The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

When I've brought up facts and statistics they're ignored or countered with a scenario that is most likely unrealistic or with a claim that a statement is made that wasn't. When the three of you stop that type of response, I'll be more than happy to have an adult discussion.

---

I will outright to your face call you a LIAR with this post. Several of us PROVED to you using firearm's industry nomenclature that you were wrong about your definition of the assault rifle. Then you responded by trying to claim that the M1 Garand and the '03 Springfield were assault rifles. You have absolutely no knowledge of firearm's related law other than what we have taught you and what internet searches have taught you. We can counter to with real world experience and knowledge.

You have a history here of not remaining adult yourself. You have stalked LA and posted irrelvant nonsense over and over that had nothing to do what he posted in the first place. So if you are going to set a standard first follow it yourself.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/2...lf-protection/



Attachment 22739

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

On another thread, the Israeli model was put forth as an example of what should be done in this country. All that you mention is part of the process one must go through to own a gun in Israel. And the individual is only allowed to own one gun and never have more than 50 rounds of ammo in their possession.

---

What is done in Israel has no bearing on this country or the fact that serveral state proposals violate core precepts upon which this country was founded. Ignoring guns for a moment, would you be willing to submit to a mental health screening and home inspection for the right to own a item?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You can say it's Godwin's Law all you want. Look at it, and think with your own brain. I only bring up things that are factually comparative. Unlike yourself.

---

Lol. This is funny. I remember liberal extremists comparing Bush to Hitler as well. Nothing new. This type of doom and gloom and claims of tyranny have been around since the John Birch Society started spouting them back when Eisenhower was in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You haven't brought up any facts, you've brought up meaningless drivel in an attempt to counter logical argument.

---

Done numerous times. You just don't like them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

SC, Let me ask you a couple questions.

Do you have homeowners insurance? Car Insurance? Fire Extinguishers in your home? Why? Have you had a fire? Are you that paranoid that something bad is going to happen? Maybe, maybe not. But I can tell you, you have ALLLLLL of those things because you're prepared.

What if the government said you can have auto insurance, but only enough to cover $1,000 worth of damage, because they believe that's a fair pay out in the accident Or you can have homeowners insurance, but you can't insure your $250,000 house for more than $18,000, not nearly enough to make a dent if your house burns to the ground. What if the government says you can have a fire extinguisher in your house, but it can only be a 2.5 ADC Dry Chemical extinguisher because the government thinks that is a sufficient size to protect your home from fire with.

---

Can you show me where an insurance policy or a fire extinguisher has been used to mow down a group of six year olds or shoot a couple dozen people in a crowded theater?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

You see, that's what your proposals are doing. You want to limit magazine capacity because you think we don't need more than 10 rounds to defend ourselves. You want us to reduce the amount of ammo we have in our magazines, because that's what YOU think will help curb gun violence in America.

---

Large magazines aren't reducing crime either. BTW, you and others have stated numerous times that changing magazines is done quickly. So this is a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

If I came to you tomorrow, and said you can have ONE 2.5 ABC Dry Chem extinguisher in your house, and that's it, you're gonna tell me to go phuck myself, because not every fire can be handled with that little amount of Dry Chem.

---

Can you show me where a fire extinguisher has been used to mow down a group of six year olds or shoot a couple dozen people in a crowded theater? Not a good comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

If you came to me tomorrow and said I can have no magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, I'm gonna tell you go to phuck yourself, because not every instance of self defense is going to be handled in under 10 rounds.

---

Okay. I hope that makes you feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Could you stop a grease fire in a frying pan with a 2.5lb ABC? Sure. Could you stop a fully engulfed room and contents fire with a 2.5lb ABC? No.

---

What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Could I stop ONE attacker with a 10 round magazine? Sure. Could I stop 6 attackers trying to burglarize my home, and take my family, with a 10 round magazine? No.

---

Please continue with yet another improbable scenario. What if....what if....what if. Since you believe that changing magazines is done quickly you should be able to manage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

End of discussion. It boils down to be THAT simple. Don't restrict MY rights because it will make you fee better.

---

I doubt this will be your last response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I will outright to your face call you a LIAR with this post. Several of us PROVED to you using firearm's industry nomenclature that you were wrong about your definition of the assault rifle. Then you responded by trying to claim that the M1 Garand and the '03 Springfield were assault rifles. You have absolutely no knowledge of firearm's related law other thanwhat we have taught you and what internet searches have taught you. We can counter to with real world experience and knowledge.

You have a history here of not remaining adult yourself. You have stalked LA and posted irrelvant nonsense over and over that hd nothing to do what he posted in the first place. So if you are going to set a stndard first follow it yourself.

---

Please continue. This is fun watching you melt down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

What is done in Israel has no bearing on this country or the fact that serveral state proposals violate core precepts upon which this country was founded. Ignoring guns for a moment, would you be willing to submit to a mental health screening and home inspection for the right to own a item?

---

True. It wasn't me who brought up using them as a model. That was done by FyredUp. He was clueless of what it takes to own a gun in Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Please continue. This is fun watching you melt down.

---

No melt down, just calling you out on your bull sh1t tactics. When you have nothing you pretend to be superior. You are funnier than heck to watch. You LIE, dance, sing, use smoke and mirrors, try diversions into other irrelevant topics, play games, and play the race card. You refuse to admit that even the most obvious stupidity and idiotic ploys on your part haven't worked here.

No SC, if anyone is melting down it is you, your attempts to be a meaningful player in this debate get more and more pathetic with each post you make.

