Posted on 04/18/2018 3:10:26 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
I don’t need 50 rounds to defend myself. I need 50 rounds to kill leftist hordes of scum. Your lack of support is noted.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t just about defending one’s self - its primary purpose is to defend this country. Primarily to defend against its own government. But what is needed even more than 50-round magazines is the formation of organized state militias. Militias of the type seen in the 1770’s (not the current style of a handful of guys that get together on the weekends at “the compound”).
I am an 8th generation Vermonter.
For the last 40ish years a refugee in New Hampshire.
When the hippies from NY outnumbered us, I knew Vermont was doomed
In the 60s they elected the first democrat governor in VT since the Civil War.
Vermont, per capita supplied and lost in the Civil War more soldiers than any other state.
It affected most families, including mine.
We were all disgusted when the hippies voted for the party of slavery.
Why not limit everyone to single-shot?
Sir, respectfully, you have no flippin’ idea of what you are talking about. Either you are a troll or an imbicle.
You never heard of riots? Social unrest? Are you serious?
As long as the LEO’s don’t care.
Thank-you for your nonsensical post.
What about such variables as low (or no)light, multiple invaders, multiple invaders flanking on both sides, moving targets, body armor, shaky hands of a 78 (or any age) yr old, out-of-door situations, and of course, the fact that bullet strikes (even if eventually fatal) are not always immediately incapacitating or capable of stopping the threat with out multiple, repeated strikes?
“If you need more than 10 bullets to put down an invader in your home/fortress, you have no business handling guns. I am 78 and can shoot inside a 6 inch circle at 30 feet with my 9mm. Learn to shoot, practice, instead of whining about how many bullets you need in your magazine.“
——-
How many people have you shot in the dark (with the potential for them to have adequate cover/concealment), while moving, without having any prior warning they were there? Serious question.
Because you obviously haven’t given it much thought before insulting everyone.
Home invaders come in threes. What’s your awesome plan then, crack shot? Wait, let me guess: nothing but head shots, right?
Ummm...it’s about government abridging you rights...not about learning to shoot better.
How many bullets would you need
in a magazine if you had three
armed intruders, coming at you
from three different directions,
and each of them simply do not
care for the 10 round rule,and
each of them are packing 30 round
mags? And they match or exceed your
shooting skills?
Your right to meet force with equal
force should not be abridged.
How will the authorities know if
a private gun sale is made? Unless
thru sting operations?
I’ve seen numerous reports in Texas
(Houston) where there were at
least 3 intruders. And one case
where a young girl took out 2 of 3.
Who needs a body guard when one is
free to exercise their god given
right to self defense? You sound
like Mr. Hogg regarding your
comments.
And if there are 12 invaders, you just lie down and die?
Look for the Bloomberg money trail. Expose it. Then have the law overturned.
Relax, you are not rich enough for 3 intruders to bother coming at you. And since you do not deal drugs, you are ultra safe with a 10 shot handgun. 99% of burglars operate alone. And most will flee quickly if a gun is pointed at them.
May be limits on rapid fire guns will reduce for shootouts like the recent one in Vegas.
Relax....you are not anywhere rich enough for 12 intruders to bother invading your home.
Putting aside the fact that you have no way at all to have any idea of how 'rich' or poor I am, it is still no reason for brain dead gun grabbers like myself to tell me anything that might pertain to what firearms or related accouterments I may be allowed to own.
It is obvious you are not very rich, because very rich people do not need to carry guns. They have armed guards protecting them 24-7. You made no mention of your armed guards and keep whining about size of your magazines.
Rich or not, I’ll not place my
right to meet force with equal
force on statistics. If that
nut breaks into my home, and he
decides not to flee, but He’s
armed with a 30 round mag, I
have every right to be armed
in the same or greater manor.
And no, restrictions on rapid
fire weapons will not stop
incidents such as the Las Vegas
shooting.
By the way, I take offense to
your implication that I’m not
rich enough to be robbed by 5
intruders at a time. What if
they were after my 5 beautiful
daughters....I’d be looking
for 100 round mags.
If money is your Rubicon, YOU
shouldn’t be allowed to own
a weapon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.