Why does anyone need 30 round magazines or an AR15?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • dforeman

    Member
    Aug 9, 2013
    33
    Boy! This thread is getting long. And, I can agree with everybody’s point. But I believe in gun ownership, so that may sway my opinion a bit.

    First off when she commented as to why I need 30 bullets to kill someone. I would politely correct her by telling her that I did not have any intention/need to kill anybody. Nor, would I ever intentionally want to kill anybody. But if such time would arise that I would (god forbid) be thrust into a situation where I would have to make the decision to do so in order to protect myself, family, community, or country; I would want to be as prepared and competent as possible. I was in scouting for several years (I don’t know how many on here were/are scouts) and the scouting motto is “always be prepared”. I do like the shoe analogy. But, think about asking her if she has children. When her children were 1 or possibly 2 year olds; would she ever consider taking them to a park, family function, etc without a possible bag of diapers, cleaning wipes, etc for the opposy emergencies that always seem to occur. How many diapers did you carry and was it always enough? Now think about this, would/should a scout go on an outdoor camping trip without a first aid kit? I keep one in all my vehicles, garage, camper, and boat (anywhere I can think might be necessary). I have a feeling the answer might be a resounding no probably not. So, why should we as responsible law abiding citizens not want to think about being prepared for other possible unforeseeable emergencies? Police have no obligation to be there every minute of every day at every location to protect each and every citizen against all situations. And as rightly so, they shouldn’t be. There job is strictly to keep the piece and deal with emergency situations after they have occurred. We need to take that personal responsibility to be prepared upon ourselves. Thus, is a 30 round magazine enough or not? Only time and the details of the situation will dictate that need. I personally, choose to be proactive and prepared. Plus, I do not want to burden the police, firemen, National Guard, etc (and ultimately the taxpayers) for each and every situation that may (or may not) occur in my life. Unfortunately, there are those out there that no amount of reasoning will get through to regardless of the argument. Those idiots have a one track mind (me and my agenda) and are just a lost cause.

    As for the AR15 argument, I completely agree with the wanting one. I like the Lexus analogy. We live in a free country where we get to make those choices for ourselves. At least for a little while longer anyway.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Explain to her that the kinetic energy theory for wounding capability of projectiles state kinetic energy is proportional to 1/2 mass x velocity squared. This is based off a standard composition round. A standard composition 5.56 round fired from a AR-15 travels 3,2000 fps.

    Accordingly when fired at a unarmored human being at relatively close range the round does not expend all of its kinetic energy in the target. Due to losing much of its wounding potential when a round travels completely through the target multiple shots are often required even if the round hits center mass each time.

    Possibly the best way to illustrate this it via the affects of over penetration when duck hunting using steel shot via traditional lead shot.
     
    Last edited:

    UNcommon Arms

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 16, 2011
    332
    Howard County
    I fired this off to the legislature during the SB 281 hearings:

    I wish to address the issue of "need", with respect to the current bills associated with gun control.

    I regularly hear statements by those who are not firearms owners such as, "You don't NEED an 'assault rifle'!" or "Why do you NEED several handguns?". The answer obviously, is NO, I do not "need" these items. But then again, I don't "need" more than three pairs of pants. Nor do I "need" a new car, since my current one runs just fine. I don't "need" to eat steak twice a week. Gentleman, do you really "need" those Ravens season tickets? Or that 60" television? Ladies, do you really "need" all of those shoes in your closet, several of which I would wager, haven't been worn in years? Let's face it....you don't really "need" to take that Hawaiian vacation, and if you think about it, why do you "need" a vacation at all? You don't "need" to play golf this weekend, nor do you "need" that boat that sits in your driveway collecting leaves and stagnant water.

    We don't NEED any of these things. We WANT them. That is called freedom, ladies and gentleman - the most basic God-given principle upon which our nation was founded.

    Since when did the demonstration of "need" become a prerequisite for owning personal property or engaging in recreational activities? Indeed, regulating ownership of personal property based on need was/is a hallmark of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes.

    It has no place in America.
    well said
     

    Shift

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 11, 2012
    1,998
    Denton
    walking-deadjpg-4dfa42dd6f92f47a.jpg



    Make your selection
    335771_01_dpms_ar_15_with_accessories_an_640.jpg
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Threads like this really piss me off because of responses like this.

