Banning ammo that can defeat body armor...?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

AH so rights CAN be limited? Which I said 3 hours ago....
So if the first can be limited, so too can the second. DUH

And this is why I asked you, three hours ago, for the 2nd amendment analogue to yelling "I have a bomb!" in an airport.
Well?

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

What about the kid who was shot for carrying a BB gun around Wal Mart? Yeah that turned out to be pretty dangerous for him. What about the little boy who was shot for reaching for a BB gun? Yep, turned out deadly dangerous for him to.

Are you seriously telling us that you are so stupid that you don't realize that people panic for legitimate reasons when they see a person carrying a weapon around and that that panic can and does lead to serious danger?

No, you're not that stupid, you are just too dishonest to admit it.

Carrying an M-4 look alike around in public poses as much of a public safety risk as yelling "bomb" in an airport does.

 

[Roadrunner]

There are rocks in my yard that are smarter than you Bull

You claim you have both an ex-wife and a yard? I find that hard to believe.

LMAO!!!!!!!!

 

[BullKurtz]

Doodette, why do the rabid RWs want criminals, illegals, terrorists, metal cases to have the same easy access to guns that the rest of us have? Why do you want those groups to outgun law enforcement?

What's this "doodette" shit ya fuckin pansy? I couldn't care less if a felon buys a gun to defend himself and his property. Never have agreed with that shit. Most ex-cons need a firearm more than a pissant like you still living with his mother at age 50.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What the fuck are you talking about? It is a FEDERAL crime to yell "bomb" in an airport. Nowhere in the first amendment is the government empowered to curtail or punish free speech.

Again, you voluntarily relinquish certain rights when you enter an airport, and it is posted that you agree to this when you enter.

Read for content.

You can't voluntarily relinquish your rights in regard to federal law dummy. Either a law is constitutional or it isn't.

 

[Roadrunner]

AH so rights CAN be limited? Which I said 3 hours ago....
So if the first can be limited, so too can the second. DUH

And this is why I asked you, three hours ago, for the 2nd amendment analogue to yelling "I have a bomb!" in an airport.
Well?

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger ; yet I've NO doubt that you defend their right to do so...

It may scare people.

It poses no more clear and present danger than a car going by.

 

[BullKurtz]

You claim you have both an ex-wife and a yard? I find that hard to believe.

LMAO!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

I was waiting for somebody to pick up on that..

 

[Roadrunner]

What the fuck are you talking about? It is a FEDERAL crime to yell "bomb" in an airport. Nowhere in the first amendment is the government empowered to curtail or punish free speech.

Again, you voluntarily relinquish certain rights when you enter an airport, and it is posted that you agree to this when you enter.

Read for content.

You can't voluntarily relinquish your rights in regard to federal law dummy. Either a law is constitutional or it isn't.

Even if John Roberts has to rewrite the dictionary to make it constitutional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What the fuck are you talking about? It is a FEDERAL crime to yell "bomb" in an airport. Nowhere in the first amendment is the government empowered to curtail or punish free speech.

Again, you voluntarily relinquish certain rights when you enter an airport, and it is posted that you agree to this when you enter.

Read for content.

You can't voluntarily relinquish your rights in regard to federal law dummy. Either a law is constitutional or it isn't.

Even if John Roberts has to rewrite the dictionary to make it constitutional.

Even if

 

[Roadrunner]

You claim you have both an ex-wife and a yard? I find that hard to believe.

LMAO!!!!!!!!

I was waiting for somebody to pick up on that.. [/QUOTE]
At least you don't have to maintain a yard when that happens to you.

Grass needs mowing here, yet, it is supposed to snow tonight.

I hate it when Winter lingers.

 

[BullKurtz]

[

At least you don't have to maintain a yard when that happens to you.

Grass needs mowing here, yet, it is supposed to snow tonight.

I hate it when Winter lingers.

I've walked away from 2 houses and a condo lost to ex-wives. The one I kept was pretty much by death-threat....enough was enough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't voluntarily relinquish your rights in regard to federal law dummy. Either a law is constitutional or it isn't.

Good god but you are stupid.

https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf

BTW sparky - IF you were in the military, you gave up certain civil rights there, as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

AH so rights CAN be limited? Which I said 3 hours ago....
So if the first can be limited, so too can the second. DUH

And this is why I asked you, three hours ago, for the 2nd amendment analogue to yelling "I have a bomb!" in an airport.
Well?

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

Yawn.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater compels people to immediately leave by any means possible as they immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in, well, immediate danger. This creates panic, etc, and people often get hurt; because of this, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment.

