I am saying that honest people don't pick when or by whom they are attacked. and its always better to have more rounds than less given the uncertainty. And your idiotic argument was you never will need more than 7 rounds
You are simply ignorant about this area
You're dancing. The positive claim is yours. You have the burden. You just know you can't, so you dance.
Who cares, TD? It's just his opinion and it is worth the same as Joe Schmoe's opinion... approximately nothing.
To restrict a fundamental right, you have to prove necessity. You don't have to prove necessity to exercise one. End of story.
TD, you need not prove anything. Your opposition is the one who has to prove that a 7 round restriction is essential to public safety and will have a major impact on same. He hasn't, and cant.
/thread.
Nope, in a free society people should be able to carry what they want
I think everyone knows who is making crap up here. I have yet to see anyone cite your posts as an example of expertise in this subject. remember-you have already admitted you don't "need" a gun and you obviously have no understanding of civilian self defense issues
Why do you want to put limitations on rounds? Please explain.
Better to have an m16, or a flame thrower, or a tank, or a nuke. But support that you need more than seven rounds. I'm waiting.
Different argument. You're diverting again. You'll get emotional next.
And no, I can defend myself without a gun. And freedoms are never without limitations. Do keep that in mind as you get emotional again.
the idiocy continues. every try to carry a flamethrower hidden on your person.
you still haven't dealt with the studies major police departments bought into about 30 years ago
you are losing it and you never had a winning position to begin with
Different argument. You're diverting again. You'll get emotional next.
And no, I can defend myself without a gun. And freedoms are never without limitations. Do keep that in mind as you get emotional again.
everytime you lie or fail to address an argument your pavlovian response is to accuse whomever is thrashing your unreasoned nonsense as being "emotional". Its nothing more than sanctimonious arrogance of someone who has no argument and no facts
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.I haven't tried to tell anyone anything. I really have no dog in the fight. If you actually read what I say you'd know this. However, you made the claim you need more than seven rounds for self defense. I simply don't buy that. And told you so.
And yes, I know you don't live in a war zone. And what little information you try to give is often wrong, and I do point that out. But really, you rant and attack more than anything else. You're quite emotional. Even here you did not respond to what I actually said.
Finish one, and I'll move on to the next one, though I've answered that as well many times. Merely prove you need more than seven rounds or admit your error. ,
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.
Why should the rights of innocent parties be limited? Can you show any rights that are violated by the simple act of owning a gun or ammo? Well? If not, your argument appears to amount to because I'm your master bitch.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Just as I predicted.
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.
You ignored me earlier. I think you don't like a challenge. But What makes the right fundamental? Are we today what we were 200 years ago?
Just a question.
He's right. That's exactly what you do. You've done it to me and others too.
Why do you want to limit a law-abiding citizen? It makes absolutely no sense unless you are fearful.
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.
Your slightly better than TD, but often misunderstand the debate. You think I'm arguing one thing when it's really another. And then you get upset. All I ask is hat you two actually read what I'm saying. It would help a lot.
What makes any right fundamental? It's existence.
I completely understand what you are saying, that you think law-abiding citizens should be limited to 7 rounds of ammo, and you can't even contemplate a situation in which they might need more. It's really quite silly on your part.
I completely understand what you are saying, that you think law-abiding citizens should be limited to 7 rounds of ammo, and you can't even contemplate a situation in which they might need more. It's really quite silly on your part.
They always have been. It's not new. All rights have limitations. Pick one, and we can show a limitation. Again, not new.
But for the hundred time, my only argument is that TD is wrong that you can't defend yourself with seven rounds, and in terms if defense, this us not a burden.
He refuses to defend his claim.
Maybe you will?
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?