Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[AmericanFirst]

I oppose any gun laws. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is all you need to know.

When you close off public areas you only give the criminals more security to massacre people. And that is the stark reality of any item you want to name. There is a price to pay for freedom, whether it is war, a gun, or driving a car. Stop stealing my rights because you are a coward to pay the price.

You speak the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anti-gun = limpwrister Disney character

Gun nut = small penis.

 

[CMike]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

That's two separate issues . An full automatic firearm is different than high magazine capacity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

That's two separate issues . An full automatic firearm is different than high magazine capacity.

No it's not. Don't insult my intelligence. You introduced 'gun battles' into the conversation. Isn't there a reason the military/law enforcement have in some instances automatic weapons?

What is that reason??????

 

[Madeline]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

According to the gun nut rationale, the right to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government;

if that were true, then logically the 2nd amendment protects the right of the People to own any weapons the government owns.

Of course we know that decades of court decisions, not to mention common sense, has proven that to be nonsense.

(I want to credit that thought where due, I think E.J. Dionne made it the other day, maybe others have, too)

 

[Sallow]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed. The slippery slope that every gun nut invokes never materialized.

 

[CMike]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they? or grenades.

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

An "assault weapon" for the anti-gun rights crowd is a gun that looks menacing.

No matter how a gun looks, the same caliber is just is as powerful or weak.

What exactly is a "street sweeper"?

 

[The Outsider]

Are you guys seriously retarded. I don't think half of the people who have posted in this thread know what an assault rifle is...

 

[CMike]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

 

[CMike]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed. The slippery slope that every gun nut invokes never materialized.

What is a "high capacity clip"?

 

[CMike]

Are you guys seriously retarded. I don't think half of the people who have posted in this thread know what an assault rifle is...

It's a black gun, that looks menacing

 

[NYcarbineer]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

There is middle ground. The high capacity clips were banned for 10 years and the world of guns and gun rights was not destroyed. The slippery slope that every gun nut invokes never materialized.

What is a "high capacity clip"?

Stop trolling.

 

[Sallow]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

I know exactly what they are and exactly what they do.

I know the argument.

And I posted it.

Gun nuts are completely unreasonable.

And we see the results of that each year.

Thousands of deaths of Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

A guy who doesn't know that magazines are commonly referred to as 'clips' throughout all of the real gun world, and have been for who knows how long,

can only be a poser.

Nice try, phoney ****, but you've tipped your hand. You don't know guns from broomsticks.

lol, that makes my day.

 

[shintao]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

From what I see here the pro-gunners are reasonable in disobeying the 2nd Amendment for the benefit of anti-gunners.

Why is it when the sign says STOP, you stop your car, even if you get rearended.

But when the sign says SHALL NOT INFRINGE, you think you can go ahead and INFRINGED, even if people get shot?

 

[CMike]

Americans use a gun in self defense every 13 secondsJuly 26th, 2009 11:59 am ET.Americans use a gun in self defense once every 13 seconds, according to a peer-reviewed study.

Americans use a gun in self defense every 13 seconds - National self-defense | Examiner.com


The National Self Defense Survey, as conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, indicates that Americans use guns in self defense 2,500,000 times per year, which is once every 13 seconds.

In about 30% of the defensive gun uses, the would-be victim believes that the gun “almost certainly” or “probably” saved a life.

In more than 1/2 of the self defense gun uses, the would-be victim was under attack by 2 or more criminals, making a firearm the only viable means of self defense for most people.

The overwhelming majority of these defensive gun uses were never reported by the news media.


Gun ownership protects 65 lives for every 2 lives lost, and the overwhelming majority of of those lives lost are due to criminals who ignore gun bans anyway.
.

 

[CMike]

There really isn't a middle ground.

People like myself think the "right" is collective. However, I personally understand there are situations where there is a need for home protection and in some cases business people may need to carry for protection because they are transporting items of large value or large sums of money.

But no..I don't ever see a need for private citizens to own military weapons. Or a need for them to have clips with large amounts of ammunition.

That's the impasse. People who advocate for guns are not reasonable. Nor will they ever be.

They are not "clips" they are magazines.

What is a military weapon? A knife is a military weapon. A revolver or any semi-automatic handgun is a military weapon. A rifle is a military weapon. A shotgun is a military weapon.

The problem is that you really have no understanding of firearms, and what they do.

Guns do kill people. They are supposed to. That is why they are effective for self defense.

A guy who doesn't know that magazines are commonly referred to as 'clips' throughout all of the real gun world, and have been for who knows how long,

can only be a poser.

Nice try, phoney ****, but you've tipped your hand. You don't know guns from broomsticks.

lol, that makes my day.

Not only do you not know the basics of firearms, you are even arrogant about the stuff you get wrong.


magazine - definition of magazine by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

mag·a·zine (mg-zn, mg-zn)
n.
4.
a. A compartment in some types of firearms, often a small detachable box, in which cartridges are held to be fed into the firing chamber.


Clip

Clip (ammunition - encyclopedia article about Clip (ammunition.)

Clip (ammunition)
Inserting an en bloc clip on the M1 GarandA clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine of a repeating firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.

The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, though this usage is incorrect. In the correct usage, a clip is used to feed a magazine or revolving cylinder, while a magazine or a belt is used to load cartridges into the chamber of a firearm.[1]