Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[NYcarbineer]

Fully automatic guns have been illegal since 1934, and grenades as well under the NFA of 1968...which makes both difficult to acquire.

Magazines, however, are easily fabricated. So, unless you wish to make semi-automatic guns and supplies completely illegal, and institute nationwide seizures, limiting the size of magazines is not practical.

Of course, I suspect the outright total gun ban option is your true agenda.

It's at least as easy to convert a semi-automatic assault rifle to full automatic. You're making an argument for the assault weapons ban.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have 90% public support for universal background checks.

Universal background checks are further gun control.

I said public opinion supports further gun control. Now tell me what is incorrect in the above.

That only exists because people keep lying about how no one has to go through a background check at gun shows, and that 40$ of purchases do not go through checks.

If that were true, then why the hysteria from extremists like you of having the law pass?

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's at least as easy to convert a semi-automatic assault rifle to full automatic. You're making an argument for the assault weapons ban.

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.

Which part is not true?

 

[NYcarbineer]

why do you believe that a criminal is going to obey a magazine limit

I hear this one alot. Why is it that criminals aren't using machine guns and grenades? Do they choose to follow the laws against those?

Nope. They break the laws regarding machineguns every chance they get.

The difference, of course, is that there are LOT more magazines than machineguns and magazines cost considerably less; because of ths there is a much greater opportunity to obtain them.

Passing a law will not prevent people from doing whatever is outlawd by said law.

We have laws against rape, but rapes still happen. Should we repeal those laws?

 

[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.

Which part is not true?

Both parts.

 

[boedicca]

It's at least as easy to convert a semi-automatic assault rifle to full automatic. You're making an argument for the assault weapons ban.

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.

 

[Brain357]

Fully automatic guns have been illegal since 1934, and grenades as well under the NFA of 1968...which makes both difficult to acquire.

Magazines, however, are easily fabricated. So, unless you wish to make semi-automatic guns and supplies completely illegal, and institute nationwide seizures, limiting the size of magazines is not practical.

Of course, I suspect the outright total gun ban option is your true agenda.

So I guess your saying the the laws actually work, it just takes time. Kinda like the assault weapons/magazine capacity ban we had. Would probably be working better and better each year. Being a gun owner my true agenda is not outright total gun ban, though it's amusing that the extreme gun supporters like to acuse everyone of that. I don't really have an agenda at the moment. It does seem to me that limiting magazine capacity would be a good idea. You can still defend yourself, but the mass killer is greatly slowed. Tell me where it is flawed? The above shows that laws can work given time, so the criminals won't follow them argument is not valid.

No, your reading comprehension is as faulty as your point of view.

Why would a criminal go through the trouble of buying a black market machine gun when there are much easier alternatives at hand?

A machine gun is much more complicated to make at home than is a high capacity magazine. You are comparing apples and oranges. A ban on the latter will just enable a black market "bootleg" opportunity for people who can do a bit of sheet metal work.

All your total prohibition would accomplish is to make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves...but that is always the goal of totalitarian nanny staters such as yourself.

Wow I'm a nanny stater? Doesn't take you long to start name calling. Very adult.

Something tells me that high capacity magazines made at home wouldn't work quite as well.

I don't really think this would make it less able for citizens to defend themselves. I'd like to hear some examples of people defending themselves and needing more than 10 shots.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That only exists because people keep lying about how no one has to go through a background check at gun shows, and that 40$ of purchases do not go through checks.

If that were true, then why the hysteria from extremists like you of having the law pass?

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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

I'm pretty sure some of the mass shooters flunked shop class also. I guess that would save some lives.

 

[boedicca]

So I guess your saying the the laws actually work, it just takes time. Kinda like the assault weapons/magazine capacity ban we had. Would probably be working better and better each year. Being a gun owner my true agenda is not outright total gun ban, though it's amusing that the extreme gun supporters like to acuse everyone of that. I don't really have an agenda at the moment. It does seem to me that limiting magazine capacity would be a good idea. You can still defend yourself, but the mass killer is greatly slowed. Tell me where it is flawed? The above shows that laws can work given time, so the criminals won't follow them argument is not valid.

No, your reading comprehension is as faulty as your point of view.

Why would a criminal go through the trouble of buying a black market machine gun when there are much easier alternatives at hand?

A machine gun is much more complicated to make at home than is a high capacity magazine. You are comparing apples and oranges. A ban on the latter will just enable a black market "bootleg" opportunity for people who can do a bit of sheet metal work.

All your total prohibition would accomplish is to make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves...but that is always the goal of totalitarian nanny staters such as yourself.

Wow I'm a nanny stater? Doesn't take you long to start name calling. Very adult.

Something tells me that high capacity magazines made at home wouldn't work quite as well.

I don't really think this would make it less able for citizens to defend themselves. I'd like to hear some examples of people defending themselves and needing more than 10 shots.

Something tells me you're an idiot.

 

[Brain357]

No, your reading comprehension is as faulty as your point of view.

Why would a criminal go through the trouble of buying a black market machine gun when there are much easier alternatives at hand?

A machine gun is much more complicated to make at home than is a high capacity magazine. You are comparing apples and oranges. A ban on the latter will just enable a black market "bootleg" opportunity for people who can do a bit of sheet metal work.

All your total prohibition would accomplish is to make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves...but that is always the goal of totalitarian nanny staters such as yourself.

Wow I'm a nanny stater? Doesn't take you long to start name calling. Very adult.

Something tells me that high capacity magazines made at home wouldn't work quite as well.

I don't really think this would make it less able for citizens to defend themselves. I'd like to hear some examples of people defending themselves and needing more than 10 shots.

Something tells me you're an idiot.

Yes and only the smartest people resort to name calling. Bravo.

 

[boedicca]

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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

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.

 

[Brain357]

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.

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.

Exactly, so you can have gun laws and still have the 2nd amendment. Exactly my point. Glad you finally get it.

 

[boedicca]

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

 

[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?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

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.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that were true, then why the hysteria from extremists like you of having the law pass?

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.