Perfect example for 2nd amendment rights.

[dudmuck]

Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another. Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...

Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery. Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.

Very few people believe a convicted murderer on parole should be allowed a gun.

Very few people believe a six year old should be allowed to buy a gun.

Everyone believes in gun control to one extent or another.

Ah yes, Ted Nugent.
Says, "Democrats should be shot like coyotes"

Did you have a point?

Looks like you made it for me.

 

[Dale Smith]

Everyone believes in "gun control" to one extent or another. Possibly excepting Ted Nugent...

Very few people believe we should all have access to nukes or tanks or artillery. Very few people believe we should all have unrestricted access to fully automatic machine guns.

Very few people believe a convicted murderer on parole should be allowed a gun.

Very few people believe a six year old should be allowed to buy a gun.

Everyone believes in gun control to one extent or another.

Ah yes, Ted Nugent.
Says, "Democrats should be shot like coyotes"

Did you have a point?

Looks like you made it for me.

Leftards are the ones that have claimed that they have no problem using guns to disarm those that will not acquiesce to the ban of the second amendment........**** the leftard commies. Want my gun? You will get the ammo/spent shells first. I doubt that lily-livered cowards like yourself will be out in front of a "door to door" confiscation program...your nads haven't dropped yet.

(snicker)

 

[Slade3200]

What’s your definition of a well regulated militia ?

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.

Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.

What is constructive about talking about a term that has NOTHING to do with owning possessing and using firearms?

It has to do with the meaning of the second amendment of our constitution, but if that’s too much for you to handle then it’s fine... you don’t need to engage.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes you look at hypothetical situations to understand the definitions of our laws. If this happens how is it handled. You keep dodging instead of answering. Why?

The last thing I would be thinking about if a guy was shooting at me was if he had a 10 or 30 round magazine

Unlike you I know that magazine size matter very little in terms of how many rounds can be fired in a given time frame.

I posted a very informative video on the topic. You should watch it

I did and I didn’t find it relevant. Btw. You don’t need to think about how many bullets a shooter has, I never implied so. I’m simply saying somebody with LCM is more dangerous than somebody who will need to carry and reload more, which is also more dangerous than somebody with a revolver or musket

And the actual research, which I have posted and you have seen shows you are wrong....the only people who need standard magazines are law abiding people who may have to defend themselves from one or more attackers who may be armed ,and to so without help. Criminals can get any magazine they want, and mass shooters can kill lots of unarmed people with 10 round magazines...so you are only hurting normal gun owners...

And also, you are banning the pistols of law abiding gun owners who already have pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in their magazines......

The only thing you are going to do is impact law abiding gun owners...you won't save one life, stop one rape, murder or robbery.....

If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true

First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry. When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker. So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...**** you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...

It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines.

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok, thank you for finally answering, you almost addressed the question but not quite. So we know you don’t want any additional regulations but how do you feel about the current ones that are in place?

There are laws and regulations right now that determine what is “legal” and who is “permitted” to own weapons... do you think those laws and regulations are justified?

There is no need for the additional permits or the taxes.


I have ever had a problem with denying convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill a firearm.

Why can’t you answer a direct question. You know I’m going to just keep asking until you actually give an answer. So here it is AGAIN. How do you feel about the current laws that are in place that regulate who and what people can buy? This is including the regulations on machine guns. Do you support the CURRENT LAWS? Yes or no

Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own

Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?

Look you disingenuous moron he answered your question he stated he does not believe regulations should restrict law abiding people from buying firearms meaning he DOES NOT agree with current laws.

No that’s not what he said... thanks for trying to play though, I think he can speak for himself.

 

[Slade3200]

Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own

Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?

I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms. Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes? So do I. But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it

The only gun criminals the democrats don't care about are the actual gun criminals who use guns to rape, rob, murder ......and then, when they catch them, they let them back out to do it again...meanwhile, they focus all of their actual hate on law abiding gun owners who harm no one, commit no crimes....

They are insane....

Nice rant... how about people like me who own guns, support law abiding citizens right to own guns but also support common sense gun control measures.

When you list some common sense measures I will support them. You haven't done that yet....nothing you propose will reduce crime or mass shootings, but it will make it more expensive, more time consuming and more legally hazardous for law abiding gun owners.....

My common sense gun control.....if you catch a criminal using a gun to commit a crime, a real crime like rape, robbery or murder, they get 30 years for using a gun......on top of any other time......

