Why a 30 round clip?

[haymarket]

"a very narrow manner".

Yes indeed. Guilty as charged.

That is it exactly.

I am sick and tired of being sick of tired of the intellectually dishonest discussion about anything to do with the Second Amendment. The discussion is NEVER about the issue on the table, in this case the actions in Arizona. Instead, its about Vermont or someplace else, and the slippery slope and future court decisions and technical specifications and if I or anyone else is up on the latest gun jargon which is intended to instantly identify the Ture Believers from everyone else. Anything else you want to throw in that I forget, feel free to add it to the soup just so it serves to deflect from the narrower issue at hand.

A 30 rounder ban isn't going to happen in the current political climate; if it did it would be challenged and the current SCOTUS might well shoot it down as Unconstitutional; it is debateable as to whether a 30 round ban would have really made any difference in the Arizona shootings; it is patently obvious that a 30-ban will NOT prevent or mitigate future mass shootings.

While your extra sensory powers are in full drive mode, could you provide the upcoming winning Super Power Ball lottery numbers as well?

 

[TurtleDude]

My OP was to find out if there was some legitimate need to own something like this that could not be serviced by other means.

What any other posters agree with or disagree with is irrelevant to the events in Arizona.

Your "understanding" of how loud the bang is or what number attaches itself to what weapon does not translate into an understanding of the political and social ramifications of this issue. Although, I must admit, that tactic has indeed been hugely successful in keeping anyone but the most ardent pro-gun persons out of discussions like this.

your butt hurt whining was obvious to anyone. After people are killed by a nut job who premeditated capital murder you start spewing nonsense that a 33 round magazine is not "needed" and the legal availability of such items is partially to blame for this massacre even though you have been reamed, steamed and drycleaned by most people on this thread because your suggestions that a ban might have prevented this

we don't need to justify why we want to own something. The Only proper burden in a free society is for the nanny state ninnies to justify why something should be banned and not one of the pants wetting hoplophobes have come close to doing that

 

[Goshin]

"a very narrow manner".

Yes indeed. Guilty as charged.

That is it exactly.

I am sick and tired of being sick of tired of the intellectually dishonest discussion about anything to do with the Second Amendment. The discussion is NEVER about the issue on the table, in this case the actions in Arizona. Instead, its about Vermont or someplace else, and the slippery slope and future court decisions and technical specifications and if I or anyone else is up on the latest gun jargon which is intended to instantly identify the Ture Believers from everyone else. Anything else you want to throw in that I forget, feel free to add it to the soup just so it serves to deflect from the narrower issue at hand.



While your extra sensory powers are in full drive mode, could you provide the upcoming winning Super Power Ball lottery numbers as well?

Yes, a very narrow manner. It is a common debating tactic, seen frequently on DP. Someone attempts to set the parameters for a discussion, to "seed the field" in their favor, to "set the boundaries" to protect their position from being attacked on the vulnerable flanks.

I too am tired of intellectually dishonest debate about the 2nd Amendment... by anti-gun hacks who try to conceal what they are behind disingenuous claims of being pro-2A, attempting to conceal that they really want to drastically restrict it... attempting to "hunt in a baited field" by trying to narrow down the argument reducto absurdum to keep out all those pesky real-world facts that shoot down their position.

It is you who have tried to stifle honest debate by attempting to forbid the discussion of related issues that bear on the larger issue. I got news for you though: you don't get to set the boundaries and hunt in a nice, safe, baited field, slanted to favor your views. You have to swim out in the open with the sharks like the rest of us.

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle Dude

your butt hurt whining was obvious to anyone.

My oh my but you do have an obsession with the rear end don't you?

 

[VanceMack]

The tragic stories are everywhere.

"Man uses Pocketknife to kill friend"
"Man kills ex girlfriend by ramming her with car-also kills her friend and his unborn baby"
"Woman kills man with baseball bat"
"man kills dog with chainsaw"
Look...it doesnt matter that millions of people use these items legally daily. It doesnt matter that in all instances there were people as the actual CAUSE of the deaths. All that matters is that you stay focused on this very tragic incident and how, if we had just banned the use of pocketknives, cars, bats, and chainsaws, these people would be alive today. Now...Im not asking you to ban cars...just...nothing bigger than a golf cart. And pocket knives are fine...just so long as they have a blade no longer than an inch. Bats are fine too, but really...outside of organized sports team, no one needs a bat bigger than the ones they give away as promos...you know...the little 12" numbers. And chainsaws should be restricted to the electrical chord chain saws (except for professional use). And you may think it is unfair to ban those items or its a violation of peoples freedoms. Tough. Tell it to the families of the dead. Their loved one is DEAD, not because some creapy sick twist, but because of the object. And if they never had access to those objects no one would ever die. And dont talk to me about anything not related to anything OTHER than those specific incidents. Because all that matters is that I be able to use their tragic loss to further my own goals.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

"a very narrow manner".