Walking into a Burger King with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as apparent by the reactions we've seen when it happens, does NOT compels people to immediately leave by any means possible, and does NOT cause panic, because they clearly do NOT immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in immediate danger. As such, the 1st amendment analogue does not apply.

Thus, the difference. You can chose to refuse to understand this difference if you want, but it cannot be more plain.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

AH so rights CAN be limited? Which I said 3 hours ago....
So if the first can be limited, so too can the second. DUH

And this is why I asked you, three hours ago, for the 2nd amendment analogue to yelling "I have a bomb!" in an airport.
Well?

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

Yawn.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater compels people to immediately leave by any means possible as they immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in, well, immediate danger. This creates panic, etc, and people often get hurt; because of this, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment.

Walking into a Burger King with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as apparent by the reactions we've seen when it happens, does NOT compels people to immediately leave by any means possible, and does NOT cause panic, because they clearly do NOT immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in immediate danger. As such, the 1st amendment analogue does not apply.

Thus, the difference. You can chose to refuse to understand this difference if you want, but it cannot be more plain.

Oh, I understand completely. You are why the term "gun nutter" exists and you will spin and twist in any shape or form that suits your argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And this is why I asked you, three hours ago, for the 2nd amendment analogue to yelling "I have a bomb!" in an airport.
Well?

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

Yawn.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater compels people to immediately leave by any means possible as they immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in, well, immediate danger. This creates panic, etc, and people often get hurt; because of this, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment.

Walking into a Burger King with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as apparent by the reactions we've seen when it happens, does NOT compels people to immediately leave by any means possible, and does NOT cause panic, because they clearly do NOT immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in immediate danger. As such, the 1st amendment analogue does not apply.

Thus, the difference. You can chose to refuse to understand this difference if you want, but it cannot be more plain.

Oh, I understand completely. You are why the term "gun nutter" exists and you will spin and twist in any shape or form that suits your argument.

No... either you don't understand or you refuse to understand
Either way, you know you do not have the capacity to show how I am wrong.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

so now no criminals want rifles eh?

What are the statistics regarding crimes committed with rifles?

79.9% of gun crime is with handguns.
11.1% with rifles.

MOST gun crime is the theft of the gun.

So, violent crime is the real question.

96.3% of violent acts involving a firearm occur with a handgun.

More violent acts are committed with shotguns than with rifles.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

I'm kinda surprised you're a gun grabber.

Almost all cops and ex-cops are gun grabbers, almost all former high ranking officers are too.

No, but for the first time I might actually believe you were a fuckin' low life MP.

no one, least of all I,cares what you think Road Runner. You're just a crusty old man who has nothing left in his life except the internet and his guns.

Not even smart enough to figure out that if you fight every little sensible gun regulation people will just feel less inclined to deal with you.

There is absolutely no reason to ban these rounds.

There is no sensible reason to resist background checks between on a private gun sell either, yet...............

There are several reasons....

1) background checks do not stop the 8-9,000 gun murders by criminals each year, nor the mass shootings that ocurr each year......

2) the time, money and manpower to regulate private sales would be too much for law enforcement resources

3) ******it is against the law....already, for a felon to buy a gun even from a private seller

4)******it is against the law to sell a gun to a felon even if you are a private seller

5) you would have to register all guns to have the database to know who is selling what guns to who as private sellers....which would be insane and a step towards a future ban...


So....on top of background checks of any kind already being useless at stopping violent crime....it also leads to abuses against law abiding gun owners....

How do you know the buyer is a felon if you don't do a background check?

DUH.

Billc - you do this in so many of your posts. You need to think things through before you post.

Felons can and do own firearms legally.
It depends on the state.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

okay, let's take for example, dumb shits who want to open carry "assault rifles" in cities and such. That kind of behavior OBVIOUSLY scares people, and certainly creates a clear and present danger

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

Yawn.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater compels people to immediately leave by any means possible as they immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in, well, immediate danger. This creates panic, etc, and people often get hurt; because of this, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment.

Walking into a Burger King with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as apparent by the reactions we've seen when it happens, does NOT compels people to immediately leave by any means possible, and does NOT cause panic, because they clearly do NOT immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in immediate danger. As such, the 1st amendment analogue does not apply.

Thus, the difference. You can chose to refuse to understand this difference if you want, but it cannot be more plain.

Oh, I understand completely. You are why the term "gun nutter" exists and you will spin and twist in any shape or form that suits your argument.

No... either you don't understand or you refuse to understand
Either way, you know you do not have the capacity to show how I am wrong.

what is there to misunderstand about your position here?

You claim that

A) the government can infringe on the right to free speech
B) the government can not infringe on the right to own firearms.


