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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

You really put a lot of faith in those 3 seconds it takes to swap out magazines. You demonstrate again and again that you really don't know much about the guns you want to ban.

That is what the gunners say. I recall at least one in this very thread. Should we call him out if you think it isn't accurate? Maybe you have examples of defenders needing more than a 10 rd magazine? If you don't the time to reload really doesn't matter.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
​

Where do you get from this that our rights are only for self defense?

Nobody is a well regulated militia. Machine guns are restricted, doesn't the military use those?

So far reasons not to save lives are extremely weak and selfish. I suppose you claim to be pro life?

So you do have a reading comprehension problem. I want to give you a test to confirm this. Please identify the 4 transitional words in this popular jump rope chant, the words that interrupt the preceding sentence and start the next. Good luck.

Miss Suzie had a steamboat, the steamboat had a bell, Miss Suzie went to heaven, the steamboat went to hello operator, please give me number nine, and if you disconnect me, I'll kick you in the behind the refrigerator there was a piece of glass, Miss Suzie sat upon it and broke her little ask me no more questions and tell me no more lies, the boys are in the bathroom zipping up their flies are in the meadow, bees are in the park, Miss Suzie and her boyfriend are kissing in the dark.

 

[turtledude]

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.

in reality, their braindead jihad against modern sporting rifles will cause millions more to be sold

 

[turtledude]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

 

[turtledude]

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.

we need them to kill those who would take guns away from us. that is, after all the purpose of the 2A

 

[ChrisL]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

 

[turtledude]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

I wonder if he would be willing to die if anyone is harmed due to a limit on ammo. If not, then the little Shithead should STFU. He has the brains of a syphlitic wombat

 

[ChrisL]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

I wonder if he would be willing to die if anyone is harmed due to a limit on ammo. If not, then the little Shithead should STFU. He has the brains of a syphlitic wombat

Lol! I agree! I think some of these people suffer from a case of believing that their "opinions" matter one bit when it comes to a guaranteed constitutional right. I also would like to know what makes them think that if we let the government tweak one of rights, what is to stop them from doing the same to any of our other rights. That is why all of our rights need to be defended against the traitors who would like us to be at the mercy of the criminals.

It's funny too that these are usually the SAME people who will tell you that our police here in the United States are racist and want to kill black citizens.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

He's a troll. And he's afraid to take my reading comprehension test.

 

[Brain357]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Sure and every time

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Well since nobody can give an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense I guess that won't be happening. Maybe every time a killer uses a hi cap magazine to kill innocent people we should kill anyone who supports them? Now that is something we know will happen.

 

[Brain357]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

 

[turtledude]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Hey wombat brains. iF there is a one in a million chance an honest citizen might need more than 10 rounds, that alone justifies them having a "high capacity" magazine because there is no harm to people having them anyway

 

[turtledude]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Sure and every time

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Well since nobody can give an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense I guess that won't be happening. Maybe every time a killer uses a hi cap magazine to kill innocent people we should kill anyone who supports them? Now that is something we know will happen.

sorry wombat brain, you cannot show that banning them would have stopped any crimes

So STFU you stupid asshole

 

[Brain357]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Hey wombat brains. iF there is a one in a million chance an honest citizen might need more than 10 rounds, that alone justifies them having a "high capacity" magazine because there is no harm to people having them anyway

Yes you care nothing about innocent people getting shot. You don't care that more kids could have escaped Newtown if he had to reload more often. I'll save the lives we know we can save. You keep worrying about the one person who might possibly one day need more than 10 rounds. I'll be saving a lot more lives.

 

[Brain357]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Sure and every time

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

Well since nobody can give an example of anyone needing a hi cap magazine for defense I guess that won't be happening. Maybe every time a killer uses a hi cap magazine to kill innocent people we should kill anyone who supports them? Now that is something we know will happen.

sorry wombat brain, you cannot show that banning them would have stopped any crimes

So STFU you stupid asshole

Interesting way of saying you can't give any examples. Wow you guys really are proving me right. Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

 

[Brain357]

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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

More childish name calling. Can you put together an intelligent thought? You better find one soon you are losing bad.

 

[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.

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

More childish name calling. Can you put together an intelligent thought? You better find one soon you are losing bad.

I can't. You are just too stupid. This statement proves it . . .

"Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns."

 

[Brain357]

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

More childish name calling. Can you put together an intelligent thought? You better find one soon you are losing bad.

I can't. You are just too stupid. This statement proves it . . .

"Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns."

Then what is the difference between shooting and missing every time and a cap gun? Both are making a loud noise and hitting nothing.

 

[ChrisL]

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

More childish name calling. Can you put together an intelligent thought? You better find one soon you are losing bad.

I can't. You are just too stupid. This statement proves it . . .

"Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns."

Then what is the difference between shooting and missing every time and a cap gun? Both are making a loud noise and hitting nothing.

Look, you are obviously too stupid to have a conversation with. Good Lord. I can't even believe it.

 

[Brain357]

and if one innocent dies because they ran out of ammo, their loved ones should KILL those who imposed said restrictions

He asked me to provide an example (JUST one example he said) of a situation where a person/persons used more than 10 rounds to defend themselves and when I posted the evidence, he claimed that it doesn't count because no one was shot. Can you believe that BS, TD?

Of course it doesn't count. You have done nothing to show they needed hi cap magazines. Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns.

Are you really this stupid. I don't believe it. No one could possibly be this stupid.

More childish name calling. Can you put together an intelligent thought? You better find one soon you are losing bad.

I can't. You are just too stupid. This statement proves it . . .

"Since nobody was shot they could have used cap guns."

According to you they were shooting at hundreds of unarmed looters. Well they didn't have magazines that held hundreds of rounds, so obviously they did reload. So if they could reload then it shouldn't matter if they had 10 round magazines or 30 round magazines. Sorry there are a lot of holes in your very weak claim. And so far you have given no reason to believe they NEEDED hi cap magazines.