- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
See what I mean. I never ever said that. Not once. Never.
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?
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.
See what I mean. I never ever said that. Not once. Never.
we are used to several anti gun posters who play this game. They make evasive comments and then complain when people interpret their comments consistent with what they intended. you play games so you can claim not to be anti gun while continuing to whine about pro gun posts.
Has to be more than that. As I said, none are absolute and thus up to interpretation. Fundamental means it intrinsic and more a natural law.
What?I really doubt it. It's like the smoking gun argument with torture. It is too far outside the realm of our known experience to be realistically considered.
You are being intellectually dishonest. Obviously you have a problem with law-abiding citizens having more than 7 rounds at one time at their disposal. Why?
Do you really think I'm interested in getting into a discussion with you on the long list of cases where rights are restricted when the action does not coerce or impede on the agency of someone else?
I have no reason to do anything as I'm not desiring to take any action.
Exactly, we see this all the time. The anti-gunners are SO dishonest.
You are being intellectually dishonest. Obviously you have a problem with law-abiding citizens having more than 7 rounds at one time at their disposal. Why?
I've called for no action either, but is don't mind pointing out silliness.
But you don't deny that that limitations are not new. From day one of this country there have been restrictions.
I'm just trying to point out to Boo that since no reason exists for a round limit, there should be no round limit.There is no reason to humor such idiotic notions such as need when talking about rights. Rights are not dependent on the need of the individual to have it.
Should have said ticking time bomb. It's where you imagine unrealistic situations and try make it an excuse for extreme behavior.What?
I'm just trying to point out to Boo that since no reason exists for a round limit, there should be no round limit.
The "need" bit was in counter to his "you don't need that much", and was intended to point out that he was wrong in that regard.
Probably should have made it 2 separate sentences rather than just using a comma.
Not at all. I was attracted by the stupid claim that you can't defend yourself unless you have more than seven rounds. Instead if just answering the challenge, you Guys jumped over the ledge. I keep telling you I have no dog in the fight I neither need nor fear guns.
No evasion. You can consider it minor, as I do (clear statement), not think there is a self defense need, and still not call for or even support the law. Because you can understand an intellectual discussion, you get emotional.LOL more evasions-the issue is not whether you want a restriction. The fact is you claimed that such a restriction would be "minor" and people don't NEED more than seven rounds
Not at all. I was attracted by the stupid claim that you can't defend yourself unless you have more than seven rounds. Instead if just answering the challenge, you Guys jumped over the ledge. I keep telling you I have no dog in the fight I neither need nor fear guns.
The point, which I have perhaps strayed away from a bit, is that unless some concrete reason for a round limit is presented, there should be none.And I might agree with that, but that wasn't the argument I'm addressing. The don't need much came from the you can't defend yourself if the rounds are limited.
I still have no idea what you're talking about.Should have said ticking time bomb. It's where you imagine unrealistic situations and try make it an excuse for extreme behavior.
No, I really can think if any, but if you care to do as I asked and show me I'll review it.More lies, you are changing the issue. The issue is not whether you can defend yourself with 7 rounds. the issue is
ARE THERE SCENARIOS WHERE 7 rounds is not enough to solve the problem that has been forced upon an honest man. The answer of course is YES
but you pretend there is never going to be a situation what requires more than seven rounds
or you pretend that if you kill half your attackers but dies because you ran out of ammo you still "defended" yourself
its like saying if you have half the amount of antibiotics needed to kill the infection you were able to be Treated (even if you died)
yes or no Boo-are there attacks that might require an armed citizens to use more than 7 rounds in order to survive
simple question
YES OR NO
No evasion. You can consider it minor, as I do (clear statement), not think there is a self defense need, and still not call for or even support the law. Because you can understand an intellectual discussion, you get emotional.
I still have no idea what you're talking about.
The point, which I have perhaps strayed away from a bit, is that unless some concrete reason for a round limit is presented, there should be none.
It doesn't matter how many you "need". Need is not relevant.
But since you aren't addressing this argument, what ARE you addressing?
I still have no idea what you're talking about.
So what you're addressing is a point which involves the use of "need" as an argument, in a discussion about gun use?? And you think "need" is an unreasonable point to make? And whoever you were arguing against refused to address this point?I find it interesting that someone would use need as an argument. I don't buy it wanted to hear an explanation. He merely refused.
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?