If you catch a felon with an illegal gun....they automatically get a 30 year sentence for mere possession...

That works.....it works in Japan where they have used it to stop the Yakuza from using guns.......it actually goes after the criminals who use guns, and it leaves law abiding gun owners alone......

There is no need under my common sense gun control to ban any weapon...you ban the actual criminal by locking them up.....that works...nothing you propose works and it is all simply a slow ratcheting down on the Right to Bear arms for normal gun owers.

I’d support strict punishments for those committing gun crimes. I also think that background checks, a centralized database integrated with mental health and criminal histories would help, and like the restrictions put on automatic weapons and hand granades, I have no problem with restrictions on guns or accessories that are deemed as extra dangerous.

 

[Slade3200]

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

Scalia defined it in the D.C v. Heller decision....he did it in great detail....

From Heller....p.22


2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §.....

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,

So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?

Why do you keep harping on the Militia it has ZERO to do with owning weapons.

He thinks he can spring a gotcha trap, but no one is biting. LMAO


.

what gotchya trap are you talking about. Go ahead and expose the devious plot and enlighten us please

 

[OKTexas]

How do you define the “well regulated” part

Scalia defined it in the D.C v. Heller decision....he did it in great detail....

From Heller....p.22


2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §.....

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,

So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?

Why do you keep harping on the Militia it has ZERO to do with owning weapons.

He thinks he can spring a gotcha trap, but no one is biting. LMAO


.

what gotchya trap are you talking about. Go ahead and expose the devious plot and enlighten us please

No thanks, the individual I was communicating with knows what I mean. You're just irrelevant.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Scalia defined it in the D.C v. Heller decision....he did it in great detail....

From Heller....p.22


2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .” a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”). Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §.....

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people,

So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?

Why do you keep harping on the Militia it has ZERO to do with owning weapons.

He thinks he can spring a gotcha trap, but no one is biting. LMAO


.

what gotchya trap are you talking about. Go ahead and expose the devious plot and enlighten us please

No thanks, the individual I was communicating with knows what I mean. You're just irrelevant.


.

In other words you are too ***** to engage. Reading that loud and clear

 

[OKTexas]

So what is your understanding here. A well regulated militia is congressionally organized of 18-45 year old able bodied white males? Is that were we at?

Why do you keep harping on the Militia it has ZERO to do with owning weapons.

He thinks he can spring a gotcha trap, but no one is biting. LMAO


.

what gotchya trap are you talking about. Go ahead and expose the devious plot and enlighten us please

No thanks, the individual I was communicating with knows what I mean. You're just irrelevant.


.

In other words you are too ***** to engage. Reading that loud and clear

No, in other words, you're boring the hell out of me.


.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I define it as irrelevant to the right of "the People to keep and bear arms, just like the supreme court did.


.

How do you define the “well regulated” part

We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.

Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.

What is constructive about talking about a term that has NOTHING to do with owning possessing and using firearms?

It has to do with the meaning of the second amendment of our constitution, but if that’s too much for you to handle then it’s fine... you don’t need to engage.

The Supreme Court ruled you retard it is NOT important and has NOTHING to do with the right of the people to own firearms, do try and keep up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no need for the additional permits or the taxes.


I have ever had a problem with denying convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill a firearm.

Why can’t you answer a direct question. You know I’m going to just keep asking until you actually give an answer. So here it is AGAIN. How do you feel about the current laws that are in place that regulate who and what people can buy? This is including the regulations on machine guns. Do you support the CURRENT LAWS? Yes or no

Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own

Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?

I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms. Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes? So do I. But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it

That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

 

[2aguy]

The last thing I would be thinking about if a guy was shooting at me was if he had a 10 or 30 round magazine

Unlike you I know that magazine size matter very little in terms of how many rounds can be fired in a given time frame.

I posted a very informative video on the topic. You should watch it

I did and I didn’t find it relevant. Btw. You don’t need to think about how many bullets a shooter has, I never implied so. I’m simply saying somebody with LCM is more dangerous than somebody who will need to carry and reload more, which is also more dangerous than somebody with a revolver or musket

And the actual research, which I have posted and you have seen shows you are wrong....the only people who need standard magazines are law abiding people who may have to defend themselves from one or more attackers who may be armed ,and to so without help. Criminals can get any magazine they want, and mass shooters can kill lots of unarmed people with 10 round magazines...so you are only hurting normal gun owners...

And also, you are banning the pistols of law abiding gun owners who already have pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in their magazines......

The only thing you are going to do is impact law abiding gun owners...you won't save one life, stop one rape, murder or robbery.....

If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true

First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry. When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker. So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...**** you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...

It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines.

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

What gives you the Right to tell a law abiding person what they can own when it is protected by the Constitution....and on the practical level...you haven't created a catch 22.....

I stated that criminals can rape, rob and murder without 15 round magazines, but if they want them they will get them. Pointing any gun at an unarmed victim will force them to comply with the rape or robbery, and you can murder an unarmed victim with one bullet when they are cowering before you.....

I stated that mass shooters have already shot and killed lots of people with 10 round magazines and shown you actual research that shows you are wrong on these magazines and mass shootings. Unarmed people do not shoot back....so the shooter...from actual research, does not have to rush to commit his acts, and as actual witnesses tell us, they are calm and relaxed as they murder unarmed victims...

I then showed you that the only one who needs 15-19 round magazines are law abiding citizens...who will be fighting for their lives against the criminals and mass shooters.....and that those 5-9 rounds could be the difference between life and death for their families.....facing one or more attackers, likely armed and attacking from surprise or ambush in the middle of the night when the victim is isolated and without help.......possibly injured and definitely suffering from the adrenaline dump making changing magazines over your arbitrary limit much more difficult, especially in the middle of an attack.....

You just don't care about the truth, facts or reality, you are irrational, and foolish.

 

[Slade3200]

How do you define the “well regulated” part

We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.

Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.

What is constructive about talking about a term that has NOTHING to do with owning possessing and using firearms?

It has to do with the meaning of the second amendment of our constitution, but if that’s too much for you to handle then it’s fine... you don’t need to engage.

The Supreme Court ruled you retard it is NOT important and has NOTHING to do with the right of the people to own firearms, do try and keep up.

It’s not important? Really? Is that how you talk about our second amendment?! You should be ashamed! To me it sounds like you really understand what it means so you are deflecting

 

[Slade3200]

Why can’t you answer a direct question. You know I’m going to just keep asking until you actually give an answer. So here it is AGAIN. How do you feel about the current laws that are in place that regulate who and what people can buy? This is including the regulations on machine guns. Do you support the CURRENT LAWS? Yes or no

Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own

Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?

I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms. Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes? So do I. But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it

That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

 

[Slade3200]

I did and I didn’t find it relevant. Btw. You don’t need to think about how many bullets a shooter has, I never implied so. I’m simply saying somebody with LCM is more dangerous than somebody who will need to carry and reload more, which is also more dangerous than somebody with a revolver or musket

And the actual research, which I have posted and you have seen shows you are wrong....the only people who need standard magazines are law abiding people who may have to defend themselves from one or more attackers who may be armed ,and to so without help. Criminals can get any magazine they want, and mass shooters can kill lots of unarmed people with 10 round magazines...so you are only hurting normal gun owners...

And also, you are banning the pistols of law abiding gun owners who already have pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in their magazines......

The only thing you are going to do is impact law abiding gun owners...you won't save one life, stop one rape, murder or robbery.....

If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true

First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry. When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker. So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...**** you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...

It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines.

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

What gives you the Right to tell a law abiding person what they can own when it is protected by the Constitution....and on the practical level...you haven't created a catch 22.....

I stated that criminals can rape, rob and murder without 15 round magazines, but if they want them they will get them. Pointing any gun at an unarmed victim will force them to comply with the rape or robbery, and you can murder an unarmed victim with one bullet when they are cowering before you.....

I stated that mass shooters have already shot and killed lots of people with 10 round magazines and shown you actual research that shows you are wrong on these magazines and mass shootings. Unarmed people do not shoot back....so the shooter...from actual research, does not have to rush to commit his acts, and as actual witnesses tell us, they are calm and relaxed as they murder unarmed victims...

I then showed you that the only one who needs 15-19 round magazines are law abiding citizens...who will be fighting for their lives against the criminals and mass shooters.....and that those 5-9 rounds could be the difference between life and death for their families.....facing one or more attackers, likely armed and attacking from surprise or ambush in the middle of the night when the victim is isolated and without help.......possibly injured and definitely suffering from the adrenaline dump making changing magazines over your arbitrary limit much more difficult, especially in the middle of an attack.....

You just don't care about the truth, facts or reality, you are irrational, and foolish.

I acknowledge facts when they are presented. I’ve never said I wanted to disarm law abiding citizens. Im a gun owner and don’t support disarming the public. I’m making a case for smart regulation, like the current laws that we have, and I’m opening up the door to discuss if further actions should be taken. I’ve called LCMs a grey area that’s a good debate. People on your side either play hard ass and saying that there should be zero regulations as any infringe in our constitutional rights. This is why I bring up things like age restrictions, mental health and machine guns. Do you want machine guns for sale to anybody who wants to buy one, readily available at every sporting goods store, no questions asked? Cause most people would think that would dangerous and crazy. Since that is currently restricted from happening then my question is simple. Do you support those regulations or do you want a free for all. My guess is that you support the restrictions, however like the rest you are likely to spin and divert away from admitting that. Prove me wrong

 

[2aguy]

And the actual research, which I have posted and you have seen shows you are wrong....the only people who need standard magazines are law abiding people who may have to defend themselves from one or more attackers who may be armed ,and to so without help. Criminals can get any magazine they want, and mass shooters can kill lots of unarmed people with 10 round magazines...so you are only hurting normal gun owners...

And also, you are banning the pistols of law abiding gun owners who already have pistols that hold more than 10 rounds in their magazines......

The only thing you are going to do is impact law abiding gun owners...you won't save one life, stop one rape, murder or robbery.....

If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true

First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry. When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker. So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...**** you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...

It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines.

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

What gives you the Right to tell a law abiding person what they can own when it is protected by the Constitution....and on the practical level...you haven't created a catch 22.....

I stated that criminals can rape, rob and murder without 15 round magazines, but if they want them they will get them. Pointing any gun at an unarmed victim will force them to comply with the rape or robbery, and you can murder an unarmed victim with one bullet when they are cowering before you.....

I stated that mass shooters have already shot and killed lots of people with 10 round magazines and shown you actual research that shows you are wrong on these magazines and mass shootings. Unarmed people do not shoot back....so the shooter...from actual research, does not have to rush to commit his acts, and as actual witnesses tell us, they are calm and relaxed as they murder unarmed victims...

I then showed you that the only one who needs 15-19 round magazines are law abiding citizens...who will be fighting for their lives against the criminals and mass shooters.....and that those 5-9 rounds could be the difference between life and death for their families.....facing one or more attackers, likely armed and attacking from surprise or ambush in the middle of the night when the victim is isolated and without help.......possibly injured and definitely suffering from the adrenaline dump making changing magazines over your arbitrary limit much more difficult, especially in the middle of an attack.....

You just don't care about the truth, facts or reality, you are irrational, and foolish.

I acknowledge facts when they are presented. I’ve never said I wanted to disarm law abiding citizens. Im a gun owner and don’t support disarming the public. I’m making a case for smart regulation, like the current laws that we have, and I’m opening up the door to discuss if further actions should be taken. I’ve called LCMs a grey area that’s a good debate. People on your side either play hard ass and saying that there should be zero regulations as any infringe in our constitutional rights. This is why I bring up things like age restrictions, mental health and machine guns. Do you want machine guns for sale to anybody who wants to buy one, readily available at every sporting goods store, no questions asked? Cause most people would think that would dangerous and crazy. Since that is currently restricted from happening then my question is simple. Do you support those regulations or do you want a free for all. My guess is that you support the restrictions, however like the rest you are likely to spin and divert away from admitting that. Prove me wrong

I will live with current background checks at gun stores, but will not support background checks for private sales. We already have laws that allow us to arrest felons who buy guns.

I think people should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons if they want them, but using them to commit murder should stay illegal.

There should be no limits on magazine capacity, no gun registration, no licensing gun owners and taxes and fees on guns and ammo should be ended since owning a gun is a Right, and any fee on the exercise of a Right has already been declared unConstitutional in Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

Felons and the dangerously mentally ill should be kept from buying guns...non violent felons should have a path to getting their gun Rights back.

Crimes with guns, actual crimes such as rape, robbery and murder should carry a 30 year sentence, on top of the sentence for the crime.....and the gun charge cannot be bargained away.

If a felon is caught in possession of an illegal gun they should also get 30 years.....

Semi automatic weapons, rifles, pistols and shotguns are protected by the Second Amendment and all bans on these weapons need to be removed.....

That is where I stand...

 

[Pop23]

If LCMs don’t provide any more firepower than 10 round mags then why would banning them weaken law abiding citizens? You’re stepping all over yourself with your two conflicting arguments. Sorry but it’s true

First.....why don't you define a large capacity magazine...so we are on the same page...for me, it would be a 100 drum magazine.

Criminals and mass shooters are different from law abiding citizens in their need for standard magazines...the 15-19 round magazines for most pistols and the 30 round magazines for rifles....

Criminals can commit rape, robbery and murder with a 6 shot revolver, they choose the victim and forcing compliance from an unarmed victim simply needs a gun with bullets......also, if they want 15-19 round magazines they steal them or get them from illegal sources.....

Mass shooters choose democrat gun free zones as targets, we know this from the mass shooters we capture and the notes from the dead ones.....shooting unarmed victims in a surprise attack doesn't change if they use 10 round magazines...as the research I posted shows....there is no difference in casualty rates.....they can kill lots of people with 10 round magazines as the shooter in Parkland did, the shooter in Santa Barbara did, and the shooter at columbine and Virginia tech did.....

The Law Abiding citizen needs as many bullets as they can carry. When they are attacked, they will be alone, and usually targeted by ambush and likely attacked by more than one attacker. So you want to limit them to 10 bullets between whatever size group attacks their family an the outcome, rape, robbery or murder.......that is what you want to do.....

We do not tell fire fighters before they try to put out a fire exactly how many gallons of water they get to put the fire out.....they get whatever it takes...

You are saying...if you can't save your family with 10 bullets...**** you and your family, you should have been a better shot.

Then, in the middle of the fight you use your 10 rounds.....now, with adrenaline going through your system, your vision is dilated, you have the shakes and you have to try to change a magazine while under attack and with your body impaired by the adrenaline rush.....and that doesn't even count if you are injured, and then your body gets an even bigger chemical dump......and what if you are injured in one of your arms or hands...a defensive wound and now, because of people like you, instead of having an extra 5-9 rounds to fight with, you are forced to change your magazine...

Because someone like you doesn't like 10 round magazines......

The famous shootout in Florida between the FBI and 2 bank robbers ended with the last standing agent having to do a one handed magazine change because he was shot several times.....

You don't know how many bullets a normal person is going to need to save themselves or their family....yet you want to limit the good guy to 10 rounds, not because it has any effect on criminals or mass shooters, but simply because you don't like guns that hold more than 10 rounds...

It’s just so easy to reverse the argument and use your own shit against you so I’ll just do that in this case. If you are worried that 10 rounds isn’t enough ammo to properly protect yourself then buy more magazines.

You are stuck in a catch 22 Where you try and claim that LCMs don’t give a shooter more power then you try and take the side that it weakens people trying to protect themselves. Can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

What gives you the Right to tell a law abiding person what they can own when it is protected by the Constitution....and on the practical level...you haven't created a catch 22.....

I stated that criminals can rape, rob and murder without 15 round magazines, but if they want them they will get them. Pointing any gun at an unarmed victim will force them to comply with the rape or robbery, and you can murder an unarmed victim with one bullet when they are cowering before you.....

I stated that mass shooters have already shot and killed lots of people with 10 round magazines and shown you actual research that shows you are wrong on these magazines and mass shootings. Unarmed people do not shoot back....so the shooter...from actual research, does not have to rush to commit his acts, and as actual witnesses tell us, they are calm and relaxed as they murder unarmed victims...

I then showed you that the only one who needs 15-19 round magazines are law abiding citizens...who will be fighting for their lives against the criminals and mass shooters.....and that those 5-9 rounds could be the difference between life and death for their families.....facing one or more attackers, likely armed and attacking from surprise or ambush in the middle of the night when the victim is isolated and without help.......possibly injured and definitely suffering from the adrenaline dump making changing magazines over your arbitrary limit much more difficult, especially in the middle of an attack.....

You just don't care about the truth, facts or reality, you are irrational, and foolish.

I acknowledge facts when they are presented. I’ve never said I wanted to disarm law abiding citizens. Im a gun owner and don’t support disarming the public. I’m making a case for smart regulation, like the current laws that we have, and I’m opening up the door to discuss if further actions should be taken. I’ve called LCMs a grey area that’s a good debate. People on your side either play hard ass and saying that there should be zero regulations as any infringe in our constitutional rights. This is why I bring up things like age restrictions, mental health and machine guns. Do you want machine guns for sale to anybody who wants to buy one, readily available at every sporting goods store, no questions asked? Cause most people would think that would dangerous and crazy. Since that is currently restricted from happening then my question is simple. Do you support those regulations or do you want a free for all. My guess is that you support the restrictions, however like the rest you are likely to spin and divert away from admitting that. Prove me wrong

I will live with current background checks at gun stores, but will not support background checks for private sales. We already have laws that allow us to arrest felons who buy guns.

I think people should be allowed to buy fully automatic weapons if they want them, but using them to commit murder should stay illegal.

There should be no limits on magazine capacity, no gun registration, no licensing gun owners and taxes and fees on guns and ammo should be ended since owning a gun is a Right, and any fee on the exercise of a Right has already been declared unConstitutional in Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

Felons and the dangerously mentally ill should be kept from buying guns...non violent felons should have a path to getting their gun Rights back.

Crimes with guns, actual crimes such as rape, robbery and murder should carry a 30 year sentence, on top of the sentence for the crime.....and the gun charge cannot be bargained away.

If a felon is caught in possession of an illegal gun they should also get 30 years.....

Semi automatic weapons, rifles, pistols and shotguns are protected by the Second Amendment and all bans on these weapons need to be removed.....

That is where I stand...

Makes perfect sense. Especially in a world that allows big pharmaceutical to treat patients (11%of the total population 12 years and older) with drugs that make them 50% more likely to commit a violent crime.

You have to wonder why, with this being true, why the left so desperately wants to disarm law abiding citizens?

Is he looking for easier targets?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We don't need too it is irrelevant to the right to own firearms.

Nobody needs to do anything but we are trying to have a productive conversation so when you run and hide from answering simple questions it just makes you sound uninformed.

What is constructive about talking about a term that has NOTHING to do with owning possessing and using firearms?

It has to do with the meaning of the second amendment of our constitution, but if that’s too much for you to handle then it’s fine... you don’t need to engage.

The Supreme Court ruled you retard it is NOT important and has NOTHING to do with the right of the people to own firearms, do try and keep up.

It’s not important? Really? Is that how you talk about our second amendment?! You should be ashamed! To me it sounds like you really understand what it means so you are deflecting

Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID, a militia has NOTHING to do with the right to keep possess and use firearms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gee I could have sworn I told you that IMO anyone who can legally buy any firearm should be able to buy an automatic weapon with no additional permits or taxes.

I assumed anyone could imply from that that I disagree with the mandate for an additional permit and the additional tax.

As far as what people can buy I refer you to the above.

If anyone can legally purchase a firearm I don't care what firearms they own

Wow, are you really not understanding my question or are you just trying so hard to dance around it. It’s been over a day and I still cant get a straight forward answer from you. What’s the deal man, how embarrassing for you. Here I’ll ask it a THIRD time and restate that I’m not talking about future laws or regulations I’m talking about EXISTING ones.

Do you agree with current regulations and laws we have on guns and those who are permitted to buy them? Yes or no. I really can’t be any more simple or clear.

You’ve said in your dodge, that you think anybody who can legally purchase firearms should be able to purchase any kind of gun. But laws define who is considered “legal” so are you ok with those laws?

I don't care if convicted felons or the adjudicated mentally ill are barred from owning firearms. Never did

IMO we are going about the whole gun control thing all wrong anyway.

We do not enforce the laws we have and those laws are not harsh enough instead we step on the rights of people who have done nothing wrong,

You want stop gun crimes? So do I. But telling me and millions of other people who do not commit crimes we don't have the right to own certain firearms is not going to do it

That’s totally fine and it’s a fair debate to have. But what multiplies the problem is when it takes a day and dozens of repetitions to get a simple answer from you. You can’t simply say that you support a certain degree of regulation when it comes to weapons cause you are too dug in on your side. I have to drag it out of you one deflection at a time. How are we to have an productive debate when you act like that?

I answer your questions you just want to nit pick

No you actually don’t, which I clearly point out each time you dodge

Funny how another poster thought my answer was very clear I guess you can't understand