Senate coming after handguns

[liarintheWH]

emptystep is a dumb fuck

That's a new one. I gave you pos rep.

Thanks, dumb fuck.

 

[eflatminor]

People kill with guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People who would like to kill would like a gun to do it with. Why exactly is it that people with extreme firepower who want to kill lots of people make the news? Probably because they are so successful.

You think a ban on guns will stop the killing??

If so your not to smart there ES. Criminals can buy a gun on the street anywhere, anytime.

The only folks who won't have guns are the law abiding citizens.

If someone breaks into your house you can call 911, if you have the time. Let me know how long it takes for the police to come save your ass.

I'll be saving mine with my dogs and my shotgun. Bet I save mine faster than yours gets saved. If it does that is.

And no one is trying to take away your shotgun, or your dogs, so why are you defending the AR-15 with the 30 round mag?

Because we know criminals will have such things. Again, why would you want to put good people at a tactical disadvantage?

Then there's that whole inalienable right to self defense thing...

 

[DiamondDave]

People kill with guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People who would like to kill would like a gun to do it with. Why exactly is it that people with extreme firepower who want to kill lots of people make the news? Probably because they are so successful.

You think a ban on guns will stop the killing??

If so your not to smart there ES. Criminals can buy a gun on the street anywhere, anytime.

The only folks who won't have guns are the law abiding citizens.

If someone breaks into your house you can call 911, if you have the time. Let me know how long it takes for the police to come save your ass.

I'll be saving mine with my dogs and my shotgun. Bet I save mine faster than yours gets saved. If it does that is.

And no one is trying to take away your shotgun, or your dogs, so why are you defending the AR-15 with the 30 round mag?

Then why are you blaming the AR and defending the killer as being helpless to it's charms?? Does it have a magic ability to force the person to kill?? Is that the military characteristic?? Magic??

All your proposal does is supposedly protect the law abiding by limiting their ability to protect themselves... while the law breakers have no such restriction to their actions

 

[emptystep]

Absolute HOGWASH.. the SOLE purpose of a firearm is to shoot a projectile of a specific size in a specific direction at a specific degree of accuracy at a specific velocity

It is a TOOL....

And you are an idiot

And the sole purpose of a car is to make the wheels go round and round.

So then by YOUR logic, if the car is used to kill it's purpose is to kill... got it

Go back to school and learn something, idiot

Here are pictures of two 'tools'. Can you see my point now or do I have to beat you with the first one?

 

[SniperFire]

And the sole purpose of a car is to make the wheels go round and round.

So then by YOUR logic, if the car is used to kill it's purpose is to kill... got it

Go back to school and learn something, idiot

Here are pictures of two 'tools'. Can you see my point now or do I have to beat you with the first one?

If not for the second tool, weepy fags such as yourself would not be able to come to message boards to argue for the ban on Constitutional rights.

 

[DiamondDave]

And the sole purpose of a car is to make the wheels go round and round.

So then by YOUR logic, if the car is used to kill it's purpose is to kill... got it

Go back to school and learn something, idiot

Here are pictures of two 'tools'. Can you see my point now or do I have to beat you with the first one?

And your point is??

Each is designed to do something.. and each can be used for something beyond what their purpose or design is...

Go learn something, tool

 

[emptystep]

The problem with that proposal is that it does NOTHING to keep firearms/magazines out of the hands of crazies and criminals while simultaneously ensuring law abiding citizens are put at a tactical disadvantage against those that don't give a shit about your regulations.

How can you not have a problem with laws that help to ensure criminals are better armed than the people? Stated differently, why would you want to help the bad guys?

Why have speed limits when only reckless people would drive too fast? And if I need to pass a buck twenty to get somewhere on time that is my God Given Right!

There is no right to a car in the consitution. there is a right to travel, but the method is not defined.

Also roads are only designed for certain speeds, so while the speed limit may be much lower than the desgin limit, 120 MPH is usually well above the design limit.

And finally there is no pre-emtive limit to speeding. There are no governors on cars. You only get in trouble when you get caught breaking the law.

Next lame argument please.

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

 

[emptystep]

So then by YOUR logic, if the car is used to kill it's purpose is to kill... got it

Go back to school and learn something, idiot

Here are pictures of two 'tools'. Can you see my point now or do I have to beat you with the first one?

And your point is??

Each is designed to do something.. and each can be used for something beyond what their purpose or design is...

Go learn something, tool

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGQZX2IvdCo]Beating up a Team Rocket Grunt with a Shovel! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[DiamondDave]

Why have speed limits when only reckless people would drive too fast? And if I need to pass a buck twenty to get somewhere on time that is my God Given Right!

There is no right to a car in the consitution. there is a right to travel, but the method is not defined.

Also roads are only designed for certain speeds, so while the speed limit may be much lower than the desgin limit, 120 MPH is usually well above the design limit.

And finally there is no pre-emtive limit to speeding. There are no governors on cars. You only get in trouble when you get caught breaking the law.

Next lame argument please.

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

So.. you then limit the amount of vehicles a person can own or use, much like you limit the amount of rounds a person can own or use??..... You are limiting the speed at which someone can operate the vehicle like you want to limit the speed which one can change a magazine?? Or is it that the ACTION you take is the issue with the vehicle just as it is with the weapon??