Yes indeed. Guilty as charged.

That is it exactly.

I am sick and tired of being sick of tired of the intellectually dishonest discussion about anything to do with the Second Amendment. The discussion is NEVER about the issue on the table, in this case the actions in Arizona. Instead, its about Vermont or someplace else, and the slippery slope and future court decisions and technical specifications and if I or anyone else is up on the latest gun jargon which is intended to instantly identify the Ture Believers from everyone else. Anything else you want to throw in that I forget, feel free to add it to the soup just so it serves to deflect from the narrower issue at hand.



While your extra sensory powers are in full drive mode, could you provide the upcoming winning Super Power Ball lottery numbers as well?

No d00d, you simply don't like the answers as they don't conform to your true believer mentality. We have answered you, shown you the illogice of your arguments, and thouroughly trounced your position.

as I said back on page 1.

Because I ****ing want one. /thread

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

from Turtle Dude



My oh my but you do have an obsession with the rear end don't you?

You know if you want to run your mouth, there is a place on this forum to do so.... Just a friendly suggestion. impdaddy:

 

[haymarket]

Yes, a very narrow manner. It is a common debating tactic, seen frequently on DP. Someone attempts to set the parameters for a discussion, to "seed the field" in their favor, to "set the boundaries" to protect their position from being attacked on the vulnerable flanks.

I too am tired of intellectually dishonest debate about the 2nd Amendment... by anti-gun hacks who try to conceal what they are behind disingenuous claims of being pro-2A, attempting to conceal that they really want to drastically restrict it... attempting to "hunt in a baited field" by trying to narrow down the argument reducto absurdum to keep out all those pesky real-world facts that shoot down their position.

It is you who have tried to stifle honest debate by attempting to forbid the discussion of related issues that bear on the larger issue. I got news for you though: you don't get to set the boundaries and hunt in a nice, safe, baited field, slanted to favor your views. You have to swim out in the open with the sharks like the rest of us.

You seem to want to depict your opponennt in a certain way that is a lie and a purposeful misrepresentation of the position they actually are taking. It seems to be a tactic by some in the gun community who fall into the True Believer category. It is important for you and some others here to portray any opposition to you at all as being... what do you like to call them.... oh yes... "gun grabbers"... (cute) or "gun banners" or "enemies of the Second Amendment" .... or I imagine "spawn of the devil" would also cover it in your mind.

It seems that you and others cannot appreciate a middle ground. The idea of nuances and subtleties seem foreign to your way of thinking. And that speaks volumes about your position, your attitude and your approach to the issue.

My position is clear: I support a persons Second Amendment rights to own a gun. I support a persons right to hunt. I support a persons right to have a weapon for protection. I support a persons right to use a weapon in self defense or in defense of their family. If there were a vote today to ban guns I would vote AGAINST such a move.

Now I am NOT a gun owner. Never have been and I probably never will be. But there are lots of things I do not do that I support the rights of others to participate in.

When a notable gun rights advocate such as Dick Cheney can take a position on the issue of 30 bullet magazines, I think other interested citizens also can without being declared as heretics of the Constitution and traitors to the cause.

 

[haymarket]

You know if you want to run your mouth, there is a place on this forum to do so.... Just a friendly suggestion. impdaddy:

Perhaps you should tell that to Turtle who keeps bringing it up?

 

[haymarket]

No d00d, you simply don't like the answers as they don't conform to your true believer mentality. We have answered you, shown you the illogice of your arguments, and thouroughly trounced your position.

as I said back on page 1.

Because I ****ing want one. /thread

Some here have provided me with solid answers and for that I have expressed my thanks.

Some have raved on like spoiled children and they have demonstrated their own limited depth on this issue.

