To all Gun Grabbers

[HereWeGoAgain]

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

Can't enlighten me, either, I see. Your argument of defense against the government is total bullshit and you know it. But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

We give governments way too much money and power.
We do that because we are lazy and afraid.
But the result is that they lie to us in order to get more money and power, like WMD in Iraq, and then they end up murdering innocent people.
As long as they are Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, etc., we don't care.
But clearly no one should be foolish enough to think they are not going to be willing to murder us as well if that become necessary in order to gain more money and power.
If they can lie and murder 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, they can murder anyone.

And exactly why would anyone call an AR a "serious weapon"?
If someone wanted to murder lots of people, a shotgun would easily be far more deadly.
You can kill far more people with each shot, as long as the range is short.

Actually it's better at around 75 yards. That gives the pellets time to disperse.
The spread at say 20 feet isnt much bigger than a pie plate.

True, but you can shorten the barrel or add a flare like a blunderbuss.
The military is experimenting with flared shotgun barrels.
Called a reverse choke.

The duckbill shotgun has been around since Vietnam.
And the spread I quoted was from a short barrel police riot gun.

This whole idea that you can hit multiple people in one shot at close range is pretty much a myth,unless of course you've cut the barrel extremely short but then it's useless at range since you lose velocity.

 

[rightwinger]

We all know that this discussion is about civilians.

yeah, but it still applies.....because your question is naïve....but you cant tell us how many shots we need, because you couldn't possibly know the answer.....that's why you ignored my question

I didn't ignore your question. Shoot at someone with your gun. You get six chances. If you still haven't managed to hit anyone, change the magazine. This can be done in a couple of seconds with no problem whatsoever according to the many, many gun owners here who have told me that time and time again.

6 shots? that's it? then you reload? 6 shooters are revolvers not many magazine based guns...…so now that we know you dont know much about guns....you must be one of those people that would shit your pants if you saw one in person.

So for you six shooter and your reload, did you calculate:
How many enemies?
What kind of gun is it?
What caliber is it?
Do you know how many shots it takes to kill someone with a specific caliber?
What weapons or armor they may have?
Their training and experience?
Your training and experience?
The location?
What kind of cover they have?
What kind of cover you have?
Are there others around?

I'm sure others can think of more variables.....but those are the basics....sorry I hate criminals...I'd rather they end up dead.....and not innocents.

You can adequately defend yourself without high capacity magazines and I don't care if you ask me a page full of questions. I was kinda guessing on the number of bullets in an average mag. So I just googled it and the "average" is 8 or 9!!!! If you can't hit your target by then, you need to hit the range.

This is a standard drum mag. This is adequate home defense.

Never know when a squirrel will get loose in your house

 

[Rigby5]

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

I've used them at the range. I don't go shooting people either.

So we have to make massacres easier so you don’t have to reload at the range

Wouldn’t want to inconvenience you

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.
Never has, never could.
But the ban would make a million current honest people into felons and make all cheap surplus magazines illegal. All that does is increase the price by preventing the purchase of surplus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

 

[Rigby5]

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

Can't enlighten me, either, I see. Your argument of defense against the government is total bullshit and you know it. But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

We give governments way too much money and power.
We do that because we are lazy and afraid.
But the result is that they lie to us in order to get more money and power, like WMD in Iraq, and then they end up murdering innocent people.
As long as they are Iraqis, Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, etc., we don't care.
But clearly no one should be foolish enough to think they are not going to be willing to murder us as well if that become necessary in order to gain more money and power.
If they can lie and murder 3 million Vietnamese and half a million Iraqis, they can murder anyone.

And exactly why would anyone call an AR a "serious weapon"?
If someone wanted to murder lots of people, a shotgun would easily be far more deadly.
You can kill far more people with each shot, as long as the range is short.

Actually it's better at around 75 yards. That gives the pellets time to disperse.
The spread at say 20 feet isnt much bigger than a pie plate.

True, but you can shorten the barrel or add a flare like a blunderbuss.
The military is experimenting with flared shotgun barrels.
Called a reverse choke.

The duckbill shotgun has been around since Vietnam.
And the spread I quoted was from a short barrel police riot gun.

This whole idea that you can hit multiple people in one shot at close range is pretty much a myth,unless of course you've cut the barrel extremely short but then it's useless at range since you lose velocity.

I did not know that.
Thanks.

Apparently quite old.

 

[Rigby5]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

The Constitution was written by smarter people than we elect now, so it would be foolish to allow the hacks we elected to change it at all.
And why would the 2nd amendment not be applicable now?
Has government gotten less likely to become corrupt and powerful?
Look at the Iraqi WMD lies and the torture at Guantanamo.
Clearly central government in the US is more corrupt than ever.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

I've used them at the range. I don't go shooting people either.

So we have to make massacres easier so you don’t have to reload at the range

Wouldn’t want to inconvenience you

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.
Never has, never could.
But the ban would make a million current honest people into felons and make all cheap surplus magazines illegal. All that does is increase the price by preventing the purchase of surplus.

