The Moment Sandy Hook Parents start cashing in their kids..

[ChrisL]

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

Says the person who was arguing against things I was going to restrict without knowing what those things were....

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

You have already admitted you had no idea what you were arguing. Should I bump that one?

No I didn't. I said I wanted to know your exact position on the second amendment. Now . . . stop playing silly games and state your positions.

1) What other restrictions, besides ammo (which you already stated) would you like to see?
2) Please outline how you think it would stop or slow down crime/criminals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

No...They are looking to GET PAID...
If their cause is genuine, then sue on principal. Don't sue for money.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

No...They are looking to GET PAID...
If their cause is genuine, then sue on principal. Don't sue for money.

I can assure you the law firm that launched this class action suit isn't motivated by principle. They want money, lots and lots of money, they want the pie in the sky. They want money, lots and lots of money, so don't be asking them why. They want to be rich!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your laws won't disarm the bad guys, dumbass. The same crime could have been accomplished with 10 round magazines which take only 3 seconds to change out. That's why this lawsuit will fail, the greed addled plaintiffs not being able to demonstrate that an assault rifle is the only weapon capable of killing that many people.

Idiot responding to phantom post.

Pretty pathetic when you can't keep track of your own thread.

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

Oh are you sure I didn't say more? I haven't reposted everything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Nobody's playing your game anymore. You've been dismissed as a whelp. Bye.

And you've been proven a moron who has no idea what he is talking about. Bravo!

Just..

die.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is retarded. The parents of Sandy Hook "en masse" suddenly becoming apathic with respect to the memory of their dead children?

Don't think so.

I think they are instead trying to send a message to the gun industry "hey, knock it off with the semi-automatic assault rifles sold to the general public". I think their logic is to stave off future child-deaths so other parents don't have to go through what they did.

No...They are looking to GET PAID...
If their cause is genuine, then sue on principal. Don't sue for money.

I can assure you the law firm that launched this class action suit isn't motivated by principle. They want money, lots and lots of money, they want the pie in the sky. They want money, lots and lots of money, so don't be asking them why. They want to be rich!

Of course. Law firms are businesses. They either generate income by billable hours or they do so by winning winnable lawsuits.
Every so often a law firm will take a flyer in the hopes of a huge payoff.
Here are some examples.
Brockovich and Beyond Five Famous Class Action Lawsuits Divine Caroline
In Anderson, the law firm that tried the case for the plaintiff was left in shambles.
The firm that represented the residents of Hinkley, CA took 40% of the $295 million award.
When class action suits are settled, they are usually settled for far less than the plaintiff is asking for.
The law firms usually make out fine. The plaintiffs in the class, very little.

 

[Brain357]

It depends on your state. In all however you are a toad if you ignore the sign.

YOU are probably criminal. That's why you want to limit honest citizens' rights. Basically, you are scum and should be treated as such.

I have suggested nothing that would hinder anyone from defending themselves.

You are advocating restricting MY rights as a United States. I don't like people like you. Any politician who would suggest as much SHOULD be impeached too. Those politicians and people like you put our freedom in jeopardy once you start messing with ANY ONE of our rights. Do you understand that? Once you tweak one, what is to stop them from tweaking other rights, fool?

Oh? What would I restrict?

I'm really not sure. You haven't been very clear, but it is clear that you would like to do something about our 2nd amendment right. Why don't you tell us exactly what kind of restrictions you would like to put on our rights?

No actually you did admit you had no idea what you were arguing against. Why do you bother trying to lie when it is so easy to go back and see what you said?

 

[Brain357]

No wonder we all missed it. That's not even a position or a proposal, just an opinion that they should sue and you don't like hi cap magazines. Are you saying they should be illegal? Just what the hell are you saying?

I don't think Brain has thought anything through at all, and that all of his responses are simply knee jerk reactions.

Says the person who was arguing against things I was going to restrict without knowing what those things were....

I was arguing with you about your wish to put restrictions on ammunition. I am curious to know what other restrictions you would like to put on our rights.

I see that you still have not done so. That's curious.

You have already admitted you had no idea what you were arguing. Should I bump that one?

No I didn't. I said I wanted to know your exact position on the second amendment. Now . . . stop playing silly games and state your positions.

1) What other restrictions, besides ammo (which you already stated) would you like to see?
2) Please outline how you think it would stop or slow down crime/criminals.

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

 

[Iceweasel]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

 

[ChrisL]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Your suggestions would strengthen and embolden the black market for weapons and make matters worse, MUCH worse. Kind of like the drug situation. Now you wouldn't be able to easily trace ANY of those weapons anymore.

By relegating such things to the black market, you make them more difficult to regulate and control, not easier.

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Give examples of the law-abiding needing magazines bigger than 10 rounds. I don't think they would be effected at all.

