Nobody needs an AK47 with a 30 round magazine

[The Rabbi]

You know I'm more than capable of deciding for myself what type of gun and magazine I need.

So is the guy who wants to shoot up a movie theater

So I get punished because of his insanity?

How are you "punished" by not having a 30 round magazine for your AK47?

By having the choice taken from me. If a deranged person is determined to shoot up a movie theater do you really a ban on 30 round magazines will stop them?

As a society, we have to balance your right to have the toys of your choice vs the threat of those toys against society

You have no valid need of a 30 round semi auto rifle, while serial killers have demonstrated their need for that weapon

ANd no one has demonstrated that banning a 30 rd magazine either makes it impossible for people to get one, or would stop serial killers(??).
So another fail by Nutjobber, proving RABBI RULES #2!

Actually, they have

Large capacity, assault type weapons are the tool of choice for mass assassins. Just because you can't make a weapon "impossible" to obtain, doesn't mean you should make it easy to obtain

LOL. You cannot distinguish "serial killer" from "mass assasin" from what you had for breakfast.
Smart people see the differences between two similar things. Stupid people dont.

 

[turtledude]

As a society, we have to balance your right to have the toys of your choice vs the threat of those toys against society

You have no valid need of a 30 round semi auto rifle, while serial killers have demonstrated their need for that weapon

No matter how many times you post that lie, IT IS STILL A LIE!

He's just trolling now I asked him to discuss Heller and he couldn't

Nice try at misdirection

Let's constrain our discussion of Heller to your ridiculous assertion that it allows civilians access to the same weapons as police

Why don't you tell us which section of Heller you misread to draw that conclusion?

police are civilians

weapons used by police are in common use and not unusually dangerous

what was the major holding of Heller?

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont know what saving my life might depend on. If I knew that, I would stock only those things. In the absence of that information I have to assume many different scenarios, some of them unlikely but which have happened.
But it doesnt matter. Even if I were certain beyond doubt I would never need a 30rd magazine there is absolutely no, zero, reason why I shouldn't be able to buy one. It has been demonstrated conclusively that limiting magazine capacity does not stop crime. S o why do it?

 

[turtledude]

I dont know what saving my life might depend on. If I knew that, I would stock only those things. In the absence of that information I have to assume many different scenarios, some of them unlikely but which have happened.
But it doesnt matter. Even if I were certain beyond doubt I would never need a 30rd magazine there is absolutely no, zero, reason why I shouldn't be able to buy one. It has been demonstrated conclusively that limiting magazine capacity does not stop crime. S o why do it?

because anti gun nut cases don't care about stopping crime--rather their goal is to harass gun owners because many gun owners don't buy into their far left agenda

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont know what saving my life might depend on. If I knew that, I would stock only those things. In the absence of that information I have to assume many different scenarios, some of them unlikely but which have happened.
But it doesnt matter. Even if I were certain beyond doubt I would never need a 30rd magazine there is absolutely no, zero, reason why I shouldn't be able to buy one. It has been demonstrated conclusively that limiting magazine capacity does not stop crime. S o why do it?

because anti gun nut cases don't care about stopping crime--rather their goal is to harass gun owners because many gun owners don't buy into their far left agenda

It's exactly it. Envy and hatred drive most of the Left's agenda. So banning some kinds of guns wont stop crime at all. But it will stick it to gun owners. So they're for it.
Higher taxes on the rich will not solve the deficit problem, will not make lower class any better off, will not do anything. But it sticks it to the rich, so the Left is for it.
Regulations on industry make no one any safer, but they hate big corporations so they'll slap these things on them to stick it to them so the Left is for it.
That's the mantra of the Left: "Let's stick it to them!"

 

[turtledude]

and one of the main reasons to own guns is to serve as a deterrent to the nefarious schemes that the more mentally diseased members of the left might want one day to foist upon the rest of us

 

[CitizenSeven]

What is so difficult to understand about "shall not be infringed"? The limits already put on this right far exceed every other BOR amendments, and the antis want to curtail it even more. Having to register a gun is insane in states that mandate it, and the mandatory federal background check is likewise ludicrous. Imagine if there were similar background/registration requirements for speech or religious expression. Yet even more limitations are sought. Unreal.

