High capacity magazines [W:1390]

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

You have no federal law which defines police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians. So strike one is very much intact against you Turtle.

The slavery issue shows you are wrong that the Founders believed in natural rights for all men and the right to be armed pre -existed. Strike two is also intact on you Turtle.

And a million of your so called scholars and the exact word test does not change the reality that the COurt rules the commerce clause can be used to regulate firearms. Strike three and you are out Turtle.

you pick a colloquial dictionary definition because (and is common in your posts) it helps your argument even if it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE issue

The slavery issue fails since we are talking about a prohibition on government action not the creation of a right

and again, you apparently cannot understand the difference between the scope of a right and its coverage. Your fixation on slavery as "proving" the founders (in the DOI not the BOR) lied has no relevance to the intent behind the 2A and is diversionary nonsense

and we all admit that the CC has been corrupted. But your support of that corruption is incredibly hypocritical given your stupid "exact words" test you try to limit the 2A with

why don't you stop the silly evasions and BS and just say

"I Hate gun owners and I will support any efforts to harass them, constitutional or not" rather than spending so much time of engaging in patently silly attempts to claim the constitution supports your party's craven attempts to interfere with our rights

 

[blaxshep]

Re: High capacity magazines

You have no federal law which defines police officers doing their job in the USA as civilians. So strike one is very much intact against you Turtle.

The slavery issue shows you are wrong that the Founders believed in natural rights for all men and the right to be armed pre -existed. Strike two is also intact on you Turtle.

And a million of your so called scholars and the exact word test does not change the reality that the COurt rules the commerce clause can be used to regulate firearms. Strike three and you are out Turtle.

I have to hand it to you Haymarket debating with you is like trying to climb a greased pole wearing a suit made of Vaseline.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

I don't even watch hockey.

He defines the game as being that he throws three pitches into the stands and claims that I-standing at home plate am out because I didn't even swing at them since they never came within 100 yards of the batters' box

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

I have to hand it to you Haymarket debating with you is like trying to climb a greased pole wearing a suit made of Vaseline.

HS and minor league college debate tactics are not to make points but to never admit anything. its like a boxer who runs into the ladies toilet and taunts the guy in the ring by claiming that the boxer in the ring never hit the guy hiding in the lavatory

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

I have to hand it to you Haymarket debating with you is like trying to climb a greased pole wearing a suit made of Vaseline.

pix plz

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

you pick a colloquial dictionary definition because (and is common in your posts) it helps your argument even if it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE issue

The slavery issue fails since we are talking about a prohibition on government action not the creation of a right

and again, you apparently cannot understand the difference between the scope of a right and its coverage. Your fixation on slavery as "proving" the founders (in the DOI not the BOR) lied has no relevance to the intent behind the 2A and is diversionary nonsense

and we all admit that the CC has been corrupted. But your support of that corruption is incredibly hypocritical given your stupid "exact words" test you try to limit the 2A with

why don't you stop the silly evasions and BS and just say

"I Hate gun owners and I will support any efforts to harass them, constitutional or not" rather than spending so much time of engaging in patently silly attempts to claim the constitution supports your party's craven attempts to interfere with our rights

Do you have any new arguments that I have not already completely destroyed?

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

I have to hand it to you Haymarket debating with you is like trying to climb a greased pole wearing a suit made of Vaseline.

Sounds like you know a great deal about greased poles and Vaseline.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

Do you have any new arguments that I have not already completely destroyed?

you have never destroyed anyone's arguments on gun issues. your claim about the founders and slavery is the most pathetic one yet. it is not relevant to the 2A on several grounds but yet you think you can prove the founders actually intended federal gun control because they didn't extend "natural rights" to slaves. when challenged to find ANY document generated by the founders that support that silly claim of yours-what do you do? you evade and claim that the words of the constitution proves it.

your arguments are completely worthless Haymarket.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

you have never destroyed anyone's arguments on gun issues.

Well there are yours on who are civilians and your desire to prepare for right wing Armageddon. And there are yours on the claim of pre-existing rights which you then admitted were only in somebody's mind and really protected nobody. And then there was the claim from you about the Constitution only to see the Supreme Court trash and smash your views decades before they were every uttered.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

Well there are yours on who are civilians and your desire to prepare for right wing Armageddon. And there are yours on the claim of pre-existing rights which you then admitted were only in somebody's mind and really protected nobody. And then there was the claim from you about the Constitution only to see the Supreme Court trash and smash your views decades before they were every uttered.

where do you dream this crap up?

I am waiting for you to actually explain some of the incredibly silly things you have said

1) that ownership of a mini gun is an OBSCENITY

2) at what rate of fire does an automatic weapon NOT become a OBSCENITY when owned by a member of the supreme sovereign (you know, the citizens you constantly refer to as exercising wisdom through their elected officials)

3) if you actually can understand "the rate of fire" versus how many actual rounds a firearm can fire in a minute

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

where do you dream this crap up?

I am waiting for you to actually explain some of the incredibly silly things you have said

1) that ownership of a mini gun is an OBSCENITY

2) at what rate of fire does an automatic weapon NOT become a OBSCENITY when owned by a member of the supreme sovereign (you know, the citizens you constantly refer to as exercising wisdom through their elected officials)

3) if you actually can understand "the rate of fire" versus how many actual rounds a firearm can fire in a minute

1- a gun which can fire thousands of rounds in a minute is by its very very nature OBSCENE.

