good post. Yes God was with you too. for my AR I have several 2 30 round mags taped together.
Just make sure you remember to use the ones with red tape, not the blue tape.
good post. Yes God was with you too. for my AR I have several 2 30 round mags taped together.
Just make sure you remember to use the ones with red tape, not the blue tape.
well saidI 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.
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.
Does anyone really NEED freedom of religion? Wouldn't this country be a lot more peaceful if we all followed the one true god?
How many well-trained LEO's, armed with AR15's and multiple 30 round mags were dispatched to take on one (1) bad guy at the Navy Yard?
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.