Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon

[Archetype]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

[Rhiannon]

People also have the right to remain silent, but

But lack the wisdom in recognizing when to exercise it.

Another dig?

You betcha. You threw one at southerners, being southern I exercised my first amendment right (is that outdated, too?) to return the serve. You have the capacity to be cerebral in your arguments yet you chose to be derogatory towards a group of people you stereotype. It's your right to do that, and it's my right to express a retort.

[S2M]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.

[Ehwmatt]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.

I'm not following you here at all. I don't want to jump into the gun debate here, but this is just confusing. People who want taxes cut and jobs created generally are opponents of welfare and entitlements, so I don't see how you lump those together as a trio.

Moreover, cutting taxes is not affirmative government action at all, it's government reducing the burden it puts on people through taxation, which is an affirmative, intrusive government act in the first place. Similarly, those who advocate job creation are not asking the government to go out and start companies to hire people. They want government to STOP acting (eg through taxes, imposing workers compensation, payroll taxes, SS taxes, etc) so that the private sector can be left to its own devices. Whatever the wisdom of that approach/whatever you think of it, it's just incorrect to say people asking government to cut taxes are people asking government to "do something" for them the same way those who advocate for gun control or health insurance are asking government to "do something."

[Archetype]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.

For that it's worth, "cut taxes" would be in the same category as your former issues, not the latter. You're being very inconsistent. Additionally, democracy is all about "cherry-picking." Government works for the people, who dictate to the government what they want. That's why we have elected representatives that we can contact.

You're still dodging questions and trying to change the subject with every post. Engage in intelligent dialogue or GTFO.

[S2M]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.

How do you know exactly what I want government to do and not do about every issue that can come up? And for that it's worth, "cut taxes" would be in the same category as your former issues, not the latter. You're being very inconsistent. Additionally, democracy is all about "cherry-picking." Government works for the people, who dictate to the government what they want. That's why we have elected representatives that we can contact.

You're still dodging questions and trying to change the subject with every post. Engage in intelligent dialogue or GTFO.

You asked ONE question that I can find....and it was fallacious.

[Archetype]

Firearms are the best tool for many jobs. I want the best offering of the best tool. I don't want government trying to tell me what I need, what's best for me, or that I have to give up my Constitutional rights because someone chose to abuse theirs.

I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.

How do you know exactly what I want government to do and not do about every issue that can come up? And for that it's worth, "cut taxes" would be in the same category as your former issues, not the latter. You're being very inconsistent. Additionally, democracy is all about "cherry-picking." Government works for the people, who dictate to the government what they want. That's why we have elected representatives that we can contact.

You're still dodging questions and trying to change the subject with every post. Engage in intelligent dialogue or GTFO.

You asked ONE question that I can find....and it was fallacious.

Because criminals choose to shed their Miranda law right to be silent, I should shed my Constitutional rights?

Murder laws are pretty damn serious, and people still commit murder on a daily basis. How can you explain this?

Do you need reading glasses in addition to an education?

[S2M]

Government tells you what you NEED everyday....and you put up with it. But you want to pick and choose what that government will do for you. Government has told you what medicines you can and cannot use. Told you that you need car insurance(state level government, but govt. nonetheless). And government has told you that you are required to pay income tax. Now granted, you don't have to pay the taxes, but you are required, and there can be consequences....And you are right, government is SUPPOSED to be representative on the people. It is rarely the case. And it is telling exactly what issues people wil fight for, and which ones they ignore. A person that fights for firearms, yet doesn't bat an eyelash at border security, or issues about illegal narcotics - has their priorities backwards....

[Archetype]

Government tells you what you NEED everyday....and you put up with it. But you want to pick and choose what that government will do for you. Government has told you what medicines you can and cannot use. Told you that you need car insurance(state level government, but govt. nonetheless). And government has told you that you are required to pay income tax. Now granted, you don't have to pay the taxes, but you are required, and there can be consequences....And you are right, government is SUPPOSED to be representative on the people. It is rarely the case. And it is telling exactly what issues people wil fight for, and which ones they ignore. A person that fights for firearms, yet doesn't bat an eyelash at border security, or issues about illegal narcotics - has their priorities backwards....