I bet you would be okay with outlawing Islam as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Simple possess of a firearm hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, as per the standard set by telling "fire!" in a theater.
Now, discharging that firearm inside an Applebee's? That's different.

bullshit man. You just can't admit anything that might lessen your argument.

Yawn.

Yelling "Fire!" in a theater compels people to immediately leave by any means possible as they immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in, well, immediate danger. This creates panic, etc, and people often get hurt; because of this, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment.

Walking into a Burger King with a rifle slung over your shoulder, as apparent by the reactions we've seen when it happens, does NOT compels people to immediately leave by any means possible, and does NOT cause panic, because they clearly do NOT immediately and reasonably believe their lives are in immediate danger. As such, the 1st amendment analogue does not apply.

Thus, the difference. You can chose to refuse to understand this difference if you want, but it cannot be more plain.

Oh, I understand completely. You are why the term "gun nutter" exists and you will spin and twist in any shape or form that suits your argument.

No... either you don't understand or you refuse to understand
Either way, you know you do not have the capacity to show how I am wrong.

what is there to misunderstand about your position here?
You claim that
A) the government can infringe on the right to free speech
B) the government can not infringe on the right to own firearms.

I made no such claim.
I did say, however, that you either don't understand or you refuse to understand the difference in the two scenarios.
One of the other is clearly the case -- which is it?

 

[Roadrunner]

[

At least you don't have to maintain a yard when that happens to you.

Grass needs mowing here, yet, it is supposed to snow tonight.

I hate it when Winter lingers.

I've walked away from 2 houses and a condo lost to ex-wives. The one I kept was pretty much by death-threat....enough was enough.

I kept it all, but, it was nothing to what she inherited.

I couldn't have taken another day for millions.

I was never so happy, and have never been so happy, in my life.

I'd been wanting out for 25 years, but did it for the kids.

In hindsight, she never would have kept the kids, that was just a threat.

All over now, and my kids will inherit well.

 

[2aguy]

so now no criminals want rifles eh?

What are the statistics regarding crimes committed with rifles?

79.9% of gun crime is with handguns.
11.1% with rifles.

MOST gun crime is the theft of the gun.

So, violent crime is the real question.

96.3% of violent acts involving a firearm occur with a handgun.

More violent acts are committed with shotguns than with rifles.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

I'm kinda surprised you're a gun grabber.

Almost all cops and ex-cops are gun grabbers, almost all former high ranking officers are too.

No, but for the first time I might actually believe you were a fuckin' low life MP.

no one, least of all I,cares what you think Road Runner. You're just a crusty old man who has nothing left in his life except the internet and his guns.

Not even smart enough to figure out that if you fight every little sensible gun regulation people will just feel less inclined to deal with you.

There is absolutely no reason to ban these rounds.

There is no sensible reason to resist background checks between on a private gun sell either, yet...............

There are several reasons....

1) background checks do not stop the 8-9,000 gun murders by criminals each year, nor the mass shootings that ocurr each year......

2) the time, money and manpower to regulate private sales would be too much for law enforcement resources

3) ******it is against the law....already, for a felon to buy a gun even from a private seller

4)******it is against the law to sell a gun to a felon even if you are a private seller

5) you would have to register all guns to have the database to know who is selling what guns to who as private sellers....which would be insane and a step towards a future ban...


So....on top of background checks of any kind already being useless at stopping violent crime....it also leads to abuses against law abiding gun owners....

How do you know the buyer is a felon if you don't do a background check?

DUH.

Billc - you do this in so many of your posts. You need to think things through before you post.

It doesn't matter....the felon knows...right? It is illegal for him to touch the gun let alone buy it. And if you knowingly sell the gun to a felon you are going to jail....and background checks don't matter....criminals get their guns by stealing them or getting freinds or family who can pass background checks to buy the guns.....so it doesn't matter and again........it isn't about the background check....

 

[Jarlaxle]

Green tipped? ANY 5.56/223 ammo will go through level III soft armor. Many .45 pistol rounds will. All rifle will. Almost all shotgun will. By this standard...almost all ammo should be banned.

Hes a moron for using this standard. For one...5.56 ammo is rarely used to shoot cops.

Second...in the event an "assault rifle" is used against cops, its most often an AK47 variation. Which fires 7.62, not 5.56.

F-troop already did this with 7.62x39! When the early-90's "crime bill" banned "armor piercing pistol" ammunition, they started putting RIFLE ammo on the ban list. When someone dug up a single-shot pistol in 7.62x39, they declared steel-core 7.62x39 illegal. At the time, almost everything available was the steel-core Russian stuff...not "armor piercing", simply because at the time, steel was cheaper than brass & lead! (It was in steel cases for the same reason.)