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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

You keep using that word, addressed. I do not think it means what you think it means.

---

It means exactly what I think it means. You claim that a magazine with more than 10 rounds will make you safer. Where is your empirical proof?

More importantly, many have repeatedly stated capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It means exactly what I think it means. You claim that a magazine with more than 10 rounds will make you safer. Where is your empirical proof?

---

If there's no proof, then why do you feel that law enforcement is allowed to have more than 10 rounds? If you don't think more than 10 rounds makes you safer, why do you think that the police need more than 10 rounds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It means exactly what I think it means. You claim that a magazine with more than 10 rounds will make you safer. Where is your empirical proof?

More importantly, many have repeatedly stated capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change them.

---

The law enforcement community deems them necessary. As they are the purported expert on public safety, and they need larger clips, that's enough for me. I feel my safety and my families safety are at minimum, as import as they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Reduced to name calling. The meltdown continues.

Carry on.

---

Not name calling at all. You falsely identified me as a conservative, another infamous LIE from the master debater SC. I correctly identified you as a TROLL. You don't even try to discuss the topic. For example where is your discussion of my idea to end the so called gun show loophole? Nothing at all from you about that. Just more BS diversions, you know, like a TROLL would do.

Stop playing games and discuss this. Because you haven't actually even tried to yet. You post little snipets, play the race card, and jump to other unrelated incidents...I'll take being told by you I am melting down, because it is better than being a leftist anti-gun troll like you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

By the admission of those on this board with opinions that differ from mine, magazine capacity is not an issue since changing them is easily and quickly done.

---

And you continuously speaking half truths about what we said doesn't make it right, certainly doesn't make you look smart, or give you one shred of credibility. Not that any of that matters to those of the leftist, anti-gun, mindless drone crowd anyways.

Let me post it once more time for you, in bigger letters so maybe even you can finally get it.

YOU SEE SC, I actually pity you and your unbelievable arrogance in refusing to discern the difference between a crazed gunman shooting unarmed civilians, including children, with little or no opposition, and a soldier in combat facing multiple enemy combatants trying to kill him. Obviously, if no one is shooting back at you it would be easier to change magazines more often. Do I need crayons and poster board so I can draw you a picture you might actualy understand?


The funny part is you believe the Police, you know, the people who ILLEGALLY disarmed people in Louisiana that were trying to protect their own private property from looters, or like the Feds that killed Randy Weaver's son and executed his wife standing in the doorway of their home while holding their infant child in her arms, or have in the recent past executed black mask drugs raids on the wrong homes and killed the wrong people, or who shot at unarmed Amadou Diallo 41 times hitting him 19 times and killing him, should have firearms with "high capacity" magazines. WHY? They seem to have a pretty poor track record themselves of depriving people of their consitutional rights or even killing them.

Come on SC, I know you are already labeling me an extremist wack job. But that doesn't answer the question. But then again you never do, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I've already addressed this issue. Feel free to reread my posts.

---

You won't out and out answer this because to answer this is an admission that your support of a magazine capacity of 10 only would be an abysmal failure in any attempt to reduce the firepower in the hands of criminals. You see even YOU realize that criminals won't obey that ban and will continue to use the magazines those firearms were designed to have holding 15, 20, even 30 rounds. So in order to be equally matched the police must have similar weapons. Golly, so this whole thing is an admission that laws don't stop criminals from breaking the law. Thanks for making the point all of us have hammered you with repeatedly.

The part you constantly miss is I have every RIGHT to defend myself with a firearm that is as close to equal that of the military small arms in use as I can get. I like a more level playing field for citizens to be able to protect themselves. You don't have to have a 15, 20, 0r 30 round magazine if you don't want one. I will have them because I do want them. And I am not sorry that wounds your tender sensibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

The law enforcement community deems them necessary. As they are the purported expert on public safety, and they need larger clips, that's enough for me. I feel my safety and my families safety are at minimum, as import as they are.

---

Police departments didn't switch to semi-auotmatic pistols with capacities of 15 rounds or more for any reason other than they were overwhelmingly outgunned with their 6 shot revolvers. So right there is PROOF that a higher capacity magazine is safer when defending yourself against criminals

Here's a fun fact for all of you.