Still have not answered the two question that I have now posted twice. So you take issue with illegal drugs and border procedure. That's fantastic for you; you're welcome to start a different thread about those. I don't really give a shit about them. Government has a functional need for taxes, that is not arbitrary regulation. It is made out of necessity and is effective for what it is intended to do. Some might think that gun control is necessary to quell violence, but it has been proven, time and time again, that it is not effective in actually quelling violence and therefore other options should be explored. Government has already made profoundly large steps as far as saying what firearms can and can not be owned. (Which gives your previous banter about Tec-9s, Mac-10s, etc even less credibility and further displays your ignorance about the subject.) Those steps are historically proven to be ineffective, so why continue taking steps in the wrong direction and leave the problem unresolved and trampling people's rights in the process? It's also quite presumptuous of you to use the medicinal drugs analogy, you say it like it has been established that I'm alright with government telling me what I can and cannot take when I am ill.

[Behshad]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

[S2M]

Government tells you what you NEED everyday....and you put up with it. But you want to pick and choose what that government will do for you. Government has told you what medicines you can and cannot use. Told you that you need car insurance(state level government, but govt. nonetheless). And government has told you that you are required to pay income tax. Now granted, you don't have to pay the taxes, but you are required, and there can be consequences....And you are right, government is SUPPOSED to be representative on the people. It is rarely the case. And it is telling exactly what issues people wil fight for, and which ones they ignore. A person that fights for firearms, yet doesn't bat an eyelash at border security, or issues about illegal narcotics - has their priorities backwards....

Still have not answered the two question that I have now posted twice. So you take issue with illegal drugs and border procedure. That's fantastic for you; you're welcome to start a different thread about those. I don't really give a shit about them. Government has a functional need for taxes, that is not arbitrary regulation. It is made out of necessity and is effective for what it is intended to do. Some might think that gun control is necessary to quell violence, but it has been proven, time and time again, that it is not effective in actually quelling violence and therefore other options should be explored. Government has already made profoundly large steps as far as saying what firearms can and can not be owned. (Which gives your previous banter about Tec-9s, Mac-10s, etc even less credibility and further displays your ignorance about the subject.) Those steps are historically proven to be ineffective, so why continue taking steps in the wrong direction and leave the problem unresolved and trampling people's rights in the process? It's also quite presumptuous of you to use the medicinal drugs analogy, you say it like it has been established that I'm alright with government telling me what I can and cannot take when I am ill.

Along those lines, the death penalty, and prison doesn't quell crime either. We should stop putting criminals in prison. As for your questions.

'No', and I haven't the time to answer that one. Actually, I will say this. According to your logic - anything that is found to not do what it was intended to do, say a law, should immediately be recinded. That's basically what you are saying....

[Archetype]

Government tells you what you NEED everyday....and you put up with it. But you want to pick and choose what that government will do for you. Government has told you what medicines you can and cannot use. Told you that you need car insurance(state level government, but govt. nonetheless). And government has told you that you are required to pay income tax. Now granted, you don't have to pay the taxes, but you are required, and there can be consequences....And you are right, government is SUPPOSED to be representative on the people. It is rarely the case. And it is telling exactly what issues people wil fight for, and which ones they ignore. A person that fights for firearms, yet doesn't bat an eyelash at border security, or issues about illegal narcotics - has their priorities backwards....

Still have not answered the two question that I have now posted twice. So you take issue with illegal drugs and border procedure. That's fantastic for you; you're welcome to start a different thread about those. I don't really give a shit about them. Government has a functional need for taxes, that is not arbitrary regulation. It is made out of necessity and is effective for what it is intended to do. Some might think that gun control is necessary to quell violence, but it has been proven, time and time again, that it is not effective in actually quelling violence and therefore other options should be explored. Government has already made profoundly large steps as far as saying what firearms can and can not be owned. (Which gives your previous banter about Tec-9s, Mac-10s, etc even less credibility and further displays your ignorance about the subject.) Those steps are historically proven to be ineffective, so why continue taking steps in the wrong direction and leave the problem unresolved and trampling people's rights in the process? It's also quite presumptuous of you to use the medicinal drugs analogy, you say it like it has been established that I'm alright with government telling me what I can and cannot take when I am ill.

