- 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
0
Posted on 6/22/16 at 12:45 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
The argument of "well if you ban AR 15s they will just use something else" is so freaking retarded I can't even wrap my head around it. Lets just make murder legal because frick they are going to do it anyway. Lets not make sexual predators register, because they will just find a way to rape any way.
talk about arguments so retarded it makes my head hurt
Posted on 6/22/16 at 12:55 pm to Clames
quote:
The Aurora CO shooter tried to use a 100 rd drum magazine that malfunctioned (not a rare issue with such magazines). The Arizona shooter used a 30 rd magazine in a Glock 9mm pistol that also malfunctioned. In both cases had the shooters used more reliable, lower capacity magazines they may have killed more people than they did.
I appreciate all of the points you articulated, but this is where I have an issue. You can't write them off because they malfunctioned. What practical purpose does a 100 round or 30 round magazine serve? If your argument is that lower capacity magazines can be used just as effectively, why do the higher capacity magazines even exist?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:00 pm to slackster
quote:
What practical purpose does a 100 round or 30 round magazine serve?
Your implication that there needs to be some practical purpose (deemed such by who? btw) is what many of us take issue with.
There doesn't need to be a reason. We have the right, irrespective of anyone's opinion of whether or not these devices serve any "practical purpose"
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:02 pm to slackster
quote:
What practical purpose does a 100 round or 30 round magazine serve?
It allows me to shoot more before reloading.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:02 pm to slackster
quote:
What practical purpose does a 100 round or 30 round magazine serve? If your argument is that lower capacity magazines can be used just as effectively, why do the higher capacity magazines even exist?
Sport shooting, competitive shooting, recreational shooting, defensive shooting. My argument, that you obviously failed to comprehend, is that magazine capacity restrictions serve no purpose and fail to achieve the goals stated by people such as yourself. If you want to restrict my access then YOU need to articulate rational and substantiated proof because your opinion and "common sense" are not good enough by far.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:05 pm to slackster
I don't care if I had a 1000 round mag. if it was possible/feasible i'd still like the option for me to own it. It's about the RIGHT to own it.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:06 pm to slackster
quote:
You can't write them off because they malfunctioned.
I think we can if the higher capacity magazines (the 60 to 100 round drums, notably) malfunction at a higher rate.
And, I'll just ask: Do you think capacity should be restricted and what arbitrary limit do you propose?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:09 pm to CptRusty
The practical purpose is at the heart of my argument in this thread. Pro gun advocates, of which I consider myself, need to control the conversation while simultaneously managing the public resentment. Many argue that high capacity magazines are irrelevant because a mid level marksman can reload quickly and get just as many rounds down range in aggregate as someone using a high capacity magazine, and I don't disagree. Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:14 pm to slackster
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
Because it is "high capacity magazines" this time, then scopes, then collapsible stocks, then a certain round, etc.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:14 pm to slackster
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
Because, once again, we are not going to compromise our rights, much less with people who are ignorant of the topic at hand and whose entire position is built upon falsehoods and hysteria.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:14 pm to slackster
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
Because the fear is that it won't stop at high capacity magazines. It will move to collapsible stocks, or pistol grips, or barrels under 20 inches.
But, the key here is that the 2nd amendment doesn't require a good reason to own a gun with any of these features. Nobody should have to prove that a feature should be protected by the second amendment. That is arse backwards.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:15 pm to slackster
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
define "high capacity magazines"
and the idea that we should just "concede" some rights (which we already have numerous times) to appease the opposing side is absurdity
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:18 pm to slackster
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
Because in a year, or two - there will be another shooting. And it will have whatever "low" capacity magazines are allowed.
And the "anti-gun" guys - which you disavow - will say, "Well - we tried the magazine thing, but really it is the semi-automatic weapons across the board need to be banned."
Then you will come here, all "pro gun" and say, "Well, we know we can protect ourselves with revolvers and double barrel shotguns. Why not concede the semiautomatics and limit the blowback?"
THEN, someone will shoot up a school with revolvers and shotguns...
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:18 pm to slackster
you're the type of person that feels secure when everything is regulated aren't you? Not just in the sense of guns but everything and you think the government has your best interest in mind. Don't feel bad. Many of the public has been brainwashed to this extent.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:18 pm to slackster
quote:
The practical purpose is at the heart of my argument in this thread. Pro gun advocates, of which I consider myself, need to control the conversation while simultaneously managing the public resentment.
bullshite, you're a Fudd and the public needs to be educated, not managed for their ignorance.
quote:
Many argue that high capacity magazines are irrelevant because a mid level marksman can reload quickly and get just as many rounds down range in aggregate as someone using a high capacity magazine, and I don't disagree.
So because a lot of stupid people agree on something it is less stupid? Do you even think about that statement before typing it?
quote:
Why not concede high capacity magazines and limit the blowback every time this happens?
And what will be conceded the next time a mass shooting happens and such law is in place (Does Columbine ring a bell in that empty head of yours?)? Why are you so willfully ignorant? Why do you not see the obvious flaws in your argument when they are put right in front of you?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:20 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
And, I'll just ask: Do you think capacity should be restricted and what arbitrary limit do you propose?
I think it is a reasonable bone to throw to critics. Let's say 11 or more rounds.
You don't think high capacity magazines are relevant. I think they might be. A large chunk of critics are certain they're a problem. It seems like an incredibly reasonable place to compromise and build some good will.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:23 pm to slackster
quote:
It seems like an incredibly reasonable place to compromise and build some good will.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:24 pm to slackster
quote:
reasonable place to compromise and build some good will.
how more clearly do you want us to explain to you that we don't give a frick about building "good will"?
The 2nd amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court has upheld it, and attempts to (further) infringe upon our rights are getting smacked down...4 this week!...
Why in the actual frick should we care about the feelings and irrational fears of an ignorant group of whining people?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 1:25 pm to slackster
You don't understand that the critics on that side of the argument would like to see all guns banned. They wont stop at large capacity mags.
So lets say we did give in to this limit of extended mags. What do we get in return? How about the ability to CC without a license?
So lets say we did give in to this limit of extended mags. What do we get in return? How about the ability to CC without a license?
Page 9 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News