High Cap Magazines.....who needs them?

I don't own any high capacity magazines.
I use the factory standard 15 round magazines for my P226, P229 and PPQ and I have factory standard 30 round magazines for my AR's.

I don't want/need any "High capacity" 31 round mags on my glock for SD/HD and you won't see a BETA mag on my bed side rifle.

Oh wait thats right, to anti gunners high capacity doesn't mean what it really means :confused:

Carry on ;)
 
Depends on what one defines as "need." A CCW holder does not need a high capacity magazine, but LEOs and military do as they may be involved in a prolonged gun fight. They might not have time to reload.

BUT, when has "need" been the criterion for legally owning anything? I suspect that the anti-gunners have cars that they don't need and many other things. The rich have vacation houses that they don't need, but they enjoy them and can afford them so have at it.

I don't care for AK 47s and certainly do not need one, but if I wanted one that fact should not legally prohibit me from purchasing it.

Jerry
 
I hope they do another video that shows that a double barrelled shotgun is not enough gun for defense.

Of the gun community, those who post online are probably the minority. Of those who post, most appear to feel they are able to hit the 10 ring 999 times out of 1000.

The reality is, none of us know what will happen when we are faced with such a scenario. We can guess and estimate, and all we are really doing is hoping that the time we spent shooting at paper targets will have done us some good.
 
JerryM said:
Depends on what one defines as "need." A CCW holder does not need a high capacity magazine, but LEOs and military do as they may be involved in a prolonged gun fight. They might not have time to reload.
Click to expand...

Without a specific detailed scenario in mind, you can't give a ballpark number of how many rounds you might need.

I don't need X rounds. I need as many rounds as I can get to ensure that I have the best chance of survival in arbitrary self defense scenarios. We don't get to choose if, where, when, and how we'll have to use a gun in self defense.

If I pick a gun that's limited to 6 rounds, or 7+1, so be it. That's a functional trade-off in gun design and round effectiveness. What I think is criminally stupid is artificial limitation on magazine capacity for a gun when its flush-fitting magazines are designed/capable of holding more.
 
Since when does "need" (especially when that "need" is defined by some disinterested desk jockey in the .gov) have diddly squat to do the excercise of a Right ? And most especially, a right that the COTUS specificly protects form such meddling by said .gov?

If we have lost the average Citizen on this point, all the rest of our arguments are moot.

Either we live in a Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law, or we are ruled by the guys with the best hair and PR people.
 
The problem with this whole arguement (both sides) is picking an arbitrary number and using it to define a standard is a non starter.

I don't *need* three dogs. I have three dogs. I could be a really crappy dog owner and should have no dogs, or I could be a really awesome dog owner and should/could have a lot more dogs.
Establishing a number as too how many dogs I should have is silly, as it doesn't nessasrly factor into the quality of my canine ownership.
Same goes for cars, guns, tools, whatevers.

As firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right of American citizens, placing an arbitrary number is ultimatly meaningless and an infringment of that right.

Any debat or BS over "how many rounds do you need"? defeats the ultimate point we are trying to make which is "This is our right, and our rights shall not be defined by what you think I *need*."

Furthermore, bad guys arn't going to be limited by any silly "hi capacity" maginzine law any more then they'd be limited by any gun ban, so saying that there's some supposed benifit there is just flat out stupid.



(for the record, I'm a very good dog owner and they are very happy dogs :D )
 
Whatever the case this scenario should clarify things very clearly for people who are ambivalent and listen to the latest anti-gun du jour.
 
Lately I find myself analogy-happy. Maybe excessively so. :rolleyes:

That said, it is often proclaimed that 'the pen is mightier than the sword'. So, by anti-gun logic, it would follow that "high capacity" speech should be curtailed. Mainstream media should only get 500words per article, no? Or maybe 200words? Why would they need more? Think of where all those stray words are going! Surely they don't need 10,000 words or more! That's just crazy!


Hm, did I exceed my word limit? [/sarcasm] :D;)
 
:D:D

And keyboards should be banned. Most of them are assault keyboards, although manual typewriters could be grandfathered in. But nobody needs anything but a pen or pencil to express himself. And a PPOID should be required to buy anything except a Magic Marker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top