Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[LibertyLemming]

I love that your argument has been reduced to citing examples from 3 world piss poor countries with no semblance of law or organized structure. You're really doing well proving your point. Really.

but they did have gun bans. mmmm isn't that what you are calling for? yea, they work reall well lamo. why do you keep tripping yourself up?

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

The **** is the difference? The items you want to "restrict" would be effectively banned.

 

[Spoonman]

Try reading what I actually said. I know thats tough with your education level, but ask nice and I'll draw you a picture.

Why would anyone listen to a childish liberal asshole, who's idea of debate is to constantly call people names, and proclaim how much smarter he is than them?

LOL, it's 30 uneducated rednecks against me and I have been called every name in the book, and I'm the childish one? That's rich.

and you've called every name in the book. presented a bunch of opinion but not one fact. pretty much been discredited on every point you've tried to make. yea, that sounds like a typical liberal victory to me.

 

[Crackerjack]

Try reading what I actually said. I know thats tough with your education level, but ask nice and I'll draw you a picture.

Why would anyone listen to a childish liberal asshole, who's idea of debate is to constantly call people names, and proclaim how much smarter he is than them?

LOL, it's 30 uneducated rednecks against me and I have been called every name in the book, and I'm the childish one? That's rich.

You forgot to call us "gun-totin'."

 

[RDD_1210]

yea and peopel being killed by drunk drivers are the price to pay for the convenience of driving. which by the way isn't even a constitutional right.

There an epidemic of people intentionally murdering others with their cars?

Can you think of a need in our society for cars other than intentionally running people over?

Can you say that same about guns?

I'll wait for your response sheep.

Your belief fails in the face of the facts that most of us won't actually ever need to assert most of our rights that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean someone gets to say " you don't need this anymore, so you no longer have it"

It's not about protecting ourselves from the evil government and I really wish these fools would shut up with that bullshit, it's about freedom, the freedom to own a product even if others disprove of that product if the mere existence of that product alone isn't harming other people.

It is amazing to me how many ******* idiots in this country will champion one right while trying to take away another.

For example, how many of you idiots declaring all guns should be illegal favor allowing gays to marry?

Conversely, how many of you pro gun people are idiots who object to gay marriage?

Because let me tell you, when it boils down to it, they are two heads of the same coin. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. PERIOD

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

 

[tjvh]

I've been trying to get a 1000 round brick of .223... Any of you 29 other rednecks have any ideas?? Everyone seems to be sold out.

 

[Spoonman]

I love that your argument has been reduced to citing examples from 3 world piss poor countries with no semblance of law or organized structure. You're really doing well proving your point. Really.

but they did have gun bans. mmmm isn't that what you are calling for? yea, they work reall well lamo. why do you keep tripping yourself up?

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

which too violate the 2nd amendment. and how will they make a difference? you can't stop a guy with a machete, how are you going to stop a guy with any gun? restrictions? big deal. and out right ban didn't even work.

the objective is to stop sensless killings. gin bans or restrictions do not, have not, have never been proven to, stop that problem.

show me an valid example where they have. I know, you can't

and show me how you can gaurantee my safety by limiting my ability to protect myself. show uw a plan

 

[LibertyLemming]

There an epidemic of people intentionally murdering others with their cars?

Can you think of a need in our society for cars other than intentionally running people over?

Can you say that same about guns?

I'll wait for your response sheep.

Your belief fails in the face of the facts that most of us won't actually ever need to assert most of our rights that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean someone gets to say " you don't need this anymore, so you no longer have it"

It's not about protecting ourselves from the evil government and I really wish these fools would shut up with that bullshit, it's about freedom, the freedom to own a product even if others disprove of that product if the mere existence of that product alone isn't harming other people.

It is amazing to me how many ******* idiots in this country will champion one right while trying to take away another.

For example, how many of you idiots declaring all guns should be illegal favor allowing gays to marry?

Conversely, how many of you pro gun people are idiots who object to gay marriage?

