Why Do I Need More Than 10 Rounds?

[Daryl Hunt]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, most situations with a gun involved are solved without the gun being fired, and guns are used far more often for protection than not. Do you just do no research? Human nature is self-preservation, and self-interest, which in no way incentivizes people to start shoot-outs.

Of course you don't, you just repeat what the liars, murderers, and robbers in Washington tell you. How about you get used to not having an omnipotent Government, since there's no way for them to trace weapons unless people let them?

I also love how you completely dropped the ethical argument. I take that as an indication that you realized you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.

Now you are telling me what I am thinking? How pineapple of you. Like I said, it's just now started. The Guns have hit the saturation level much like they did in 1871. Look at the last few days. And it's just going to get worse until the General Public says, "Enough". Actually most are saying "Enough" right now. Banning or seizing weapons won't happen but look for more stringent gun regulations. Look for what I call the common sense laws to be enacted all across the nation. And there isn't a damned thing you can do about it except to cry, sob and stomp your feet.

When you say "look at the last few days", you must be referring to the shooting, which was reported by the media before any indication of it starting, where a man in BDUs walked into a Walmart with a 30-bullet weapon and shot 30 people... after which a man in khakis was arrested. Yeah, dude, not a false flag at all. Even more hilarious, you're attempting to use this false flag in which nobody was around to shoot back at the man, as an argument that nobody should be able to shoot back at an active shooter.

Heavy gun regulation is what causes shootings in the first place, assuming they're not a Government False Flag, like the Churchchrist shooting, the El Paso shooting, and the Borderline shooting. Amazingly, when people can just 3D Print or construct their own untraceable guns, making it harder to defend yourself against those people encourages those people. It's like if people are armed, 'criminals' associate more risk with hurting others, since they can get shot this way, how strange. Then you have the nerve to call this blatant violation of property rights, which creates more victims, "common sense". That's a misuse of the term if I ever saw one. What you're arguing for is a proven PRATT. Chicago is a perfect example, especially when compared to Kennesaw Georgia.

"You can't stop it" isn't an argument, especially when I've refuted every single one of your statements. I've refuted it on an ethical front and a pragmatic front. Don't worry, I'm sure Gun Monopolization is just as effective as the war on drugs, champ.

So now you want to must move the goal post and change the subject. Sorry, I won't let you, convict. Hysteria has already set in. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just hysteria. The guy in the walmart open carrying wasn't breaking any laws in Missouri. But mass hysteria set in and someone pulled the emergency fire plug. An Off Duty Concealed Carry Fireman held him at gun point until he was relieved by the cops. Mass hysteria. Even the Police Lt on the scene commented that he was lucky to be alive. Did the person do anything wrong? No. Did he do something really, really stupid, Yes. Right now, carrying an open carry in any department store or public gathering is not the brightest idea. You can bet the Fireman will probably lose his CCW permit as he should.

I already laid out my common sense laws and you gunnutters chopped them to pieces because you could. And you did it in numbers. Well, convict, over 80% of the population agree with those common sense laws and only about 17% agree with you. You seem to be the largest group in here but all that proves is that you are the loudest, not the most. You are nothing more than Internet Bullies and you are going to just get louder and louder, more bullyish every day as the common sense laws are passed universally. Even your Orange One is starting to push for them since if he doesn't the only ones left to vote for him would be his small base and he would lose any and all independent voters that he needs for relelection. Hence the Red Flag Law and the Bump Stock EO.

So puff yourself up, wipe the froth from your mouth, put that gun cleaning kit down and respond.

I didn't move the goal post at all. My stance is, was, and has been that the solution is NO gun regulation. Nobody has a right to someone else's property, nobody has a right to tell someone else what they can and can't do. You seem thoroughly confused by the english language, there, champ.

There may be hysteria among the Government and pathetic sub-humans, but that's on them, not on the people hurting nobody and freely using their individual rights. If someone gets hurt, that's on the person hurting someone else. YOUR support for group punishment because of other violent people and the Government is just fascism.

Calling people who are against infringement on their rights "gun nutters" doesn't help your argument. Your arguments get chopped to pieces because they're nonsensical and unethical, calling them "common sense" doesn't change that. You couldn't even refute that infringement on rights is unethical, you couldn't fulfill the burden of proof, because there's no justification for it.