You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into losing this argument

 

[martybegan]

And the sole purpose of a car is to make the wheels go round and round.

So then by YOUR logic, if the car is used to kill it's purpose is to kill... got it

Go back to school and learn something, idiot

Here are pictures of two 'tools'. Can you see my point now or do I have to beat you with the first one?

Look into the writing of WWI, WWII and Korea vets about the shovel below....

 

[DiamondDave]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7LNbCxsxk]deadliest warrior e-tool - YouTube[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

Why have speed limits when only reckless people would drive too fast? And if I need to pass a buck twenty to get somewhere on time that is my God Given Right!

There is no right to a car in the consitution. there is a right to travel, but the method is not defined.

Also roads are only designed for certain speeds, so while the speed limit may be much lower than the desgin limit, 120 MPH is usually well above the design limit.

And finally there is no pre-emtive limit to speeding. There are no governors on cars. You only get in trouble when you get caught breaking the law.

Next lame argument please.

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

Short feeble legs, like your feeble mind.

There is legislation, its called speed limits. And again, it punishes those who break the laws, not those who did not.

And I would not support such legislation, as I am pefectly capable of doing 75 in a 65.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think we are incapable of trying to solve multiple problems at the same time?

The government never "solves" any problem without creating bigger and worse problems.

 

[emptystep]

deadliest warrior e-tool - YouTube

That may be but no one would carry it around because it sucks as a shovel. The screwy thing that is suppose to hold the blade in place will not stay tight.

 

[bripat9643]

People kill with guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. People who would like to kill would like a gun to do it with. Why exactly is it that people with extreme firepower who want to kill lots of people make the news? Probably because they are so successful.

You think a ban on guns will stop the killing??

If so your not to smart there ES. Criminals can buy a gun on the street anywhere, anytime.

The only folks who won't have guns are the law abiding citizens.

If someone breaks into your house you can call 911, if you have the time. Let me know how long it takes for the police to come save your ass.

I'll be saving mine with my dogs and my shotgun. Bet I save mine faster than yours gets saved. If it does that is.

And no one is trying to take away your shotgun, or your dogs, so why are you defending the AR-15 with the 30 round mag?

Because that's what you're trying to take away, numb-nutz. At least, that's what you're admitting to. An AR-15 with a 30 round mag is exactly the kind of gun the 2nd amendment was intended to protect - the kind of gun the militia would use.

 

[DiamondDave]

deadliest warrior e-tool - YouTube

That may be but no one would carry it around because it sucks as a shovel. The screwy thing that is suppose to hold the blade in place will not stay tight.

Are there better shovels?? Yes... Are there better shovels designed for portability and the ability to dig?? Probably not...

And I have used MANY an e-tool and dug many a fox hole with one

But since you've been thoroughly trounced on every other point, you had to change direction once again.. got it

 

[emptystep]

There is no right to a car in the consitution. there is a right to travel, but the method is not defined.

Also roads are only designed for certain speeds, so while the speed limit may be much lower than the desgin limit, 120 MPH is usually well above the design limit.

And finally there is no pre-emtive limit to speeding. There are no governors on cars. You only get in trouble when you get caught breaking the law.

Next lame argument please.

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

Short feeble legs, like your feeble mind.

There is legislation, its called speed limits. And again, it punishes those who break the laws, not those who did not.

And I would not support such legislation, as I am pefectly capable of doing 75 in a 65.

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage. Does that mean police should have to carry SAWs so they do not find themselves at a tactical disadvantage?

 

[emptystep]

You think a ban on guns will stop the killing??

If so your not to smart there ES. Criminals can buy a gun on the street anywhere, anytime.

The only folks who won't have guns are the law abiding citizens.

If someone breaks into your house you can call 911, if you have the time. Let me know how long it takes for the police to come save your ass.

I'll be saving mine with my dogs and my shotgun. Bet I save mine faster than yours gets saved. If it does that is.

And no one is trying to take away your shotgun, or your dogs, so why are you defending the AR-15 with the 30 round mag?

Because that's what you're trying to take away, numb-nutz. At least, that's what you're admitting to. An AR-15 with a 30 round mag is exactly the kind of gun the 2nd amendment was intended to protect - the kind of gun the militia would use.

No. The second amendment was intended to allow us a 155 howitzer. After all you should be well aware that the definition of a 'gun' is a multi-person weapon.

 

[eflatminor]

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage.

Why don't you tell us in your own words why you would WANT to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. You say your 'sorry' about that, so why would you support laws and regulations that do just that?

 

[DiamondDave]

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

Short feeble legs, like your feeble mind.

There is legislation, its called speed limits. And again, it punishes those who break the laws, not those who did not.

And I would not support such legislation, as I am pefectly capable of doing 75 in a 65.

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage. Does that mean police should have to carry SAWs so they do not find themselves at a tactical disadvantage?

Kind of like the police and swat teams have APC's, flashbangs, sub-machineguns, etc already?? Do I support the police and military having the best weaponry available to stay ahead of criminals and enemies?? You betcha