Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[Politico]

Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

The problem is your reasoning is irrelevant

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It might save lives if we prohibit the free exercise of religion in this country.
It might save lives if we prohibit free speech.
It might save lives if we allow searches by the police anf DHS on the street.
It might save lives if we restrict the second amendment.

But it will not keep us free.

It won't save lives. and you won't be free.

 

[Brain357]

Interesting way to say you have nothing to dispute my argument.

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense. You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound. You provided no counter because you seem to not have one. I have provided an argument that any person with common sense would have to agree with. Now if you have any real argument against it bring it forward. It seems pretty clear you do not, so that means I win. Deal with it.

 

[Brain357]

there is no reasoning behind it

other then some anti gun folks using that number

the mayor of NYC thought seven was a good number

just another random number that he felt was a good number

I have given you my reasoning several times over. How dense are you? It is 10 or lower because there isn't a single example of someone needing more for home defense. See that is reasoning to arrive at a number. Now maybe the mayor did a large study and determined that nobody has needed more than 7. Or maybe that 99.9% of home defenses used less than 7. Regardless I CLEARLY have reasoning for my number.

you have offered no reasoning

other then a need to disarm legal folks

You must not be paying attention. I have not suggested disarming a single legal folk.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting way to say you have nothing to dispute my argument.

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense. You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound. You provided no counter because you seem to not have one. I have provided an argument that any person with common sense would have to agree with. Now if you have any real argument against it bring it forward. It seems pretty clear you do not, so that means I win. Deal with it.

Regardless how deep in denial you are or how deep you have your head buried in the sand you are devoid of any facts and common sense when it comes to firearms.

 

[zeke]

Hey biggie, I see you are on the "job" again. Is this really your job? Or is it like a religious calling? Are you doing the Lords work this Sunday morning? Hey, you broke the 54000 post mark. WOW dude. Get a life. Strap on a gun and go shoot something. Don't think you will be converting anyone on here to the religion of guns. Either they have seen the light by your 30,000 posts or they never will. Your rate of "conversion" sucks. You might need to start an inquisition. Torture till they convert. Well, waterboard, cause I read that simulated drowning is not torture. It's kinda fun. And I am sure you agree.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey biggie, I see you are on the "job" again. Is this really your job? Or is it like a religious calling? Are you doing the Lords work this Sunday morning? Hey, you broke the 54000 post mark. WOW dude. Get a life. Strap on a gun and go shoot something. Don't think you will be converting anyone on here to the religion of guns. Either they have seen the light by your 30,000 posts or they never will. Your rate of "conversion" sucks. You might need to start an inquisition. Torture till they convert. Well, waterboard, cause I read that simulated drowning is not torture. It's kinda fun. And I am sure you agree.

I see yo're still devoid of any common sense. But that is to be expected of an obama drone such as little zeke.

 

[Brain357]

I did indeed refute your argument - I showed that it was unsound.
The onus is on -you- to prove your argument, which you know you have not done.

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense. You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound. You provided no counter because you seem to not have one. I have provided an argument that any person with common sense would have to agree with. Now if you have any real argument against it bring it forward. It seems pretty clear you do not, so that means I win. Deal with it.

Regardless how deep in denial you are or how deep you have your head buried in the sand you are devoid of any facts and common sense when it comes to firearms.

I have both:

Fact: I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense.

Common sense: no pro gun person on this board has heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense. If they had common sense says they would be bringing them forward.

 

[Brain357]

Hey biggie, I see you are on the "job" again. Is this really your job? Or is it like a religious calling? Are you doing the Lords work this Sunday morning? Hey, you broke the 54000 post mark. WOW dude. Get a life. Strap on a gun and go shoot something. Don't think you will be converting anyone on here to the religion of guns. Either they have seen the light by your 30,000 posts or they never will. Your rate of "conversion" sucks. You might need to start an inquisition. Torture till they convert. Well, waterboard, cause I read that simulated drowning is not torture. It's kinda fun. And I am sure you agree.

I see yo're still devoid of any common sense. But that is to be expected of an obama drone such as little zeke.

