- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Man Shoots AR-15 Against His Nose To Show How Little Kick It Has
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:02 pm to slackster
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:02 pm to slackster
quote:
It essentially boils down to this - either high-capacity magazines have some tactical advantage over "standard" magazines or they don't. If they don't, then it I believe it is a strategic concession. If they do, then this entire argument is moot and people need to acknowledge it and stop dismissing it as some sort of fear mongering.
it is quite sad how quickly you are to give up certain liberties
I have a feeling you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss if this was something that would affect you
1
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:03 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
If the 10-round limit is a good idea for the masses, in your opinion, wouldn't you agree that law enforcement should be limited to those same 10 rounds? If not, why not?
If the argument that standard magazines are no less effective and efficient at getting as many rounds down range as high-capacity rounds, then they serve no purpose for civilians or law enforcement. If they do get more rounds down range in less time than their standard magazine counterparts, then that is an entirely different argument, but it also eliminates the idea that a high-capacity magazine doesn't give a mass murderer any more of an advantage.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:03 pm to slackster
quote:
Huh? Many people in this very thread have argued that standard magazines (10 rounds or less) are just as effective as high capacity magazines in semi-automatic weapons if they're in the hands of a moderately capable shooter. Do you disagree with that statement?
Standard magazines in the case of the AR are 30 rounds and what you just repeated is exactly why an magazine restriction makes zero sense. You keep going around in circles and arguing against yourself but don't even realize it.
quote:
If someone wants to shoot up a place with handguns, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles, they're going to do it, and there isn't much we can do to stop them. Why do they need to have high-capacity magazines too? Why do you need to have them?
Because they are going to have them anyway. There is no legal or logical way the untold millions of existing 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 75, and 100 round magazines are going to be removed from civilian stocks and if one someone is bent on mass murder then they will get as many as they want. So since you can't guarantee that such people can't continue to own or obtain such magazines, I'm not going to countenance the idea that my ability to own or obtain them should be restricted.
quote:
If you want to argue that you should have them just because, that's fine, but surely you can understand why many people won't accept that argument.
I don't give a shite what they don't accept. I have the law and reality on my side, they don't.
quote:
I don't want your guns or your high-capacity magazines taken from you or anyone else, but if you want to keep them, you'd do well to articulate a better argument than "just because".
Tough shite kid, I don't have to do any such thing in this country and there is nothing you and an army of ignorants is going to do about it.
quote:
I really don't understand why this is so difficult for some of you to understand.
You don't want to understand. You are comfortable in your ignorance which is evidenced by your continued asking of questions already answered.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:04 pm to slackster
quote:
either high-capacity magazines have some tactical advantage over "standard" magazines or they don't. If they don't, then it I believe it is a strategic concession.
So, again, liberty is just off the menu?
And you haven't answered my question about law enforcement accepting these limits as well. So, I take that as your accepting a law enforcement exemption, regardless of which side of the tactical advantage argument you prefer, as a strategic concession, too?
quote:
If they do, then this entire argument is moot and people need to acknowledge it and stop dismissing it as some sort of fear mongering.
I don't think single shot shotguns are particularly effective for any purpose. I'm not in favor of banning them.
See how that works? Liberty trumps some hypothetical "strategic concession" - which is in exchange for NOTHING except, maybe, a little peace until the next mass shooting.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:06 pm to Clames
We are talking about a piece of plastic and a spring. If someone's intent was to kill a bunch of people it would not be that hard to make your own 30, 40, 50 round magazine. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:08 pm to Crazy4OU
Certainly no argument to make them illegal. It certainly didn't work the last time this was tried either.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:09 pm to Salmon
quote:
it is quite sad how quickly you are to give up certain liberties
That's not true whatsoever. My entire premise in this thread is based off of the concern that more gun control measures are coming. I want to make sure the general public is hearing the right arguments delivered in a manner that they understand. I want to control the conversation that is quite obviously going in the wrong direction across this country, but to do so you need to understand the weaknesses in your position.
I am of the opinion that we stand to lose more gun rights by taking a hardline approach to the situation. I think it is entirely plausible that conceding in one area could go a long way towards keeping as many rights as possible. Obviously many of you think I'm wrong, and that is fine, but that is my position.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:10 pm to Ace Midnight
I'm not sure that people understand cops are almost never at an incident before it happens.
Here's an example:
Three guys break into your house at midnight. You can either have 3-10rd mags or 3-17rd mags. The cops are 10 minutes out. Which mags would you rather have on you?
