TexasCHLforum.com

I have often posted similar, but this is an article


Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ ... azine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

more at link provided

His article is good, when I post I give historical real-life factual examples people can Google etc:

Babyface Nelson was shot 17 times before he killed the 2 agents that shot him, then he went home. (Only to die later that evening)

Read the headline twice, think about it:
Angel Alvarez, hit 23 times in Harlem shootout with cops, held without bail on weapons charges

(Took more than 10 rounds to remind them to stop fighting)

RPB wrote:I have often posted similar, but this is an article


Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ ... azine.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

more at link provided

In my world need does not matter.

I wanted them. I bought them. I now own them. They belong to me, not anyone else. The fact that I have them is of no concern to anyone else. Everyone, and I mean everyone needs to just go away and leave me alone.

If they decide to not go away and leave me alone then the normal (high) capacity magazines just might matter to others in a manner they did not want to realize.

Anygunanywhere

Exactly. The word "need" appears no where in the Bill of Rights.

James

anygunanywhere wrote:If they decide to not go away and leave me alone then the normal (high) capacity magazines just might matter to others in a manner they did not want to realize.

Anygunanywhere

thinly veiled threats such as this do not help the pro gun rights cause at all

A-R wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:If they decide to not go away and leave me alone then the normal (high) capacity magazines just might matter to others in a manner they did not want to realize.

Anygunanywhere

thinly veiled threats such as this do not help the pro gun rights cause at all

Your opinion. The antis need to know their actions have consequences. The time for concessions and compromise are long gone.

Besides, the second amendment addresses our arming ourselves with military style weapons so that we can fight the tyranny and such unconstitutional ideas such as confiscation. Perhaps you are correct in that thinly veiled threats do not do our cause any good. Maybe I should just come right out and say what I mean.

Thanks for the advice. It is worth what I paid for it.

Anygunanywhere

extremist wrote:Exactly. The word "need" appears no where in the Bill of Rights.

James

Probably a good thing too. Cause there are a lot of people (read: liberals) who NEED to learn to keep their mouths shut.

A-R wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:If they decide to not go away and leave me alone then the normal (high) capacity magazines just might matter to others in a manner they did not want to realize.

Anygunanywhere

thinly veiled threats such as this do not help the pro gun rights cause at all

; but be careful A-R, or you will have to join me in the compromising, lilly-livered moral relativist's corner.

I "need" a 30 round mag for my Glock 19 because a 100 round mag would just look dumb.

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:If they decide to not go away and leave me alone then the normal (high) capacity magazines just might matter to others in a manner they did not want to realize.

Anygunanywhere

thinly veiled threats such as this do not help the pro gun rights cause at all

Your opinion. The antis need to know their actions have consequences. The time for concessions and compromise are long gone.

Besides, the second amendment addresses our arming ourselves with military style weapons so that we can fight the tyranny and such unconstitutional ideas such as confiscation. Perhaps you are correct in that thinly veiled threats do not do our cause any good. Maybe I should just come right out and say what I mean.

Thanks for the advice. It is worth what I paid for it.

Anygunanywhere

I agree. I'm through with "compromise." No, wait, I guess I can't be through with it, since there has never been any "compromise." One side making concessions incrementally until everything is conceded isn't "compromise." If we're going to keep our rights we need to stop allowing the left to get away with using words like "need" and "compromise." Once you start explaining why you "need" something you've assumed the defensive and put yourself on the ropes. We "need" to throw it back in their faces, and make them justify the "need" for everything they want. We "need" to stop pretending like concession equals compromise, and throw any talk of their phony compromise back in their faces. There is no legitimate compromise with evil, and the left is evil.

There are 11,493 firearm murders every year in America. reference:CDC
There are 10,228 impaired driving deaths every year in America. reference:CDC

To put an end to impaired driving deaths once and for all we should 1) reduce the capacity of vehicles to 2 persons, 2) eliminate all cars capable of going over 20 mph and 3) require all drivers to pass a blood/alcohol exam before entering a vehicle. No one NEEDS a large capacity car, a high speed car or the freedom to drive without testing.

Arresting the alcoholics and denying them access to vehicles is cruel and unusual punishment and should not be pursued.

There are 599,413 heart disease related deaths every year in America. reference:CDC

To put an end to heart disease once and for all we should 1) force all manufacturers to remove heart disease related risks from their products; fat from foods, weight from objects, airborne impurities from aerosols, 2) require every building to immediately stop the use of elevators so entrants can get more exercise and 3) eliminate the use of cars as a form of transportation and issue bicycles to every able adult. No one NEEDS to eat fat rich foods, lift heavy objects or breathe. No one NEEDS to use an elevator or use a car.

Educating people about the dangers of risky behaviors is discriminatory and should not be pursued.

Thus endeth the logic for the day.

baldeagle wrote:There are 11,493 firearm murders every year in America. reference:CDC
There are 10,228 impaired driving deaths every year in America. reference:CDC

To put an end to impaired driving deaths once and for all we should 1) reduce the capacity of vehicles to 2 persons, 2) eliminate all cars capable of going over 20 mph and 3) require all drivers to pass a blood/alcohol exam before entering a vehicle. No one NEEDS a large capacity car, a high speed car or the freedom to drive without testing.

Arresting the alcoholics and denying them access to vehicles is cruel and unusual punishment and should not be pursued.

There are 599,413 heart disease related deaths every year in America. reference:CDC

To put an end to heart disease once and for all we should 1) force all manufacturers to remove heart disease related risks from their products; fat from foods, weight from objects, airborne impurities from aerosols, 2) require every building to immediately stop the use of elevators so entrants can get more exercise and 3) eliminate the use of cars as a form of transportation and issue bicycles to every able adult. No one NEEDS to eat fat rich foods, lift heavy objects or breathe. No one NEEDS to use an elevator or use a car.

Educating people about the dangers of risky behaviors is discriminatory and should not be pursued.

Thus endeth the logic for the day.

Now you're cookin'!

I never said nor hinted nor implied "compromise" ... I made a cautionary statement about thinly veiled threats of violence.

We're not THERE yet (at the threatening violence part) and doing so at this point just ads fuel to the antis' fire and makes gun owners look "crazy" in the eyes of the middle-of-the-road citizens on this issue. Who are the fence sitters (who WILL decide such issues legislatively) most likely to fall toward, the side saying "if you do this we'll revolt violently" or the side seeking "reasonable restrictions"?

A lil diplomacy and statesmanship goes a long way and is not a sign of weakness nor compromise. Speak softly, but carry a big stick - and all that.

A-R wrote:I never said nor hinted nor implied "compromise" ... I made a cautionary statement about thinly veiled threats of violence.

We're not THERE yet (at the threatening violence part) and doing so at this point just ads fuel to the antis' fire and makes gun owners look "crazy" in the eyes of the middle-of-the-road citizens on this issue. Who are the fence sitters (who WILL decide such issues legislatively) most likely to fall toward, the side saying "if you do this we'll revolt violently" or the side seeking "reasonable restrictions"?

A lil diplomacy and statesmanship goes a long way and is not a sign of weakness nor compromise. Speak softly, but carry a big stick - and all that.

Right on, Bro! A lil diplomacy and statesmanship but NO compromise. That's what I'm talkin' about.