Need’s got nothing to do with it
I tend to go with “because I fucking can” but if you want to address your opposition to limiting regular capacity magazines, there’s a nicer way to do it.
7 Responses to “Need’s got nothing to do with it”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 29th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
I refuse to apologize for owning effective self defense tools.
( hyperbole alert )
The proper way to address the victim-disarmament/tyrant supporting opposition is to carefully slap them in the face while they are still conscious, and then put that severed head on the pyramid of wanna-be tyrant’s skulls you are making.
August 29th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I always answer with “what? You mean this standard capacity magazine I carry instead of a limited capacity magizne?”
Anything less than 20 rds is just standard not High Capacity.
August 29th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Tom Clancy had Jack Ryan explain it this way (I paraphrase):
Imagine I’m pointing a gun at you. The magazine holds 30 rounds.
Now imagine I’m pointing a gun at you again. The magazine holds 10 rounds.
Do you feel only 1/3 as threatened?
August 29th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Somebody watches too many movies. If someone is wearing a protective vest and you hit them center mass with a round, I’m pretty sure they don’t just keep going unfazed.
August 30th, 2012 at 7:46 am
When it comes to defending my life, my home, my family, and my friends, I have NO intention of playing fair.
I have no issue with hunting laws saying you MUST use a 5-round or smaller to hunt deer. That’s sport, and sports have rules.
Murder and assault are against the law. If they don’t want to play by the rules, I’m going to fight back harder.
Also when it comes to the crazy mob violence that happens, even 20 or 30 round magazines might not be all you need so bring a few reloads.
August 30th, 2012 at 9:38 am
If fighting over the capacity of magazines keeps the fight away from limiting the number of magazines one can legally possess, I’m happy.
For context – Washington DC has the highest rates of AIDS (and most other venereal diseases) in the nation. In response, the law was changed so that a woman found carrying 3 or more condoms is guilty of prostitution. The prostitutes are angry – makes their job harder, and more of their sisters are working unprotected because it is too much of a hassle to run back and forth to a condom supply. Allegedly, this law helps cops crack down on prostitution, which they hope will lower the disease transmission rate. Doesn’t make any sense to me, on any level. But the same illuminati that passed the condom limit are the types who want to ban possession of firearms.
August 30th, 2012 at 10:18 am
There’s a No.4 SiMiLE if ever I read one. Condoms and magazines: more, or bigger? “Do go on.”
One word? Compensator.