Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[Brain357]

If you can't predict the future then you should stop giving your opinion as if it's factually sound.
Because it is not.

Are you trying to prove NRA drones have no common sense? Your doing a great job.

You don't have any if you can support gun control.

I'm sure somebody said the same sort of thing when they made grenades illegal. But common sense tells me it has saved some lives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting way to say you have nothing to dispute my argument.

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense.

Than you for admitting you understand that your premise is unsound and so you need to BS your way thru it.

You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound.

False. You rely on inductive reasoning. Inductiv reasoning cannot prove anything.
Thus unsound.

You provided no counter because you seem to not have one.

The onus here is full on you to prove your premise; no one has any responsibility to provide a counterexample to disprove it.

You have failed; you simply refuse to admit it.

 

[Brain357]

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense.

Than you for admitting you understand that your premise is unsound and so you need to BS your way thru it.

You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound.

False. You rely on inductive reasoning. Inductiv reasoning cannot prove anything.
Thus unsound.

You provided no counter because you seem to not have one.

The onus here is full on you to prove your premise; no one has any responsibility to provide a counterexample to disprove it.

You have failed; you simply refuse to admit it.

You've made it very clear you have no real counter points to my arguments. Why do you keep posting the same thing?

 

[BreezeWood]

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

My life is protected by My weapons. My liberty is ensured because of My weapons. My happiness is living free of fear BECAUSE of My weapons.

No one, Not even you, are permitted to take that away from Me.

sad you rely so heavily on your "weapons" and a reason for others to be concerned.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

no one is taking your weapons from you - it is a matter of scale, the Constitution insures only their availability.


All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.


the above is simply in keeping with modern times of upgrading from a musket to a modern Firearm while insuring the other provisions of the Constitution, all being kept in perspective equilibrium.


conservatives if their really were any would limit the 2nd to a musket for all eternity.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you really believe it makes little difference then you have no reason to be against restricting magazine size. Unless of course you don't even believe yourself.

Now you are going beyond ridiculous. If I think restricting people won't help then I should have no problem restricting people? Did you even read what you wrote before you posted it?

Ridiculous is pro gun people stating that magazine capacity doesn't matter because you can change the magazine in a fraction of a second. Then those same people being scared that the intruder will have a hi cap magazine and they won't. Now that is truly ridiculous.

No. Ridiculous is insisting upon a solution which solves nothing. I have never once claimed I need a high capacity magazine for home protection. My preference for home protection is a 12 gauge. I have never once claimed I need a high capacity magazine at all. I don't. That is not the point. You have not demonstrated there is any reason I shouldn't have one. Since it is you who wishes to restrict me it is your burden to show that the restriction will accomplish something. Until then, I see no reason to care what you want.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you trying to prove NRA drones have no common sense? Your doing a great job.

You don't have any if you can support gun control.

I'm sure somebody said the same sort of thing when they made grenades illegal. But common sense tells me it has saved some lives.

Here you go
[ame=http://youtu.be/XCZ2V4St5t0]My AR-15 Story: Why I Needed My AR-15 - YouTube[/ame]

Text within the video

Here is the story of when I learned that my AR-15 is the right tool for protecting my family. This is just my story, I'm sure yours may differ, but at the end of the day we have the right to protect ourselves with the tool(s) that best and most effectively get the job done. Some situations need handguns, some need rifles. You have to decide what you want to protect you. I've made my choice!!

This was three years ago and I have since moved... But I think people make the generalization that because a large number of guys were there and that I'm black, that I lived in a poor neighborhood or some inner city shit hole, where crime was an everyday thing. That couldn't be any farther from the truth. It was a great upper middle class neighborhood with progressive families of all races. We never had incident until my upstairs neighbor moved in. "He" was the reason this drama happened and more. It was all over a girl and her angry, jealous ex-boyfriend. The story is to show that you never know when you going to need to protect yourself and where!! Stay safe and stay the course!!

 

[PratchettFan]

It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

You are very clearly unaware of the current jurisprudence on this issue.

PratchettFan: Oh sure, I have a problem with it. I don't think it would be found constitutional. I don't think it is constitutional. But I am willing to see what the courts have to say about it. Not that I think it is going to come up.

... Not that I think it is going to come up.


M14 Shooter is a joke, "You are very clearly unaware of the current jurisprudence on this issue" - if passed by Congress and signed into Law the definition of "Arms" by legislation would be more likely upheld by the Courts as not, and most likely if the Judges political persuasion is not allowed to influence their decision.

PratchettFan, "Not that I think it is going to come up" may be correct in passing it through the present Congress however a maturing society will progressively come to a similar conclusion / compromise and the foolishness of present day gun fanaticism will become a relic of the past similar to such arguments as slavery, suffrage ... etc. etc.

I understand it is easier to argue your point if you label the opposition in such a manner that you don't have to actually respond to their points. But it is dishonest - mostly to yourself.