    I fired this off to the legislature during the SB 281 hearings:

    I wish to address the issue of "need", with respect to the current bills associated with gun control.

    I regularly hear statements by those who are not firearms owners such as, "You don't NEED an 'assault rifle'!" or "Why do you NEED several handguns?". The answer obviously, is NO, I do not "need" these items. But then again, I don't "need" more than three pairs of pants. Nor do I "need" a new car, since my current one runs just fine. I don't "need" to eat steak twice a week. Gentleman, do you really "need" those Ravens season tickets? Or that 60" television? Ladies, do you really "need" all of those shoes in your closet, several of which I would wager, haven't been worn in years? Let's face it....you don't really "need" to take that Hawaiian vacation, and if you think about it, why do you "need" a vacation at all? You don't "need" to play golf this weekend, nor do you "need" that boat that sits in your driveway collecting leaves and stagnant water.

    We don't NEED any of these things. We WANT them. That is called freedom, ladies and gentleman - the most basic God-given principle upon which our nation was founded.

    Since when did the demonstration of "need" become a prerequisite for owning personal property or engaging in recreational activities? Indeed, regulating ownership of personal property based on need was/is a hallmark of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes.

    It has no place in America.

    This response seems to be pretty common, yet in a different thread http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=136570 they complain about how our rights are being taken away. They seem oblivious to the connection between them. When you make the argument about yourself, the only person you wind up convincing is yourself. You don't bother challenging the other sides argument either, yet they seem to persuade the people that matter. Read Chapter 427 of the 2013 Laws (Enrolled version of SB281) to figure out whose argument is more persuasive.

    This argument seems to be prevalent in the courtroom also. Heller II (DC AWB), Woollard, and the MD AWB all seem to be argued the same way. We lost Heller II and Woollard and seem to be well on the way to losing the MD AWB in court.

    We have met the enemy and he is us.
     

    johnnyb2

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 3, 2012
    1,317
    Carroll County
    FREEDOM OF RELIEGION

    Does anyone really NEED freedom of religion? Wouldn't this country be a lot more peaceful if we all followed the one true god?

    HAHAHAHAHAHA :lol2: Put THAT up there along side 2A restriction, and I BET YOU it would cause quite a stick.!! hahahahaha Good call on that one.!!
     

    abean4187

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2013
    1,327
    Threads like this really piss me off because of responses like this.



    This response seems to be pretty common, yet in a different thread http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=136570 they complain about how our rights are being taken away. They seem oblivious to the connection between them. When you make the argument about yourself, the only person you wind up convincing is yourself. You don't bother challenging the other sides argument either, yet they seem to persuade the people that matter. Read Chapter 427 of the 2013 Laws (Enrolled version of SB281) to figure out whose argument is more persuasive.

    This argument seems to be prevalent in the courtroom also. Heller II (DC AWB), Woollard, and the MD AWB all seem to be argued the same way. We lost Heller II and Woollard and seem to be well on the way to losing the MD AWB in court.

    We have met the enemy and he is us.

    Yet these arguments won us Heller 1 and Chicago. The problem is not that our arguments are bad, it’s more that the judges are pushing an agenda instead of ruling on what the law actually says.

    I do have to agree though that many of our arguments are not good. Saying “I don’t need it, I want it” really isn’t good enough. Rights are subjective (I know you will all hate me for saying that but it is true). There no longer is a thing as “God given rights” in this world. We have governments that can create and destroy rights at the flick of a pen.

    This is why things like healthcare are now considered a right by many. People say “Everyone uses it eventually and people will die without it.” They make many good cases on why we should have it and all the opposition comes up with is, “We don’t like it, ban it.” That’s not good enough, we need to come up with solutions to the healthcare problem that will reduce costs and increase availability if we are going to oppose socialist healthcare.

    The same thing works with guns. If you want a right you are going to have to convince people of why we need them and do it logically. Then, you are going to have to logically state why the anti gun position is a bad one. We need to be talking less about our rights and more about how there are 400,000 to 1,000,000 defensive gun uses per year compared to 300,000 gun crimes per year. We are going to have to get legit information that links concealed carry to lower crime rates. We are going to have to show real world situations where 30 round magazines were needed. The judges and the anti rights activists don’t care about your rights. They are chipping away at them and we do need a stronger solution when it comes to rebuttals of anti gun statements.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,923
    Messages
    7,259,167
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom