Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I think

didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.

i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.

when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the **** down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

And there you go....100 round drum......that isn't what your side is stopping at....or you.....you want anything over 10 bullets...knowing full well that millions and millions of pistols come with standard 15-19 round magazines which will become illegal and useless...all without having to vote for it...... we know your tactics.

i don't think he's ever picked up an AR15 w/a full 100 round drum.

 

[DamnDude]

didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.

i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.

when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the **** down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

And there you go....100 round drum......that isn't what your side is stopping at....or you.....you want anything over 10 bullets...knowing full well that millions and millions of pistols come with standard 15-19 round magazines which will become illegal and useless...all without having to vote for it...... we know your tactics.

i don't think he's ever picked up an AR15 w/a full 100 round drum.

I don't think he's picked up on a whole lot of stuff, and not just physical....

 

[Slade3200]

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

 

[iceberg]

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun crime. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

 

[Slade3200]

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

 

[2aguy]

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

Wrong...... 18 million AR-15 rifles, likely even more.....3 were used illegally....you have no rational case for your argument. Knives, every single year kill over 1,500, AR-15s about 30 last year.....

You are saying take guns away from people who don't use them for crime..... you have no rational argument.....according to your argument....trucks need to be banned, a rental truck killed 86 and injured 435 more than any of our mass public shooters even with a rifle at a distance....

We need to limit the destructive potential of trucks.......they are deadlier than rifles when used illegally.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I think

didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.

i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.

when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the **** down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

 

[2aguy]

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

 

[iceberg]

didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.

i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.

when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the **** down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

 

[iceberg]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

not pissed - just not playing your bullshit reindeer games. now that i keep asking you to prove something, you're now accusing me of doing the shit i keep saying you're doing. another very liberal tactic.

you don't debate, you just say a lot of shit.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun crime. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Sorry did you mean to say gun control or gun violence? I may have misread. I don’t know if a mag restriction will slow down gun control. I just look at proposals try and understand the plan and then I vote on what I think is best. I don’t even know if I’d vote yes on a mag regulation. I’d have to see what the plan is.

 

[iceberg]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun crime. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Sorry did you mean to say gun control or gun violence? I may have misread. I don’t know if a mag restriction will slow down gun control. I just look at proposals try and understand the plan and then I vote on what I think is best. I don’t even know if I’d vote yes on a mag regulation. I’d have to see what the plan is.

so you have zero idea if you plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing gun violence, yet you keep saying that's what we should do.

maybe.

THAT is why no one listens to the left. it's about controlling things they simply don't understand, can't prove, but FEELZ guilde their motivations.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

 

[basquebromance]

'Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.' - Jonathan Swift

 

[Slade3200]

If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

 

[iceberg]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

And I showed you the rifle...killed fewer people in than the shotgun in case after case, because it isn't the gun or the magazine, it is the location of the shooting and how long it takes someone with a gun to make them stop.

You are pretending this isn't the case, you are one of those anti-gunners who pretend to be reasonable but deny reason with every demand you make.

Of course environment is a factor, do you think I don’t understand that. But put a 100 round riffle in the exact same environment as a shotgun and you’re gonna get more kills with the ruffle. Do you really deny that?!

depends on the environment.

 

[iceberg]

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

That’s fine to think that. Maybe that was a motivating factor. But the fact that it was the official position of our government and other governments, that gives weight behind his actions and negates any criminal activity that is being falsely implicated. There is no crime

so how come you never have to have proof, only others do? you say your COMMON SENSE is so infallible and we're not smart enough to get it, but you seldom if ever hold yourself to the very same accountability you demand of others.

Do you really think a shotgun is going to do the same amount of damage as a 100 round riffle if they are in exact same environment? Do you really need proof?

again for the terminally slow brown eyed groupies out there -

depends on the environment.

 

[Slade3200]

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

not pissed - just not playing your bullshit reindeer games. now that i keep asking you to prove something, you're now accusing me of doing the shit i keep saying you're doing. another very liberal tactic.

you don't debate, you just say a lot of shit.

It’s not a game. It’s asking you the EXACT same question you are asking me and instead of just answering you get upset and claim I’m playing games.

You want me to prove why I’d support a certain gun regulation yet you can’t provide the same proof for the regulation you support. It’s because we are both using our common sense to back our support.

You know machine guns are very dangerous and cause a safety risk so you support their ban. Same concept for the things I’m saying but you gotta call it FEELZ and demand proof.

So show me how to properly answer by proving your support of the auto ban.

 

[iceberg]

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

not pissed - just not playing your bullshit reindeer games. now that i keep asking you to prove something, you're now accusing me of doing the shit i keep saying you're doing. another very liberal tactic.

you don't debate, you just say a lot of shit.

It’s not a game. It’s asking you the EXACT same question you are asking me and instead of just answering you get upset and claim I’m playing games.

You want me to prove why I’d support a certain gun regulation yet you can’t provide the same proof for the regulation you support. It’s because we are both using our common sense to back our support.

You know machine guns are very dangerous and cause a safety risk so you support their ban. Same concept for the things I’m saying but you gotta call it FEELZ and demand proof.

So show me how to properly answer by proving your support of the auto ban.

cause i answer it. over and over again. then you run out to some stupid ass extreme 7-11 nuke f1 race car shit and i just get tired of chasing your tail with you.

chase your own tail for awhile.