15 rounds will do

The reason is that for 99.9% of people, they are either bought for a collection, or simply because they are fun to shoot. I do agree that it seems a bit excessive though.

For some of us in extremely rural locales it is genuinely for defense. Im a half hour from help, and it only takes a few seconds for pissed off wildlife or some psycho to waste you.

I'm genuinely curious, what would you need that kind of gun to defend against, wildlife wise?

In my area mountain lions are the only real threat, but go any farther north you start getting into bears and moose, which are pretty stout and aggressive to boot

Is that amount of ammunition without reloading a critical factor in the defense?

In all honesty probably not when dealing with animals, but put in that situation I'll hedge my bets however I can

When the few seconds it takes to reload can mean the difference between life and death, more ammunition is always a plus. Not only that, but people always forget thst the second amendment ain't even about hunting or self defence, it's about giving us the power to defend our freedoms.

Technically it’s about community defense and it has to be within reason. I think that’s the crux of the debate. The definition of reasonable.

My main question is, if they think Trump is "literally Hitler" why do they want to give him the power to take away their best method of defending themselves against his "unlawful regime"?

Because there is no way to not be ludicrously outgunned by the US military. Since that’s not realistic but the same tools being used to kill large numbers of people is, it’s the lesser of the evils to keep only weapons that are incapable of large scale damage legal.

@scatmandingo the writing is "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" which considering the context means defense against a tyranical government.

Shit your 2nd comment didn't show

Well it can also be read as defense against enemies of the state. Either definition is about community defense (militia). It wasn’t until a few years ago that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment had anything at all to do with individual ownership of guns.

@the_average_gatsby Which comment was that? I love your username, BTW.

It doesn't matter if we're outgunned, you're just using that as an excuse. And you're not considering the military units that will most likely desert after being ordered to attack the people they've sworn to protect, bringing their own military equipment along with them.

Thats fair. And to @chakun's credit an insurgency would be incredibly viable, we've been tied up in Afghanistan for damn near 20 years fighting dudes with soviet surplus and clapped out Hiluxes

I’m not using it as an excuse. It’s just a realistic interpretation. When you think of military units deserting you are thinking they are going to bring rifles and APVs. The problem is they can’t bring the real weaponry that makes a difference. Without air support you will lose to those who have it. You can take a plane but you need somewhere to land it, you need supply lines for fuel, etc.

@scatmandingo the comment about being outgunned was the one I hadn't seen. and thanks on the username btw :)