"Over 80% of the population agrees" not only doesn't justify infringement on someone else's rights, it's fallacious, and appeal to popularity fallacy, even if it were true. As stated earlier, there's no such thing as group rights, and nobody has a right to infringe on someone else's rights.

Stating that I can't stop the Government from being authoritarian isn't a pragmatic or ethical argument, just an assertion. Side note, however, you're going to feel really silly when the Government collapses due to resource deprivation.

I think the people infringing on the rights of others are the bullies. It's hilarious that you're trying to flip that onto people who point out the existence of their property rights. It's not their fault that you're pathetically squalling about not getting what you want, champ.

My orange one? That's downright funny. You DO understand that I'm an Anarchist, yeah? People who support no rulers. People who are against Government and want it out of their business entirely. Authoritarians like the Democrats and Republicans, I fully oppose, along with all other statists, including your dreaded orange man. Needless to say, I don't support the orange man, have no supported the orange man, and him calling for gun monopolization doesn't change that.

I'll put down my gun-cleaning kit when you pull your head from your rectum and actually refute any single one of my arguments instead of dodging them, champ. You have no proven that gun monopolization will accomplish anything OR that it's in any way ethical, you're literally just fronting, and it's pathetic.

I already blew your argument out of the water. I can't help it that you are just gumming yer jaws saying the same tired things over and over. But in case you haven't noticed, universal firearms background checks and the Red Flag laws are soon coming to a theater near to you. And the more you ALLOW the shooters to keep mass shooting, the faster it happens. I predict it's going to happen within 6 months time in either a Congressional Bipartisan bill signed by Trump or an EO. So it doesn't matter what you say, we are getting common sense gun regulations anyway.

You didn't refute my argument, as you provided no reasons as to why it was ethical and no reasons as to how it would reduce shootings. In other words, all you did was write a long post without actually addressing what was being argued.

As I said in my previous post "It's happening" isn't an argument that it SHOULD happen, that it's ethical, or that it works. That's just the individual stomping their feet and screaming that they're getting their way regardless. Though, your Lord and Savior, Government, is not omnipotent, 3D Printed and Home-Made guns, as well as guns on the black market are not traceable, so you really aren't getting what you want. Only people who are fine with following those laws and those who are found out are the ones affected by the Government's blatant fascism.

You don't seem to understand that Gun Monopolization is a PRATT, despite this being explained to you repeatedly. Since you're apparently illiterate, I'll waste time explaining it again just for the viewers;
Guns built at home, from parts, which is easier than making drugs, cannot be traced.

Guns which are 3D-Printed, even partly, cannot be traced.

Guns on the black market cannot be traced.

Your Government will be EVEN LESS effective in monopolizing guns as they have with drugs, it does nothing to stop mass shootings, ESPECIALLY since most of them are false flags, anyway. Completely ignoring my arguments and screaming "I'M GETTING WHAT I WANT ANYWAY" doesn't change that. Chicago and Kennesaw as examples even PROVE that infringing on people's property rights has not stopped shootings.

I'd tell you not to hurt yourself, champ, but I doubt you're even trying to think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, most situations with a gun involved are solved without the gun being fired, and guns are used far more often for protection than not. Do you just do no research? Human nature is self-preservation, and self-interest, which in no way incentivizes people to start shoot-outs.

Of course you don't, you just repeat what the liars, murderers, and robbers in Washington tell you. How about you get used to not having an omnipotent Government, since there's no way for them to trace weapons unless people let them?

I also love how you completely dropped the ethical argument. I take that as an indication that you realized you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.

Now you are telling me what I am thinking? How pineapple of you. Like I said, it's just now started. The Guns have hit the saturation level much like they did in 1871. Look at the last few days. And it's just going to get worse until the General Public says, "Enough". Actually most are saying "Enough" right now. Banning or seizing weapons won't happen but look for more stringent gun regulations. Look for what I call the common sense laws to be enacted all across the nation. And there isn't a damned thing you can do about it except to cry, sob and stomp your feet.