Because let me tell you, when it boils down to it, they are two heads of the same coin. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. PERIOD

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

People are being harmed by people. Inanimate objects cannot hurt anything. More people die in car accidents but you don't want to ban them? Despite that, how come you haven't addressed the fact that criminals don't obey laws so all you are really doing is preventing law abiding citizens from being on an equal playing field as criminals.

 

[eflatminor]

...too many people are being harmed by guns..

A gun got up and hurt someone? Where is it?! This we must stop!

 

[tjvh]

There an epidemic of people intentionally murdering others with their cars?

Can you think of a need in our society for cars other than intentionally running people over?

Can you say that same about guns?

I'll wait for your response sheep.

Your belief fails in the face of the facts that most of us won't actually ever need to assert most of our rights that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean someone gets to say " you don't need this anymore, so you no longer have it"

It's not about protecting ourselves from the evil government and I really wish these fools would shut up with that bullshit, it's about freedom, the freedom to own a product even if others disprove of that product if the mere existence of that product alone isn't harming other people.

It is amazing to me how many ******* idiots in this country will champion one right while trying to take away another.

For example, how many of you idiots declaring all guns should be illegal favor allowing gays to marry?

Conversely, how many of you pro gun people are idiots who object to gay marriage?

Because let me tell you, when it boils down to it, they are two heads of the same coin. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. PERIOD

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

And how do you impose tighter restrictions on people's Freedoms? As for tougher penalties on criminals with illegal guns... I have no problem with that. The problem with gun control is that it essentially only controls those who abide by the Law in the first place... Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Spoonman]

I've been trying to get a 1000 round brick of .223... Any of you 29 other rednecks have any ideas?? Everyone seems to be sold out.

ammunition to go just got a bunch in stock

 

[Avatar4321]

self defense

 

[JustTheFacts]

but they did have gun bans. mmmm isn't that what you are calling for? yea, they work reall well lamo. why do you keep tripping yourself up?

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

The **** is the difference? The items you want to "restrict" would be effectively banned.

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a ******* MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

 

[tjvh]

...too many people are being harmed by guns..

A gun got up and hurt someone? Where is it?! This we must stop!

Their fear of inanimate objects is astounding! How do they butter toast when that knife might possibly stab them in the jugular??

 

[RDD_1210]

Why would anyone listen to a childish liberal asshole, who's idea of debate is to constantly call people names, and proclaim how much smarter he is than them?

LOL, it's 30 uneducated rednecks against me and I have been called every name in the book, and I'm the childish one? That's rich.

How is it that 30 so-called uneducated rednecks have a far superior understanding of the Constitution than such an educated liberal hack like yourself?

You're the same people who don't know the difference between communism, socialism, marxism, and being a Nazi. So forgive me if I don't take much stock in your interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[RDD_1210]

but they did have gun bans. mmmm isn't that what you are calling for? yea, they work reall well lamo. why do you keep tripping yourself up?

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

which too violate the 2nd amendment. and how will they make a difference? you can't stop a guy with a machete, how are you going to stop a guy with any gun? restrictions? big deal. and out right ban didn't even work.

the objective is to stop sensless killings. gin bans or restrictions do not, have not, have never been proven to, stop that problem.

show me an valid example where they have. I know, you can't

and show me how you can gaurantee my safety by limiting my ability to protect myself. show uw a plan

I could point to a dozen other countries that have figured out how to drastically reduce gun violence but what's the point. We both know you don't care.

 

[Spoonman]

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

which too violate the 2nd amendment. and how will they make a difference? you can't stop a guy with a machete, how are you going to stop a guy with any gun? restrictions? big deal. and out right ban didn't even work.

the objective is to stop sensless killings. gin bans or restrictions do not, have not, have never been proven to, stop that problem.

show me an valid example where they have. I know, you can't

and show me how you can gaurantee my safety by limiting my ability to protect myself. show uw a plan

I could point to a dozen other countries that have figured out how to drastically reduce gun violence but what's the point. We both know you don't care.

by all means, show us. but please include before and after figures. I've seen this argument discredited way to many times.

 

[RDD_1210]

Your belief fails in the face of the facts that most of us won't actually ever need to assert most of our rights that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean someone gets to say " you don't need this anymore, so you no longer have it"

It's not about protecting ourselves from the evil government and I really wish these fools would shut up with that bullshit, it's about freedom, the freedom to own a product even if others disprove of that product if the mere existence of that product alone isn't harming other people.

