The politics of hi-cap mags

2»

Replies

  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Its simple. Because I ing want one.

    Not only one, as many as I can get!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Breamfisher wrote:
    Rights are not defined by "need."
    :that::agree:

    Buford wrote:
    So I should be able to own what the government has, Yes?

    :that::agree:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Before I left for work this morning, my girl and I were sharing coffee together and getting our morning dose of Fair and Balanced. The Colorado shooting is still the hot topic and she asked me why anyone would need a 50 round mag.
    I told her that the word need should never enter the conversation regarding personal firearms ownership vis a vis gun laws. But to answer her question at face value I said something along the lines of suppose Zimmerman is acquitted and we have Rodney King like riots nationwide. Even right here in River City.

    She thought for a minute and just said "Oh".

    How would you folks answer that question?

    How should I answer this question? like this:

    ..... I am so :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::mad::angry:&### of the US government misuing, abusing, and intruding on my Constitutional rights, and my basic God given rights as a human I just want to:vomit::vomit::vomit: I am tired, fed up and totally discussed with what the government says I can have, and cannot have, what I can buy, and cannot buy, when I can buy it, and when I can't buy, and who I have to buy it from and can not buy it from!!!!!!!!!!!:cuss::cuss: They ain't know one on this planet, that can tell me what and which magazine I can buy for my guns!!!!!!! I really should not have to defend my position and stance on firearm ownership, or the types of guns and accessories, I choose to purchase for them, because I have a 2nd Amendment right, and even if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, I would still own some guns and ammo, don't care what anyone says!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 890 Senior Member
    Why do you need Hi-Cap magazines? How would you folks answer that question?
    Because it is easier to carry 1-100 rd. mag.then 10-10 rd. mags or 5-20 rd. mags or 3 -30 rd. mags, etc. when you go target, varmint shooting etc.
    A person can tape two 20 or 30 rd. mags together and with a quick exchange continue shooting very quickly.

    The false arguments by non-shooters have no clue about this issue and how they perceive so called firepower.
    Listening to Sen. Feinstein on Fox with Chris Wallace on Sunday demonstrated her lack of knowledge and facts when she was discussing Assault Weapons, etc. Her statements that AR 15's are one of the most deadly weapons compared to the shotgun he was carrying, in a crowded area leaves one question her knowledge of deadly weapons.

    Consider a 12 ga. shotgun w/8 rd. capacity shooting Winchester Supreme Dbl. X #4 buck 3" Magnum holding 41 pellets .24" in dia. that amounts to 8x41=328 pellets @1210 fps. That seems to me to be very deadly. I have always feared an armed person with a 12 ga. vs. a handgun or rifle under any circumstance. JMO
  • 10 AC10 AC Member Posts: 309 Member
    This very subject came up today, and the question was asked why do I need that "extended capacity" mag for in the first place.
    And thanks to this thread I used the #3 example. What if we had another Katrina or Rodney King incedent and there is no or little police. I said do you want a rifle with a 4 or 5 round mag., or a shotgun with a 3 or 5 round capacity when you are trying to defend you and yours from say 10 or 12 bad guys. Or do you want something with a little more capacity?
    Guess what? It sure changed a few peoples mind in a hurry.
    So thanks to this forum again ya'll. Continue on.
    Teach
    If you don't have a C&R FFL,you really need to consider getting one----it's a license to spend money, though.
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    As long as we're having this argument/discussion again, we've lost. It doesn't have anything to do with the dang gun! We already have gun laws, and if we're going to keep making more gun laws everytime some nut job shoots a place up, we'll soon be without anything but a slingshot to defend ourselves with.

    I don't think the government gives us the right to keep and bear arms. We've always had it! The second amendmant just recognizes that right, and by golly, most of the original states said "NO THANK YOU" to the constitution until the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were included. If it got right down to it, I don't believe a constitutional amendment could take away a right we had before the republic was formed.
  • QuinianQuinian Senior Member Posts: 707 Senior Member
    Well I would say anyone who plans on getting into a fire fight with a rifle is going to NEED 30+. You'd be really supprised just how fast 7-30 round mags empty in such a situation. As for the rest of us, we NEED one because it may be needed at some point. You can say we're peaceful all you want but the fact is this country was founded on war (2 of them actually) and will be either kept or lost by the same means. I don't plan on being the only one with nothing but 10rd stubbys.
  • wagnerwagner Member Posts: 40 Member
    I would reply largely in the same vein: "Need" is really not a word that ought to be applied to the Bill of Rights. Most of us will never "need" to hold a political rally, make a speech, write a novel. But this does not mean the First Amendment should be curtailed. And where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, one thing that bothers me greatly is that this misguided question of "need," as it relates to things like magazine capacity and firearms design, always seems to be somehow related to hunting or sports. No, one does not "need" an M4 to hunt quail. But as far as I can recall, there is no mention of hunting or sport in the 2nd Amendment. I find that whole line of dialogue about "need," in those terms, infuriating and totally irrelevant. The ugly truth of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment is designed to preserve a last-resort measure of defense against tyranny. Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust tyrants to restrict themselves to slingshots.

    In any case, in my humble opinion "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is perhaps the clearest phrase anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Folks can argue 24/7 about what is "needed," but so long as that phrase remains where it is, any law limiting access or capacity is very clearly unconstitutional. While I think the first part of the amendment is equally clear, in large part all the arguments on interpretation seem irrelevant as well. If it were changed to something like, "A well powdered wig, being necessary to the style of any cultured man, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," in my mind it wouldn't change the argument about access or capacity. While powdered wigs may be long out of fashion (though I've no doubt that some weirdos, somewhere, are still wearing them), the operative phrase is still "shall not be infringed." The whole point is that we shouldn't have to justify why we want or need a 100-round drum, anymore than I should have to explain why I want or "need" a particular book, or "need" to take the stand in my own defense, or "need" a attorney, etc.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,651 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    Listening to Sen. Feinstein on Fox with Chris Wallace on Sunday demonstrated her lack of knowledge and facts when she was discussing Assault Weapons, etc. Her statements that AR 15's are one of the most deadly weapons compared to the shotgun he was carrying, in a crowded area leaves one question her knowledge of deadly weapons.

    And that was not the most idiotic thing she said.

    When Chris Wallace brought up the subject of trying to make 'political hay' from a tragic incident while it was still ongoing, her response was that she and her cohorts had learned from experience that if they waited till everything settled down, they lost their opportunity.

    That is actually a true statement, but one that you rarely hear a Democrat make, because most won't admit that they adhere to the Raum Emmanuel admonition to "never let a crisis go to waste."

    Yes, Diane, you are correct - after emotions began to subside and facts start to surface, people return to more rational thought - and any logical thought blows your entire message away.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.