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

[idb]

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

Does your brain hurt, bigrednec?

 

[Brain357]

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

It's funny when you know you losing an argument.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Isn't that straw man worn out?

No. If it's reasonable to restrict the sales of some weapons to the military, it's reasonable to discuss the impact of selling the AR-15 to the general public.

Still is a straw man and is worn out.

Define 'straw man' in this context, and then tell me why you think regulating the sale of tanks is not a precedent for regulating the sale of other military grade hardware.

 

[Politico]

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

The FBI doesn't disagree with shit. And you know it or you wouldn't be trying to change the focus to baseball bats. Fact is out of those 8500 less than 4% were from rifles. And few of those involved the scary black ones you Leftytoons go on about. And while we're at it let's address the 10 round OCD fixation you got going on. You ramble on about self defense but the question is how many of those assailants used more than 10. Well guess what you find when you dig into the numbers? That with a few exceptions they don't.

But you already know all this so let's cut the shit. You and the rest of the minions don't care what the actual problem is. You are only interested in making everyone think you care sniff.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I said 8000 PLUS dumb ass

But the figure is more like 11,101
Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

So how many of that 11000 plus number died unarmed?

Well, if I use the same logic that you've used in other threads I can calculate the number.
According to your link, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US.
Therefore 88.8% of the population are armed.
Therefore 8,857 of the 11,101 were armed...and they still got shot and died!!!

***** answer the god damn question or shut the **** up and leave this discussion with you tail tucked between your legs.

That's not a lot of arms how about trying again

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

For a guy who worships the 2nd Amendment, you seem to have little regard for the 1st.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if I use the same logic that you've used in other threads I can calculate the number.
According to your link, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people in the US.
Therefore 88.8% of the population are armed.
Therefore 8,857 of the 11,101 were armed...and they still got shot and died!!!

***** answer the god damn question or shut the **** up and leave this discussion with you tail tucked between your legs.

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

For a guy who worships the 2nd Amendment, you seem to have little regard for the 1st.

He's not an American he doesn't have any rights he 's a subject of the crown.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh it's just every explosive devise in the military. Not a lot huh? Like to see a militia fight a military without them.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

It's funny when you know you losing an argument.

It's even funnier that you lost long ago and still trying to push your dead horse. Now that's funny.

 

[AVG-JOE]

***** answer the god damn question or shut the **** up and leave this discussion with you tail tucked between your legs.

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

For a guy who worships the 2nd Amendment, you seem to have little regard for the 1st.

He's not an American he doesn't have any rights he 's a subject of the crown.

O.k. then... that example seems to be a great definition of "strawman arguing", how about the precedent of regulating the sales of things like tanks and shoulder launched heat-seekers to warrant tight controls on other military grade hardware like the AR-15?

 

[Brain357]

Try again numb nuts you god damn anti gun nut grabbers can't discuss this subject without using some bull shit examples. Yall need to shut the **** up.

It's funny when you know you losing an argument.

It's even funnier that you lost long ago and still trying to push your dead horse. Now that's funny.

How so? That arbitrary thing? Seems I clearly won that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's funny when you know you losing an argument.

It's even funnier that you lost long ago and still trying to push your dead horse. Now that's funny.

How so? That arbitrary thing? Seems I clearly won that.

Dude you've lost this argument,
We have background checks
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore, magazines restriction or ammo restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Move on sonny you have just seen your ass handed to you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For a guy who worships the 2nd Amendment, you seem to have little regard for the 1st.

He's not an American he doesn't have any rights he 's a subject of the crown.

O.k. then... that example seems to be a great definition of "strawman arguing", how about the precedent of regulating the sales of things like tanks and shoulder launched heat-seekers to warrant tight controls on other military grade hardware like the AR-15?

1. He's not an American
2. This is a discussion board he write and post at the whims of the webmaster
3 He doesn't have a first amendment right
SO NO STRAW MAN. But nice try.

 

[Brain357]

It's even funnier that you lost long ago and still trying to push your dead horse. Now that's funny.

How so? That arbitrary thing? Seems I clearly won that.

Dude you've lost this argument,
We have background checks
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore, magazines restriction or ammo restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Move on sonny you have just seen your ass handed to you.

We have background checks. But suppose your cousin wants a gun that you have. Can you sell it to him without going through a background check?

Then why are grenades and other explosive devices illegal? It would seem not having those would effect the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

And it wasn't long ago we did have a restriction on magazine capacity. So clearly it can be done.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 have one agenda, get rid of the United States Constitution.

While you're clearly a scumbag, I will give you props for admitting that you seek to strip people of civil rights. And let's face it, ending civil rights IS the agenda of the Obamunist left in general.

 

[Uncensored2008]

At the end of the interview, it was noted that guns weren't the problem, people were.

I tend to agree.

*sigh*

Isn't your position that guns aren't the problem, civil rights are? Guns for the rulers and strip civil rights from the peasants. It will be GLORIOUS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't. In logic, we call this a fallacy.

Fallacy is the only logic the left employs.

 

[koshergrl]

taking away our rights is funny?

**** you people

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

My right to liberty doesn't trump your right to life. I'm not going to kill you.

I still want to be able to own any rifle I want.

Funny you don't apply this reasoning to women....you maintain that their right to liberty and happiness trumpt the right to life of their children.

Funny how those standards change according to your own whims and interests.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. If it's reasonable to restrict the sales of some weapons to the military, it's reasonable to discuss the impact of selling the AR-15 to the general public.

And it's reasonable to restrict some speech to the press. Thus said the leftist, until SCOTUS fucked that up.

Hey, I get it - you think civil rights are way too important to be squandered on the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Define 'straw man' in this context, and then tell me why you think regulating the sale of tanks is not a precedent for regulating the sale of other military grade hardware.

Tanks are not arms. Not are mortars.

Heavy Armor and Munitions are not arms.

Hey, dishonesty in your war on civil rights is a valid weapon though, right? I mean, you have a dream, where Americans don't even know there WAS a bill of rights....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How so? That arbitrary thing? Seems I clearly won that.

Dude you've lost this argument,
We have background checks
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore, magazines restriction or ammo restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Move on sonny you have just seen your ass handed to you.

We have background checks. But suppose your cousin wants a gun that you have. Can you sell it to him without going through a background check?

Then why are grenades and other explosive devices illegal? It would seem not having those would effect the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

And it wasn't long ago we did have a restriction on magazine capacity. So clearly it can be done.

I do my own background check My gawd stupid it's my cousin I should know their background.
Again your ass has been handed to you.
Are grenades arms or munitions
Again your ass handed to you.

 

[Brain357]

Dude you've lost this argument,
We have background checks
In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller
Therefore, magazines restriction or ammo restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Move on sonny you have just seen your ass handed to you.

We have background checks. But suppose your cousin wants a gun that you have. Can you sell it to him without going through a background check?

Then why are grenades and other explosive devices illegal? It would seem not having those would effect the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

And it wasn't long ago we did have a restriction on magazine capacity. So clearly it can be done.

I do my own background check My gawd stupid it's my cousin I should know their background.
Again your ass has been handed to you.
Are grenades arms or munitions
Again your ass handed to you.

You are getting so easy.

So then you can sell a gun without a background check. I win.

Yes they are arms. Arms are weapons. Might be guns, swords, grenades, nuclear arms... You lose again. A dictionary would really help you.