Having said that, no one here has gone beyond that into the fairytale land you describe. Is ILLOGICE French for some other English term?

Because you ***ing want one. You must have thought that was both clever and cute the first two times you used it.. I do hope that the NRA and other pro-gun groups have hired spokespersons who are just abit more intelligent and can express themselves better than that. Otherwise, such childish petulance will only receive the scorn of much of America who is on the fence on these issues. And that could only damage your cause.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You seem to want to depict your opponennt in a certain way that is a lie and a purposeful misrepresentation of the position they actually are taking. It seems to be a tactic by some in the gun community who fall into the True Believer category. It is important for you and some others here to portray any opposition to you at all as being... what do you like to call them.... oh yes... "gun grabbers"... (cute) or "gun banners" or "enemies of the Second Amendment" .... or I imagine "spawn of the devil" would also cover it in your mind.

True believers when thier argument is shot dowm will try to group all those folks like Goshin, myself and anyone who disagrees with a true beleiver as a mindless cult, when in fact, the only thing he shows in his hand, is that he, is the closed minded groupthink true believer, and is simply projecting his closed minded views on others.

It seems that you and others cannot appreciate a middle ground. The idea of nuances and subtleties seem foreign to your way of thinking. And that speaks volumes about your position, your attitude and your approach to the issue.

True believers will often think thier extreme position is some sort of "middle ground" and will throw near tantrums when those he is having a discussion with disagree with him. Even when presented with facts that shred the true believiers hoplophobic rants, he will continue to think, he is the "middle ground"......

My position is clear: I support a persons Second Amendment rights to own a gun. I support a persons right to hunt. I support a persons right to have a weapon for protection. I support a persons right to use a weapon in self defense or in defense of their family. If there were a vote today to ban guns I would vote AGAINST such a move.

But only infierior weapons, and those that you a non gun owner think we should own. so you want the ignorant to tell the informed what they can defend thier family with? seriously, this true believer mentality, fails the logic test at every turn.

Now I am NOT a gun owner. Never have been and I probably never will be. But there are lots of things I do not do that I support the rights of others to participate in.

So, not a gun owner wants to tell a gun owner the scope of what he chooses to defend himself with. hubris? arrogance? or plain true believer nonsense? I would say in your case it's a trifecta.

When a notable gun rights advocate such as Dick Cheney can take a position on the issue of 30 bullet magazines, I think other interested citizens also can without being declared as heretics of the Constitution and traitors to the cause.

Dick cheney, does not speak for all gun owners. sorry. And what again was his exact words on the magazines again? I think you are over playing what he said for you hoplophobic true believer cause.

 

[Tucker Case]

"man kills dog with chainsaw"

****in' thing wouldn't fetch his slippers.

 

[VanceMack]

****in' thing wouldn't fetch his slippers.

So we should ban slippers then!!!

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Some here have provided me with solid answers and for that I have expressed my thanks.

Actualy almost all including me have shredded your silly argument over and over again.

Some have raved on like spoiled children and they have demonstrated their own limited depth on this issue.

True believers will often project thier own behaviors onto the pro-gun crowd and not see thier own faults.

Having said that, no one here has gone beyond that into the fairytale land you describe. Is ILLOGICE French for some other English term?

true believers when thier backs are against the wall and have lost all sense of an argument often will resort to attacking spelling errors and typos.

Because you ***ing want one. You must have thought that was both clever and cute the first two times you used it.. I do hope that the NRA and other pro-gun groups have hired spokespersons who are just abit more intelligent and can express themselves better than that. Otherwise, such childish petulance will only receive the scorn of much of America who is on the fence on these issues. And that could only damage your cause.

true believers when having thier argument shredded so simply by pointint out that they are not the arbritrars of liberty and the end all be all of who gets to own what, will often resort to personal attacks, and complete dismissal without comment at the simple 5 words that make thier entire argument moot.



Such is the fate of the true believer.

 

[Tucker Case]

So we should ban slippers then!!!

Perosnally, I think the "How to train your dog with a Homelite" book should be banned.

 

[haymarket]

Rev - what exactly is it that I am a True Believer in anyways?

You throw around the term out of spite since you do not like it applied to you or your ilk. Just like the right wing tactic to attempt to steal the label of "racist" from those who would use it against them, you are now doing this with the same thing - "true Believer".

