UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how is it possible that less firepower equals less death?
ask fb360, he already conceded the point.
#NRAlogic
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
ask fb360, he already conceded the point.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when did i say that?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how you doing tonight, big sexy?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The Constitution mentions nothing about period or time. But it does mention, shall not be infringed.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how many times do i have to go over this with you idiots?
the first may be abridged and the second may be infringed. this SCOTUS says so, previous SCOTUSs have said so, and future SCOTUSs will say the same damn thing.
shut the fuck up with your simpleton idiocy.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Do I have to post what the 2nd says? It doesn't say what you think it does.
Also I don't give a fuck what SCOTUS says. They're a bunch of simpleton dumb fucks just like you.
echelon1k1
New Member
Just reading through this thread and was wondering was abortion allowed back when you were born?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Never too late for a 4th trimester abortion.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
too bad for you that what they have to say is all that matters.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what a peace loving, pacifistic vegan.
fb360
Active Member
No I did not. In fact I argued that reloading takes a very short amount of time, and beyond that, people who want to commit crimes, normally don't follow laws in the process.
The only thing you do by limiting mag size is that you take away the ability to protect yourself better from law abiding citizens.
I'm for allowing 1000round mags. IDGAF. I've already "conceded" that I'm for not putting limits upon protection; just 4 pages ago I said that if it was legal to have personal missiles, I would.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, self defense missiles i bet.
so you're trying to argue that limiting mag size does not limit firepower, while simultaneously trying to argue that limiting mag size limits self defense capabilities. but if it doesn't limit your firepower, how is that even possible?
you're speaking out of both sides of your ass.
and you did in fact concede the point. you said that each bullet has equal killing power, and that higher capacity mags give you more opportunities to replicate that killing power.
you have staked way too many contradictory claims and you're going to have to reject at least one or more of them.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
false.
loughner, holmes, and lanza all used arms and ammo that were legally purchased.
FAIL!
i'll let you answer that one:
If I only have to kill 1 person, a 30r clip vs a 10rclip wont matter, the job will be done
fb360
Active Member
False;
He used the gun at a school; a gun free zone, moron.
FAIL!
Quote the rest of that statement halfwit:i'll let you answer that one:
If I only have to kill 1 person, a 30r clip vs a 10rclip wont matter, the job will be done
You have better chances of replicating kills.
FAIL!
What a lefty buffoon. Trying to take only part of my statement, when the whole thing is there for everyone to see.
POST #398 yall
e;
Nothing I said was contradicting, it was all factual. You just try to spin it that way
echelon1k1
New Member
I'm all the way pro gun, but think a mag limit of 10 should apply for long arms... civilians don't need more than 10 for hunting game whatever the species may be
Not easily done now or even practicable, IMO it'll be used to add years to a prison sentence rather than protect people
Not easily done now or even practicable, IMO it'll be used to add years to a prison sentence rather than protect people
fb360
Active Member
Sure, for hunting you should not need more than 10 rounds.
But the 2nd amendment makes it clear that the use of the firearm will be to protect yourself from tyranny. You need way more than 10 round mags to do that; in our modern age, I don't care what gun you have, if you end up fighting an Apache, you are gonna die; you best chance is to exhaust your rounds into the airframe, and obviously, the more you can, the better the chance you live
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i said legally purchased.
it matters not that adam lanza carried his high capacity mag bushmaster into a gun free zone, that was not my contention.
my contention was that the high capacity mag bushmaster that adam lanza used to slaughter 6 year olds was legally purchased.
my point was to demonstrate that the tools used in these mass murders were legally purchased. the rules were followed, despite your insistence that they weren't.
and the safeway parking lot in which loughner performed his mass murder with his legally purchased high capacity magazine(s)* was not a gun free zone.
*he only used a magazine, and was stopped when he went for the second magazine. the simple act of him having to change that magazine saved lives.
this:
If I only have to kill 1 person, a 30r clip vs a 10rclip wont matter, the job will be done
contradicts this:
The only thing you do by limiting mag size is that you take away the ability to protect yourself better from law abiding citizens.
you said it won't matter (it won't foil self defense), then you go on to detail how it matters (it will foil self defense).
you gotta reject one of those, big boy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's very easily done. a few strokes of a pen, some votes, and a few more pen strokes.
the supply will never completely dry up, but it will prevent them from easily falling into the hands of some socially crippled dimwit who refuses a background check and steals his momma's legal play toys to go mow down a classroom full of kids and their teachers.
or some bizarre psycho who steals his daddy's 33 round mags and bloodies up a safeway parking lot.
or some quiet weirdo from just up and buying enough ammo and firepower to tear up an entire movie theater at once.
10 or 15 is enough for self defense.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
in our modern age, you would need a whole hell of a lot of firepower to take down the U.S., and almost none of it is stuff you can legally or easily have.
you would need to violate the constitution anyway if you wanted to overthrow the assholes abusing it. your AR15 is not the thing that prevents tyranny, it is your knowledge on how to build an atom bomb or some other guy's connections to an eastern bloc shithole with lots of tanks for sale on the black market.
and as you guys claim, the supply will never completely dry up, so it's there if we need it to overthrow the tyrannical government (or whatever dystopic fright wing scenario you guys so readily envision despite an entire lack of evidence for such). the only difference will be its legal and ready availability to the adam lanzas and jared loughners of the world.
fb360
Active Member
Yes it was you assclown. You falsely quoted my original statement where I said they didn't abide by laws, to your arguement.
This was your original quote from me saying they don't abide by the "rules":
Using a gun in a gun free zone is not abiding by "rules".
You really do fuck up hard. Get your head straight little man