When you say "look at the last few days", you must be referring to the shooting, which was reported by the media before any indication of it starting, where a man in BDUs walked into a Walmart with a 30-bullet weapon and shot 30 people... after which a man in khakis was arrested. Yeah, dude, not a false flag at all. Even more hilarious, you're attempting to use this false flag in which nobody was around to shoot back at the man, as an argument that nobody should be able to shoot back at an active shooter.

Heavy gun regulation is what causes shootings in the first place, assuming they're not a Government False Flag, like the Churchchrist shooting, the El Paso shooting, and the Borderline shooting. Amazingly, when people can just 3D Print or construct their own untraceable guns, making it harder to defend yourself against those people encourages those people. It's like if people are armed, 'criminals' associate more risk with hurting others, since they can get shot this way, how strange. Then you have the nerve to call this blatant violation of property rights, which creates more victims, "common sense". That's a misuse of the term if I ever saw one. What you're arguing for is a proven PRATT. Chicago is a perfect example, especially when compared to Kennesaw Georgia.

"You can't stop it" isn't an argument, especially when I've refuted every single one of your statements. I've refuted it on an ethical front and a pragmatic front. Don't worry, I'm sure Gun Monopolization is just as effective as the war on drugs, champ.

So now you want to must move the goal post and change the subject. Sorry, I won't let you, convict. Hysteria has already set in. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, just hysteria. The guy in the walmart open carrying wasn't breaking any laws in Missouri. But mass hysteria set in and someone pulled the emergency fire plug. An Off Duty Concealed Carry Fireman held him at gun point until he was relieved by the cops. Mass hysteria. Even the Police Lt on the scene commented that he was lucky to be alive. Did the person do anything wrong? No. Did he do something really, really stupid, Yes. Right now, carrying an open carry in any department store or public gathering is not the brightest idea. You can bet the Fireman will probably lose his CCW permit as he should.

I already laid out my common sense laws and you gunnutters chopped them to pieces because you could. And you did it in numbers. Well, convict, over 80% of the population agree with those common sense laws and only about 17% agree with you. You seem to be the largest group in here but all that proves is that you are the loudest, not the most. You are nothing more than Internet Bullies and you are going to just get louder and louder, more bullyish every day as the common sense laws are passed universally. Even your Orange One is starting to push for them since if he doesn't the only ones left to vote for him would be his small base and he would lose any and all independent voters that he needs for relelection. Hence the Red Flag Law and the Bump Stock EO.

So puff yourself up, wipe the froth from your mouth, put that gun cleaning kit down and respond.

I didn't move the goal post at all. My stance is, was, and has been that the solution is NO gun regulation. Nobody has a right to someone else's property, nobody has a right to tell someone else what they can and can't do. You seem thoroughly confused by the english language, there, champ.

There may be hysteria among the Government and pathetic sub-humans, but that's on them, not on the people hurting nobody and freely using their individual rights. If someone gets hurt, that's on the person hurting someone else. YOUR support for group punishment because of other violent people and the Government is just fascism.

Calling people who are against infringement on their rights "gun nutters" doesn't help your argument. Your arguments get chopped to pieces because they're nonsensical and unethical, calling them "common sense" doesn't change that. You couldn't even refute that infringement on rights is unethical, you couldn't fulfill the burden of proof, because there's no justification for it.

"Over 80% of the population agrees" not only doesn't justify infringement on someone else's rights, it's fallacious, and appeal to popularity fallacy, even if it were true. As stated earlier, there's no such thing as group rights, and nobody has a right to infringe on someone else's rights.

Stating that I can't stop the Government from being authoritarian isn't a pragmatic or ethical argument, just an assertion. Side note, however, you're going to feel really silly when the Government collapses due to resource deprivation.

I think the people infringing on the rights of others are the bullies. It's hilarious that you're trying to flip that onto people who point out the existence of their property rights. It's not their fault that you're pathetically squalling about not getting what you want, champ.

My orange one? That's downright funny. You DO understand that I'm an Anarchist, yeah? People who support no rulers. People who are against Government and want it out of their business entirely. Authoritarians like the Democrats and Republicans, I fully oppose, along with all other statists, including your dreaded orange man. Needless to say, I don't support the orange man, have no supported the orange man, and him calling for gun monopolization doesn't change that.