Eta: Compromising with a politician is like letting them institute a one time tax. They'll always take it and want more a year later
Here's an example:
Three guys break into your house at midnight. You can either have 3-10rd mags or 3-17rd mags. The cops are 10 minutes out. Which mags would you rather have on you?
Eta: Compromising with a politician is like letting them institute a one time tax. They'll always take it and want more a year later
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:11 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
And you haven't answered my question about law enforcement accepting these limits as well. So, I take that as your accepting a law enforcement exemption, regardless of which side of the tactical advantage argument you prefer, as a strategic concession, too?
Ace, see my response a few posts above yours.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:11 pm to slackster
quote:
I am of the opinion that we stand to lose more gun rights by taking a hardline approach to the situation. I think it is entirely plausible that conceding in one area could go a long way towards keeping as many rights as possible.
based off history, you are wrong
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:14 pm to slackster
quote:
Public opinion sways many of these local and state laws
I don't give a flying frick about what you think I should have.
Repeated SCOTUS decisions have illustrated that "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.
It means your feelings don't matter.
It means our system is slow to respond on purpose. To stop the overly emotional from making immediate decisions which will affect our long-term security negatively.
Your argument has zero logical legs to stand on, as a result, you turn to emotion and passion.
The document that is the bill of rights doesn't give a damn about your emotion. And nor do I.
You are free to have it. You are free to spout ignorance. When you insist that the lawd reflect your ignorance, that's when myself and the other half lf the country stand up to call you out.
Your illogical statements have no place in the crafting of laws.
Eta: excuse all typos. I have sweaty fingers.
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:14 pm to slackster
quote:
I am of the opinion that we stand to lose more gun rights by taking a hardline approach to the situation. I think it is entirely plausible that conceding in one area could go a long way towards keeping as many rights as possible. Obviously many of you think I'm wrong, and that is fine, but that is my position.
That is what the media wants you to think. The truth is, a black gun ban is not feasible right now. The left knows that it won't pass. So, they continue to threaten an AWB and ask for a compromise. They know that the only way to get there is to just continue chipping away. They know they can't do it in one fell swoop.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:14 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Three guys break into your house at midnight. You can either have 3-10rd mags or 3-17rd mags. The cops are 10 minutes out. Which mags would you rather have on you?
This is precisely what I was just referencing. Acknowledge that high-capacity magazines DO in fact make a difference and go from there. People can relate and understand this argument. Don't insult them by arguing the capacity of the magazine doesn't make a difference.
-or-
If it truly doesn't make a difference, I guess the answer to your question would be that it doesn't matter.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:14 pm to slackster
A concession in this manner would not be strategic at all. In fact it would be the opposite of strategic. There would be no benefit for the pro-gun side at all. I don't think you understand this.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:16 pm to Salmon
Obama just did his "common sense" executive action several months ago. Now you have another incident and they want to pass "common sense" gun control.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:17 pm to tke857
quote:
A concession in this manner would not be strategic at all. In fact it would be the opposite of strategic. There would be no benefit for the pro-gun side at all. I don't think you understand this.
There would be no benefit to the people who hold the exact same hardline stance that you and others in this thread have, but those people are a minority in this country too. This place is more or less an echo chamber. Most people don't think like you or me.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:17 pm to slackster
quote:
I am of the opinion that we stand to lose more gun rights by taking a hardline approach to the situation. I think it is entirely plausible that conceding in one area could go a long way towards keeping as many rights as possible. Obviously many of you think I'm wrong, and that is fine, but that is my position.
It's easy to think you are wrong because you actually are wrong. The Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases happened because of the hardline approach. If you actually understood this issue you'd see that anything less than the hardline approach means losing more gun rights.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:22 pm to slackster
can i get an opinion on what appears to be a more intimidating gun?
Just gut opinions only
Just gut opinions only
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:22 pm to slackster
Do you actually know what was changed after the last Federal magazine restriction was put in place? Do you need a picture to show you how idiotic and worthless it was?
Oh good, a pithy statement on a 30rd AR magazine. Apparently those words don't do a whole lot but you seem to think otherwise...
Oh good, a pithy statement on a 30rd AR magazine. Apparently those words don't do a whole lot but you seem to think otherwise...
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:32 pm to slackster
So you're arguing that we should have high cap mags?
Also, the media has a lot of people fooled. I know plenty of people who thought there actually was a gun show loophole. When I told them there isn't, their responses were usually, "Oh, then why is everyone talking about it?"
Also, the media has a lot of people fooled. I know plenty of people who thought there actually was a gun show loophole. When I told them there isn't, their responses were usually, "Oh, then why is everyone talking about it?"
Page 11 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News