The mass shooter in CA who was the producers son used 10 rd magazines because larger mags are illegal in CA. So it has worked.

They would become harder and harder to get like machine guns have. Machine guns are pretty much eliminated from crime. It would take quite a few years to start having a real effect. Had the previous restrictions on magazine size been left in place lives would be saved now, like at the Giffords shooting.

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Your suggestions would strengthen and embolden the black market for weapons and make matters worse, MUCH worse. Kind of like the drug situation. Now you wouldn't be able to easily trace ANY of those weapons anymore.

By relegating such things to the black market, you make them more difficult to regulate and control, not easier.

Plus lets face it, the gun nuts are the ones who will be hoarding all the hi cap magazines. After a few years they will be the only ones with them. Nobody really needs them unless you are a mass killer, but gun nuts will be the ones who want them. Criminals don't need them to rob somebody so they won't bother getting one. They have them now because they are common.

 

[Brain357]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

 

[ChrisL]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Your suggestions would strengthen and embolden the black market for weapons and make matters worse, MUCH worse. Kind of like the drug situation. Now you wouldn't be able to easily trace ANY of those weapons anymore.

By relegating such things to the black market, you make them more difficult to regulate and control, not easier.

Plus lets face it, the gun nuts are the ones who will be hoarding all the hi cap magazines. After a few years they will be the only ones with them. Nobody really needs them unless you are a mass killer, but gun nuts will be the ones who want them. Criminals don't need them to rob somebody so they won't bother getting one. They have them now because they are common.

You aren't very bright are you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

 

[Camp]

The 2nd amendment was not designed to address personal or home defense. Defense has nothing to do with our right to bear arms.

 

[Iceweasel]

The 2nd amendment was not designed to address personal or home defense. Defense has nothing to do with our right to bear arms.

Wow, he just blew the whole argument right out of the water! Another Mensa candidate.

The Supremes differ with you, as do scholars going back to the beginning. And anyone that can read.

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd amendment was not designed to address personal or home defense. Defense has nothing to do with our right to bear arms.

There are SEVERAL supreme court decisions that disagree with you.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

 

[Brain357]

I would not restrict ammo, I would restrict capacity. Mass shooters use hi capacity magazines, and gang bangers use hi capacity magazines. I have never heard of anyone needing a hi capacity magazine for defense. I posted a study in this thread that shows defense is 2-3 shots. So I would restrict magazine capacity back to 10, that leaves plenty extra. I wouldn't confiscate, but stop the manufacture and sale of new ones. This would over time make them used less and less in crime. Few mass shooters would be using them, fewer gang bangers would be using them. This would save lives. In the Giffords shooting he was stopped at reload. Obviously if he had to stop sooner lives would have been saved. At Newtown kids escaped when he had to reload. Had he had to reload more often more children would have escaped. Fewer people would be hit by gang banger strays if they are firing less before the magazine is empty. People would still have very capable defensive arms. I would include police in these restrictions for the typical cop. You and others have been pointing out how many defenses don't even require a single shot.

You might need none, you might need twenty. You don't know and you can't know. The cases you cite should have been locked up in a loony bin but libs like you consider it an infringement. Two ten round guns will have more ammo than one with a 17 round magazine.

The person would still have to reach for that second gun. That's an opportunity to be stopped or for people to escape.

All of those things will be available illegally on the black market. The ONLY people who would be effected by such things are LAW-ABIDING citizens. This wouldn't effect law breakers ONE bit.

Your suggestions would strengthen and embolden the black market for weapons and make matters worse, MUCH worse. Kind of like the drug situation. Now you wouldn't be able to easily trace ANY of those weapons anymore.

By relegating such things to the black market, you make them more difficult to regulate and control, not easier.

Plus lets face it, the gun nuts are the ones who will be hoarding all the hi cap magazines. After a few years they will be the only ones with them. Nobody really needs them unless you are a mass killer, but gun nuts will be the ones who want them. Criminals don't need them to rob somebody so they won't bother getting one. They have them now because they are common.

You aren't very bright are you?

You aren't in reality are you? You are denying the gun nuts would hoard them? haha

 

[Brain357]

Here are the people using hi capacity magazines:
A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones

I see no reason to continue making it easy for them to be so well armed.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of someone needing a magazine bigger than 10 rounds for defense.

You're just repeating yourself and ignoring anything people say. As I said before, it isn't a long list, smaller magazines wouldn't have made a difference in many cases and you can't outlaw a legal product because you can't envision their need. I honestly believe you have brain damage, whether from a pistol round or "something" banging on your head in the womb, I don't know.

And you can't give a single example of anyone having the need. 300 million guns and many years to work with and you don't have a single one. How many people have been hit by gang banger strays because of hi cap magazines? We both know a lot!