Again, good try. Maybe someday you'll be able to think for yourself. Until then myself and many others will continue to prove your ignorance and lack of knowledge on anything gun related.Quote:
The GCA of 1968 has been challenged over 200 times. The courts have tossed all of them.
<font color=red> Point being? I'm not advocating gun ownership for felons. I'm not advocating eliminating the FFL. Hell, I don't even want a fully automatic, legitimate assault weapon (not to be confused with a semi-automatic personal defense rifle such as the AR15) because I don't feel there is any benefit, and it's expensive as hell to shoot. No one is arguing about the GCA of 1968, so why are you bringing it up? Perhaps because you have nothing to back up your current argument?</font color>
Since many of you have stated the changing magazines is so easy, there should be no problem with limiting capacity.
<font color=red> This as been explained to you in every way possible, and you're either simply ignoring what everyone is saying, or you're just too stupid to comprehend what we're saying. (I'm leaning towards stupid, in case you didn't know)
There is a difference between gunning down a group of unarmed innocent people, and having fire returned at you.
Furthermore, you advocate limiting magazine capacity with no evidence to back up your standpoint, but you're not advocating something that has been proven to be effective: Law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits. I can show you story after story, fact after fact, and more evidence than you would have time to read in the rest of your life, of instances where a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit ended a situation. But again, that doesn't matter to you because it doesn't fit your agenda, right?</font color>
Yet that has happened. Loughner dropped the mag and allowed time for his potential victims to act. Precisely my point.
<font color=red> And what point exactly would that be? That you have one case that doesn't even fit your agenda for banning magazine capacity larger than 10 rounds, and you can't seem to understand why that doesn't compare to what you're trying to push?</font color>
You make my point. He had to carry other weapons. Still time for victims to act. Something they wouldn't have had with a larger magazine.
<font color=red> No one made your point. You talk about twisting words, that's all you've done here.</font color>
I never said the act was an absolute. It's a possibility.
<font color=red> And that's all you have. Possibility. You haven't provided any facts or evidence that support your claims. </font color>
See above response. We don't know how many people were able to escape the killing spree by getting away while magazine changeout was occurring.
<font color=red> More speculation on your part without facts or evidence. </font color>
See above response. The school also had numerous armed guards. Using your logic I could say that is not an effective alternative either.
<font color=red> You've been told repeatedly they were at a different part of the campus. Which, if anything, is only an advocate for more armed guards, or the ability for students to carry concealed on campus. So, thanks for further proving you don't know what you're talking about. </font color>
I used the same data source as yourself when you claim a larger magazine will make you safer.
<font color=red> And using that data has not proved your claims at all. All it's done is further showed your ignorance and lack of knowledge on a topic</font color>
So let's get rid of all laws since the government can't enforce all of them all of the time.
<font color=red> How about we use common sense measures to enforce the current laws? Your buddy Joe Biden said we need more gun laws because we don't have the time to enforce the ones we have. How does that work? How does that make sense? What makes you and him think we can enforce new laws when we can't even enforce the ones that are on the books? Liberal logic at it's finest. </font color>