2- at the rate of the one you mentioned in your OP is obscene in the hands of anyone other than the military..... and even then that is up for debate if such monstrosities should even be made.

3 - thank you for again dishonestly trying to shift this to the usual right wing "I am a bigger techie than you are" arena just as I predicted

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

1- a gun which can fire thousands of rounds in a minute is by its very very nature OBSCENE.

rof "Obscene" is a moral judgment.

2- at the rate of the one you mentioned in your OP is obscene in the hands of anyone other than the military....

So just to be clear, you don't even want law enforcement to have a minigun?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: High capacity magazines

1- a gun which can fire thousands of rounds in a minute is by its very very nature OBSCENE.

2- at the rate of the one you mentioned in your OP is obscene in the hands of anyone other than the military..... and even then that is up for debate if such monstrosities should even be made.

3 - thank you for again dishonestly trying to shift this to the usual right wing "I am a bigger techie than you are" arena just as I predicted

your definition of obscene is both idiotic and worthless.

if you are not able to tell us at what rate of fire makes a weapon "obscene" then YOUR OPINION has no merit whatsoever

and why do you fixate on a mini gun when the real argument is your party's disgusting attempts to limit civilians to 10 or now 7 rounds. Whining about the Minigun is much like whining about nukes. Its a non-issue and has no real relevance to this issue

why are you so terrified to tell us at what point you would ban certain amount of rounds?

we pro rights people have NO PROBLEM plainly stating our position

why do you have such a phobia in telling us what you want

instead we get silly and evasive crap like

A) I would have to see a proposed law

B) the number is not important-its what the voters express

and crap like that

for you to claim you haven't decided what number of rounds you find too terrifying to allow your neighbors to have is patently ridiculous

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

your definition of obscene is both idiotic and worthless.

if you are not able to tell us at what rate of fire makes a weapon "obscene" then YOUR OPINION has no merit whatsoever

and why do you fixate on a mini gun when the real argument is your party's disgusting attempts to limit civilians to 10 or now 7 rounds. Whining about the Minigun is much like whining about nukes. Its a non-issue and has no real relevance to this issue

why are you so terrified to tell us at what point you would ban certain amount of rounds?

we pro rights people have NO PROBLEM plainly stating our position

why do you have such a phobia in telling us what you want

instead we get silly and evasive crap like

A) I would have to see a proposed law

B) the number is not important-its what the voters express

and crap like that

for you to claim you haven't decided what number of rounds you find too terrifying to allow your neighbors to have is patently ridiculous

You should make a haymarket flowchart.

 

[American]

Re: High capacity magazines

Question? What question?

I can't teach to read what's in front of you. You'll have to scroll back and look. It appears you rather play games then answer my question. Your fail is multiplying every time you refuse to answer.

 

[Federalist]

Re: High capacity magazines

1- a gun which can fire thousands of rounds in a minute is by its very very nature OBSCENE.

Great. Now you just have to provide verifiable evidence to prove this claim.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

rof "Obscene" is a moral judgment.


So just to be clear, you don't even want law enforcement to have a minigun?

I see no reason why law enforcement here needs to have a gun that can fire 6000 rounds in a minute.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

and why do you fixate on a mini gun when the real argument is your party's disgusting attempts to limit civilians to 10 or now 7 rounds. Whining about the Minigun is much like whining about nukes. Its a non-issue and has no real relevance to this issue

YOu brought it up in your OP. If it has no relevance to the issue - blame yourself for introducing it in your own OP.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

I can't teach to read what's in front of you. You'll have to scroll back and look. It appears you rather play games then answer my question. Your fail is multiplying every time you refuse to answer.

I saw no question. I did see a wisguy smart-aleck attempt at the usual disparaging insult which was not an honest question in any way shape or form. I then gave it the treatment that its quality merited and deserved.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

Great. Now you just have to provide verifiable evidence to prove this claim.

I need no verifiable evidence for my own opinion. As a member of the Supreme Court said - he may not be able to define obscenity - but he knows it when he sees it. Me too. And if the standard is good enough for the highest court in the USA - it will have to do for me also.

 

[Federalist]

Re: High capacity magazines

I need no verifiable evidence for my own opinion. As a member of the Supreme Court said - he may not be able to define obscenity - but he knows it when he sees it. Me too. And if the standard is good enough for the highest court in the USA - it will have to do for me also.

Thank you. Your opinion is noted.

And you opinion of the US military personnel who employ such inherently obscene weapons?

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

I see no reason why law enforcement here needs to have a gun that can fire 6000 rounds in a minute.

Not even to protect the President? The Secret Service is a civilian law enforcement agency, you know...like the CIA who raid cartels and perform high-risk drug busts....and the FBI...and the NSA....but you only want the military to have this gun. Interesting.

It should be noted that the minigun of OP can't actually fire 6000 rounds in a minute because it can't keep firing for a whole minute straight. The 6Krpm is just a rate of fire, not how many rounds are actually coming out. The minigun is a cheetah, fast speed for a short duration.

 

[haymarket]

Re: High capacity magazines

Thank you. Your opinion is noted.

And you opinion of the US military personnel who employ such inherently obscene weapons?

My opinion and judgement is reserved for the merchants of death who make such things.

 

[Jerry]

Re: High capacity magazines

My opinion and judgement is reserved for the merchants of death who make such things.

Say GE produces them for the US Army under contract.....what is likely to be your default predisposition towards GE?