Why Do I Need More Than 10 Rounds?

[Rustic]

Dudes. I hope you've got your pearls and fainting couches handy...

New Zealand gun buyback: 10,000 firearms returned after Christchurch attack

https://www.theguardian.com

Police praise response after thousands of now-banned guns taken out of circulation in less than a month

More than 10,000 firearms have been bought by New Zealand’s government in less than a month as part of its gun buyback scheme following the Christchurch mosque shootings in March.
[...]
The governments gun-buyback scheme was launched in mid July. Since then, 10,242 firearms have been handed into police, with an additional 1,269 firearms handed in under amnesty.

The amnesty mean no questions will be asked by police about when or how owners acquired the now-banned weapons, even if they don’t have a current firearms licence or paperwork for the weapons.

Ninety gun collection events have been held around the country, New Zealand police said, attended by more than 7,000 firearms owners. In a statement New Zealand police praised gun owners’ engagement with the process, and said they were “really happy” with the public response.​

Lol
They gave those people pennies on the dollar... What a bunch of fucking fools.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
How many rounds I have/size and number of magazines I have/firearms I have… Is nobody’s business but mine and certainly none of the federal government’s business. Fact

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Quit talking to me like I'm a fucking 12 year old. I'll take my chances.

Then stop acting like one.

They're already attempting to steal his property or use violence against his family. Are you suggesting he just let violent people who broke into his house do whatever they like instead of taking matters into his own hands?

I suppose if the goal of the invaders is to rape his wife and daughter, you think it's more dignified to let it happen and hope the violent individuals take 15 minutes to leave, so that the Road Pirates can outline his and his family's bodies in chalk and shoot his dog?

What exactly is your argument?

And what is the statistical chance of that happening? If you are living in an area that is above a certain number then I suggest you move out or get behind law enforcement and your local government and do something about it. Just having a high capacity, high output weapon on the premises doesn't cut it. Or are you just yearning for a reason to kill someone like in your favorite movie. If you are that paranoid then seek help or move to a cave in the middle of nowhere where you can set up defenses. Who knows, maybe you can defend against a marauding fuller brush salesman some day.

People are attempting to do something about it, it's called "Brandishing firearms and killing those who attempt to harm you". Of course, you and yours pretend the burden of proof is on the passive position, that is owning property, while claiming legitimacy to infringe on their rights despite it not actually reducing the crime rate in any circumstance.

Secondly, telling people to work with the violent sociopaths which you refer to as "Police" instead of just protecting ourselves and each other, something which happens far more than actual initiations of force with guns, won't actually accomplish anything since Centralized Security has no obligation to actually protect you, as proven in several court cases already:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
Thirdly "Just move" isn't an argument, the "Police" have an average response time of 15 minutes, that makes them ineffective everywhere, they're legitimately just tax collectors. Regardless of statistical chance of that happening, it still happens, and people should be allowed to defend themselves and their family instead of being hurt, raped, murdered or robbed, especially since gun monopolization is a PRATT, thus ONLY accomplishing creating more victims.

I also want to point out the irony in stating that someone who wants to protect themselves is paranoid, despite robbery, murder, kidnapping, and rape happening every day, when you're advocating for disarming victims just so you can feel warm and fuzzy. You're literally just projecting. You not liking someone's rights doesn't justify using force against them, that's inherently unethical.

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't want gun restrictions at all.

Correct. Anything that constitutes a "bearable arm" should be available to the general public with minimal interference, as the 2nd Amendment intended. You know... that whole shall not be infringed part?

How about placing a Claymore on your windows. It would be much more effective than that cheap walmart burglar alarm system. How about a M-2 in your Dining room pointed at your front door? NO telling when or if you will be visited by a whole horde of marauding fuller brush salesmen.

Maybe I would. My house, my castle. The fuck's it to you anyway?

When you have your country living where you have no one else around you then you can afford that attitude. Otherwise, grow up, kid.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then stop acting like one.

They're already attempting to steal his property or use violence against his family. Are you suggesting he just let violent people who broke into his house do whatever they like instead of taking matters into his own hands?

I suppose if the goal of the invaders is to rape his wife and daughter, you think it's more dignified to let it happen and hope the violent individuals take 15 minutes to leave, so that the Road Pirates can outline his and his family's bodies in chalk and shoot his dog?

What exactly is your argument?

