But for----------

[rightwinger]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Same goes for an RPG or shoulder mounted missile

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we need to ensure that mass shooters get the best tools to kill school children?

Mass school shooters don't always, nor exclusively, use the tools you are attempting to ban.
The fact you don't realize or acknowledge that goes further towards identifying where we have no obligation to expect honesty or intellectual integrity in your request.

Very true.....but for some reason, when the want to choose the best tool to kill small children

They go with an AR-15 with large capacity magazine

Why do we insist on giving them the best tool?

please go look again at the capacity of the mags the parkland shooter had.

then, let's just ban removable mags - there. solved.

now go look for the speed loader available for this scenario that's actually reloading the 15 rounds faster than changing a mag.

now what?

You seem to be making a case to expand the scope of the ban

 

[iceberg]

again, do you think banning guns would stop all suicides? or reduce the number of them?

please think before answering. also, it would very difficult to shoot yourself with an AR15 or any rifle.

If you can’t stop all suicides, does that mean you shouldn’t try to stop any?

so now you want to ban all handguns in order to reduce the number of suicides? Banning large capacity magazines will not stop any suicides, it only takes one bullet, not several.


Unless you are a Clinton crony who commits suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Let’s be honest with ourselves....
30,000 gun deaths a year and the overwhelming majority is by handguns

Banning handguns would create the biggest drop in our gun death rate.......but we all know we will never do that

So, in the absence of banning handguns, we need to nibble at the edges for other culprits. Assault guns with large capacity magazines is an obvious target

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

 

[rightwinger]

If you can’t stop all suicides, does that mean you shouldn’t try to stop any?

so now you want to ban all handguns in order to reduce the number of suicides? Banning large capacity magazines will not stop any suicides, it only takes one bullet, not several.


Unless you are a Clinton crony who commits suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Let’s be honest with ourselves....
30,000 gun deaths a year and the overwhelming majority is by handguns

Banning handguns would create the biggest drop in our gun death rate.......but we all know we will never do that

So, in the absence of banning handguns, we need to nibble at the edges for other culprits. Assault guns with large capacity magazines is an obvious target

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

If you can cut down the efficiency of a mass killer you do it

Tell us again why you can’t live without a 30 round magazine and bump stock

 

[iceberg]

Why do we need to ensure that mass shooters get the best tools to kill school children?

Mass school shooters don't always, nor exclusively, use the tools you are attempting to ban.
The fact you don't realize or acknowledge that goes further towards identifying where we have no obligation to expect honesty or intellectual integrity in your request.

Very true.....but for some reason, when the want to choose the best tool to kill small children

They go with an AR-15 with large capacity magazine

Why do we insist on giving them the best tool?

please go look again at the capacity of the mags the parkland shooter had.

then, let's just ban removable mags - there. solved.

now go look for the speed loader available for this scenario that's actually reloading the 15 rounds faster than changing a mag.

now what?

You seem to be making a case to expand the scope of the ban

Not advocating a ban at all.

Advocating what we do is designed to help not placate.

 

[iceberg]

so now you want to ban all handguns in order to reduce the number of suicides? Banning large capacity magazines will not stop any suicides, it only takes one bullet, not several.


Unless you are a Clinton crony who commits suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Let’s be honest with ourselves....
30,000 gun deaths a year and the overwhelming majority is by handguns

Banning handguns would create the biggest drop in our gun death rate.......but we all know we will never do that

So, in the absence of banning handguns, we need to nibble at the edges for other culprits. Assault guns with large capacity magazines is an obvious target

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

If you can cut down the efficiency of a mass killer you do it

Tell us again why you can’t live without a 30 round magazine and bump stock

Show me where I said that I couldn't.

 

[David Dennisson]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

But for a gun, I couldn't shoot anyone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it.

Think about it.

 

[iceberg]

so now you want to ban all handguns in order to reduce the number of suicides? Banning large capacity magazines will not stop any suicides, it only takes one bullet, not several.


Unless you are a Clinton crony who commits suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Let’s be honest with ourselves....
30,000 gun deaths a year and the overwhelming majority is by handguns

Banning handguns would create the biggest drop in our gun death rate.......but we all know we will never do that

So, in the absence of banning handguns, we need to nibble at the edges for other culprits. Assault guns with large capacity magazines is an obvious target

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

If you can cut down the efficiency of a mass killer you do it

Tell us again why you can’t live without a 30 round magazine and bump stock

Next up do we make it a law you must now load fixed magazines by hand? You put this on your AR and push. Fixed mag reloaded faster than changing a mag.

