Gun Control question for liberals?

[Crepitus]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Same reason you need a $48,000 Ford Pick-up Truck... Because... I will answer the question with all the honesty I can muster... Private Property Protection... As far as the CCW permit, I'm proud of you... It is your right under the protection of the Second Amendment and what every State you live in......

Why do you anticipate your property being attacked, especially so intensely you need a semi automatic with large capacity magazine?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

Speaking of Uninformed, it couldn't have anything to do with your obstinate resistance to using the term Liberal properly, even after you've been schooled therein, and what it says about your mendacity.

Naaah, couldn't be that.

You derail almost every topic with that definition crap. Cut it out already and start sticking to the subject of the thread.

And y'all mendacitymongers always piss your collective pants when your lie is called out for what it is.

Tough titty. Until you quit doing it, the beatings will continue.

 

[Crepitus]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Same reason you need a $48,000 Ford Pick-up Truck... Because... I will answer the question with all the honesty I can muster... Private Property Protection... As far as the CCW permit, I'm proud of you... It is your right under the protection of the Second Amendment and what every State you live in......

It may be a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it won't land you into trouble.

I live in Ohio, a very gun liberal state. I can use deadly force if I am facing the possibility of serious bodily harm (which there is no legal definition of) or death. I can even defend somebody else in the same situation. If somebody attempts to enter my vehicle, over here, it's the same as somebody breaking into your home. I have the legal ability to use deadly force.

However if my permit was allowed in let's say New York, I would never use deadly force unless I was about to be killed myself.

Being able to carry or possess a firearm is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. If the laws protecting the shooter are weak, it's like having no ability to protect yourself at all.

Not so. If you're going to apply deadly force you need to be prepared for the consequences.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It may be a constitutional right, but that doesn't mean it won't land you into trouble.

I live in Ohio, a very gun liberal state. I can use deadly force if I am facing the possibility of serious bodily harm (which there is no legal definition of) or death. I can even defend somebody else in the same situation. If somebody attempts to enter my vehicle, over here, it's the same as somebody breaking into your home. I have the legal ability to use deadly force.

However if my permit was allowed in let's say New York, I would never use deadly force unless I was about to be killed myself.

Being able to carry or possess a firearm is only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. If the laws protecting the shooter are weak, it's like having no ability to protect yourself at all.

I am originally from Indiana and had a lifetime CCW permit... It was probably the toughest thing I had to give up to return to Hawaii... I am well aware of the Laws (Castle Doctrine)... When ever I traveled I always contacted the State Police of any States I would be traveling through and inquired just how stringent the laws were followed... You would be surprised at the number of LEO's that would say "better to have a firearm and not need it, than need one and not have it... Was very fortunate and never needed a firearm and never had to explain myself...

 

[Slade3200]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

 

[Crepitus]

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

It's not my weapon of choice for Home protection... I highly recommend walking on by and not finding out what is...

 

[Crepitus]

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

It's not my weapon of choice for Home protection... I highly recommend walking on by and not finding out what is...

Oooh I love it when you kids make threats.

It's most amusing.

It also tells me a bit about who I'm speaking to.

Welcome to the ranks of the irrelevant dingbats kid.

Enjoy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You consider that a threat? Really?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Welcome to the ranks of the irrelevant dingbats kid.

Enjoy.

Kid? More than likely I have underwear older than you...

 

[Crepitus]

Welcome to the ranks of the irrelevant dingbats kid.

Enjoy.

Kid? More than likely I have underwear older than you...

You should probably get some new ones, they'd have to be pretty old.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You should probably get some new ones, they'd have to be pretty old.

You are not the first person (first on the interweb) to tell me that...

 

[Crepitus]

You should probably get some new ones, they'd have to be pretty old.

You are not the first person (first on the interweb) to tell me that...

I'm not surprised.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

I think you’re off at the very start. Liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning guns. They have a problem with mentally ill, or dangerous people owning guns and they have a problem with military style weapons capable of killing many people in a short amount of time being available.

Everyone should have a problem with mentally ill or dangerous people such as convicted felons owning guns, regardless one’s political beliefs.

And most liberals don’t have a problem with private citizens owning ARs and similar semi-auto carbines and rifles; indeed, many liberals own ARs.

The thread premise fails as both a strawman fallacy and hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[Rigby5]

There likely is no one on this board more leftist, liberal, or progressive than I.
But clearly federal gun control is totally illegal, treasonous to a democratic republic, and insane because it can't disarm criminals but only honest people.

People don't seem to understand that in a democratic republic, the only source of any legal authority is the inherent rights of individuals.
Government is only a hired agent that borrows from those inherent rights of individual when delegated, in order to help protect those individual rights.
That means that the authority for police and the military to be armed comes from the right of individuals to be armed for defense.
If individual could not be armed, then they could not delegate it to police or military, so then police and military could not be armed.

So gun control is completely and totally contrary to a democratic republic.
It also makes no sense because a criminal intent on murder will not be deterred in the least by an additional firearm law.
The people we should most fear abusing firearms is the police and military.
Average citizens actually have a much better record of being non-violent.

The REAL cause of murders, especially shooting, is the government's illegal War on Drugs.
It causes drug profits to be so high that it is impossible for poor communities to resist.
And since a dealer can't use banks or police for protection, the War on Drugs forces them to all be armed.
That results in turf wars, attempted thefts, etc., and that is where almost all the shootings come from.
End the war on drugs, and almost all shootings go away instantly.
Prohibition caused the same murder spike.
This is not something you have to figure out.
It just requires knowing history.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There likely is no one on this board more leftist, liberal, or progressive than I.
But clearly federal gun control is totally illegal, treasonous to a democratic republic, and insane because it can't disarm criminals but only honest people.

Thank you and may I say I really enjoy agreeing with a "leftist, liberal, or progressive" when GMTA...

 

[Marion Morrison]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

 

[Flopper]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.