Skip to comments.Why I Need a Multi-Round Magazine
Posted on 01/03/2013 5:46:39 AM PST by xzins
How many times can a person hear a stupid comment before turning off the tube? Apparently, it's thousands, because I've not blown up the large screen yet, and I'm still hear dumb comments like, "Why on earth does anyone need a magazine that will enable them to shoot more than a few rounds?" Have you heard that one? How about, "What reason is there for anyone to need an assault weapon?"
Let's take them in order. We'll talk real slow for the uninformed among the glitterati set. (It the world of set theory, that would be a set containing about 99.9% of that bunch.)
Why do I need a magazine with more than a few rounds? I'm going to use only their own contention that hunters and target shooters have a "right to bear arms", so don't think the reasons are limited to these.
First, for a varmint hunter, a multiple round magazine makes it possible to draw down on a target from a hundred yards and more and squeeze off more than one round when the critter is in the sight picture and in a surprised state. It also makes a long walk less encumbered with extra baggage clanging around in pockets or packs. Pretty simple. It's convenient.
Next, for a target shooter, it's important to understand that one target board can have multiple targets. The reason for this is that it enables one person to get various shot groups around each of the targets. This can be for the pure fun of it, or it can be for improving the sighting/zeroing of the gun. What it means is that the shooter has his walking, loading, adjusting minimized.
Another target shooter reason is that shooting is not just a solitary sport. One normally engages in it with friends and family who've come to visit. The rifle gets swapped back and forth, each friend fires a few rounds, and amid the casual BSing of a friendly gathering, the group walks down to check the targets. Nice to be able to pull down on that target multiple times due to multiple friends. Nothing hard to understand about that is there?
Now for the assault weapon question.
No one is selling assault weapons. Rifles like the AR15 or the BAR Safari are not assault rifles. They do not have a full automatic setting. They don't have the force behind them of an assault rifle. Anyone wielding one would be at a serious disadvantage on a modern battlefield against troops carrying real assault weapons. In truth, they are little different than the Spencer Repeating Rifle used in the Civil War, the AR using a gas-powered re-chamber instead of a lever or bolt action re-chamber.
Finally, in answering the questions, allow me simply to say that it's my right to protect hearth and home. Defending myself and my own is a natural right that predates any government, any law, or any discussion. While I would be at a serious disadvantage using these minimal rifles on a battlefield, I am potentially capable of defending myself.
Don't tread on me. Is that simple enough?
It is simple:
Without the Second Amendment all of us would be slaves today.
The communists would have made their move in the 1920s and 30s. It is likely that some other tyrant would have trampled the rule of law even before that.
Since the founding of this nation way back in the corner sitting on a distant shelf in the mind of every politician sits the Second Amendment.
It’s unfortunate that a right has to be defended in this fashion but too many seem to believe that they are ruled by the government, not governed. Hence we wind up defending it.
Ultimately, we should present the case for being able to supplant government tyranny.
In the 1700’s, the citizenry could have weapons equal to what the government had. You could put cannons on your ships if you wanted to. There was no restriction that only the government could have rifles and artillery and that the citizenry could only use pistols.
This kept the governed on par w/the governing.
Now we have no such thing. The citizenry can’t compete with the government today in this regard. This is probably why more and more of our rights are being taken away. The government does it because it can.
When it comes to tyranny, gun control folks seem to think it can’t happen here. The goverment is too kind and benevolent.
Well, in that case, we don’t need free speech either, do we?
What is there to criticize about a benevolent government?
Maybe we should start asking folks why they need a such a right instead of simply defending our right to bear arms.
I have a framing hammer, why does anyone need a screw gun?
I have a yard stick why does anyone need a tape measure?
Because they friggin' work better and increase my efficiency, that's why
I have a 1976 CJ5 setting beside my house. I have no constitutional right to it (other than it IS my property). I don’t need it. BTW, it has a 500 hp engine that is really overkill and not needed. And yes, given the ground clearance, 4wd and the 500 hp, I could probably mow down a large crowd without getting bogged down.
Why do I need a magazine with more than a few rounds? Irrelevant. The founding fathers knew that what we need is to prevent the government from encroaching on, infringing on our rights little by little. That is why they penned the bill of rights. Not to say what we citizens may do, but to explicitly say what the government may not do. The government may not infringe my right. That is why i need my magazines - to remind the government of its place. In that role their importance far exceeds their day to day value, no master how many rounds they hold.
I am a machinist, I am making my own out of aluminum. I have made high pressure mold stamping dies, I have the shop, the press, I can even make my own followers out of resin and silicone molds, I can make my own springs.
I may even make a totally new more efficient design.
What then, will they just put a bullet in my head so my ideas will never pollute the collective socialist herd?
Necessity is the mother of invention and they are definitely mother*******.
She nails it! The last few seconds are priceless.
Go for it, EoU.
I’ll be among those who are proud of you and your independent spirit.
BE careful what you wish for.....
I firmly believe why the US has not been invaded is because we can put hundred of thousands of armed men into the field in a day. Many states have that many hunters. Each hunter will have a gun capable of killing a deer or a bear. Not only do they have the weapons they have ammo and the equipment to stay outside for a while.
when it comes to just friendly shooting, It’s the same reason I have a channel changer
I carry an AR in my trunk. Always, everytime. With 30 rounds is what I feel comfortable with and will take care of most any situation I can think of. What am I supposed to do? Carry 10 in the mag and a 20 in my pocket?
I would use JB Steelweld mixed with a little dry graphite so it will have a natural sliperryness for the followers.
That is an awesome video
Ahh, but you do have a constitutional right to it by Ammendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So if the Feds or your State don’t create a law prohibiting CJ5s, you have a right to it.
You’re right, though, in that it’s not as strong a right as in the right to bear arms, in that it only takes statute, not constitutional ammendment, to take away your CJ5.
But for now, you can consider it a right and you don’t have to justify having it.
I once read a very effective legal argument that explained the the original intent of the second amendment right to bear "arms" went a lot farther than anybody seems willing to argue today. In that day, "arms" meant more than just muskets and flintlocks, and referred to anything you needed to be an effective warrior. In today's terms that would mean anything a typical soldier might carry such as fully automatic rifles, grenades, and body armor.
In fact, under this argument the government would have LESS constitutional authority to regulate the sale or possession of military grade weapons, (such as grenades or full auto's) than they would low caliber pistols or hunting rifles, which could be argued aren't "arms" a modern soldier would use.
I need a high capacity mag because when most of the self acclaimed conservatives sit by and do nothing if things go south that will leave me outnumbered by the leeches and dims marxists to fight and reclaim this republic.
^^^ I firmly believe why the US has not been invaded is because we can put hundred of thousands of armed men into the field in a day. Many states have that many hunters. Each hunter will have a gun capable of killing a deer or a bear. Not only do they have the weapons they have ammo and the equipment to stay outside for a while. ^^^
In Ga. alone, there are more than 1/2 million deer hunters in the field on opening day!
What we need or do not need is none of their business, and why we need something is beyond their comprehension.
I need high capacity magazines so that I can effectively kill or wound more than a few people if I have to defend myself from more than a few people.
"What reason is there for anyone to need an assault weapon?"
Assault weapons (I hate that term) are needed so you can have as equal to or more firepower than those that you defend yourself.
I believe in zero gun control laws. Let's not be politically correct here and ignore the fact that one day we may need to defend ourselves from a Marxist government or rioting city yuts.
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.