Minor inconvenience to gun owners

Major inconvenience to mass killers

 

[rightwinger]

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

The Constitution was written by smarter people than we elect now, so it would be foolish to allow the hacks we elected to change it at all.
And why would the 2nd amendment not be applicable now?
Has government gotten less likely to become corrupt and powerful?
Look at the Iraqi WMD lies and the torture at Guantanamo.
Clearly central government in the US is more corrupt than ever.

Who says smarter?

We have the smartest President in history right now. Real smart, big brain, went to Wharton

 

[rightwinger]

Magazine capacity does not effect ability to massacre.

Such ridiculous nonsense... it not only obviously does for obvious reasons, this obvious truth reveals itself in the statistics. This must be "make stupid shit up day" on USMB.

Have you ever tried to hold and use 100 round drum magazine?
It is very heavy and awkward, and would make a massacre much harder to accomplish.
You can't quickly change a 100 round magazine.
That is why the military, police, and gangs don't use them.
A smaller magazine is much easier to commit a massacre with, as reloading is much faster, and the magazine much lighter and easier to aim.

To date, how many times have high capacity 100 round magazines been used to commit a massacre?
I don't think there were any except the Aurora shooting on CO, and that jammed on him, limiting his number of victims.

Seems like nobody needs them
No big deal if they are banned

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

Such a ban makes absolutely no sense and cannot be soundly supported.

We'll see.

Translation:
You know you cannot present a sound argument for banning the AR15 (et al).

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

Until it is repealed, you are bound by it, and the fact it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And, I noticed you didn't address the questions I asked:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

The Constitution was written by smarter people than we elect now, so it would be foolish to allow the hacks we elected to change it at all.
And why would the 2nd amendment not be applicable now?
Has government gotten less likely to become corrupt and powerful?
Look at the Iraqi WMD lies and the torture at Guantanamo.
Clearly central government in the US is more corrupt than ever.

In our country, we do not solve problems and disagreement with our government by shooting them. We vote them out. At least that is the concept.
The 2nd amendment is clearly no longer applicable since we do not need and do not have a citizen militia. YOU may live in the woods and stockpile weapons against the glorious day when you get to shoot at a SWAT team, but that does make us all subversives.
We vote instead.

 

[OldLady]

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

Until it is repealed, you are bound by it, and the fact it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And, I noticed you didn't address the questions I asked:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

I made my point to you about public safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment is clearly no longer applicable since we do not need and do not have a citizen militia.

Your standard is inapplicable and irrelevant - -the 2nd protects a right no connected to the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

Until it is repealed, you are bound by it, and the fact it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And, I noticed you didn't address the questions I asked:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

I made my point to you about public safety.

The point you tried to make used an invalid analogue and is thus unsound.

So, again:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

 

[OldLady]

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

Such a ban makes absolutely no sense and cannot be soundly supported.

We'll see.

Translation:
You know you cannot present a sound argument for banning the AR15 (et al).

It was banned for 10 years, 1994 to 2004, and I do not recall it being found Unconstitutional then. I suppose you are hoping that now the Republicans stole Garland's seat from the Supreme Court and pushed through a crying blustering boob in his place, that they will find it Unconstitutional this time.

Capitalizing Unconstitutional doesn't look right, does it? Oh well.

 

[OldLady]

Because guns are lethal weapons?

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road...

Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

Until it is repealed, you are bound by it, and the fact it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And, I noticed you didn't address the questions I asked:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

I made my point to you about public safety.

The point you tried to make used an invalid analogue and is thus unsound.

So, again:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

You're wasting thread space. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and I doubt if you are either, but I'm done with this argument. I believe my argument made sense. You want to take it somewhere I'm not going. Maybe someone else will, but you can stop badgering me about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, even I who wish guns had never been invented, would be content with a sensible AR-type ban and limits on bullets and magazines.

Such a ban makes absolutely no sense and cannot be soundly supported.

We'll see.

Translation:
You know you cannot present a sound argument for banning the AR15 (et al).

It was banned for 10 years, 1994 to 2004, and I do not recall it being found Unconstitutional then.

I'm sorry -- I still don't see your sound argument for banning AR15s. Care to try again?

As for the 1994-2004 ban...
See below.
Answer this question: Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course they are - that's why or right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution. How is your answer valid?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?
Because it is a privilege granted by the state that inherently and directly threatens the lives of everyone that exercises it - and thus, is an invalid analogue.

The Constitution was written by men, not God, and it was also written to accommodate change as the country changed. The Second Amendment can be abolished, since it no longer applies.

Until it is repealed, you are bound by it, and the fact it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

And, I noticed you didn't address the questions I asked:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

I made my point to you about public safety.

The point you tried to make used an invalid analogue and is thus unsound.

So, again:
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?
Can the state constitutionally require training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise the right to an abortion?
The right to go to church?
The right to vote?

You're wasting thread space. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and I doubt if you are either, but I'm done with this argument.

Translation: You got nothing.
OK. Thanks.