And what is the statistical chance of that happening? If you are living in an area that is above a certain number then I suggest you move out or get behind law enforcement and your local government and do something about it. Just having a high capacity, high output weapon on the premises doesn't cut it. Or are you just yearning for a reason to kill someone like in your favorite movie. If you are that paranoid then seek help or move to a cave in the middle of nowhere where you can set up defenses. Who knows, maybe you can defend against a marauding fuller brush salesman some day.

People are attempting to do something about it, it's called "Brandishing firearms and killing those who attempt to harm you". Of course, you and yours pretend the burden of proof is on the passive position, that is owning property, while claiming legitimacy to infringe on their rights despite it not actually reducing the crime rate in any circumstance.

Secondly, telling people to work with the violent sociopaths which you refer to as "Police" instead of just protecting ourselves and each other, something which happens far more than actual initiations of force with guns, won't actually accomplish anything since Centralized Security has no obligation to actually protect you, as proven in several court cases already:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
Thirdly "Just move" isn't an argument, the "Police" have an average response time of 15 minutes, that makes them ineffective everywhere, they're legitimately just tax collectors. Regardless of statistical chance of that happening, it still happens, and people should be allowed to defend themselves and their family instead of being hurt, raped, murdered or robbed, especially since gun monopolization is a PRATT, thus ONLY accomplishing creating more victims.

I also want to point out the irony in stating that someone who wants to protect themselves is paranoid, despite robbery, murder, kidnapping, and rape happening every day, when you're advocating for disarming victims just so you can feel warm and fuzzy. You're literally just projecting. You not liking someone's rights doesn't justify using force against them, that's inherently unethical.

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They're already attempting to steal his property or use violence against his family. Are you suggesting he just let violent people who broke into his house do whatever they like instead of taking matters into his own hands?

I suppose if the goal of the invaders is to rape his wife and daughter, you think it's more dignified to let it happen and hope the violent individuals take 15 minutes to leave, so that the Road Pirates can outline his and his family's bodies in chalk and shoot his dog?

What exactly is your argument?

And what is the statistical chance of that happening? If you are living in an area that is above a certain number then I suggest you move out or get behind law enforcement and your local government and do something about it. Just having a high capacity, high output weapon on the premises doesn't cut it. Or are you just yearning for a reason to kill someone like in your favorite movie. If you are that paranoid then seek help or move to a cave in the middle of nowhere where you can set up defenses. Who knows, maybe you can defend against a marauding fuller brush salesman some day.

People are attempting to do something about it, it's called "Brandishing firearms and killing those who attempt to harm you". Of course, you and yours pretend the burden of proof is on the passive position, that is owning property, while claiming legitimacy to infringe on their rights despite it not actually reducing the crime rate in any circumstance.

Secondly, telling people to work with the violent sociopaths which you refer to as "Police" instead of just protecting ourselves and each other, something which happens far more than actual initiations of force with guns, won't actually accomplish anything since Centralized Security has no obligation to actually protect you, as proven in several court cases already:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
Thirdly "Just move" isn't an argument, the "Police" have an average response time of 15 minutes, that makes them ineffective everywhere, they're legitimately just tax collectors. Regardless of statistical chance of that happening, it still happens, and people should be allowed to defend themselves and their family instead of being hurt, raped, murdered or robbed, especially since gun monopolization is a PRATT, thus ONLY accomplishing creating more victims.

I also want to point out the irony in stating that someone who wants to protect themselves is paranoid, despite robbery, murder, kidnapping, and rape happening every day, when you're advocating for disarming victims just so you can feel warm and fuzzy. You're literally just projecting. You not liking someone's rights doesn't justify using force against them, that's inherently unethical.

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And what is the statistical chance of that happening? If you are living in an area that is above a certain number then I suggest you move out or get behind law enforcement and your local government and do something about it. Just having a high capacity, high output weapon on the premises doesn't cut it. Or are you just yearning for a reason to kill someone like in your favorite movie. If you are that paranoid then seek help or move to a cave in the middle of nowhere where you can set up defenses. Who knows, maybe you can defend against a marauding fuller brush salesman some day.

People are attempting to do something about it, it's called "Brandishing firearms and killing those who attempt to harm you". Of course, you and yours pretend the burden of proof is on the passive position, that is owning property, while claiming legitimacy to infringe on their rights despite it not actually reducing the crime rate in any circumstance.