I'll put down my gun-cleaning kit when you pull your head from your rectum and actually refute any single one of my arguments instead of dodging them, champ. You have no proven that gun monopolization will accomplish anything OR that it's in any way ethical, you're literally just fronting, and it's pathetic.

I already blew your argument out of the water. I can't help it that you are just gumming yer jaws saying the same tired things over and over. But in case you haven't noticed, universal firearms background checks and the Red Flag laws are soon coming to a theater near to you. And the more you ALLOW the shooters to keep mass shooting, the faster it happens. I predict it's going to happen within 6 months time in either a Congressional Bipartisan bill signed by Trump or an EO. So it doesn't matter what you say, we are getting common sense gun regulations anyway.

Are you saying the gun laws we have aren't common sense?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

What total lack of gun regulations?
I make mine and I have my own regulations standards. Good luck with stopping people like me

 

[Oddball]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

What lack of regulation?....There are scads of firearms that are illegal to own and numerous modifications that are also illegal.

This reminds me of the economic illiterates who keep mewling about "unfettered capitalism" that we haven't had since the 1800s.

 

[Claudette]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

No regulations on guns?? You sure are an idiot. There are scads of regulations when you buy a gun and scads of regs on what kind of gun you can buy.

As for regulating use of a gun let us know when you ban, regulate and control murderous assholes who use guns in crimes and murder.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon.

What a brainless clod you are.

 

[theHawk]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

Me thinks you need to change the “H” in your name to a “C”.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Diver Diva]

Because .gov uses 30 round magazines.

 

[satrebil]

Actually, most situations with a gun involved are solved without the gun being fired, and guns are used far more often for protection than not. Do you just do no research? Human nature is self-preservation, and self-interest, which in no way incentivizes people to start shoot-outs.

Of course you don't, you just repeat what the liars, murderers, and robbers in Washington tell you. How about you get used to not having an omnipotent Government, since there's no way for them to trace weapons unless people let them?

I also love how you completely dropped the ethical argument. I take that as an indication that you realized you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.

Now you are telling me what I am thinking? How pineapple of you. Like I said, it's just now started. The Guns have hit the saturation level much like they did in 1871. Look at the last few days. And it's just going to get worse until the General Public says, "Enough". Actually most are saying "Enough" right now. Banning or seizing weapons won't happen but look for more stringent gun regulations. Look for what I call the common sense laws to be enacted all across the nation. And there isn't a damned thing you can do about it except to cry, sob and stomp your feet.

During the last years of Obama, beat downs and anarchy increased substantially. White people were the targets in man instances. Threats were massive and going into homes withou just cause increased also. I disagree with you. No one is willingy going to commit suicide by genocide. It takes a long time for people to change their ways. Weapons to protect the place where people live are growing in massive numbers. People will do what they have to and even not follow the Prog induced fascist law if needed.

Actually, over 80% of the population supports the common sense gun regulations. The only reason we haven't them in place across the nation is that the NRA and others have invested so many hundreds of millions to prevent it. It's not the will of the people. It's been the will of the Gun Manufacturers. That has changed in the last few days.

We HAVE common sense gun regulations. Most people, such as yourself, are too stupid to read the existing laws and would rather parrot the bullshit being fed to them by leftist media.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books across this nation. What ******* magic law do you have hidden up your sleeve that stops murderers? Why can you assclowns NEVER answer this?

And some states have loopholes built in where I can drive just 4 minutes away into an area without universal background checks and buy any kind of weapon I want even at the ripe old age of 17 because I look 22 without so much as showing an ID of any kind from a Gun Show or out of the back of a Van in the parking lot of a Denny's. In the Chicago worst crime areas, over 60% of the weapons there come from outside of Illinois. Most come from Indiana just 4 minutes away. That is according to the Chicago Police Chief. Some of those 60% were purchased in Indiana legally except that the people purchasing them have purchased more guns that should have triggered a call to the BATF but the call never happened. Most were purchased outside of Gun Shops. Uni versal Background Checks work as long as they are backed up by law enforcement. But you would try and block that. Can you imagine having 60% fewer guns in criminals hands because they can't get them so easily? And then busting the gun runners by agressively going after them as well. Jailing those that sell those guns without doing legal background checks, etc.. Make it a Federal Felony. That is common sense but to you it's a travesty. But, it's coming whether you like it or not. And it's coming very soon whether it's done on state levels or Federal Levels since it does cross state lines.

