Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[NYcarbineer]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

I am for gun rights and own guns but I don't see a good reason not to restore the ban on high capacity magazines,

shall we debate that?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that in order for a weapon to be protected by the 2nd Amendment it must have been used, in use or usable to the military. High capacity magazines are definitely of use to the military.

So are automatic weapons and rocket launchers. WTF?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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??????

In the military fully automatic weapons are not considered personal weapons but rather squad or team weapons. Even the fully automatic rifle. A tripod mounted machine gun is a crew served weapon.

Grenades are explosives with 360 degree radius of kill zone and damage, also not a fire arm.

The US tried making all rifles they issued to the troops fully automatic, the quickly changed their mind and modified them all to 3 round burst mode. You see JOE Soldier tends to waste ammo if he has full auto capability.

You should really just stop digging.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anti-gun is anti-freedom. Period. Only a idiot doesn't see that all their other rights and privileges are protected by the right to be armed.

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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]

bwaaa.....

lol. I'll tell that to all the gun owners I know. Google boy thiinks you're idiots.

 

[CMike]

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]

bwaaa.....

lol. I'll tell that to all the gun owners I know. Google boy thiinks you're idiots.

Hopefully, the gun owners that you know aren't as ignorant about guns as you are.

Amazing that you even get the definition of it from the dictionary, and you still dig in

A magazine is not a clip.

Also, once again, almost all firearms have been or are used by the military.

This includes handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

Knives are used in the military too.

Firearms are supposed to be made to kill. That is why they are used for self defense. If they can't kill they are useless.

Also I am still waiting for the left wing definition of an "assault weapon"? It seems like to liberals it means a black gun that looks menancing.

Any caliber is just as powerful from any gun, althought the difference of barrel length can make a difference.

Also, all the legal weapons shoot one bullet at a time.

Once again, firearms are used by private citizens about 2.5 million times/year in self defense.

 

[CMike]

Anti-gun is anti-freedom. Period. Only a idiot doesn't see that all their other rights and privileges are protected by the right to be armed.

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is something unclear about that?

 

[peach174]

Many ask why people need semi automaitc pistols and rifle's.
Try living near the border with drug cartel's and then maybe you will change your minds.
Cochise Co. is 6,219 sq. miles. In our area we have 3 cops to cover our area of 400 sq. miles. They have to be within a 30 min. drive of their station of assingment.
When you call of a cop out here it can take as long as 30 to 45 min. to come to your place, because of the distance that they have to patrol.
Those of us that live in the middle of nowhere need semi automatic pistols and rifels for protection. You will find that all ranchers and those that live near the boarder usually have these type's of guns because cartels and illegals are constently breaking into those homes and robbing them.
Cartels have high power rifels and they are using them on the citizens of the U.S. Just recently Cartel fired on road contruction crews in Texas.
We also have rabid animals out here. Skunks and rabbits get rabies and then coyotes and mountain lions eat them and then they become rabid.
Coyote's live in packs of about 8 up to 15 and you think that I can defend myself with a little 38 special that holds only 6 rounds? No
We also have havalina - wild boar that get rabbies. They travel in packs of 4 and up to about 15 in one pack.
Why would I want to have a glock with a mag that holds 31 rounds? Because drug cartel have semi automatic rifels that's why.
I would like for the congress men and women who are introducting bills to outlaw mags and clips to come and live on the boarder of AZ. for about a week and then perhaps they will understand why we need them.

 

[CMike]

The police come to write the report after the incident.

 

[cutter]

Instead of gun control we need criminal control. Use a gun to commit a crime get the death penalty as the only sentence.. No pleading to a lesser charge, No shorter sentence! Use a gun in crime get executed. Problem solved.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would still like somebody to point out why we shouldn't make it so people who're selling guns would need a license to do so? This way it enforces that background checks being done, and if you're a law-abiding citizen you can still get guns (I'm not for banning any additional guns for the record).

-It doesn't violate the constitution (which states you have the right to own them-not sell them)
-It doesn't violate private-selling laws, because you can't sell any restricted item privately you want to just anybody (see alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medications)
-It helps keep guns away from criminals
-It doesn't violate the rights, or place any additional restrictions on them of any law-abiding citizens

I posed this a little earlier, but I think it got lost in the whole name-calling and such. Just curious what the pro-gun people think of this, and if they can give me their reasoning. (I'm pro-gun btw).

