Boston Reality

[TurtleDude]

People that push magazine limits are not idiots, they at just trying to reduce he damage of a very specific crime, mass murders. The measure probably would work, reducing the number of victims in mass murder attempts. But there are an average of about 20 mass murder victims per year in America, so if the measure is extremely effective and reduces this by 30%, we will reduce the roughly 30,000 gun deaths by 6. If you or your family is one of the 6, then you'd love this law. Personally, I'd like to look at ways to reduce the biggest chunk of gun deaths, the 20,000 suicides every year.

more crap. they are morons or dishonest assholes. the morons are the ones who think such laws will deter people who are willing to commit capital murder

the dishonest assholes want to ban guns and magazine limits are a way of getting close to banning anything that takes a magazine.

 

[TurtleDude]

You do know that a brave policeman rushed the older brother when his clip ran out and was reloading.
Do you wish he had a bigger clip? Why can't you understand that smaller clips saves lives

i guess you just cannot figure it out that people willing to make bombs to kill innocent people are not going to be prevented from having as many rounds in their gun as they want

 

[haymarket]

Im sorry.

Why would you say that? I have a great life and love it here.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

more crap. they are morons or dishonest assholes. the morons are the ones who think such laws will deter people who are willing to commit capital murder

the dishonest assholes want to ban guns and magazine limits are a way of getting close to banning anything that takes a magazine.

I don't doubt a few are, but it is a waste of time. This isn't Australia, like or not, the 300 million guns in America make the right to bear arms defacto, regardless of previous or future (or yours or mine) interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't doubt a few are, but it is a waste of time. This isn't Australia, like or not, the 300 million guns in America make the right to bear arms defacto, regardless of previous or future (or yours or mine) interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

the goal of the anti gun left is to make open use of guns for sport illegal or too expensive so that the organizations that promote recreational gun use die off and thus will no longer serve as groups to collect money and urge votes for Republicans the goal of the anti gunners is to winnow away the political power of pro gun organizations by making many of their members no longer interested in the organizations

 

[sangha]

again you demonstrate a desire to avoid reality and spew nonsense. are you saying that the criminals cops shoot at are harder to hit than the ones other civilians shoot at

please tell us the difference between the ability of a cop to use lethal force versus that of other civilians


stop lying and evading--You know the idiots who push magazine limitations are just that-idiots, but you don't want to admit it

And you continue to fail at trying to exploit a tragedy for your partisan agenda. Now, you're not even mentioning the shootout anymore because even you know your OP was a complete fail

 

[TurtleDude]

And you continue to fail at trying to exploit a tragedy for your partisan agenda. Now, you're not even mentioning the shootout anymore because even you know your OP was a complete fail

you need to find another tactic. this moronic claim of exploitation is nothing more than a parroting of what we have noted about the politicians using newtown which was exploiting a tragedy. do you think that the two terrorists were shot was a tragedy because that Is what I am talking about

not the bombing

my OP got more likes than probably all of your posts on this thread

the complete fail seems to be your pathetic attempts to derail a point you don't like and which pretty much flays the idiocy of the magazine limit clowns to the bone

btw sangha did you support your overlord cuomo's magazine limit? or are you just playing some more contrarian games

I have noted that you often whine about attacks on laws even if you don't actually support the law being attacked, just to stir the crap up

 

[csense]

(csense)
Could've stopped What exactly. The public didn't even know what the unsubs looked like until days later, and by the time the lock down went into effect, it wouldn't make much sense for citizens to be roaming around the streets with guns in hand, confusing the situation. I can guarantee you though, that anyone who had a firearm in their home, had it very nearby. That could well be the reason that the younger brother chose an isolated spot in someones yard rather than enter the house.



(TacticalEvilDan)
That's exactly my point. A higher limit for civilian-owned clips wouldn't have changed the outcome of this incident, so it's asinine to use this incident as an example of why civilian clip limits should be higher.

If that's your point then it doesn't make much sense since your argument fails once the unsub(s), heavily armed, enter the house. In that respect it makes no difference whether the civilian is inside or outside the home. Limitations on ammunition clips puts his life in danger. You're arguing a point you simply can't justify based upon circumstances. All you have left is a political argument. Good luck with that...

