Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
you gave no links that supported the idiotic claim that citizens would never need more than 7 rounds. and you never gave any links that justify cops having 17 round weapons and other people not having them
most importantly, you cannot find any argument that justifies why you have spent so much time attacking those of us who believe in free choice when you finally admitted you really have no argument
you tend to avoid taking concrete positions where you will get destroyed due to ignorance of the subject with attacking the process and pretending that matters rather than the substance. Its common with anti gun posters to whine about secondary issues
Whose claim?
Whoever claimed there was a need for more than 7 rounds is confused themselves as to where the need should be placed.
Not on that side of the argument, I say.
I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.
And I answered you.
You haven't provided any evidence of that. That is simply your opinion which isn't any more valid than anyone else's. You seem to have an inflated sense of self importance and seem to think that what you believe should be the rule for everyone else. What makes you think that your belief that a person does NOT need more than 7 rounds takes precedence over what an individual believes he/she needs to defend him/herself? You have still YET to explain that adequately.
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?TD made the claim, and I agree he's confused on this.
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?
:2razz:
No you have not. You have answered none of my questions adequately. You do not debate. You demand things from others while refusing to provide your own proof with the excuse that you are just asking questions. It's really quite a pathetic and transparent tactic. What do you take us for anyway?
And I answered you.
If you did not like my answer, follow up. What about you should be able to show record if it happens is nit adequate?
Oh really? Well please answer me again. I must have missed it.
So if you agree there is no need for need, why do you keep insisting that you need a proven need?
:2razz:
If you did not like my answer, follow up. What about you should be able to show record if it happens is nit adequate?
Yet, since there is no need for proof of need, why bother?It's simple enough, I find the claim to be an exaggeration. I think that shows weakness in his argument. But mostly I was curios and wanted to see how he was going to support it. I have given him plenty if opportunity to say he really can't.
I don't know why this would not be clear:Oh really? Well please answer me again. I must have missed it.
It's simple enough, I find the claim to be an exaggeration. I think that shows weakness in his argument. But mostly I was curios and wanted to see how he was going to support it. I have given him plenty if opportunity to say he really can't.
Yet, since there is no need for proof of need, why bother?
I guess because it takes so long to get an answer and everyone jumps in with no context just throwing support, well, it's kind of funny to watch. He could end it easily by answering, admitting or not replying.
I answered one by saying if that us true, you can show record of when someone needed themI did and everyone else acknowledged it
I said
1) there is a possibility you might need more rounds
2) every major police department determined that 6 shot revolvers were not sufficient
end of story-you lose
I don't know why this would not be clear:
I've seen no evidence it happens that way. My experience tells me they run away. But if it happens as you say, we should have verifiable record of that.
Tactic #3-accusing others of the very tactic you have engaged in
Yet he already has, only you didn't accept it because you wanted to troll more.I guess because it takes so long to get an answer and everyone jumps in with no context just throwing support, well, it's kind of funny to watch. He could end it easily by answering, admitting or not replying.
You make this **** up? :lamo:lamo:lamo
No, I asked you what makes you think that your belief that more than 7 rounds is not needed takes precedence over another person's belief that they DO need more than 7 rounds. The above does not address that question, unless you are basically saying that you belief your OPINION, as stated above, actually DOES take precedence over another free law-abiding citizen's opinion on what they believe they need to defend themselves.
What is so funny? It's obviously very true. Everyone else sees it too.
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?