We're basically on different pages and I don't see that changing, so I didn't see any reason to continue.
What this tells me is that you really aren't interested in an open and serious discussion on the matter. You aren't willing to discuss ideas if they start a certain way. You're basically only willing to discuss the matter after a "solution" has been vetted.Quote:
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.
If you were really serious about discussing "access", then you'd be willing to debate the merits of any idea proposed, especially those that you believe "won't work".
Once again you read something that isn't there. Please point to where I've stated any type of weapon not currently allowed by the law be restricted.
Repeating a falsehood over and over doesn't one day make it true.
A fact you continually ignore.
Hey SC, let me save you the effort of finding the difference between Goerge Bush's Wide Receiver program and Obama's Fast and Furious. Because you tried to say they were the same and in fact they weren't.
Their role is different, it's been ruled that they have no responsibility to the individual, only society as a whole.Quote:
No it does not extend to them. Their role is different. We've been through this before.
That's leaves it up to the average citizen. In my home, the responsibility is mine. With that in mind, I should at minimum have the ability to own magazines with at least the capacity law enforcement deems necessary for their safety and ability to do their job.
We, individually don't need to bang our heads against that wall. However, I'm talking about having a more global conversation on this matter, not just a handful of people discussing it on the internet.Quote:
I don't believe total bans based on gun names or features or magazine size will work. I have provided facts that back that up. You may not agree but rather than bang our heads against that wall why not discuss other areas?
I stated that I was done debating the issue with you. You speculated as to why I was doing that. So, I explained why that wasn't the case. You respond to that with another baseless accusation regarding my intent. So, I corrected you. I'm not debating the issue, I'm simply providing a rebuttal to your accusation and misinterpretation of my prior statements. Not sure why you'd find that fascinating.
If magazine limits were so effective at stopping gun violence then why we're two of the worse examples (columbine and VT) during the previous ban?
Until you can show how limiting magazines would stop these events the. You have zero ability to dictate what Responsible gun owners do or do not need.