact legislation, have demonstrated quite openly that they can not be trusted.


Maybe you're different though.

Tell me, how much gun control is enough gun control?

How much will it take until you personally are satisfied theres enough?

[pipoman]

135. The "CHRISTINA'S LAW"

that Christina's dad would likely oppose based on his comments since this incident?

[pipoman]

123. Why do you NEED a car which will go

220 mph? Why do you need 180 proof alcohol? Why do you need an internet connection?

When it comes to it we NEED very little of what we have.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[8 track mind]

125. All of those terroristic, freedom hatin' deer that will follow us home when we leave Iraq! N/t

[X_Digger]

127. When did you stop beating your wife?

Ask a leading question, expect one in return.

[rrneck]

130. If I need one and don't have it will you be there to help? nt

[NewMoonTherian]

140. In case I find a large number of people are trying to kill me.

Extended magazines are impractical in carry applications, and I would hope I never have to face a situation like that at my home, but I'm not going to be willing to surrender something that may be an advantage in a life-or-death situation.

[rhett o rick]

146. It's called overkill. For the same reason the US of A has 11 nuclear carriers.

No other nation has a nuclear carrier but we have 11. Costing hundreds of billions. If one is good 11 is orgasmic.

[guitar man]

161. I can't speak for anybody else

But depending on the weapon and its usage the answers could vary. I just got a new Ruger 10-22 rifle for Christmas . It's a .22 rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. Anybody that knows firearms knows what the primary usage of a .22 is, it's a plinker. It's pretty much the grown up version of the "official Daisy Red Ryder 200 shot BB gun with carbine action" that the kid in "A Christmas Story" wanted so badly.

Sure it's good for small game like rabbit, squirrel etc, pest control like rats and snakes and the like, but I'd wager that 9 out of every 10 rounds of .22 that gets fired is aimed at a can, bottle, milk jug etc. etc.

.22 ammo is dirt cheap, so the appeal of shooting one is you can go out and burn a couple hundred rounds tearing up the local dump or whatever without breaking the bank. If you have 4-5 30 rd magazines loaded up beforehand it just makes it a hell of a lot easier to punch the entire logo out on that pepsi can without stopping to reload all the time.

Like I said, others probably have different uses for higher capacity mags , but the .22 is the only weapon I own right now that will take one, and that's how I use them.

[j420norcal]

167. Well, I don't

but they're fun as Hell to use at the range and I've never participated in a mass-murder spree EVER.

Fancy that

[LawnKorn]

169. I don't "Need" to justify my ownership of private property to you or anyone else

[right2bfree]

171. Fear, Plain and simple cowardise. Why not let everyone carry a machine gun? Fear! nt

[SteveM]

206. I think you are the fearful one, here. I cannot speak to your "cowardise," however. nt

[slackmaster]

177. Zombies

They usually come in large groups.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

178. False Dilemma: I don't need a reason to exercise a right.

As of now, SCOTUS dictates "arms" are protected for individual ownership and that magazines and ammunition are protected under the umbrella of "arms". So in a free society I don't need a reason to exercise a recognized right. Proposed infringements would require justification and due process of law to implement or one would need to demonstrate that magazines are not "arms".

So I ask you, "Why do I only need access to XX round magazines?"

Please remember that your explanation of why I need only "XX" shots is as much conjecture as my argument that I need 30...

[derby378]

182. The question of "need" is irrelevant

I have no need to justify to anyone why I own a hunk of polymer with a spring inside it that is capable of holding 30 rounds. "Need" is a red herring.

[Bonhomme Richard]

194. Do I need one? No. Others?...maybe. I don't know.....

how they shoot or how many people they tend to piss off in life.

[GreenStormCloud]

196. The U.S. does not have a Dept of Needs and you are not the Needs Czar. N/T

[benEzra]

207. "Need" is subjective, but I shoot in USPSA sanctioned matches with mine...

and also keep either a 20 or a 30 for HD, as do most people who keep a small-caliber carbines in that role.

[texshelters]

208. Guns: 10 Rounds

A video about this very thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6LLRYLMnI

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madinmaryland]

211. YOU ARE A LOSER and COMPENSATING. nt