So lets hear it.

I am glad to read that you admit that you True Believers are not the defenders of liberty or its judge. That is a positive step taken by you.

But only infierior weapons, and those that you a non gun owner think we should own.

I assume you mean "inferior weapons"? And what would those be exactly?

 

[VanceMack]

Perosnally, I think the "How to train your dog with a Homelite" book should be banned.

Ah! It was the authors fault...with their hate filled rhetoric!!!

Howsabout we dont ban ALL slippers...just the fuzzy ones...

 

[Chappy]

… this is a fundamental right …

Access to a high capacity magazine is not a fundamental right. The retail sale of such has been prohibited before. They should be banned now.

 

[Tucker Case]

Ah! It was the authors fault...with their hate filled rhetoric!!!

Howsabout we dont ban ALL slippers...just the fuzzy ones...

I think it's the size of the slippers that was the problem. They guy wore a size 16 and the dog was Chihuahua. We should ban slippers above size 8.

 

[TurtleDude]

Access to a high capacity magazine is not a fundamental right. The retail sale of such has been prohibited before. They should be banned now.

anti freedom nutcases who have no logical arguments should be banned from intelligent society. If state and local cops have access to such items that creates an estoppel argument in favor of other citizens.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Rev - what exactly is it that I am a True Believer in anyways.

your posts epitomize the "true believer" mentality... actually moreso that of the jonestown kool-aid drinker, but I like throwing your trolling back in your face.

The True Believer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone reading this wiki will quickly notice how you epitomize the true believer mentality, you forgo rational thinking and sacrifice your integrity to follow your narrow minded path on subjects.

You close your mind and let others think for you, only to then form these narrow minded posts that ignore all reality and facts. For example, you have not addressed the Vtech shooting that completley obliterates your hoplophobic position that its the capacity not the capability that is the problem. like a true believer you ignore these realities for your hoplophobic agenda.

It is neither intellectual, nor is it the postings of an independent mind.

You throw around the term out of spite since you do not like it applied to you or your ilk. Just like the right wing tactic to attempt to steal the label of "racist" from those who would use it against them, you are now doing this with the same thing - "true Believer".

True believers will often think they own certain terms, and attempt to shadow themselves from view of thier own hypocrisy... often blaming the "Right wing" for any and all of the worlds ills and bandy about fake accusations and lies about his opposition. The true believer can not and will not see anything other than his own narrow minded view.

So lets hear it.

The Good Reverend has, and the true believer will not respond, because the true believer can not see anything that puts a hole in his fantasy of a hoplophobic world view.

I am glad to read that you admit that you True Believers are not the defenders of liberty or its judge. That is a positive step taken by you.

A true believer will often have to resort to lie about the others position, twisting it to fit his hoplophobic world view.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Access to a high capacity magazine is not a fundamental right. The retail sale of such has been prohibited before. They should be banned now.

Please link to the section of the constitution that restricts access to full capacity magazines. Thanks.

 

[Chappy]

… If state and local cops have access to such items that creates an estoppel argument in favor of other citizens.

Please link to the section of the constitution that restricts access to full capacity magazines. Thanks.

Again the retail sale of high capacity magazines were previously prohibited but was allowed to expire despite President George W. Bush's promise to sign its renewal.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I would direct your attention to the commerce and the general welfare clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

High capacity magazines are not needed and indeed represent a considerable threat to public safety.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Again the retail sale of high capacity magazines were previously prohibited but was allowed to expire despite President George W. Bush's promise to sign its renewal.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I would direct your attention to the commerce and the general welfare clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

High capacity magazines are not needed and indeed represent a considerable threat to public safety.

Please explain how the commerce clause and the general welfare clause restricts full capacity magazines.


Also link to how limiting magazine capacity by the unconstitutional AWB saved 1 life. Thanks.


The AWB proves that limiting magazine capacity doesn't do ****.

/thread

 

[haymarket]

Rev,

I believe only in pragmatics and the real. I know its difficult for someone like yourself who sees everything in ideology that was handed dwon from your gods, but its the case with me.

One cannot help but notice that you never pointed out one thing that I supposedly believe in. All you did in your rant was make personal attacks against me in post #296.

The only relevant part of your rant was this

but I like throwing your trolling back in your face.

which was exactly what I told you that you were doing all along. Thank you for admitting it.