I am not a gun fanatic. I do like shooting, but I am not a fanatic about it. If you can show me a solution which will actually solve something worth solving (I mean besides a PR problem for a politician) you might well find me an ally. But it does have to solve a real problem. So far, I have seen nothing.

 

[Politico]

This is why it is a waste of time arguing with gun grabbers. They don't care about anything but the objective.

 

[Brain357]

You don't have any if you can support gun control.

I'm sure somebody said the same sort of thing when they made grenades illegal. But common sense tells me it has saved some lives.

Here you go
[ame=http://youtu.be/XCZ2V4St5t0]My AR-15 Story: Why I Needed My AR-15 - YouTube[/ame]

Text within the video

Here is the story of when I learned that my AR-15 is the right tool for protecting my family. This is just my story, I'm sure yours may differ, but at the end of the day we have the right to protect ourselves with the tool(s) that best and most effectively get the job done. Some situations need handguns, some need rifles. You have to decide what you want to protect you. I've made my choice!!

This was three years ago and I have since moved... But I think people make the generalization that because a large number of guys were there and that I'm black, that I lived in a poor neighborhood or some inner city shit hole, where crime was an everyday thing. That couldn't be any farther from the truth. It was a great upper middle class neighborhood with progressive families of all races. We never had incident until my upstairs neighbor moved in. "He" was the reason this drama happened and more. It was all over a girl and her angry, jealous ex-boyfriend. The story is to show that you never know when you going to need to protect yourself and where!! Stay safe and stay the course!!

Does he live in Mexico? 12 guys during the day and they knock first? Well story ends without A shot fired. So this supports my argument hi cap magazines aren't necessary. I doubt anybody wanted to get shot so a .44 magnum revolver would have done the job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense.

Than you for admitting you understand that your premise is unsound and so you need to BS your way thru it.

False. You rely on inductive reasoning. Inductiv reasoning cannot prove anything.
Thus unsound.

You provided no counter because you seem to not have one.

The onus here is full on you to prove your premise; no one has any responsibility to provide a counterexample to disprove it.

You have failed; you simply refuse to admit it.

You've made it very clear you have no real counter points to my arguments.

Proving your premise unsound, as I have done, is the strongest counterpoint possible.
Why do you continue to choose to respond w/ such intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Darkwind]

I have both:

Fact: I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense.

Common sense: no pro gun person on this board has heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense. If they had common sense says they would be bringing them forward.

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure somebody said the same sort of thing when they made grenades illegal. But common sense tells me it has saved some lives.

Here you go
[ame=http://youtu.be/XCZ2V4St5t0]My AR-15 Story: Why I Needed My AR-15 - YouTube[/ame]

Text within the video

Here is the story of when I learned that my AR-15 is the right tool for protecting my family. This is just my story, I'm sure yours may differ, but at the end of the day we have the right to protect ourselves with the tool(s) that best and most effectively get the job done. Some situations need handguns, some need rifles. You have to decide what you want to protect you. I've made my choice!!

This was three years ago and I have since moved... But I think people make the generalization that because a large number of guys were there and that I'm black, that I lived in a poor neighborhood or some inner city shit hole, where crime was an everyday thing. That couldn't be any farther from the truth. It was a great upper middle class neighborhood with progressive families of all races. We never had incident until my upstairs neighbor moved in. "He" was the reason this drama happened and more. It was all over a girl and her angry, jealous ex-boyfriend. The story is to show that you never know when you going to need to protect yourself and where!! Stay safe and stay the course!!

Does he live in Mexico? 12 guys during the day and they knock first? Well story ends without A shot fired. So this supports my argument hi cap magazines aren't necessary. I doubt anybody wanted to get shot so a .44 magnum revolver would have done the job.

Dumb you are blatantly stupid.
IT wasn't until one of the people in the group saw the AR with the magazine that they backed down.

You doubt anyone wants to get shot? But in gangs they get shot regularly. I am glad I don't live by your rules, I would have to put your plan into action to see if you need 6 rounds or less.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

the other and most obvious similarity in the mass shootings you described

is that there was no one there to stop them

the law abiding have been far too long

been led to believe that gun free zones are gun free

and that gun free ones are safe

both of those beliefs are false

end the gun free zones

the law abiding had zero rounds in each of those cases

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

You're right. Of course they work. There has never been any question about that.

What is actually at stake here, in the US, is lobby money. Without the big bucks from the gun cartel, there really isn't any question.

There's a very tiny minority who jump on every single knee jerk bandwagon and, sice the the teepotters are a failure, this one is tailor made for them.

I didn't see if you posted Part 3 but it was just as hilarious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

You're right. Of course they work. There has never been any question about that.

What is actually at stake here, in the US, is lobby money. Without the big bucks from the gun cartel, there really isn't any question.

There's a very tiny minority who jump on every single knee jerk bandwagon and, sice the the teepotters are a failure, this one is tailor made for them.

