Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[Brain357]

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

Half of trumps events are at his own properties. Are you really missing the point here?

Trump doesn't allow guns at his properties.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

His "mays" are just common sense. Point a gun at a crowd and pull the trigger once per bullet, reload after 6 shots, is going to produce a much different outcome than holding the trigger and spraying 50 bullets. Does that really need to be explained to you?

That's hilarious. At no point in ANY mass shooting in the United States has anyone pulled the trigger once and "sprayed" 50 bullets. Until you understand what the facts are, I suggest you stop commenting because you'ee showing your ignorance.

 

[Chuz Life]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

 

[hunarcy]

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

Half of trumps events are at his own properties. Are you really missing the point here?

Trump doesn't allow guns at his properties.

Would that be because he doesn't support gun rights or would it be due to legal liability?

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

Reloads taking time is just physics, not speculation. It is simply a fact. And when people are running to safety anything that slows then shooting saves lives obviously.

time measured in half seconds to seconds.

 

[Brain357]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

 

[Timmy]

It may not prevent the shooting from happening but it could reduce body counts.

Unless you confiscate existing firearms and magazines, it will do nothing to prevent their use in another shooting.
Thus, no effect on body counts.

Not true at all... It's a question of ease of access.

Millions upon millions of 'assault weapons' and hi-cap magazines are already in the hands of the public.
Why do you thiink access will be an issue?

If I wanted to get a machine gun or weapon that was banned or regulated, I would have no clue where to get one. Being able to go to a store and buy a weapon is very different than finding a seller in the black market. You must understand this

Jesus guy....go to democrat controlled Chicago, look for the thugs hanging out on the street corner and show them your cash. If they don't shoot your honkey ass and take your money, they will gladly sell you anything you want.

Damn, but you white boys are shor nuff dumb.....

Lol. You watch too many movies .

 

[Slade3200]

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

His "mays" are just common sense. Point a gun at a crowd and pull the trigger once per bullet, reload after 6 shots, is going to produce a much different outcome than holding the trigger and spraying 50 bullets. Does that really need to be explained to you?

That's hilarious. At no point in ANY mass shooting in the United States has anyone pulled the trigger once and "sprayed" 50 bullets. Until you understand what the facts are, I suggest you stop commenting because you'ee showing your ignorance.

Stop dodging by playing word games. You get the point

 

[Chuz Life]

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

 

[Brain357]

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

Reloads taking time is just physics, not speculation. It is simply a fact. And when people are running to safety anything that slows then shooting saves lives obviously.

time measured in half seconds to seconds.

If reloads are so fast and easy defenders have no problem and so you are fine with a ban right?

 

[Brain357]

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

You are scared for something that has never happened, while people are really getting slaughtered. That is really stupid.

 

[Slade3200]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

You do realize that Trump would have a bullet in his gut right now if that kid could have easily bought a gun and was allowed to take it into the rally... Do you get that?

 

[Chuz Life]

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

You are scared for something that has never happened, while people are really getting slaughtered. That is really stupid.

Why do cops carry "high capacity" magazines to defend themselves and the citizens around them if they are never needed?

 

[Brain357]

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

You are scared for something that has never happened, while people are really getting slaughtered. That is really stupid.

Why do cops carry "high capacity" magazines to defend themselves and the citizens around them if they are never needed?

Cops arrest criminals, not just defend themselves. Cops have to go to trouble. Completely different. They have to arrest gangs and stop mass shooters. Most defenses by individuals don't even involve shooting, it is extremely rare actually.

 

[Chuz Life]

Never mind the fact that you want to ban AR-15s completely. . .

I'll ask again. . . which one of those using an AR-15 to defend their self, their business and others would you limit to 10 rounds in a magazine and potentially force them to change mags in the middle of their defensive action?

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

You are scared for something that has never happened, while people are really getting slaughtered. That is really stupid.

Why do cops carry "high capacity" magazines to defend themselves and the citizens around them if they are never needed?

Cops arrest criminals, not just defend themselves. Cops have to go to trouble. Completely different. They have to arrest gangs and stop mass shooters. Most defenses by individuals don't even involve shooting, it is extremely rare actually.

So, in the absence of any cops nearby - an ordinary citizens who is faced with that same gang or mass shooter (that the cops have to deal with) is just fucked by your ban. Right?

 

[Brain357]

All of them. They would have been fine obviously.

And when the day comes that someone is killed while trying to defend themself and they are killed while trying to change one of your smaller capacity mags?

Then what?

You are scared for something that has never happened, while people are really getting slaughtered. That is really stupid.

Why do cops carry "high capacity" magazines to defend themselves and the citizens around them if they are never needed?

Cops arrest criminals, not just defend themselves. Cops have to go to trouble. Completely different. They have to arrest gangs and stop mass shooters. Most defenses by individuals don't even involve shooting, it is extremely rare actually.

So, in the absence of any cops nearby - an ordinary citizens who is faced with that same gang or mass shooter (that the cops have to deal with) is just fucked by your ban. Right?

The defender doesn't try to apprehend the criminals. The defender just defends and will be fine. Defenses are extremely rare, I know nobody who has needed a gun for defense. Of these very rare defenses 99.99% don't even involve shooting. Meanwhile mass shooters are slaughtering people. Stop being paranoid about things that don't happen.

 

[hunarcy]

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

His "mays" are just common sense. Point a gun at a crowd and pull the trigger once per bullet, reload after 6 shots, is going to produce a much different outcome than holding the trigger and spraying 50 bullets. Does that really need to be explained to you?

That's hilarious. At no point in ANY mass shooting in the United States has anyone pulled the trigger once and "sprayed" 50 bullets. Until you understand what the facts are, I suggest you stop commenting because you'ee showing your ignorance.

Stop dodging by playing word games. You get the point

Playing word games? You're presenting hyperbolic lies as an argument and it's tiresome. Come back when you KNOW what you're talking about.

 

[hunarcy]

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

Reloads taking time is just physics, not speculation. It is simply a fact. And when people are running to safety anything that slows then shooting saves lives obviously.

time measured in half seconds to seconds.

If reloads are so fast and easy defenders have no problem and so you are fine with a ban right?

I am not because all you're really trying to do is get something, anything, banned so you can claim precedence, as you did about the 1994 waste of time ban.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

You do realize that Trump would have a bullet in his gut right now if that kid could have easily bought a gun and was allowed to take it into the rally... Do you get that?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

You do realize that Trump would have a bullet in his gut right now if that kid could have easily bought a gun and was allowed to take it into the rally... Do you get that?

Why would I care? I'm a Bernie guy. But, while you say he would have, do you think that the Secret Service and law enforcement people would have just let him walk up and shoot Trump?

 

[Brain357]

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

Reloads taking time is just physics, not speculation. It is simply a fact. And when people are running to safety anything that slows then shooting saves lives obviously.

time measured in half seconds to seconds.

If reloads are so fast and easy defenders have no problem and so you are fine with a ban right?

I am not because all you're really trying to do is get something, anything, banned so you can claim precedence, as you did about the 1994 waste of time ban.

So you support well arming terrorists. That is sad.