 

[rightwinger]

Let’s be honest with ourselves....
30,000 gun deaths a year and the overwhelming majority is by handguns

Banning handguns would create the biggest drop in our gun death rate.......but we all know we will never do that

So, in the absence of banning handguns, we need to nibble at the edges for other culprits. Assault guns with large capacity magazines is an obvious target

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

If you can cut down the efficiency of a mass killer you do it

Tell us again why you can’t live without a 30 round magazine and bump stock

Next up do we make it a law you must now load fixed magazines by hand? You put this on your AR and push. Fixed mag reloaded faster than changing a mag.

Maybe

The issue is .....how fast a firing capability do we tolerate in private hands?

 

[iceberg]

so, we know what we need to do but it will never happen so we'll do something else that will have negligible effect and call it done?

strange.

You play the hand you are dealt

The gun lobby is too strong to ever ban handguns. But just because you cant stop all murders doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to stop any

You play the hand you are dealt.

Very small % are directly affected by this. So by your logic play the hand you are dealt.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is useless if it won't get your desired outcome.

If you can cut down the efficiency of a mass killer you do it

Tell us again why you can’t live without a 30 round magazine and bump stock

Next up do we make it a law you must now load fixed magazines by hand? You put this on your AR and push. Fixed mag reloaded faster than changing a mag.

Maybe

The issue is .....how fast a firing capability do we tolerate in private hands?

So we go from load speed to fire speed of which mag capacity has nothing to do with.


Now what?

 

[miketx]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Same goes for an RPG or shoulder mounted missile

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Liar, who makes a 500 round magazine? And who knew a bump stock held 500 rounds.

 

[iceberg]

But for a human being a baseball bat could never hit a homerun, a tennis racquet could never serve an ace, a soccer ball could never score a goal, a car could never drive across the country, AND a gun could never shoot a bullet.

Removing the inanimate object cannot control the actions of human beings. Think about it.

Same goes for an RPG or shoulder mounted missile

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Great. Now go load an AR15 with 500 rounds then pick it up to use the bump stock.

Take a video, love to see it.

 

[rightwinger]

Same goes for an RPG or shoulder mounted missile

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Liar, who makes a 500 round magazine? And who knew a bump stock held 500 rounds.

WTF is wrong with Conservatives and basic math? Is it extensive inbreeding or just basic retardation?

Do you understand what “rate” means?

If a cop pulls you over for going 85 mph do you claim it is not true because you haven’t driven 85 miles yet?

 

[David Dennisson]

Same goes for an RPG or shoulder mounted missile

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Liar, who makes a 500 round magazine? And who knew a bump stock held 500 rounds.

Even I know that automatic guns are rated at how many rounds a minute they can fire even if they don't hold that many rounds.

 

[miketx]

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Liar, who makes a 500 round magazine? And who knew a bump stock held 500 rounds.

WTF is wrong with Conservatives and basic math? Is it extensive inbreeding or just basic retardation?

Do you understand what “rate” means?

If a cop pulls you over for going 85 mph do you claim it is not true because you haven’t driven 85 miles yet?

Ooo plays with words and twists meanings when proven to be a liar. Classic regressivism on display here! No lie to big or too small for this traitor!

 

[David Dennisson]

Officer, I was not going 100 miles per hour. I only traveled five miles.

 

[miketx]

Officer, I was not going 100 miles per hour. I only traveled five miles.

You scum always claim these guns can fire at an impossible rate of fire and then when proven wrong, you pretend that was not your intent, but it was. You are all disingenuous liars.

 

[David Dennisson]

Officer, I was not going 100 miles per hour. I only traveled five miles.

You scum always claim these guns can fire at an impossible rate of fire and then when proven wrong, you pretend that was not your intent, but it was. You are all disingenuous liars.

I will not tolerate you calling my gun loving friends liars! You must be a Mexican.

 

[miketx]

Officer, I was not going 100 miles per hour. I only traveled five miles.

You scum always claim these guns can fire at an impossible rate of fire and then when proven wrong, you pretend that was not your intent, but it was. You are all disingenuous liars.

I will not tolerate you calling my gun loving friends liars! You must be a Mexican.

You are fucking liar.
Legal Machine Gun!!! 800 Rounds Per Minute!!! (Thureon Defence With Slide Fire Stock)

The video took over a minute and all she could fire was 60 rounds. lol. Another liar outed.

 

[iceberg]

An

or a tank, but I think we all agree that an average citizen should not be driving a tank to the grocery store or walking around with a ground to air missile

It all comes down to how much power we want an individual to have at his fingertips

Do your need a 100 round magazine and a bump stock that lets you shoot at 500 rpms?

None of those things will let you shoot 500 rounds a minute, lying dumbass.

I provided a link
Where is yours?

A rate of 500 rounds a minute are well within the capability of a bump stock

Great. Now go load an AR15 with 500 rounds then pick it up to use the bump stock.

Take a video, love to see it.

Another retard who does not understand the concept of “rate”

Any other conservative retards want to pipe in?

And here come the insults cause your facts don't add up.