For magazines I’d prefer to have the Saturday Evening Post or Colliers returned.
It’s fun to argue this with liberals on my musicians site (mostly liberals). Me, “Why do you need two strats?”
Whenever I hear someone ask this question I point out two things. First, the word “why” is the most powerful and also judgemental word in the english language. Second, outside a communist country, it is only the individual who has the right to determine what he/she needs or doesn’t need.
IOW, anyone who prefaces a question with the words “why do you need...” is asking an inapropriate question. And the answer should always be along the lines of “It’s none of your business. Don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong.”
“We DO Need Large Capacity Magazines”
Damn right! In NY Gov. @$$h&*e ranted that magazines should be limited to 7 bullets. Yet when did you ever hear of one perpetrater commiting a home invasion? In most cases a home invasion consists of at least three perps. Seven bullets are not enough to defend one’s family.
Like the article states, I have been saying for years that the majority of the anti-gun crowd get their education from Hollywood. Almost all have never fired a firearm in their lives. Their opinions are formed by the “facts” they get from the main stream media. Whether its cable news networks, printed matter such as the NY Times, Wash Post, or the Gannett newspaper chain, or elitist, hypocritical actors and musicians, they are all driven to think in lock step.
Funny. I had been thinking about posting my musings on this subject.
Been telling people his hard it Is to hit someone who is moving and attacking you.
Yes, fully 80% of all people shot survive and most are not incapacted sotthey cannot continue their attack.
Your danger goes up if they are drunk or on a mind altering drug. They can and will fight beyond the bodies normal ability to endure injuries.
I was recently asked how many rounds I need to shoot a person. They were side know it alls, who have no experience in firing a weapon. my reply was “I won’t know until it’s over. But, I will empty my magazine(clip to the k ow it alls), reload and if they move I will assume they still have fight in them and I will empty that magazine and reload.
Rinse, reapet until goal of ending their onslaught is achieved.
Then break open the scotch to calm my nerves.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
High-Capacity-Magazine Bans
By Clayton E. Cramer
December 19, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Snips:
“How much actual “advantage” does a high-capacity magazine give to a monster who is shooting unarmed people? Practically none. The victims have no idea whether he is about to change magazines and are therefore in no position to flee or engage in a barehand attack (even if one of them has the remarkable coolness of mind to try something that courageously foolhardy). For practical purposes, a mass murderer with ten-round magazines is about as deadly as one with 20-round magazines. I suppose if you were to impose a really low limit, such as two or three rounds, you would start to make a real difference in these horrors, but that brings us to the other side of the equation.”
“On a shooting range, it’s really quite easy to keep every shot on the paper. Things are a bit different in a high-stress, poorly illuminated gunfight inside your home, where it is possible that for every three or four shots you fire, only one delivers an incapacitating blow to an attacker. Yes, you can change magazines rapidly with a modern pistol or rifle, but it is better not to have that distraction in the middle of a gunfight.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/336006
Never give in to the premise that it's about need. Need has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.
Q: Why do police NEED larger capacity magazines?
A: To put them on even footing with criminals.
Q: Why does a private citizen NEED them?
A: Same reason, but more so. Police rarely prevent crimes. Usually they react to crimes that have already happened. You can be armed or you can be a victim. Your choice.
If we can limit the number of rounds in a firearm magazine, we can limit the number of pages in a Playboy magazine.
You’ll need 10 plus round magazines when you need it.
I think it’s become very, very clear that gun control has nothing to do with logic and reason.
If the leftists win on magazine limits, I expect a few natural responses:
(1) Buy a larger caliber so that 7 shots, 10 shots, or whatever the fascists permit us little people to keep will be enough to take down multiple threats (which the extremists on the left will hate).
(2) Buy multiple personal-defense firearms so that we can switch from one to another when we need more shots (which the extremists on the left will hate).
(3) Ignore unconstitutional laws and resist attempts to infringe on our God-given right to keep and bear arms just as Americans have done since Lexington and Concord (which the extremists on the left will hate).
My money is on option #3, but in any case this will not turn out well for the fascists.
Dear Bed Wetter: Why does the the department of EDUCATION NEED A SWAT TEAM?
Why is the fedgov stockpiling anti personnel handgun ammo at an unprecedented rate?
Folks NEED an AR because the tyrant has them. Think that "can't happen here?"
Again, Why does the the department of EDUCATION NEED A SWAT TEAM?
We need standard capacity magazines in order to form an effective militia to resist tyrants, be they foreign or domestic.
THAT is the one most important answer.
I dumped a cheap single action loading pistol and bought a 13 shot Browning Hi-Power back in 1968 (with extra magazine) after the riots that year.
In a bad area of town I found I wanted firepower, not some slow loading cheap RG brand revolver!
I don’t think it’s right to even answer the question. The proper response to this impertinent, insulting, wildly improper question is - as long as it’s legal it is none of your f-ing business why I need anything.