 

[Dr Grump]

because anti gun nut cases don't care about stopping crime--rather their goal is to harass gun owners because many gun owners don't buy into their far left agenda

of course those against the proliferation of guns in society care about stopping crime. They also want to get rid of the proliferation of guns on the street because they see the derogatory affect it has had on the US.

 

[rightwinger]

As a society, we have to balance your right to have the toys of your choice vs the threat of those toys against society

You have no valid need of a 30 round semi auto rifle, while serial killers have demonstrated their need for that weapon

No matter how many times you post that lie, IT IS STILL A LIE!

He's just trolling now I asked him to discuss Heller and he couldn't

Nice try at misdirection

Let's constrain our discussion of Heller to your ridiculous assertion that it allows civilians access to the same weapons as police

Why don't you tell us which section of Heller you misread to draw that conclusion?

police are civilians

weapons used by police are in common use and not unusually dangerous

what was the major holding of Heller?

You deliver as expected
Convoluted logic to try to equate weapons used by police with those allowed in the general population. Meanwhile the courts have continually ruled just the opposite

 

[rightwinger]

What is so difficult to understand about "shall not be infringed"? The limits already put on this right far exceed every other BOR amendments, and the antis want to curtail it even more. Having to register a gun is insane in states that mandate it, and the mandatory federal background check is likewise ludicrous. Imagine if there were similar background/registration requirements for speech or religious expression. Yet even more limitations are sought. Unreal.

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

 

[2aguy]

Is is simple really. We know that background checks, registering guns and limiting access to certain types of guns and magazines don't stop crime or mass shootings and only affect people who will not commit crime or mass shootings. This points to the fact that the people who really push for these things have an irrational fear of guns and allowing people to own them.

So, it is less socially awkward to promote these things than to wear a tinfoil hat in order to stop crime and mass shootings since wearing a tinfoil hat will be as successful as background checks, gun registration and banning guns and magazines...but it will look funnier in public....

 

[2aguy]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

• 
• 

Please...could you, of all people tell us how background checks and gun registration actually stops crime and mass shootings....considering they don't stop all the shootings in Chicago or the other 24 most violent cities in America and they didn't stop the mass shootings in Fort Hood (2 of them), Columbine, the Colorado theater, Santa Barbara, pearl mississippi, the navy yard, Newton or any of the other mass shootings...

Please...explain what background checks, gun registration, banning assault rifles, banning magzines, actually do besides make it a pain in the ass to own guns for law abiding citizens who don't do crime or mass shootings.

Will you at least be honest and say proudly that the whole reason is to annoy legal gun owners because you don't really care about stopping real gun violence?

• 

 

[The Rabbi]

As a society, we have to balance your right to have the toys of your choice vs the threat of those toys against society

You have no valid need of a 30 round semi auto rifle, while serial killers have demonstrated their need for that weapon

No matter how many times you post that lie, IT IS STILL A LIE!

He's just trolling now I asked him to discuss Heller and he couldn't

Nice try at misdirection

Let's constrain our discussion of Heller to your ridiculous assertion that it allows civilians access to the same weapons as police

Why don't you tell us which section of Heller you misread to draw that conclusion?

police are civilians

weapons used by police are in common use and not unusually dangerous

what was the major holding of Heller?

You deliver as expected
Convoluted logic to try to equate weapons used by police with those allowed in the general population. Meanwhile the courts have continually ruled just the opposite

To stupid people that might sound like convoluted logic. But he's right. Cops are civilians. If they need such weapons and they are the second on any scene then surely the average citizen, who is first on the scene, needs them.

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

• 
• 

Please...could you, of all people tell us how background checks and gun registration actually stops crime and mass shootings....considering they don't stop all the shootings in Chicago or the other 24 most violent cities in America and they didn't stop the mass shootings in Fort Hood (2 of them), Columbine, the Colorado theater, Santa Barbara, pearl mississippi, the navy yard, Newton or any of the other mass shootings...

