Skip to comments.Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Posted on 01/02/2013 11:52:28 PM PST by neverdem
Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors
Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier's killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob's The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. "She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed."
Ayoob does not report the size of the .22's magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. "He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet -- a Colt .45 slug through..."...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Because there are more than 30 Nazis.
Its because its The Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs we could go a long way down that same path:
Why does anyone need a car that can go faster than the posted speed limit? (what the hell do you need a Corvette for?, as one caller alluded)
Why does anyone need alcohol or tobacco?
Why does anyone need fast food?
Why does anyone need more than 1000 square feet for living space? (were killing the planet!!)
Why does anyone need the right to protest?
He may lose no sleep over banned magazines, but the next guy may lose no sleep over banning outboard motors , snowmobiles, or weed whippers. (too dangerous, too polluting, whatever )
Theres likely a great reason why none of the above examples are Constitutionally guaranteed or more important than privately owned firearms. Those founding fathers were pretty smart fellers, however, if one truly believes we need to ban these, at least do it the right way and amend the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment rather than all this rinky dink tinkering with 10 round VS 30 round ; pistol grip VS non pistol grip, and so on Thats why we have an amendment process.
The 1994 assault weapons ban didnt really change anything other than the prices went up on the new evil stuff.
The more these tyrants talk, the more I think I need rocket launchers and C4. They are going to force us into slavery or civil war.
Why does anyone need designer clothes when a t shirt and jeans will do?
‘Cause they’s MORE than thirty bad guys out there??
,,,,, why has the administration operated for over 1,300 without an approved budget ? ,, why does Moochelle take so many expensive vacations ?? ,, why has the president voided our countries Constitution ??? Why is the president such a hardcore communist ????
The answer :
because I don’t have a belt-fed weapon.
...and that, should concern you just as much as the 30 round magazine.
The same kind of people are responsible for both ideas.
My target only has 29 holes?
“Why does anybody need a 30 round magazine?
In all seriousess, this is the front line weapon liberals will employ against the 2nd Amendment. It’s simple, bumper sticker sized, and hard to answer unless you reply in kind. We need good, short answers that can be circulated in response. Think about these, or add your own:
1. For self defense against multiple attackers.
2. Because jackbooted thugs have them, too.
3. Because man has an inherent right to arm himself to the level of his potential oppressors, foreign or domestic.
4. Because ‘arms’ mean military arms. The Founders provided the means for civilians to own the exact same weapons as their own and foreign militaries. The fact that weapons have grown more accurate and powerful doesn’t negate that original logic.
Why does any of my tax money go to California?
Why is my hospital bill so high to make up for illegal aliens who abuse the system?
Why can’t my local school toss out the miscreants and the lawyers and thus lower my taxes?
Why aren’t Feinstein’s husband’s business deals investigated for cronyism?
Exactly. I don’t remember reading in the bill of rights anywhere where it said these rights were to be based on demonstrated need. These are rights, period. Hey DiFi, by that “logic” applied to the first amendment, we should all have to justify a need for Facebook accounts with more than ten friends. Our maybe license email. Our limit address books in smartphones. Can’t have you communicating with too many people.
Bottom line, I probably don’t need a thirty round magazine. But i absolutely need the freedom to own one because you Di, and the government, are prevented from infringing upon my rights. When you try, that’s wrong. If you succeed, then we have tyranny, not some day in the future, but right here, right now.
“Why does anybody need a 30 round magazine?”
Because the people from the government who are going to come for my guns will have 30 round magazines.
Why are we dancing around the truth?
For the same reason we need a representative government rather than a dictator.
For me, reloading a ten round magazine gets tiresome after about fifty rounds.
And all I do is punch holes in paper.
> Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
To even the score with assailants/terrorists/jack-booted-thugs who have 30-rd mags.
Guns of military utility are ESSENTIAL to the defence of Family, Property, and Liberty.
You're probably right-- it was just kind of a joke and I should have attached a "/sarc" tag. Might give one a little too much exposure if you're prone & searching for a couple more inches of defilade -- no /sarc here.
Cuba’s starting to look better these days...
“Because the people from the government who are going to come for my guns will have 30 round magazines”
That’s a great answer, although it will be more than your guns they’re ultimately coming for.
One thing I always try to impress upon gun banners with their starry eyed dream of a perfectly safe nation is that there is no perfectly safe nation. You get to choose whether you live in a country that suffers the occasional spree shooting or the occasional genocide. Armed people, to paraphrase Stalin, suffer tragedies. Disarmed people become statistics.
That would be my only edit. That it’s not the guns they’re ultimately after. It’s the power to bend or break you without fear of retaliation.
Privately owned guns is the biggest hurdle that these people have to get over in order to achieve their goal of total subjugation.