Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[Quantum Windbag]

Well then I guess the 2nd amendment was thrown out many years ago with the machine gun ban right? You must think everyone should have a machine gun, probably grenades too.

Red herrings are red and straw men are made of straw.

Not a red herring, gill girl. Federal law prohibits the creation and owning of weapons that kill en masse, such as grenades and bombs, rocket-propelled weapons and land mines. Look it up.

Lanza could have achieved the same effect of turning 20 small bodies into dripping walls of blood and body tissue by just tossing a grenade into the classroom. Visualize that if your little fish brain can. Assault weapons, semi-automatics, however you want to describe something that can kill 20 people in minutes belongs in this law.

Actually, as long as you use explosives for personal use, it is perfectly legal to won them. Look it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And smart people don't advocate for throwing out the 2nd Amendment.

I call 'em as I see 'em. You're just a prog shill.

Smart people recognize that the 2nd Amendment was written by men who could not conceive of atom bombs, long-range nuclear weapons, and space travel much less gasoline engines, electric motors or climbing inside a large tube with mechanical wings and flying at 35,000 feet.

Stupid people just don't understand this. Even the smartest minds of the 18th century knew only of horse power as a means of getting from one place to another and cannons using gun powder were the high tech solution to warfare.

Let me get this straight.

The Constitution is a living document, so it applies to all sorts of things the people who wrote it could not conceive, like computers and cell phones, but, because these same people could not conceive of atom bombs, the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets.

Does that sum up your position?

 

[boedicca]

So I would like to state that if we wanted to make magazines that cannot be modified we could easily do it. That's really not a valid argument either. Anybody else have a reason it wouldn't work?

Could you possibly be more stupid?

People can make their own magazines. They are simple devices. All prohibition will do is create a black market.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So I would like to state that if we wanted to make magazines that cannot be modified we could easily do it. That's really not a valid argument either. Anybody else have a reason it wouldn't work?

A magazine is a small sheet metal box with a spring. In fact, they don't even have to be metal, they can be printed with a 3d printer. How, exactly, are you going to do anything like what you just suggested?

 

[Too Tall]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the state government after a person demonstrates the ability to pass a written test and a driving test. Then, and only then a license to operate a motor vehicle is issued. Violate enough state laws and the license can be revoked and the 'right' to operate a motor vehicle is suspended.

See how that works?

 

[Too Tall]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

You were never in the miltary. That much is obvious.
There are trillions of "clips" over 10 rounds in circulation already. What legislation would you like to see to get rid of all of them?

I was never in the military? Really? You can get all of that from a messageboard? I'm pretty sure that DFAS and the fact that I've got a retired ID card would disagree with that.

Never said how many rounds the military could have, just said what the politicians were saying that the maximum amount of rounds you could have in your gun before you had to reload.

And yeah........................I support the 10 round maximum.

You might wanna take a class on reading comprehension sometime before posting on here again.

Here is an example of a really stupid gun law:

On January 15, 2013, the state assault weapons ban was further strengthened by the NY SAFE Act. Specified rifle magazines are banned: a) manufactured after 1994; and b) the magazine holds in excess of 10 rounds (handguns included). A 10 round magazine is permissible, but may only contain 7 rounds.

OOPS! Did I put 7 or 8 rounds in that magazine? I sure do wish they made 7 round magazines, but nobody does. LOL

 

[Brain357]

So I would like to state that if we wanted to make magazines that cannot be modified we could easily do it. That's really not a valid argument either. Anybody else have a reason it wouldn't work?

A magazine is a small sheet metal box with a spring. In fact, they don't even have to be metal, they can be printed with a 3d printer. How, exactly, are you going to do anything like what you just suggested?

Ok, if you have made one please share a picture of it. Maybe you can make one now and write up a step by step with pictures. I don't think most people can make one. And if somebody is going to go out on a rampage I'd prefer they have to take the time to try and make one. Something tells me it will be much more apt to jam.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not a red herring, gill girl. Federal law prohibits the creation and owning of weapons that kill en masse, such as grenades and bombs, rocket-propelled weapons and land mines. Look it up.

What's that have to do with guns?

Assault weapons, semi-automatics, however you want to describe something that can kill 20 people in minutes belongs in this law.

Lanza could have done what he did with a standard pump-action shotgun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Smart people recognize that the 2nd Amendment was written by men who could not conceive of atom bombs, long-range nuclear weapons...

What's that have to do with guns?

]

 

[boedicca]

Smart people recognize that the 2nd Amendment was written by men who could not conceive of atom bombs, long-range nuclear weapons...

What's that have to do with guns?

]

Nothing. But as he can't come up with a valid argument to destroy the 2nd amendment, he has to create a bunch of strawmen ones.

 

[Brain357]

Not a red herring, gill girl. Federal law prohibits the creation and owning of weapons that kill en masse, such as grenades and bombs, rocket-propelled weapons and land mines. Look it up.

What's that have to do with guns?

Assault weapons, semi-automatics, however you want to describe something that can kill 20 people in minutes belongs in this law.

Lanza could have done what he did with a standard pump-action shotgun.

I'd love to see you shoot a pump-action shotgun 155 times in less than 5 minutes.

 

[Too Tall]

Public opinion supports further gun control. That debate has been won. Unfortunately Senators and House members aren't obligated to vote according to public opinion.

Most Senators and House members will vote according to the public opinion in the State or District that they represent. A Tennessee Senator does not care what public opinion is in New York.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Public opinion supports further gun control. That debate has been won. Unfortunately Senators and House members aren't obligated to vote according to public opinion.

Most Senators and House members will vote according to the public opinion in the State or District that they represent. A Tennessee Senator does not care what public opinion is in New York.

With 90% support for universal background checks, how many states can you carve out of the other 10%?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because I find the entire concept an infringement on my freedom.

In keeping with the theme of the thread, you extremist libertarian quasi-anarchists lost that debate, in so many ways,

years and years ago. Live with it.

The debate isn't over yet.

Well, you single digit midgets in the libertarian camp got to come up with about 45 percentage points more of support before you win the 'debate'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone that has a few tools can make a magazine in their garage, I bet you couldn't convert a semi automatic rifle to fully automatic if I gave you the parts and spotted you a teacher.

That's simply not true. Stop trolling.

I see you flunked shop class.

Quelle surprise.

We have people all over this country making meth in their kitchens. Does that mean meth should be legal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we have how many people now in this thread who think it's stupid to have laws against rape?

3? 4? 5?

That's some sick shit there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I get it...you're a prog shill who doesn't understand the Constitution.

If the Constitution worked the way you and the rest of the inbreds think it should,

machine guns would be sold at the Walmart, to anyone who wanted one, no restrictions, no questions asked.

Luckily, that gene pool is small.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we have how many people now in this thread who think it's stupid to have laws against rape?

3? 4? 5?

That's some sick shit there.

What's your point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Internet wasn't invented with the Constitution so it can't be protected buy it, amiright?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So we have how many people now in this thread who think it's stupid to have laws against rape?

3? 4? 5?

That's some sick shit there.

We do not think it is stupid to have laws against rape, we think it is stupid to force men to prove they are not rapists before they buy condoms.