You don't understand the Constitution, do you? The Constitution does not give me the right to sell a gun, because that is not it's purpose. The US Constitution restricts the rights of government and specifically lists it's powers.
Nowhere in the list of enumerated powers do I find justification for restricting private commerce within the boundaries of a state.

And no! You are not "pro-gun".

 

[Ernie S.]

Anti-gun is anti-freedom. Period. Only a idiot doesn't see that all their other rights and privileges are protected by the right to be armed.

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anti-gun is anti-freedom. Period. Only a idiot doesn't see that all their other rights and privileges are protected by the right to be armed.

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You believe you have unlimited rights? You believe that if your religion practices female circumcision, then the Constitution protects that practice? You believe that penalties for yelling fire in a crowded theatre are unconstitutional? You believe that you have the right to own a rocket launcher, or a machine gun, that that is constitutionally protected, without reserve, and cannot be limited or restricted or regulated in any way? You believe that having to be permitted to own a handgun is unconstitutional? You believe that carrying that pistol wherever you want to cannot be constitutionally restricted?

While we're at it, what part of 'well regulated' in the 2nd amendment don't you understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anti-gun is anti-freedom. Period. Only a idiot doesn't see that all their other rights and privileges are protected by the right to be armed.

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is something unclear about that?

You've already conceded that the government can infringe on your right to own automatic weapons and rocket launchers - what part of that don't YOU understand?

 

[CMike]

Where exactly did i concede anything ?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I would still like somebody to point out why we shouldn't make it so people who're selling guns would need a license to do so? This way it enforces that background checks being done, and if you're a law-abiding citizen you can still get guns (I'm not for banning any additional guns for the record).

-It doesn't violate the constitution (which states you have the right to own them-not sell them)
-It doesn't violate private-selling laws, because you can't sell any restricted item privately you want to just anybody (see alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medications)
-It helps keep guns away from criminals
-It doesn't violate the rights, or place any additional restrictions on them of any law-abiding citizens

I posed this a little earlier, but I think it got lost in the whole name-calling and such. Just curious what the pro-gun people think of this, and if they can give me their reasoning. (I'm pro-gun btw).

You don't understand the Constitution, do you? The Constitution does not give me the right to sell a gun, because that is not it's purpose. The US Constitution restricts the rights of government and specifically lists it's powers.
Nowhere in the list of enumerated powers do I find justification for restricting private commerce within the boundaries of a state.

And no! You are not "pro-gun".

First of all as a gun-owner, yes I am pro-gun.

Second of all (and pay attention) the government DOES restrict private commerce within the boundaries of a state. Can you sell any minor alcohol in the privacy of your own home? NO-that's illegal (some states allow it if you're the parent or legal guardian, but nobody else). Period.

So yes the government DOES have the right to restrict what you sell privately. You can't sell your prescription to anybody can you? NO. You can't-it's illegal.

Talk your way out of that.

Finally-what about the post you quoted infringes on your constitutional rights to bear arms?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

An important fact I haven't noticed being mentioned is that in the usage of the time the Constitution was written "militia" meant all able bodied men.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where exactly did i concede anything ?

When you said automatic weapons didn't qualify as necessary for gun battles, as do big clips.

Feel free to clarify your position. Is it constitutional to infringe on the right to bear arms by limiting or denying the right to own automatic weapons, or grenade launchers, or rocket launchers?

 

[CMike]

Where exactly did i concede anything ?

When you said automatic weapons didn't qualify as necessary for gun battles, as do big clips.

Feel free to clarify your position. Is it constitutional to infringe on the right to bear arms by limiting or denying the right to own automatic weapons, or grenade launchers, or rocket launchers?

Where exactly did I say that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where exactly did i concede anything ?

When you said automatic weapons didn't qualify as necessary for gun battles, as do big clips.

Feel free to clarify your position. Is it constitutional to infringe on the right to bear arms by limiting or denying the right to own automatic weapons, or grenade launchers, or rocket launchers?

The Second Amendment protects the right to own personal military weapons. Fully automatic weapons are not considered personal weapons, they are team or squad or crew served weapons. Grenade launchers are not fire arms. Nor are rocket launchers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

I am for gun rights and own guns but I don't see a good reason not to restore the ban on high capacity magazines,

shall we debate that?

If you'd like. You may start.