i know you always try to throw that out there when people post numbers/facts/etc but it never works. hell, it's transparent and another one of your go to moves.the sign of a weak argument-a bullshit appeal to emotion.
Islam didn't fly the plane. An engineer did. Maybe a better example is 'banning' engineers.Thread begs the question.
We lost almost 3,000 on 9/11. OP would reject any formula that suggested we needed to toss the 1A and ban Islam or Muslims as a result. Their question contains the same categorical error.
It does rather significantly undermine the 'good guys with guns' argument.Why were the Uvalde police and Texas LE afraid to do their job? Why did a cop encourage a child to say " help" before the shooter was not a threat? A complete failure. Those cops were cowards.
Ya think? Their inaction killed children and their teachers.It does rather significantly undermine the 'good guys with guns' argument.
How many violent criminals are we talking here? If I am threatened by a couple of criminals trying to break into my house, 10 rounds should be enough.yes you do-and I call bullshit on your claims. you want to ban normal capacity magazines You want to handicap honest citizens in violent confrontations with criminals, and when a stupid magazine ban doesn't work, you will want further restrictions
One of those numbers is not pertinent to the thread.Hmm, which is more 20 or 63 million?
Islam was the motivating force. How many dead will it take before you agree to begin stripping away basic individual rights and liberal governance?Islam didn't fly the plane. An engineer did. Maybe a better example is 'banning' engineers.
But, no. Not Islam. Saudi dissidents exported by corrupt Saudi princes, because their policy is to send their radicals elsewhere instead of dealing with them at home.Islam was the motivating force. How many dead will it take before you agree to begin stripping away basic individual rights and liberal governance?
Dissident Islamists.But, no. Not Islam. Saudi dissidents exported by corrupt Saudi princes, because their policy is to send their radicals elsewhere instead of dealing with them at home.
The hyperbole has to stop, no?Islam was the motivating force. How many dead will it take before you agree to begin stripping away basic individual rights and liberal governance?
'Islamism' is lazy reporting from a lazy era. There are 'Islamists' who are pacifists.Dissident Islamists.
How many dead do you think OP would accept before he tosses human freedom aside in this regard?
'Islamism' is lazy reporting from a lazy era. There are 'Islamists' who are pacifists.
My, my, my. Hiding your head in the sand is a poor way of learning.One of those numbers is not pertinent to the thread.
This little number is.
why would any sane person limit themselves to ten rounds when the criminals won't/ DO YOU not trust yourself to have more than 10 rounds in your gun.How many violent criminals are we talking here? If I am threatened by a couple of criminals trying to break into my house, 10 rounds should be enough.
You are apparently planning on being the victim of an entire drug cartel. If that happens I don't think the number of rounds in your magazine would make a difference. You wouldn't survive such an attack, regardless of what you see in the movies.
stop lying-we have had dozens of people on this board demand a ban of this. @Ethel2 said ALL SEMI AUTOS should be banned. We have people claiming that only wannabe murderers and losers own AR 15s.The hyperbole has to stop, no?
No one has argued for a ban. Or for taking away the protected right to keep and bear arms.
For my own position, you could scroll. I think there's precedent to age restrict gun ownership, and that the sound, appropriate approach to the problem of proliferation is to address the proliferators, not the end users. And for clarity's sake, this is my general position on all 'harmful' conduct. I have no interest in prohibition: not on heroin, guns, pornography (which I personally believe is toxic and exploitative), alcohol, Mein Kampf, the repugnant Battle Flag, books, even the internet arguments of NAMBLA 'activists'.
But. This is all merely philosophical. Because the proliferators are very wealthy, well entrenched, and uniquely positioned to market their durable good, one never engineered for obsoletion, as if it were a transient and consumable one.
Cp, this hyperbole is unnecessary. There is no reason to go after the end-user. It's not abusive of anyone's protected rights to regulate production. Regulating the manufacturer is sound, appropriate, textually consistent, and traditionally American. Like with alcohol. Or savings and loans. Or fireworks.Indeed. In fact, one might say that the percentage of Muslims who join or commit to terrorist groups is comparable to the percentage of gun owners who decide to shoot up a bunch of innocent people. Hence, the comparison, to explicitly draw out that what is being asked is "How many deaths perpetuated by small numbers of a group justify abusing the rights of the entire group?"
so you want to prevent makers from producing those rifles.Cp, this hyperbole is unnecessary. There is no reason to go after the end-user. It's not abusive of anyone's protected rights to regulate production. Regulating the manufacturer is sound, appropriate, textually consistent, and traditionally American. Like with alcohol. Or savings and loans. Or fireworks.
Furthermore, it has never been off limits to the public authority to define and constrict the scope of the term 'arms'.
Reported. Please, learn how not to call people liars.stop lying-we have had dozens of people on this board demand a ban of this. @Ethel2 said ALL SEMI AUTOS should be banned. We have people claiming that only wannabe murderers and losers own AR 15s.
No. Just want to do for them what you taught us was appropriate for abortion clinics. Your victory. Live with the unintended consequences.so you want to prevent makers from producing those rifles.
I was a guard at Planned Parenthood. I have marched in at least a dozen gatherings supporting abortion rights. what are you blathering aboutNo. Just want to do for them what you taught us was appropriate for abortion clinics. Your victory. Live with the unintended consequences.
for what-saying you are lying. go for it. I have never called anyone a liar-that violates the rules. saying they are lying or their posts are lies-well you are wrongReported. Please, learn how not to call people liars.
I don't care. The people you support in power, because of your proliferation advocacy, used that power with cold ophidian will to regulate abortion providers into a strangle trap. Live with the rules your faction conjured into existence.I was a guard at Planned Parenthood. I have marched in at least a dozen gatherings supporting abortion rights. what are you blathering about
Your quality is known now.for what-saying you are lying. go for it. I have never called anyone a liar-that violates the rules. saying they are lying or their posts are lies-well you are wrong
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?