Secondly, telling people to work with the violent sociopaths which you refer to as "Police" instead of just protecting ourselves and each other, something which happens far more than actual initiations of force with guns, won't actually accomplish anything since Centralized Security has no obligation to actually protect you, as proven in several court cases already:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
Thirdly "Just move" isn't an argument, the "Police" have an average response time of 15 minutes, that makes them ineffective everywhere, they're legitimately just tax collectors. Regardless of statistical chance of that happening, it still happens, and people should be allowed to defend themselves and their family instead of being hurt, raped, murdered or robbed, especially since gun monopolization is a PRATT, thus ONLY accomplishing creating more victims.

I also want to point out the irony in stating that someone who wants to protect themselves is paranoid, despite robbery, murder, kidnapping, and rape happening every day, when you're advocating for disarming victims just so you can feel warm and fuzzy. You're literally just projecting. You not liking someone's rights doesn't justify using force against them, that's inherently unethical.

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

Using your logic, if I feel that my neighbor is threatening my family in any way just be sitting on his porch with his gun I should feel free to blow the stupid Ahole away with mine. Welcome to the only country on earth with no gun regulations. Welcome to Yemen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Criminals do not go to the a legal store, put their ID on the counter, and fill out paperwork. You get caught if you do that.

Two of the latest mass shooters, at least, did exactly that from what I can gather.

So you don't care at all about the other 75,000 people murdered last year in the US... as long as it isn't what you call a 'mass shooting'?

This is another aspect of left-wing ideology I never understand. You would be perfectly happy to have over a hundred thousands deaths a year.... as long as you take away guns from law abiding citizens, supposedly to prevent a mass shooting.... because you care about victims? Do you not see how odd that sounds?

The FBI surveyed murderers in Federal prisons years ago, and fewer than 5% got the guns they used legally.

But you don't give a crap about all those murdered people, as long as you prevent a mass shooting.

Well again, my answer is arm people. Criminals are all cowards at heart, and back off when confronted by an armed citizen.

Now I agree that if a single individual snaps mentally, and goes to the nearest gun store, they could buy a gun and shoot people.

That's because it's legal. If you made it illegal, they would simply go to the black market to get a gun.

This is the same flawed argument as controlling drugs. There are legal ways to get addictive drugs, and people use those way to abuse drugs. If we closed those ways, they would simply get their drugs illegally. We know this, because people already get crack, and heroin, and other narcotics illegally already. If we closed the drug abusers that are getting them legally, they would simply get them illegally.

The solution is, you deal with the people. Trying to ban guns, is again the same as banning alcohol and drugs. It has never worked in the history of the world.

We need teach people absolute truth, moral values, and defined right and wrong. That's what will stop mass shooters.

Also, we need to start teaching people social values, like how to be inclusive. Starting with left-wingers need to stop attacking everyone with a different opinion, and accusing everyone of racism.

And yes, I do believe it's that hate filled rhetoric that is causing some people to snap.

75,000 murders?? Where did that number come from?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

People are attempting to do something about it, it's called "Brandishing firearms and killing those who attempt to harm you". Of course, you and yours pretend the burden of proof is on the passive position, that is owning property, while claiming legitimacy to infringe on their rights despite it not actually reducing the crime rate in any circumstance.

Secondly, telling people to work with the violent sociopaths which you refer to as "Police" instead of just protecting ourselves and each other, something which happens far more than actual initiations of force with guns, won't actually accomplish anything since Centralized Security has no obligation to actually protect you, as proven in several court cases already:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
Thirdly "Just move" isn't an argument, the "Police" have an average response time of 15 minutes, that makes them ineffective everywhere, they're legitimately just tax collectors. Regardless of statistical chance of that happening, it still happens, and people should be allowed to defend themselves and their family instead of being hurt, raped, murdered or robbed, especially since gun monopolization is a PRATT, thus ONLY accomplishing creating more victims.

I also want to point out the irony in stating that someone who wants to protect themselves is paranoid, despite robbery, murder, kidnapping, and rape happening every day, when you're advocating for disarming victims just so you can feel warm and fuzzy. You're literally just projecting. You not liking someone's rights doesn't justify using force against them, that's inherently unethical.

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

Using your logic, if I feel that my neighbor is threatening my family in any way just be sitting on his porch with his gun I should feel free to blow the stupid Ahole away with mine. Welcome to the only country on earth with no gun regulations. Welcome to Yemen.

Actually, that's the absolute opposite of the logic I'm explaining to you. Apparently "Owning something is passive" went directly over your head. Killing someone is infringing on their rights, it's active, this means that the burden of proof is on the person killing someone.

This isn't complicated, yet you seem to miss it every time.

 

[satrebil]

You don't want gun restrictions at all.

