Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[JimH52]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

Now go away and play with your guns....

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

I again accept your concession, that you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[JimH52]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

I again accept your concession, that you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

and you lose again....Finished with you....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

I again accept your concession, that you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

and you lose again....Finished with you....

All you can do is run away from the fact you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.
Like everyone else.

 

[LOki]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

Nuff said?

 

[Vandalshandle]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

Nuff said?

Fred Nuff. He was the court stenographer at the time of this decision.

 

[danielpalos]

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....

I again accept your concession, that you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

and you lose again....Finished with you....

All you can do is run away from the fact you have no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.
Like everyone else.

I believe more well regulated militias (along with better aqueducts and roads) is better than gun regulation via civil laws and the coercive use of force of the State to merely deny and disparage natural rights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
You are A DAMN LIAR who uses statistics unrelated to the reaction of normal citizens with the basic human trait of empathy for the parents of those assaulted, and those killed in the assaults noted above.

Playing a semantics games is at best childish and more likely denial by some who own multiple guns to satisfy some psychological needs missing in their pitiful life.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Another example of a well regulated militia:

Suspect Confesses to Road Rage Shooting of Girl

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
You are A DAMN LIAR who uses statistics unrelated to the reaction of normal citizens with the basic human trait of empathy for the parents of those assaulted, and those killed in the assaults noted above.

Playing a semantics games is at best childish and more likely denial by some who own multiple guns to satisfy some psychological needs missing in their pitiful life.

More proof that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try to not present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
You are A DAMN LIAR who uses statistics unrelated to the reaction of normal citizens with the basic human trait of empathy for the parents of those assaulted, and those killed in the assaults noted above.

Playing a semantics games is at best childish and more likely denial by some who own multiple guns to satisfy some psychological needs missing in their pitiful life.

More proof that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try to not present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Your posts are quite limited, much like your education and intelligence (I use intelligence when referencing you ironically).

Once I believed you simply lack the ability to comprehend written language, then I considered English might not be your native language, and finally I determined you are both limited in mind and mendacious.

You are now free to continue continue insipid posting. One point of reference for those in touch with reality:

Those on the right, and particularly the far right accuse others of engaging in their behavior, it's childish but ubiquitous among the dumber ones.

 

[2aguy]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

BTW, I'd never runaway from punks who are too cowardly to go to the market or mall without a gun. The basic reason being I learned to watch the hands of crooks and crazies, not their eyes, for they'll attack one's back.

Only a fool wants semi auto rifles banned….when over 1 million of the style of rifle you want banned are in private hands….and are never used to murder anyone….and only 1 or 2 if that, are used for crime.



1 million vs. 1 or 2 a year


Wow….an epidemic…...

 

[2aguy]

Another example of a well regulated militia:

Suspect Confesses to Road Rage Shooting of Girl

Okay…..

over 320 million guns in private hands.

13 million people in the United States carry guns for self defense

1 guy uses a gun to shoot an innocent girl….

Gee Whiz….your point sure is sound…..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your posts are quite limited, much like your education and intelligence (I use intelligence when referencing you ironically).

More proof that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try to not present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Dan Daly]

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
You are A DAMN LIAR who uses statistics unrelated to the reaction of normal citizens with the basic human trait of empathy for the parents of those assaulted, and those killed in the assaults noted above.

Playing a semantics games is at best childish and more likely denial by some who own multiple guns to satisfy some psychological needs missing in their pitiful life.

The only damned liar is, again, in your mirror, boy. You can stomp and huff and puff and blow yourself till the cows come home, but the fact remains that the facts are on our side and all you have is emotional bullshit. Now go have a good cry over all those people you pretend to care about. We both know you don't give a crap about them any more than you give a crap about the rights and freedom of anyone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only damned liar is, again, in your mirror, boy. You can stomp and huff and puff and blow yourself till the cows come home, but the fact remains that the facts are on our side and all you have is emotional bullshit.

As evidenced by his continued vapid responses to substantive challenges.

 

[Wry Catcher]

More proof that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try to not present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty

Posting the same message over and over is both spam and an example of someone too dumb to realize posting the same thing over and over and expecting a different result isn't rational.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Posting the same message over and over...

... effectively serves to remind everyone of your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?

 

[MikeK]

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

[...]

Do you believe the banning of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines would eliminate mass killings?

I don't ask this in the way of smart-ass sarcasm but have you ever used a 12-gauge pump shotgun? These are among the most common hunting firearms in use and I suggest that loaded with five (or seven) rounds of #00 buckshot one of these guns is capable of the same level of close-range mass murder and mayhem as a high-capacity, semi-auto rifle or pistol.

If we ban semi-auto, high-capacity rifles and pistols, and then we ban semi-auto and pump shotguns, do you think those are the only means by which a roomful or a crowd of unarmed, unsuspecting people can be mass-murdered?

The point I'm trying to make is where murderous intent is concerned, as the World Trade Center attack and the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston pressure-cooker bombers) have clearly demonstrated, where there's a will there's a way. So keeping in mind the fact that many millions of high-capacity semi-auto weapons are peacefully owned by rational, law-abiding citizens who cause malicious harm to no-one, do you think banning all of these weapons will eliminate the critical factor of murderous intent?

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

"There are liars, damn liars and statistics"
You are A DAMN LIAR who uses statistics unrelated to the reaction of normal citizens with the basic human trait of empathy for the parents of those assaulted, and those killed in the assaults noted above.

Playing a semantics games is at best childish and more likely denial by some who own multiple guns to satisfy some psychological needs missing in their pitiful life.

The only damned liar is, again, in your mirror, boy. You can stomp and huff and puff and blow yourself till the cows come home, but the fact remains that the facts are on our side and all you have is emotional bullshit. Now go have a good cry over all those people you pretend to care about. We both know you don't give a crap about them any more than you give a crap about the rights and freedom of anyone else.

Quote my alleged lie!

BTW every rational human being not suffering from a personality disorder (think Putin, Assad and members of ISIS) have empathy for those human beings slaughtered by mad men with guns.