Like I have said before it must just chafe your backside that the trying to shout people down simply isn't working here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

True. It wasn't me who brought up using them as a model. That was done by FyredUp. He was clueless of what it takes to own a gun in Israel.

---

And unlike you you pompous a z z , when I was wrong I admitted it. You still refuse to admit you can't even properly define the weapon you want to ban. But then again being factually correct has never had anything to do with the anti-gun crowd of the ultra left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

True. It wasn't me who brought up using them as a model. That was done by FyredUp. He was clueless of what it takes to own a gun in Israel.

---

To which he corrected himself above. Israel isn't the point. The fact is that there are some people that want to run roughshod over big tracks of the bill of rights. Regardless of how you feel about guns and the 2nd ammendment that should scare u because of its implications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Lol. This is funny. I remember liberal extremists comparing Bush to Hitler as well. Nothing new. This type of doom and gloom and claims of tyranny have been around since the John Birch Society started spouting them back when Eisenhower was in office.

Never liked the Hitler comparison. No matter who is president and how right or incredibly wrong they are.


Done numerous times. You just don't like them.

No you have rarely posted anything to substantiate your nonsensical claims.

Large magazines aren't reducing crime either. BTW, you and others have stated numerous times that changing magazines is done quickly. So this is a moot point.

Rifles, what this whole hub bub is about, as a whole, are used in a miniscule amount of gun murders. Look up the statistics.


Can you show me where a fire extinguisher has been used to mow down a group of six year olds or shoot a couple dozen people in a crowded theater? Not a good comparison.

Better than you injecting the Travon Martin case and playing the race card.


Okay. I hope that makes you feel better.

I think it would make everyone here feel better.


Please continue with yet another improbable scenario. What if....what if....what if. Since you believe that changing magazines is done quickly you should be able to manage.

You are the master of the improbable scenario...Until you get called on it then you move on.


I doubt this will be your last response.

Why should it be when it is so much fun proving how wrong you are.

---

Can't be much fun when you aren't the one overpowering your opponents.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html

If this gun bill is such a great thing then why was it written to exempt the people writing it?

If you can't lead by example, then you don't lead. You dictate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DFDMAXX

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ls_697732.html

If this gun bill is such a great thing then why was it written to exempt the people writing it?

If you can't lead by example, then you don't lead. You dictate.

---

Yeah, as they did with Obamacare.. Oh, wait..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

And the debate comes to a screeching halt because you don't have facts you have assumptions, and talking points.

You see I don't have a problem with someone having a differimg opinion than mine. What I have a problem with is people like you and SC talking about a topic you don't have any technical knowledge of and believing that is okay.

---

Actually I halted my participation in the debate because it was very clear that there was no point in continuing with the discussion. You think fixing the criminal justice system and mental health system is sufficient. I disagree and think that doesn't fully address the problem. It's pretty clear that you and some others are not interested in discussing the subject of access in any fashion, so there's really no point in continuing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Can't be much fun when you aren't the one overpowering your opponents.

---

Keep thinking that. You've yet to put forth any logical or rational belief as to why you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

No melt down, just calling you out on your bull sh1t tactics. When you have nothing you pretend to be superior. You are funnier than heck to watch. You LIE, dance, sing, use smoke and mirrors, try diversions into other irrelevant topics, play games, and play the race card. You refuse to admit that even the most obvious stupidity and idiotic ploys on your part haven't worked here.

No SC, if anyone is melting down it is you, your attempts to be a meaningful player in this debate get more and more pathetic with each post you make.

Like I have said before it must just chafe your backside that the trying to shout people down simply isn't working here.

---

The meltdown continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

To which he corrected himself above. Israel isn't the point. The fact is that there are some people that want to run roughshod over big tracks of the bill of rights. Regardless of how you feel about guns and the 2nd ammendment that should scare u because of its implications

---

I agree. I've never advocated taking away ones' right to bear arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

Actually I halted my participation in the debate because it was very clear that there was no point in It's pretty clear that you and some others are not interested in discussing the subject of access in any fashion, so there's really no point in continuing.

---

I'd be willing to discuss the subject of access. The problem is I have yet to here a single proposal which does not start with the presumption of guilt. Show me an idea which avoids that and is also effective and I'd be more than happen to discuss it. Banning firearms by name, or cosmetic features does not do that, neither does limiting magazine capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Keep thinking that. You've yet to put forth any logical or rational belief as to why you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
.

---

First, you're arguing from the stance of presumptive guilt.. Ban everything unless you can prove you need it. That's not the way it works. The onus is on you to show that a ban would be effective, something we've shown you repeatedly that it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Keep thinking that. You've yet to put forth any logical or rational belief as to why you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

---

Not true. The logical rational arguement for higher than 10 round magazines has been presented multiple times, you just choose to ignore it because you don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FireMedic049

Actually I halted my participation in the debate because it was very clear that there was no point in continuing with the discussion. You think fixing the criminal justice system and mental health system is sufficient. I disagree and think that doesn't fully address the problem. It's pretty clear that you and some others are not interested in discussing the subject of access in any fashion, so there's really no point in continuing.

---

The problem is you want to blame law abiding citizens and firearms manufacturers. I refuse to accept that as a viable beginning to any debate on stopping gun violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Keep thinking that. You've yet to put forth any logical or rational belief as to why you need a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.


The meltdown continues.

---

More non-answers. But then again that is what you are best at.

If there is no logical reason for larger than 10 round capacity magazines then why do you support larger capacity magazines for law enforcement? Using your logic they should have no need for more than 10 rounds.