Correct. Anything that constitutes a "bearable arm" should be available to the general public with minimal interference, as the 2nd Amendment intended. You know... that whole shall not be infringed part?

How about placing a Claymore on your windows. It would be much more effective than that cheap walmart burglar alarm system. How about a M-2 in your Dining room pointed at your front door? NO telling when or if you will be visited by a whole horde of marauding fuller brush salesmen.

Maybe I would. My house, my castle. The fuck's it to you anyway?

When you have your country living where you have no one else around you then you can afford that attitude. Otherwise, grow up, kid.

I will have whatever attitude I damn well please. Your approval is not required.

Why are you such a control freak?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And one can go way overboard on anything. I still hold that a shotgun pretty well handles home security. Or a mean sounding barking dog does more good. The Bad guy, when he learns of this, moves on to the next property. Nothing makes you freeze in your tracks and places flee in your mind than the racking of a Model 870 shotgun. And if you need to use it it won't take more than the 5 rounds you have. Even automatic weapons treats that shotgun with extreme respect.

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

Using your logic, if I feel that my neighbor is threatening my family in any way just be sitting on his porch with his gun I should feel free to blow the stupid Ahole away with mine. Welcome to the only country on earth with no gun regulations. Welcome to Yemen.

Actually, that's the absolute opposite of the logic I'm explaining to you. Apparently "Owning something is passive" went directly over your head. Killing someone is infringing on their rights, it's active, this means that the burden of proof is on the person killing someone.

This isn't complicated, yet you seem to miss it every time.

And you miss human nature. Gun saturation causes a whole other set or problems where many want to just shoot it out instead of working it out other ways. We aren't that far from that right now. I made a prediction that when guns reached a certain saturation point the citizens would rebel and regulations would tighten. I was wrong with that would happen. It's happening right now. Get used to it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

If you get too scared, I am sure that mommy will hold your hand and make the bad people go away.

Pathetic troll attempt.

Actually not, given the fact your thread premise is ridiculous sophistry.

 

[percysunshine]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

There is also the zombie apocalypse scenario.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't think I need more than 10 rounds. My Springfield M1911 hold 8, and I have several magazines loaded and ready. Our .357 revolvers hold 6. Very accurate and the round is potent.

Having said all that, my right to own a gun does not change if I do not try to justify it. If a law is passed against magazines holding 10 rounds or more, and the crime rate does not drop, will the next law require fewer than 8? Or 6?

The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds. It is about the right to be armed. And yes, I know the people who wrote it did so at a time when rifles and handguns were muzzleloading single shots. But those muzzle loading single shots were the cutting edge military weapons at the time.

“The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds.”

In fact it is.

The courts have held that the Second Amendment applies to both ammunition and magazine capacity.

San Francisco County’s ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition within its jurisdiction was upheld by the courts.

And Colorado’s magazine capacity restriction was ruled to be Constitutional.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Because someday THIRTEEN shitlords might decide to smash their way into my house, that's why.

'I Could Die': Suspects Trash House During Md. Home Invasion

Two new future law abiding gun owners the left will hate

 

[Vandalshandle]

I used to grab my rocket launcher, but it always scares the cats, so now, I reach for my 50 Cal Browning automatic rifle with a silencer. It also does less damage to the neighborhood. I got sick and tired of my neighbor always whining about having to rebuild his garage.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Once again, that's not for you, or anyone else but the individual to decide. Owning something is passive, and people should be able to use whatever they deem necessary for home security. "I think a mean-sounding dog is sufficient" doesn't protect someone's home, neither does "What are the chances?". Owning property is passive, and thinking something is too much isn't an argument for the use of force against innocent people. Your entire argument is still "Well, I feel more comfortable if your property rights were infringed upon or your property was stolen", and does NOTHING to make that infringement ethical OR stop 'criminals'.

Your position is active, owning property is passive, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your position is ethical, and saying "I still hold the shotgun is enough" does nothing to fulfill that burden of proof.

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

Using your logic, if I feel that my neighbor is threatening my family in any way just be sitting on his porch with his gun I should feel free to blow the stupid Ahole away with mine. Welcome to the only country on earth with no gun regulations. Welcome to Yemen.

Actually, that's the absolute opposite of the logic I'm explaining to you. Apparently "Owning something is passive" went directly over your head. Killing someone is infringing on their rights, it's active, this means that the burden of proof is on the person killing someone.

This isn't complicated, yet you seem to miss it every time.