 

[sangha]

you need to find another tactic. this moronic claim of exploitation is nothing more than a parroting of what we have noted about the politicians using newtown which was exploiting a tragedy. do you think that the two terrorists were shot was a tragedy because that Is what I am talking about

not the bombing

my OP got more likes than probably all of your posts on this thread

the complete fail seems to be your pathetic attempts to derail a point you don't like and which pretty much flays the idiocy of the magazine limit clowns to the bone

btw sangha did you support your overlord cuomo's magazine limit? or are you just playing some more contrarian games

I have noted that you often whine about attacks on laws even if you don't actually support the law being attacked, just to stir the crap up

Your complete fail at exploiting this tragedy is reflected in your need to try and divert attention from your stupid argument by bringing up issues that are compleytely irrelevant ot your OP.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

the goal of the anti gun left is to make open use of guns for sport illegal or too expensive so that the organizations that promote recreational gun use die off and thus will no longer serve as groups to collect money and urge votes for Republicans the goal of the anti gunners is to winnow away the political power of pro gun organizations by making many of their members no longer interested in the organizations

I disagree in general. There may be some that will always consider more restrictions the right path, but there is no monolithic left pursuing the draconian measures you describe.

As to the pro-gun organizations, the NRA specifically, I consider it to be FAR more of an industry lobby group than a rights advocacy group and I honestly believe they do much more to get guns into the hands of irresponsible people ( or worse) than they do to support responsible gun ownership.

I guess you could say I am pro-gun but anti-NRA.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your complete fail at exploiting this tragedy is reflected in your need to try and divert attention from your stupid argument by bringing up issues that are compleytely irrelevant ot your OP.

repeating arguments that are sound back at the source is not particularly useful since your return comments are not well taken. but its SOP

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree in general. There may be some that will always consider more restrictions the right path, but there is no monolithic left pursuing the draconian measures you describe.

As to the pro-gun organizations, the NRA specifically, I consider it to be FAR more of an industry lobby group than a rights advocacy group and I honestly believe they do much more to get guns into the hands of irresponsible people ( or worse) than they do to support responsible gun ownership.

I guess you could say I am pro-gun but anti-NRA.

I CAN say you know very little of what you talk about concerning the NRA

 

[ttwtt78640]

I disagree in general. There may be some that will always consider more restrictions the right path, but there is no monolithic left pursuing the draconian measures you describe.

As to the pro-gun organizations, the NRA specifically, I consider it to be FAR more of an industry lobby group than a rights advocacy group and I honestly believe they do much more to get guns into the hands of irresponsible people ( or worse) than they do to support responsible gun ownership.

I guess you could say I am pro-gun but anti-NRA.

Me too, but for a different reason. I see the NRA as primarily only pro-NRA. They seem to favor, and lobby for, state CHL/CCW permit laws that always include "NRA" training classes as prerequisites. This gets "the folks" used to paying dues to join clubs and then feeling special that they "belong" and are "super citizens" (super patriots?) all for doing something super simple and spending some money that they hardly miss; but since they have NRA membership cards (even a moron sticker for the pick-up truck!), a lobbyist's voice in DC and state CCW permits (or CHLs) to carry guns then they feel ever so special.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I CAN say you know very little of what you talk about concerning the NRA

I had no doubt whatsoever that this would be your position and I also have no doubt that you and I will not get within 100 miles of an agreement on this.

That's okay though, I will not be giving them any money and I suspect you will.

 

[TurtleDude]

Me too, but for a different reason. I see the NRA as primarily only pro-NRA. They seem to favor, and lobby for, state CHL/CCW permit laws that always include "NRA" training classes as prerequisites. This gets "the folks" used to paying dues to join clubs and then feeling special that they "belong" and are "super citizens" (super patriots?) all for doing something super simple and spending some money that they hardly miss; but since they have NRA membership cards (even a moron sticker for the pick-up truck!), a lobbyist's voice in DC and state CCW permits (or CHLs) to carry guns then they feel ever so special.