Remember the bank robbery in California where the 2 gunmen wore body armor and had illegally obtained fully automatic AK-47's? The police were hopelessly outgunned with their 9mm service pistols and shotguns they had in their squad cars. Before SWAT arrived some officers went into a local gun store and borrowed some civilian model semi-sutomatic AR-15s to combat the shooters with. Of course they used the evil "High capacity" magazines that were in the store.

The moral of the story? You decide for yourself. I know what it says to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

If there's no proof, then why do you feel that law enforcement is allowed to have more than 10 rounds? If you don't think more than 10 rounds makes you safer, why do you think that the police need more than 10 rounds?

---

Why would you ask for proof if you believe there is none?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

The law enforcement community deems them necessary. As they are the purported expert on public safety, and they need larger clips, that's enough for me. I feel my safety and my families safety are at minimum, as import as they are.

---

How so given the meme on these pages that capacity is not an issue given the short amount of time required to change magazines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Not name calling at all. You falsely identified me as a conservative, another infamous LIE from the master debater SC. I correctly identified you as a TROLL. You don't even try to discuss the topic. For example where is your discussion of my idea to end the so called gun show loophole? Nothing at all from you about that. Just more BS diversions, you know, like a TROLL would do.

Stop playing games and discuss this. Because you haven't actually even tried to yet. You post little snipets, play the race card, and jump to other unrelated incidents...I'll take being told by you I am melting down, because it is better than being a leftist anti-gun troll like you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

And you continuously speaking half truths about what we said doesn't make it right, certainly doesn't make you look smart, or give you one shred of credibility. Not that any of that matters to those of the leftist, anti-gun, mindless drone crowd anyways.

Let me post it once more time for you, in bigger letters so maybe even you can finally get it.

YOU SEE SC, I actually pity you and your unbelievable arrogance in refusing to discern the difference between a crazed gunman shooting unarmed civilians, including children, with little or no opposition, and a soldier in combat facing multiple enemy combatants trying to kill him. Obviously, if no one is shooting back at you it would be easier to change magazines more often. Do I need crayons and poster board so I can draw you a picture you might actualy understand?


The funny part is you believe the Police, you know, the people who ILLEGALLY disarmed people in Louisiana that were trying to protect their own private property from looters, or like the Feds that killed Randy Weaver's son and executed his wife standing in the doorway of their home while holding their infant child in her arms, or have in the recent past executed black mask drugs raids on the wrong homes and killed the wrong people, or who shot at unarmed Amadou Diallo 41 times hitting him 19 times and killing him, should have firearms with "high capacity" magazines. WHY? They seem to have a pretty poor track record themselves of depriving people of their consitutional rights or even killing them.

Come on SC, I know you are already labeling me an extremist wack job. But that doesn't answer the question. But then again you never do, do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You won't out and out answer this because to answer this is an admission that your support of a magazine capacity of 10 only would be an abysmal failure in any attempt to reduce the firepower in the hands of criminals. You see even YOU realize that criminals won't obey that ban and will continue to use the magazines those firearms were designed to have holding 15, 20, even 30 rounds. So in order to be equally matched the police must have similar weapons. Golly, so this whole thing is an admission that laws don't stop criminals from breaking the law. Thanks for making the point all of us have hammered you with repeatedly.

The part you constantly miss is I have every RIGHT to defend myself with a firearm that is as close to equal that of the military small arms in use as I can get. I like a more level playing field for citizens to be able to protect themselves. You don't have to have a 15, 20, 0r 30 round magazine if you don't want one. I will have them because I do want them. And I am not sorry that wounds your tender sensibilities.

---

The meltdown continues.

Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

How so given the meme on these pages that capacity is not an issue given the short amount of time required to change magazines?

---

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Did you forget to put your helmet on this morning?

Why can't you debate the difference between unopposed shootings, and defense of yourself, or your home?

You're becoming increasingly laughable on here, because all you're doing is repeating the same nonsensical drivel, and you think that makes your point valid.

Why do you exempt the police from a 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Why do you feel that your belief that you don't need more than 10 rounds has to extend to me?

Why can't you form a logical argument and back it up with facts? (here's a hint: Because no facts support your side of the discussion)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Why would you ask for proof if you believe there is none?

---

To see if you could actually provide any, instead of going back to your usual rhetoric.

Unsurprisingly enough, you can't back any of what you're saying with facts, statistics, or a legitimate argument as to why you feel anything you say is necessary.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you get to infringe on my right to own it.