I didn't see if you posted Part 3 but it was just as hilarious.

Knee jerk reaction? adding new gun control laws to already existing gun control laws because of a shooting in a state that already has the toughest gun control laws at the time would be an example of a knee jerk reaction.

 

[Darkwind]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

the other and most obvious similarity in the mass shootings you described

is that there was no one there to stop them

the law abiding have been far too long

been led to believe that gun free zones are gun free

and that gun free ones are safe

both of those beliefs are false

end the gun free zones

the law abiding had zero rounds in each of those cases

Of course, you are correct.

But the question was how many examples were there of people using more than 10 rounds to keep themselves from being overwhelmed.

After all, if a gang of people break into your house and they have no bullets, but a bunch of bats and knives, why then several dozen clips of 20 or more bullets will keep them at bay, or do away with the threat.

The difference between the two is in My scenario, the law abiding citizen is using more than just 10 rounds to keep himself and his family alive, whereas the other scenario is that the criminal is just killing people and keeping the defenders at bay BECAUSE he has more than 10 bullets

I made My point and destroyed the argument.

I win.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wow, really?

Do you apply any critical thought to your posts before typing them?

Tell Me, what do most mass shootings have in common besides a person who has gone insane?

The answer is that they had more than 10 rounds. Otherwise, they would be overrun by the people they were attacking. The example is in the very thing you seem to lack understanding about.

How many people will a lone gunman who has gone crazy kill if he faces a theater full of pissed off people who will rush him if he has only a single clip?

The exact same equation applies to law abiding citizens.

Now, before you think you've got Me in a corner, tell Me again how a person who will NEVER have any inclination to go into a school and kill a bunch of kids, or a theater to kill a bunch of people, is a threat to anyone other than people who attach him or her?

Or the woman who can use a gun to stop a rape.

Or an elderly person who can use a gun to stop a home invasion by gang thugs?

Or...well, you get the picture.

Punishing the innocent is not an answer to your cowardice and fear.

I have the right to as many guns as I want. I pose NO THREAT to you or anyone else and never will.

You just aren't bright enough to see it.

the other and most obvious similarity in the mass shootings you described

is that there was no one there to stop them

the law abiding have been far too long

been led to believe that gun free zones are gun free

and that gun free ones are safe

both of those beliefs are false

end the gun free zones

the law abiding had zero rounds in each of those cases

Of course, you are correct.

But the question was how many examples were there of people using more than 10 rounds to keep themselves from being overwhelmed.

After all, if a gang of people break into your house and they have no bullets, but a bunch of bats and knives, why then several dozen clips of 20 or more bullets will keep them at bay, or do away with the threat.

The difference between the two is in My scenario, the law abiding citizen is using more than just 10 rounds to keep himself and his family alive, whereas the other scenario is that the criminal is just killing people and keeping the defenders at bay BECAUSE he has more than 10 bullets

I made My point and destroyed the argument.

I win.

yes you did

i read self defense reports all the time

there certainly are cases that it took more then 10 rounds

 

[Brain357]

the other and most obvious similarity in the mass shootings you described

is that there was no one there to stop them

the law abiding have been far too long

been led to believe that gun free zones are gun free

and that gun free ones are safe

both of those beliefs are false

end the gun free zones

the law abiding had zero rounds in each of those cases

Of course, you are correct.

But the question was how many examples were there of people using more than 10 rounds to keep themselves from being overwhelmed.

After all, if a gang of people break into your house and they have no bullets, but a bunch of bats and knives, why then several dozen clips of 20 or more bullets will keep them at bay, or do away with the threat.

The difference between the two is in My scenario, the law abiding citizen is using more than just 10 rounds to keep himself and his family alive, whereas the other scenario is that the criminal is just killing people and keeping the defenders at bay BECAUSE he has more than 10 bullets

I made My point and destroyed the argument.

I win.

yes you did

i read self defense reports all the time

there certainly are cases that it took more then 10 rounds

Great you should be able to share some then. I've still not heard one.

 

[Spoonman]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

You're right. Of course they work. There has never been any question about that.

What is actually at stake here, in the US, is lobby money. Without the big bucks from the gun cartel, there really isn't any question.

There's a very tiny minority who jump on every single knee jerk bandwagon and, sice the the teepotters are a failure, this one is tailor made for them.

I didn't see if you posted Part 3 but it was just as hilarious.

limited to no gun laws work just as well. since the USA eliminated the clinton assault weapons ban and we have seen about a doubling of gun ownership in that period, gun deaths in the USA have dropped at the same rates as any country with strict gun laws. those strict gun laws have done nothing more to lessen gun violence than are loosening our restrictions have.

 

[paulitician]

I truly believe people who believe in Freedom & Liberty will win out on this in the end. Once the hysterics and shallow exploitation wears off, common sense will win out. Most Americans believe in, and support our Constitution.