Please...explain what background checks, gun registration, banning assault rifles, banning magzines, actually do besides make it a pain in the ass to own guns for law abiding citizens who don't do crime or mass shootings.

Will you at least be honest and say proudly that the whole reason is to annoy legal gun owners because you don't really care about stopping real gun violence?

• 

Like a true, loyal NRAbot you have been trained to respond "it won't work" to any attempt to reduce gun violence that does not involve more guns

Fact is...It DOES work

It works in country after country around the world. Yes, they restrict gun access to civilians, they have strict background checks, registration, you need to demonstrate a need to own the weapon, sales are strictly controlled

We have murder rates five times what those other countries see.NRAbots will never admit it, but our outrageous murder rate is the price we pay for a second amendment. We are willing to accept mass killings, assasinations, a murder rate that shocks the rest of the world and sit back and say....we don't care, guns keep us safe

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

• 
• 

Please...could you, of all people tell us how background checks and gun registration actually stops crime and mass shootings....considering they don't stop all the shootings in Chicago or the other 24 most violent cities in America and they didn't stop the mass shootings in Fort Hood (2 of them), Columbine, the Colorado theater, Santa Barbara, pearl mississippi, the navy yard, Newton or any of the other mass shootings...

Please...explain what background checks, gun registration, banning assault rifles, banning magzines, actually do besides make it a pain in the ass to own guns for law abiding citizens who don't do crime or mass shootings.

Will you at least be honest and say proudly that the whole reason is to annoy legal gun owners because you don't really care about stopping real gun violence?

• 

Like a true, loyal NRAbot you have been trained to respond "it won't work" to any attempt to reduce gun violence that does not involve more guns

Fact is...It DOES work

It works in country after country around the world. Yes, they restrict gun access to civilians, they have strict background checks, registration, you need to demonstrate a need to own the weapon, sales are strictly controlled

We have murder rates five times what those other countries see.NRAbots will never admit it, but our outrageous murder rate is the price we pay for a second amendment. We are willing to accept mass killings, assasinations, a murder rate that shocks the rest of the world and sit back and say....we don't care, guns keep us safe

Really? Mexico has strict gun laws. How well have those worked? South Africa has strict gun laws. How well are those working?
Switzerland has lax gun laws. How many mass shootings are there there? So does Finland. What's the crime rate like?
Those lib talking points get demolished every single time. Because laws don't affect behavior, culture does.
Knoxville TN and Memphis TN have exactly the same laws. Yet Memphis has a crime rate about 80% over KNoxville's. Why? Can't be the laws.

 

[CitizenSeven]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

Nonsense. It's an individual right that shall not be infringed. Registering, background checks, and licensing are infringements as they are an a priori restraint on exercising the right. It would be like if speech had to be vetted by the state prior to being put in the public domain. Unacceptable.

 

[Wildman]

if no one needs them than civilian law enforcement and state national guards shouldn't have them either

anything civilian cops have so should the rest of us

Damn.....what a stupid post

its a stupid post to morons who don't understand the purpose of the 2A or the Heller ruling

would you like to be edified as to the Heller ruling?

weapons that are in common circulation and use are presumed to be protected by the 2A unless they are unusually dangerous. Stuff used by partially trained CIVILIAN police officers in CIVILIAN URBAN environments are by definition, commonly used and not unusually dangerous

Thanks for reminding us of how deeply your stupidity descends

Heller says nothing of the kind

so you have a law degree

you have lectured on the 2A at ABA accredited law schools

You have been cited in law reviews on the Second Amendment

You regularly converse with second Amendment scholars

I think you are clueless about the subject and you cannot tell the difference between an "assault weapon" and a rectal vibrator

========================================

hey Turtle dude, let me help you educate this liberidiot, about "assault" weapons/rifles: The Truth About Assault Weapons

i believe if this liberfool had the brains of a Box Turtle he would be a genius

BTW, you make a great argument for freedom, liberty and our Constitution AND the Second Amdt. ...........