There is just ONE of your BS points answered. I have more but it's a waste of time addressing it to you since you will probably be one of the first that the authorities will bust for violating the common sense firearms regulations, convict.

If your premise about Chicago were true, then why aren't there endless shootings in Indiana where the guns are supposedly coming from - numbnuts? There's no ******* logic to your arguments, you're just parroting more left wing media BULLSHIT.

How would universal background checks have stopped the El Paso shooter? He bought his guns legally.
How would universal background checks have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter? He murdered his own ******* mother and STOLE her firearms.

BTW, I've stated repeatedly on this forum (and possibly in this very thread, I'd have to look) I have NO problem, in principle, with universal background checks - I've questioned how they would be implemented. Are you going to give civilians access to NCIC databases? Are you going to require every firearm owner be an FFL holder? Is there going to be a fee? Who's going to be the processor? Will the seller be released from all liability? What about family? Do I need to run a background check on my own goddamn child?

There are endless unanswered questions about "universal background checks". Why don't you morons actually present a viable plan instead of just spouting buzzwords.

 

[Staidhup]

Hell is running out of ammo with a gun in your hand.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

Me thinks you need to change the “H” in your name to a “C”.

Time to thin the gene pool. Have nice day.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hell is running out of ammo with a gun in your hand.

Last gun scare when ammo was hard to get I was selling ammo at a profit of course.

 

[miketx]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

Me thinks you need to change the “H” in your name to a “C”.

Time to thin the gene pool. Have nice day.

I'm carrying almost 30 rounds.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nice story, but wrong answer.

"Why do I need to justify and/or explain anything that is my right to you, do-gooder?"

Correct, if we give an inch the un-Americans will take a mile.

Soon, they will be asking, “Why do I need more than one bullet?”

You Yemens sure do like your total lack of Gun Regulations, don't you.

Me thinks you need to change the “H” in your name to a “C”.

Time to thin the gene pool. Have nice day.

I whole heartily agree.

 

[Oddball]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

 

[miketx]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

Not one of them can explain what their so-called sensible gun laws or and how how they will stop murderers.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I just love all this posturing of the rightwinggunnutters. Notice how hard they try and twist and wind anything and everything. And as hard as they try (they are afterall nutcases) they are failing. They are just getting in the way as more people die needlessly. Everyone that disagrees even the slightest wants to ban all firearms. Anyone that disagrees slightly is a "(&()^% Liberal.....spit on floor", They fight the coming of the common sense firearms regulations tooth and nail. Well, cupcakes. enough people have died in the last couple of weeks even the Republicans are starting to talk about two items that need to be added to the National Firearms Regulations and those two are Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws. The more you block those two, the more needless death of innocents will continue.

Okay, you nutcases, we can never stop all the shootings. But what we can do is minimize them and when they do happen, minimize the body count. Ok, you Rexall Rangers, you want to look at it like Military? ALL Military Commanders look at the battle and find ways to minimize the body count of their own troops. In this case, as a Sillyvillian, we need to look at how to lower the body count of the Civilians. The shooting will still happen but what can we do to minimize the body count. You want to accept the possibility of a high body count because it might bother you a bit. Well, those families of those dead from that high body count are certainly bothered. You want to talk about your Constitutional Rights being infringed upon well you don't get any more infringed on than by being mowed down in a mass shooting that could have either been prevented or minimized. Rather than talk about your silliness, talk about the rights of the dead, wounded and traumatized of these mass shootings and how they can be either prevented or minmized. And don't say by arming everyone there. The Cops won't be able to identify the real shooter anymore than the armed crowd will. Present a real solution.

You're not going to minimize any body counts by making life for the law abiding more troublesome or blaming the inanimate object, which is what every one of the gun grabbers do.

You are still no help. Try again. This time, without the nonsense. Do I sound like a gungrabber? You mean you can't carry on a reasonable conversation with me?

What do you propose that you consider common-sense gun laws?