NRA drones seem to lack it...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey biggie, I see you are on the "job" again. Is this really your job? Or is it like a religious calling? Are you doing the Lords work this Sunday morning? Hey, you broke the 54000 post mark. WOW dude. Get a life. Strap on a gun and go shoot something. Don't think you will be converting anyone on here to the religion of guns. Either they have seen the light by your 30,000 posts or they never will. Your rate of "conversion" sucks. You might need to start an inquisition. Torture till they convert. Well, waterboard, cause I read that simulated drowning is not torture. It's kinda fun. And I am sure you agree.

I see yo're still devoid of any common sense. But that is to be expected of an obama drone such as little zeke.

NRA drones seem to lack it...

Dude it's too late for you you've lost your argument in this thread, now time for you to move on because all you have left is trolling.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a message board, not math. You talk in X and Y's, but this is all common sense. You did not show that it was unsound, you said it was unsound. You provided no counter because you seem to not have one. I have provided an argument that any person with common sense would have to agree with. Now if you have any real argument against it bring it forward. It seems pretty clear you do not, so that means I win. Deal with it.

Regardless how deep in denial you are or how deep you have your head buried in the sand you are devoid of any facts and common sense when it comes to firearms.

I have both:

Fact: I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense.

Common sense: no pro gun person on this board has heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense. If they had common sense says they would be bringing them forward.

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

 

[Brain357]

Regardless how deep in denial you are or how deep you have your head buried in the sand you are devoid of any facts and common sense when it comes to firearms.

I have both:

Fact: I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense.

Common sense: no pro gun person on this board has heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense. If they had common sense says they would be bringing them forward.

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have both:

Fact: I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense.

Common sense: no pro gun person on this board has heard of anyone needing more than 10 rounds for self defense. If they had common sense says they would be bringing them forward.

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

The only way you can justify your position is that if you can predict the future.
Can you do that?

 

[Brain357]

Your problem to get your facts passed off as valid, is that you must have a set scenario with an already known equation to get it to work.
What if you have more than 1 attacker armed as equally if not more?
Now you can go back to ignoring this fact.

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

The only way you can justify your position is that if you can predict the future.
Can you do that?

No I cannot. I can say that based on history it is a really safe bet that hi cap magazines are much more likely to be used in a mass shooting to mow down innocents than be needed for self defense. Can you guarantee that everyone with a semi auto and a hi cap magazine are 100% save?

 

[Brain357]

I see yo're still devoid of any common sense. But that is to be expected of an obama drone such as little zeke.

NRA drones seem to lack it...

Dude it's too late for you you've lost your argument in this thread, now time for you to move on because all you have left is trolling.

Really? So I proved that the capacity limit isn't an arbitrary number. I still haven't heard any reason to believe that more than 10 rounds is needed for defense, while it's clear they are used in mass shootings. A pro gunner was nice enough to give an example of our background checks not working, hence we need to make them stronger. All this and your claiming victory?

again, NRA drones seem to lack common sense.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If it is more than one attacker, based on history it appears that 10 rounds or less has been sufficient. Or else you'd be giving me lots of real examples of it not being sufficient, now wouldn't you? There will always be hypothetical situations where your SOL. If you have 5 ex Navy SEALS intruding on your house with M16's and you have an AR15 your SOL.

The only way you can justify your position is that if you can predict the future.
Can you do that?

No I cannot. ?

That is where you should stop and shut the fuck up.

 

[Brain357]

The only way you can justify your position is that if you can predict the future.
Can you do that?

No I cannot. ?

That is where you should stop and shut the fuck up.

Ah yes, if you have no real argument just swear. Brilliant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I cannot. ?

That is where you should stop and shut the fuck up.

Ah yes, if you have no real argument just swear. Brilliant.

If you can't predict the future then you should stop giving your opinion as if it's factually sound.
Because it is not.

 

[Brain357]

That is where you should stop and shut the fuck up.

Ah yes, if you have no real argument just swear. Brilliant.

If you can't predict the future then you should stop giving your opinion as if it's factually sound.
Because it is not.

Are you trying to prove NRA drones have no common sense? Your doing a great job.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ah yes, if you have no real argument just swear. Brilliant.

If you can't predict the future then you should stop giving your opinion as if it's factually sound.
Because it is not.

Are you trying to prove NRA drones have no common sense? Your doing a great job.

You don't have any if you can support gun control.