The NRA isnt perfect but they have 10X the clout of the GOA. The SAF is the best IMHO

 

[ttwtt78640]

The NRA isnt perfect but they have 10X the clout of the GOA. The SAF is the best IMHO

I am unaware of the SAF, but will give them a look. Most gun rights organizations seem to favor CCW permit/CHL laws, yet cannot explain why, when or how "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." has magically evolved into two distinct rights that can have different qualifications/restrictions. If I can pass the NICS BG check and legally buy a handgun then what in the 2A says now I must pay at least another $240 to legally carry it?

I would prefer to carry concealed, simply to avoid the 7-11 freakout factor, but would accept only open carry as a right; however Texas has slammed that door tight, with the full blessing of the NRA, it would seem, since they do not sue.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am unaware of the SAF, but will give them a look. Most gun rights organizations seem to favor CCW permit/CHL laws, yet cannot explain why, when or how "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." has magically evolved into two distinct rights that can have different qualifications/restrictions. If I can pass the NICS BG check and legally buy a handgun then what in the 2A says now I must pay at least another $240 to legally carry it?

I would prefer to carry concealed, simply to avoid the 7-11 freakout factor, but would accept only open carry as a right; however Texas has slammed that door tight, with the full blessing of the NRA, it would seem, since they do not sue.

I guess it works this way: for years most states didn't even allow carrying Concealed. here was no permits available

permits, training, background checks were the price to pay given its a state right issue and the states certainly had the power to regulate CCW

 

[TurtleDude]

that has to be a new low in silliness.

you seem to think that citizens are never attacked by criminals or that those who are fighting the police are somehow more deadly.

the rest of your psychobabble is just that

I guess the post Moot made disappeared-no wonder my attempts to REPLY WITH QUOTE didn't work

it was really silly

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess it works this way: for years most states didn't even allow carrying Concealed. here was no permits available

permits, training, background checks were the price to pay given its a state right issue and the states certainly had the power to regulate CCW

I disagree. When you declare handgun open carry totally illegal (statewide) and then make CCW become the only path to any handgun carry, then that effectively turns a basic Constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege. To assert that a 10 hour course and then getting about 85% of 40 rounds on a huge target at 3 yards and 7 yards (you can pass with NO hits, of your last 10 rounds, at 15 yards) makes you "safe" is insane, and that at 10x the cost of the state's driving written/practical test.

Texas CHL - shooting proficiency test

 

[TurtleDude]

I disagree. When you declare handgun open carry totally illegal (statewide) and then make CCW become the only path to any handgun carry, as that effectively turns a right into a mere state issued privilege. To assert that a 10 hour course and then getting about 85% of 40 rounds on a huge target at 3 yards and 7 yards (you can pass with NO hits, of your last 10 rounds, at 15 yards) makes you "safe" is insane, and that at 10x the cost of the state's driving written/practical test.

Texas CHL - shooting proficiency test

you make a sound point but here is the deal

lots of politicians weren't going to ok CCW in my state without the training. our alleged GOP governor didn't want it because he was kissing the ass of big police bureaucrats. his sorry corrupt ass got overridden

no way we were going to get CCW without training etc

 

[TurtleDude]

Served in combat turtle dont need to prove anything to you or any other weekend warrior.

doesn't have much relevance to civilian self defense issues

 

[American]

Served in combat turtle dont need to prove anything to you or any other weekend warrior.

How ironic that you wish to disarm ordinary men. But of course the Brits tried that once before, and you know what happened.

 

[TurtleDude]

How ironic that you wish to disarm ordinary men. But of course the Brits tried that once before, and you know what happened.

those who worship the government are insulted by the fact that some of us think

1) the government is not capable of protecting everyone

2) the government can become pernicious

 

[American]

those who worship the government are insulted by the fact that some of us think

1) the government is not capable of protecting everyone

2) the government can become pernicious

The Colonies asked for protection, they didn't get it. They then tried protecting themselves, the Brits sent troops. The rest is history.

 

[Lightning]

Beautiful post as it not only hits on guns it also hits on every other part of our lives and how we should behave while our fearless leaders vote themselves raises and pensions that last seven lifetimes after two years service. Back to guns........was it not the SOLUTION of the governement to riddle whatever they could hit!!!??? I wonr how many folks in Watertown will go out and buy a gun NOW!!

Exactly my thoughts during the whole lockdown.... " I bet those people in the Watertown, Newton and Cambridge areas wished they had guns now".... Oh, the irony. :lamo