I don't think you have the right to own a computer, or have the internet, because you can't formulate an argument around facts and statistics, but I'm not calling for someone to break into your house and steal your computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Did you forget to put your helmet on this morning?

Why can't you debate the difference between unopposed shootings, and defense of yourself, or your home?

You're becoming increasingly laughable on here, because all you're doing is repeating the same nonsensical drivel, and you think that makes your point valid.

Why do you exempt the police from a 10 round magazine capacity limit?

Why do you feel that your belief that you don't need more than 10 rounds has to extend to me?

Why can't you form a logical argument and back it up with facts? (here's a hint: Because no facts support your side of the discussion)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

To see if you could actually provide any, instead of going back to your usual rhetoric.

Unsurprisingly enough, you can't back any of what you're saying with facts, statistics, or a legitimate argument as to why you feel anything you say is necessary.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you get to infringe on my right to own it.

I don't think you have the right to own a computer, or have the internet, because you can't formulate an argument around facts and statistics, but I'm not calling for someone to break into your house and steal your computer.

---

It's your narrative that changing magazines is not a significant issue given the brief amount of time required.

Don't blame me if you supplied the ammo to shoot holes in your argument.

Do you realize that repetitive questioning is a symptom of a head injury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The meltdown continues.

---

More non-answers from the TROLL MASTER himelf.

Come on SC, answer some of the points I brought forward. Or have you finally been reduced to simply repeating your LIES over and over? I know you won't answer any of it. because you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

More non-answers from the TROLL MASTER himelf.

Come on SC, answer some of the points I brought forward. Or have you finally been reduced to simply repeating your LIES over and over? I know you won't answer any of it. because you can't.

---

I've answered your questions numerous times. You respond by asking the same ones.

Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It means exactly what I think it means. You claim that a magazine with more than 10 rounds will make you safer. Where is your empirical proof?

More importantly, many have repeatedly stated capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change them.

---

The LA riots, Hurricane Katrina, and other situations where violent people come at you in groups.

Unlike the mass murderers, the typical citizen doesn't carry multiple mags in a tactical vest. If I'm going to protect my property (be it my home, business, or whatever) during an incident where bad people gang up together to victimize others, I want protection. I'm not going to throw on a tactical vest with multiple ten-round mags in my gun, I'm going to put one mag and maybe carry or store a second near it.

You also have to account that accuracy is likely going to be diminished if it's in the hands of a person who is not accustomed to high-stress environments. If my wife has to use my gun to fend off someone, I'm quite certain it's going to be empty when police arrive, regardless of how many bullets it holds, especially if it's dark and she can't tell the status of the other person.

It's simple logic.

..........
Attachment 22744

Gentlemen,

I believe the truth has been plainly stated here. SCFire refuses to debate this topic in any type of rational, factual manner. He continues to repeat the same tired, proven wrong, nonsense over and over. I had hoped he might actually want to deabte this topic but it is plain he does not. He is a TROLL and nothing more. When 4 people tell you why changing magazines isn't as critical an issue when murdering unarmed people as it is when faced with either multiple combatants on the battlefield, or multiple bad guys battling police or you in your own home , and he continues to repost the same idiotic drivel, and ignores the explanation, what other conclusion can you draw? TROLL.

He has no interest in any discussion, he has been told what to think and his mind is closed. No matter what he says his mission is clear and you know what it is. I always knew he was an arrogant know it all, I just never realized he was unable to formulate a rational thought on his own until this topic.

As for me I will defend the 2nd Ammendment. I will defend my Consitutional rights. I will not back down, I will not compromise, and I will definitely not be an appeaser. If you say I support the 2nd Ammendment and then follow it with BUT...I am sorry you do not support the 2nd Ammendment. You should do what your conscience tells you to do. That generally is not problem for the leftist because they have no conscience.

I do have to thank SC for one thing though. He has opened my eyes to how far the left will go to get their agenda through and they are no better than the republicans I ran away from. Both sides are corrupt, owned by special interests, and don't give one damn about us, the working men and women of this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I've answered your questions numerous times. You respond by asking the same ones.

---

More non-answers.

You repeat the same idiotic nonsense over and over when it has been explained to you. You prefer to ignore what makes you look as ignorant as you truly are here. Or as I stated you are a TROLL, just agitating.