 

[Wildman]

if no one needs them than civilian law enforcement and state national guards shouldn't have them either

anything civilian cops have so should the rest of us

Damn.....what a stupid post

its a stupid post to morons who don't understand the purpose of the 2A or the Heller ruling

would you like to be edified as to the Heller ruling?

weapons that are in common circulation and use are presumed to be protected by the 2A unless they are unusually dangerous. Stuff used by partially trained CIVILIAN police officers in CIVILIAN URBAN environments are by definition, commonly used and not unusually dangerous

Thanks for reminding us of how deeply your stupidity descends

Heller says nothing of the kind

so you have a law degree

you have lectured on the 2A at ABA accredited law schools

You have been cited in law reviews on the Second Amendment

You regularly converse with second Amendment scholars

I think you are clueless about the subject and you cannot tell the difference between an "assault weapon" and a rectal vibrator

I may not have a law degree, but I do watch Judge Judy every day which more than qualifies me to dispute your idiotic interpretation of Heller

==========================================

being as you are so well versed on the Heller decision, please tell us what you may have learned, we will all remain ignorant until you inform us.



thank you .............................. and

 

[Wildman]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

• 
• 

Please...could you, of all people tell us how background checks and gun registration actually stops crime and mass shootings....considering they don't stop all the shootings in Chicago or the other 24 most violent cities in America and they didn't stop the mass shootings in Fort Hood (2 of them), Columbine, the Colorado theater, Santa Barbara, pearl mississippi, the navy yard, Newton or any of the other mass shootings...

Please...explain what background checks, gun registration, banning assault rifles, banning magzines, actually do besides make it a pain in the ass to own guns for law abiding citizens who don't do crime or mass shootings.

Will you at least be honest and say proudly that the whole reason is to annoy legal gun owners because you don't really care about stopping real gun violence?

• 

====================================

it is absolutely impossible for "the Right to be a LEFT WINGER" to be honest, he even lies to his fellow leftards, he has the brains of a three day dead road kill skunk.., if that much

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing in the second amendment that would restrict background checks or registration
Actually the second amendment encourages both

• 
• 

Please...could you, of all people tell us how background checks and gun registration actually stops crime and mass shootings....considering they don't stop all the shootings in Chicago or the other 24 most violent cities in America and they didn't stop the mass shootings in Fort Hood (2 of them), Columbine, the Colorado theater, Santa Barbara, pearl mississippi, the navy yard, Newton or any of the other mass shootings...

Please...explain what background checks, gun registration, banning assault rifles, banning magzines, actually do besides make it a pain in the ass to own guns for law abiding citizens who don't do crime or mass shootings.

Will you at least be honest and say proudly that the whole reason is to annoy legal gun owners because you don't really care about stopping real gun violence?

• 

Like a true, loyal NRAbot you have been trained to respond "it won't work" to any attempt to reduce gun violence that does not involve more guns

Fact is...It DOES work

It works in country after country around the world. Yes, they restrict gun access to civilians, they have strict background checks, registration, you need to demonstrate a need to own the weapon, sales are strictly controlled

We have murder rates five times what those other countries see.NRAbots will never admit it, but our outrageous murder rate is the price we pay for a second amendment. We are willing to accept mass killings, assasinations, a murder rate that shocks the rest of the world and sit back and say....we don't care, guns keep us safe

Really? Mexico has strict gun laws. How well have those worked? South Africa has strict gun laws. How well are those working?
Switzerland has lax gun laws. How many mass shootings are there there? So does Finland. What's the crime rate like?
Those lib talking points get demolished every single time. Because laws don't affect behavior, culture does.
Knoxville TN and Memphis TN have exactly the same laws. Yet Memphis has a crime rate about 80% over KNoxville's. Why? Can't be the laws.

Once again, gun nuts don't set the bar too high when it comes to gun control or murder rates. They are content to be better off than third world nations. Why can't we be compared to UK or France or Germany or Japan? No, we have to be compared to third world countries under social upheaval.
Both Switzerland and Finland have tougher gun laws than the US
The rest of the civilized world looks at us in shock. How can the US be so nonchalant about its massacres and murder rate?