Limiting rights because of the actions of the tiny minority

[Nosmo King]

I find it it remarkable that NO ONE said they believe it is OK to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, given the large number of pro-gun control people on this board.

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

There is no need for high capacity magazines other than the ability to wreck havoc. Hunting? If you can't hit your prey on the first or second shot, hunting isn't what you want to do. Target shooting? After you spray 25 or 30 rounds at a target, you should have hit it, right? you are not going for accuracy, but only to expend a large amount of lead.

So what is the virtue of high capacity magazines?

Those weapons do not belong on the streets. They belong in....WELL REGULATED MILITIAS.

the only reason such weapons were designed was to kill as many people as fast as possible. Hardly a device that should enjoy protection as a right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I find it it remarkable that NO ONE said they believe it is OK to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, given the large number of pro-gun control people on this board.

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.
Please give it a shot.

 

[Nosmo King]

I find it it remarkable that NO ONE said they believe it is OK to limit the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, given the large number of pro-gun control people on this board.

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.
Please give it a shot.

Alright. Since you want to frame the argument to make it easier on you; YES I believe that 'rights' of law abiding citizens should be amended to protect society even if a lone lunatic abuses his privilege.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Taking away access to high capacity magazines does not infringe on ones right to bear arms. It does, in fact, recognize that little considered phrase in the 2nd amendment: a well regulated militia.

I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.
Please give it a shot.

Alright. Since you want to frame the argument to make it easier on you; YES I believe that 'rights' of law abiding citizens should be amended to protect society even if a lone lunatic abuses his privilege.

-Why- do you believe that the religious rights of Muslims should be restricted because a tiny fraction of them might hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I STILL don't see your answer to the question.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't see your answer to the question posed in the OP.
Please give it a shot.

Alright. Since you want to frame the argument to make it easier on you; YES I believe that 'rights' of law abiding citizens should be amended to protect society even if a lone lunatic abuses his privilege.

-Why- do you believe that the religious rights of Muslims should be restricted because a tiny fraction of them might hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?

No. Airliners were no specifically designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, unlike guns with high capacity magazines.

What is the virtue of a high capacity magazine?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alright. Since you want to frame the argument to make it easier on you; YES I believe that 'rights' of law abiding citizens should be amended to protect society even if a lone lunatic abuses his privilege.

-Why- do you believe that the religious rights of Muslims should be restricted because a tiny fraction of them might hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?

No. Airliners were no specifically designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, unlike guns with high capacity magazines.
What is the virtue of a high capacity magazine?

I'm sorry... you didn;t answer the question.
-Why- do you believe that the religious rights of Muslims should be restricted because a tiny fraction of them might hijack a plane and fly it into a skyscraper?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You also dont have the intellectual honesty to adderess the question.
Get back to me when you do.

I've already answered this question in another thread started by Paulitician

Liar.
Coward.

Chicken Lint licker.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just 1 law abiding Citizen with a Legal Concealed Weapon, could have saved many lives not only in this case but in so many others just like it. That fact is ignored by those who want to hurry up and take away our rights because a small amount of people abuse them.

The Fact is Criminals do not give a fuck if Guns are legal or not, Wack Jobs like this fucking scum bag in Colorado are going to kill one way or another. If not an AR 15 then a 30/30 or a Bomb. What are you going to do ban all guns? Then the only people who will have Weapons will be the Government, and those willing to Break the law and illegally have them.

Not the world I want to live in.

Thats not a fact thats a hypothetical and conjecture at best.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dam...I thought you were talking about voter ID laws...but go on and tell us why a law to prevent a small instance of something is a bad thing.

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

Murder is a rare occurrence.. why have a law against it, right?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

Murder is a rare occurrence.. why have a law against it, right?

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

Murder is a rare occurrence.. why have a law against it, right?

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

I'm sorry.. I don't see your answer to the question.
Please refer back to the OP and give it a shot.

 

[DiamondDave]

I dont fight strawmen. Please tell us more about laws for things that dont or rarely exist. I need a new signature

Murder is a rare occurrence.. why have a law against it, right?

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

Really?? They are not rare?? What % of the population is murdered?? Somewhere around 5 per 100,000??

You seriously are indeed a dumbass

 

[thanatos144]

So for you geniuses who think if we make it were you can only buy magazines that hold small about of ammo.....How long do you idiots think it takes to change a mag?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Murder is a rare occurrence.. why have a law against it, right?

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

Really?? They are not rare?? What % of the population is murdered?? Somewhere around 5 per 100,000??

You seriously are indeed a dumbass

You call it rare, I call it an everyday occurrence.

 

[thanatos144]

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

Really?? They are not rare?? What % of the population is murdered?? Somewhere around 5 per 100,000??

You seriously are indeed a dumbass

You call it rare, I call it an everyday occurrence.

Do you think they avoid it cause it isn't a against the law????? Oh wait it is already illegal to kill people......Just because guns make you piss yourself you pussy doesn't mean you get to take away my God Given right.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who are the 2 nuts that voted for restrictions? Not Americans I hope.

 

[thanatos144]

Who are the 2 nuts that voted for restrictions? Not Americans I hope.

would you be surprised if it was?

 

[DiamondDave]

I think you have a point until I noticed you said Murders are rare Then I realized you're still a dumbass

Really?? They are not rare?? What % of the population is murdered?? Somewhere around 5 per 100,000??

You seriously are indeed a dumbass

You call it rare, I call it an everyday occurrence.

Yeah.. with 313 million in the US and a World population of 7 billion, you're not going to go murder free... but the FACT is that the occurrence is not a high one

You could say it is about statistically comparable as say, 13% over-voting in a city on one election day... eh???

 

[ClosedCaption]

Really?? They are not rare?? What % of the population is murdered?? Somewhere around 5 per 100,000??

You seriously are indeed a dumbass

You call it rare, I call it an everyday occurrence.

Do you think they avoid it cause it isn't a against the law????? Oh wait it is already illegal to kill people......Just because guns make you piss yourself you pussy doesn't mean you get to take away my God Given right.

Look at the internet tough guy. Sticking his chest out and confusing tough talk with having a point.