And you miss human nature. Gun saturation causes a whole other set or problems where many want to just shoot it out instead of working it out other ways. We aren't that far from that right now. I made a prediction that when guns reached a certain saturation point the citizens would rebel and regulations would tighten. I was wrong with that would happen. It's happening right now. Get used to it.

Actually, most situations with a gun involved are solved without the gun being fired, and guns are used far more often for protection than not. Do you just do no research? Human nature is self-preservation, and self-interest, which in no way incentivizes people to start shoot-outs.

Of course you don't, you just repeat what the liars, murderers, and robbers in Washington tell you. How about you get used to not having an omnipotent Government, since there's no way for them to trace weapons unless people let them?

I also love how you completely dropped the ethical argument. I take that as an indication that you realized you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't think I need more than 10 rounds. My Springfield M1911 hold 8, and I have several magazines loaded and ready. Our .357 revolvers hold 6. Very accurate and the round is potent.

Having said all that, my right to own a gun does not change if I do not try to justify it. If a law is passed against magazines holding 10 rounds or more, and the crime rate does not drop, will the next law require fewer than 8? Or 6?

The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds. It is about the right to be armed. And yes, I know the people who wrote it did so at a time when rifles and handguns were muzzleloading single shots. But those muzzle loading single shots were the cutting edge military weapons at the time.

“The 2nd Amendment is not about how many rounds.”

In fact it is.

The courts have held that the Second Amendment applies to both ammunition and magazine capacity.

San Francisco County’s ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition within its jurisdiction was upheld by the courts.

And Colorado’s magazine capacity restriction was ruled to be Constitutional.

There is an unofficial ruling nicknamed the "Heller Ruling" that a 10 round limit is unconstitutional while a 15 round is constitutional. Colorado originally passed a 10 round but got overturned. So they immediately rewrote it to 15 rounds and it was upheld. Recently, idiot Oregon passed a 10 round law and you can bet that's going to be overturned. California also passed a 10 round law but changed it to 15 rounds. If you take a good look at Heller V you can read into it "Common". And the Courts find 15 as common and 10 as uncommon when dealing with semi auto weapons.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When you are living in a community the community has a lot to say in this. When you are living all by yourself and no one is around you there is no one around to say anything. Not seeing that way is that of a spoiled child.

Man, the guncrazies are out tonight.

Only in the eyes of a collectivist. There's no such thing as group rights, you cannot show me an organism known as a group, therefor a group cannot have rights, only individuals. Not only this, but nobody has a right to infringe on the rights of others, this is unethical, and really, quite literally slavery.

Actually, seeing yourself as having authority over someone elses property is that of a spoiled child. What you're wanting is to tell someone that you don't like them having something, and then confiscating it against their will. This, once again, is unethical, and why active positions, positions which use force, are what holds the burden of proof, not a passive position.

Pointing out to you that you have no right over our property isn't crazy, it's logical.

Using your logic, if I feel that my neighbor is threatening my family in any way just be sitting on his porch with his gun I should feel free to blow the stupid Ahole away with mine. Welcome to the only country on earth with no gun regulations. Welcome to Yemen.

Actually, that's the absolute opposite of the logic I'm explaining to you. Apparently "Owning something is passive" went directly over your head. Killing someone is infringing on their rights, it's active, this means that the burden of proof is on the person killing someone.

This isn't complicated, yet you seem to miss it every time.

And you miss human nature. Gun saturation causes a whole other set or problems where many want to just shoot it out instead of working it out other ways. We aren't that far from that right now. I made a prediction that when guns reached a certain saturation point the citizens would rebel and regulations would tighten. I was wrong with that would happen. It's happening right now. Get used to it.

Actually, most situations with a gun involved are solved without the gun being fired, and guns are used far more often for protection than not. Do you just do no research? Human nature is self-preservation, and self-interest, which in no way incentivizes people to start shoot-outs.

Of course you don't, you just repeat what the liars, murderers, and robbers in Washington tell you. How about you get used to not having an omnipotent Government, since there's no way for them to trace weapons unless people let them?

I also love how you completely dropped the ethical argument. I take that as an indication that you realized you're wrong, but don't want to admit it.

Now you are telling me what I am thinking? How pineapple of you. Like I said, it's just now started. The Guns have hit the saturation level much like they did in 1871. Look at the last few days. And it's just going to get worse until the General Public says, "Enough". Actually most are saying "Enough" right now. Banning or seizing weapons won't happen but look for more stringent gun regulations. Look for what I call the common sense laws to be enacted all across the nation. And there isn't a damned thing you can do about it except to cry, sob and stomp your feet.