It is amazing to me how many ******* idiots in this country will champion one right while trying to take away another.

For example, how many of you idiots declaring all guns should be illegal favor allowing gays to marry?

Conversely, how many of you pro gun people are idiots who object to gay marriage?

Because let me tell you, when it boils down to it, they are two heads of the same coin. Either we have freedom in this country or we don't. PERIOD

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

People are being harmed by people. Inanimate objects cannot hurt anything. More people die in car accidents but you don't want to ban them? Despite that, how come you haven't addressed the fact that criminals don't obey laws so all you are really doing is preventing law abiding citizens from being on an equal playing field as criminals.

Zzzzz

Cars have a purpose in society that doesn't involve killing.

If criminals are just going to violate laws, why have any laws at all?

How many times should I repeat myself?

 

[tjvh]

I'm calling for gun restrictions, learn the difference.

The **** is the difference? The items you want to "restrict" would be effectively banned.

No, it isn't I believe a man ought be able to own a ******* MiniGun if he wants and can afford it, provided he follow the law.

That law ought be able to protect society by restricting certain people from having those weapons and certainly the government ought be able to say "yes you have the freedom to own that weapon, but you can't carry it in here" for example.

The part some of you are forgetting is that with freedom comes responsibility. I own guns, but I have a responsibility not to put others at unease by toting my M16 around , for example. The two are not incompatible.

You seriously have to be stupid to think that the government shouldn't regulate gun ownership at all. Let me remind you of something, back in colonial times duels were legal. If you got mad at someone you could challenge him to a duel and he accepted it was a okay to kill him. That wasn't considered murder.

The catch? It was illegal within the city limits of every colonial town , as was actually carrying a gun in town.

The founding fathers themselves practiced gun regulation. As Virgil Earp said " No one is saying you can't own a gun, no one's even saying you can't carry a gun, all we're saying is you can't carry a gun in town"

Regulation only equals taking your gun away if you're unfit and NEED your gun taken away.

Which by the way, I happen to believe is absolutely unconstitutional under the second amendment which is why I think we need a new amendment.

The old "I own guns, but" response. Care to explain who gets to decide which people are eligible to exercise their Freedoms? I mean it would really be something if a person entered into a field where they got to choose whether others were fit to own a gun if they had an anti gun agenda, or an ax to grind... But that couldn't possibly happen.

 

[Spoonman]

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

People are being harmed by people. Inanimate objects cannot hurt anything. More people die in car accidents but you don't want to ban them? Despite that, how come you haven't addressed the fact that criminals don't obey laws so all you are really doing is preventing law abiding citizens from being on an equal playing field as criminals.

Zzzzz

Cars have a purpose in society that doesn't involve killing.

If criminals are just going to violate laws, why have any laws at all?

How many times should I repeat myself?

mmmm of course i gave you a response to this you never bothered to respond to. so go back to sleep

 

[LibertyLemming]

Thanks for a rational response. First of all, I am not advocating for a total gun ban. I know it's just not practical or feasible. It doesn't make sense.

But to your point about owning a product that isn't harming anyone. Unfortunately too many people are being harmed by guns and this is why I am advocating for tighter restrictions on who can purchase guns and tougher penalties on people who possess guns illegally.

People are being harmed by people. Inanimate objects cannot hurt anything. More people die in car accidents but you don't want to ban them? Despite that, how come you haven't addressed the fact that criminals don't obey laws so all you are really doing is preventing law abiding citizens from being on an equal playing field as criminals.

Zzzzz

Cars have a purpose in society that doesn't involve killing.

If criminals are just going to violate laws, why have any laws at all?

How many times should I repeat myself?

I have no problem with having zero laws against owning any inanimate objects. Unfortunately for you, killing has been happening, and by need, since the dawn on man. We have been surviving with killing a lot long than with cars.

You want to try and legislate morality into society and it will not work. Keep your beliefs to yourself and quit giving up your freedoms so ******* willingly.