Along those lines, the death penalty, and prison doesn't quell crime either. We should stop putting criminals in prison. As for your questions.

'No', and I haven't the time to answer that one. Actually, I will say this. According to your logic - anything that is found to not do what it was intended to do, say a law, should immediately be recinded. That's basically what you are saying....

The death penalty and prison time can also be looked at as a punishment, rather than something solely intended to quell violent crime. Would you keep taking a certain prescription drug if it wasn't curing your illness? You're basically saying "who gives a shit if it doesn't work, and is just senseless arbitrary regulation let's keep it anyway," No? That's fantastic thinking there.

[Ehwmatt]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

The protection from federal tyranny is not the contemporary proffered justification, at least not from the courts. That may have influenced the framers in the wake of the King's tyrannical actions while we were still colonies and the anti-Federalist rhetoric railing against a strong federal government in our early Constitutional days. Today, the legal understanding is that the right to bear arms is primarily driven by the right to defend oneself, particularly in your own home.

[S2M]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

The protection from federal tyranny is not the contemporary proffered justification, at least not from the courts. That may have influenced the framers in the wake of the King's tyrannical actions while we were still colonies and the anti-Federalist rhetoric railing against a strong federal government in our early Constitutional days. Today, the legal understanding is that the right to bear arms is primarily driven by the right to defend oneself, particularly in your own home.

Agreed. but again, are you going to take a time out from being burglarized to open your safe(perhaps LOAD the firearm) then hope you still HAVE time to protect your possessions/life?

[Ehwmatt]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

The protection from federal tyranny is not the contemporary proffered justification, at least not from the courts. That may have influenced the framers in the wake of the King's tyrannical actions while we were still colonies and the anti-Federalist rhetoric railing against a strong federal government in our early Constitutional days. Today, the legal understanding is that the right to bear arms is primarily driven by the right to defend oneself, particularly in your own home.

Agreed. but again, are you going to take a time out from being burglarized to open your safe(perhaps LOAD the firearm) then hope you still HAVE time to protect your possessions/life?

Like I said, I don't wanna jump into all those aspects of this debate. The reality is that the empirical assertions on both sides reflecting levels of crime with and without guns and all that are not and never will be verifiable in any satisfactory manner. Just pointing out that the right is not upheld on that rationale anymore, at least not in the courts. Maybe with Glenn Beck.

[S2M]

Well, that begs the question. do the courts have the authority to change, or interpret the law in a new way? Because that isn't adhering to the 'spirit' of the law. I guess you could carry over the 'protection' aspect from that of 'from government' to 'from any other party that intends to do you bodily harm'. But again, the document is a living one. It can be amended. Why not amend it?

[verslibre]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

Man, that was weak...

[Behshad]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

Man, that was weak...

Its called sarcasm. Look it up

[verslibre]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

Man, that was weak...

Its called sarcasm. Look it up

Only the last thirteen words.

[cudaclan]

Without bantering about this controversial subject into any depth, assault firearms have a different intent than hunting firearms. This is true to the quick as an exotic supercar has a different purpose than a truck. The weapons primary function is to create maximum “impact” in the shortest amount of time. The use of bats knives… does not meet those criteria. Why is it that accessories such as suppressors (silencers), Teflon coated ammunition… was introduced?

Are you not willing to "banter about this controversial subject into any depth" because you haven't even the slightest clue about firearms? I think so.

Suppressors were invented in the early 1900s by Hiram Maxim for the same reason that automobiles have mufflers. There is nothing silent about using one, either. Most center fire cartridges are still about as loud as a .22lr unsuppressed. "Teflon coated bullets" are an absolute myth as far as piercing vests and the like. Coating a cartridge in something like Teflon CANNOT create any extra penetration. It was basically a failed attempt to try to get more life out of a barrel. It did not work. In order to have more penetration, you want a harder core for the projectile and higher velocity.

