Skip to comments.How Many Bullets Are Enough?
Posted on 01/15/2013 7:58:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Gun control advocates, in their infinite wisdom, seem to think they have the definitive answer to this question. The answer is "less than ten."
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is seeking extensive gun control legislation to "tighten the assault weapons ban" and "ban all large-capacity gun clips." To these ends, he addressed the gun "extremists" by quipping, "It's simple -- no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer."
The first time I remember being introduced to this feeble (yet somehow, incredibly persistent) argument for gun control was while watching an Eddie Murphy movie called The Distinguished Gentleman as a kid. In the film, Eddie Murphy's character is a con artist who scams his way into a vacant seat in Congress. He initially chums up to the House chairman of the energy committee, who is your stereotypical greedy, right-wing, oil-sucking politician that Hollywood loves to portray. He's anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-cancer prevention, and he also happens to be in bed with (you guessed it!) the pro-gun lobby. So he and Eddie Murphy go duck hunting with military-grade rifles to promote such weapons' recreational use.
The whole thing is purposefully absurd, with Eddie Murphy puzzling over these gun nuts firing hundreds of rounds in the air only to have one duck fall from the sky, which Eddie Murphy suggests "must've had a heart attack."
The implication is simple. Like Cuomo, the filmmakers expect the people watching to assume that the gun control debate centers on whether or not weapons capable of delivering large numbers of rounds have a legitimate recreational use. And if they do not have such utility, there is simply no need for Americans to have access to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
As many as I say is enough.
I use the same formula we used as combat engineers for C4: P for plenty!
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson
Our Founders had very specific intentions in regard to firearms and the protection of the people’s right to own them. And the intent had little, if anything, to do with hunting or sport. The more practical use of guns is to kill or wound people who want to harm you, should that unpleasant and unthinkable need arise.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the defense against tyranny and self-defense.
So that makes the old Iver Johnson and Harrington Richardson 9 shot .22 revolvers illegal?
The way the Left frames this is still just to make it appear that the gun issue is only about hunting, recreation or (reluctantly) self-protection.
The real question is this: How many bullets does it take to stop a tyrannical government?
For the federal government, the answer is “many billions” - and not simply target rounds.
For the serfs, the answer is “none”.
The government within the last two years has purchased enough ammunition to shoot each and every American 4 times over (conservatively). This does not include the US Military. These are for the IRS, the Post Office, DHS, et al.....
How many bullets are enough?
How many tyrants and their lackeys are there?
Being as cartridges are unitary, most integers are very large.
So NY lowers magazine capacity to 7 in direct response to the Sandy Hook shooting.
What will they lower it to after the next mass shooting?
Only then will you be able to determine whether or not you had enough.
I believe that it is time to order more.
Tell me, in all seriousness, would the world not be a better place with armed citizens and disarmed governments? Who has killed more innocents, governments or citizens?
But they want to label our hunting rifle as 'assault rifle'
"No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer."
When '10 deer' attack, you need more. LOL
Are we now the old Soviet Union?? I cannot believe people are just lying down and getting steamrolled by these Marxists!
How many fricking politicans do we need?