Did you know that your average, every day "redneck" .30-06 deer rifle has roughly twice the muzzle energy of a 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov rifle, and nearly three times the muzzle energy of a 5.45x39mm Kalashnikov.

It is well within your rights to not own a firearm, but before you decide that you want the right to own them taken away form others, PLEASE educate yourself about them.

Thank you for the information.

[Ehwmatt]

Well, that begs the question. do the courts have the authority to change, or interpret the law in a new way? Because that isn't adhering to the 'spirit' of the law. I guess you could carry over the 'protection' aspect from that of 'from government' to 'from any other party that intends to do you bodily harm'. But again, the document is a living one. It can be amended. Why not amend it?

When the Supreme Court ruled on it in 08 and 2010, they did not invent anything new. The understanding of the right to bear arms as one intended for self-defense (rather than againt gov't) changed around the 1850s, which they explicitly noted. If the framers intended a right to bear arms in some capacity, better to stick with traditional, long-term understanding, even if that shifted at some point in our history, rather than totally eviscerate the right by holding that the right isn't incorporated in the 14th Amendment so it applies to the states. That way, the Court preserves the right in a long-held historically understood form instead of unilaterally writing the right out of the Constitution.

Now, if you want to eliminate the right to bear arms altogether, the amendment process is available. I don't think that would ever wash, but that's how it would be done.

[Don]

The only thing that will ever shake up gun control laws here will be if we have some Timothy McVeigh types stage a U.S. version of the Luxor massacre where foreigners from Europe and Asia are the victims and the U.S ends up getting blacklisted as a place where the gun rules and law and order doesn't.

[Archetype]

For those of you saying we need our guns as our constitutional rights, so the government cant overpower the people,,, well with that logic, the psycho that started shooting at Gifford, wasnt too happy about Government situation, so he did use his constitutional right to fight a government represantative to show how unhappy he is with the government,,,,,, I suppose he should (according to you guys) be awarded, instead of trialed

The protection from federal tyranny is not the contemporary proffered justification, at least not from the courts. That may have influenced the framers in the wake of the King's tyrannical actions while we were still colonies and the anti-Federalist rhetoric railing against a strong federal government in our early Constitutional days. Today, the legal understanding is that the right to bear arms is primarily driven by the right to defend oneself, particularly in your own home.

Agreed. but again, are you going to take a time out from being burglarized to open your safe(perhaps LOAD the firearm) then hope you still HAVE time to protect your possessions/life?

My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine. I grab it, chamber a round, and it's ready. Less than a second, it would take.The AK-74 the Soviet's answer to the 5.56x45mm M16 and is chambered in 5.45x39mm rather than 7.62x39mm like the AK-47 (Which is extremely rare, by the way. Almost every Kalashnikov variant you see on TV is an AKM, not an AK-47)

Just before someone says "Don't you mean 47?" Because it always happens.

[Rick]

Best weapon for home defense is a shotgun...

A pump shotgun. You don't even need to load it. Let a burglar hear you rack that thing, and they're not going to stick around to find out if it's loaded.

[Archetype]

Best weapon for home defense is a shotgun...

A pump shotgun. You don't even need to load it. Let a burglar hear you rack that thing, and they're not going to stick around to find out if it's loaded.

I would definitely recommend loading it regardless of any perceived psychological impact it might have.

[Rip Rokken]

Good lord... I'm loading my 33-post magazine now and will empty it on this thread after I get some shut-eye. In honor of the topic, I'm sleeping with my Ingram M10A1 under my pillow tonight.

[Rip Rokken]

Best weapon for home defense is a shotgun...

A pump shotgun. You don't even need to load it. Let a burglar hear you rack that thing, and they're not going to stick around to find out if it's loaded.

I would definitely recommend loading it regardless of any perceived psychological impact it might have.

Good points. A laser sight is also great for effect (my G19 has one).

[Saint John]

My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine.

Where the fuck do you live ... Somalia?

[Behshad]

My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine.

Where the fuck do you live ... Somalia?

I think I may have found him. Tell Liz, tell Liz!

[Archetype]

My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine.

Where the fuck do you live ... Somalia?

I made a post earlier that was something to the effect of wanting the best