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

I think it's time to let the thread die so we can spend our time discussing important things like why Johnny, Roy, and the rest of 51 made interior attacks in full SCBA, while wearing dickies and duty boots. :)

Attachment 22746

SC's response to everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Attachment 22746

SC's response to everything.

---

You have insulted that intelligent creature by using him to demonstrate SC's behavior. I am sure that primate is far more civlized and intelligent than that.

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?

---

Another half truth, yes there is a trend here, but you are just to obstinate to admit the whole truth and put it all onto context. Capacity is everything while under fire. As in a combat or self defense situation. Bad guys changing clips in the absence any threat is another issue all together. You know it. To half truth both to make a point is simply asinine. Talk of a false dichotomy. I would expect more from a guy with a new thesaurus tossing out big words.
Let's be honest, up to Columbine, and the way PD use to respond to active shooters, they could have caused that carnage with a muzzle loader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

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 FyredUp

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Attachment 22746

SC's response to everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

You have insulted that intelligent creature by using him to demonstrate SC's behavior. I am sure that primate is far more civlized and intelligent than that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Another half truth, yes there is a trend here, but you are just to obstinate to admit the whole truth and put it all onto context. Capacity is everything while under fire. As in a combat or self defense situation. Bad guys changing clips in the absence any threat is another issue all together. You know it. To half truth both to make a point is simply asinine. Talk of a false dichotomy. I would expect more from a guy with a new thesaurus tossing out big words.
Let's be honest, up to Columbine, and the way PD use to respond to active shooters, they could have caused that carnage with a muzzle loader.

---

Love the responses gentlemen. Please continue. This is now fun. I've determined I can make this thread go on as long as I want by using your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Love the responses gentlemen. Please continue. This is now fun. I've determined I can make this thread go on as long as I want by using your own words.

---

Of course you have to use our words. You have none of your own on this topic that don't make you look like a buffoon. So yes, do continue, your credibility shrinks by the second.

You have to turn it into a game. That is the last resort of a defeated fool.

I mean, you want proof that gun control works, just look at Chicago. Safest place in the nation right? It's not like they're leading the nation in violent crime and homicides or anything.

It should be banned because you don't need it.

Perhaps the same logic should be applied to abortion? Or minimum wage? Or same sex marriage? You really don't need any of those things either so banning them should be ok, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

It should be banned because you don't need it.

Perhaps the same logic should be applied to abortion? Or minimum wage? Or same sex marriage? You really don't need any of those things either so banning them should be ok, right?

---

Firstly, let me preface this with, it is not a response to YOU, because I know where you stand on the situation, it's a response to the NEED argument.

The need argument is THE absolute worst argument for the anti-gun side. It's based on the notion that everything you have is out of necessity, not pure desire or pleasure.

People have boats, jet-skis, snow mobiles, $200,000 RV's, $3mil houses, 12 cars, 17 motorcycles, a maid, a butler, a driver, 1,000 acres of land, WHATEVER. Tell me why you or anyone needs that?

I just laugh and walk away whenever someone presents the need argument, because it shows they have no grounds for a logical, rational argument. Why do I need a 25 round magazine for my 10/22, or a 30 round magazine for my AR, or a 17 round magazine for my carry pistol? Because I can, because I want to, because I feel it more adequately allows me to defend myself. Why do you need to try to impose your beliefs onto me?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

SCFire has admitted defeat in his very own special way.

Quote:

---

Love the responses gentlemen. Please continue. This is now fun. I've determined I can make this thread go on as long as I want by using your own words.

---

Do any of you honestly believe this is the tactic of someone who believes he is winning a debate? Do any of you honestly believe he has any ability to seriously, with facts, debate this topic? He has resorted to diversions, outright lies, taking things out of context, and refusing to comment on direct answers to his idiotic posts. He knows he is beaten and now resorts to childish antics in a phony attempt to claim some kind of high ground.

The truth is the 2nd Ammendment is crystal clear in its meaning. The amount of law enforcement departments across the nation refusing to enforce new federal anti-gun laws , and states that are passing laws prohibiting the feds from enforcing anti-2nd Ammendment laws grows every day. This will not go away...the resistance continues to grow.

The wanna be king is gonna get bitch slapped for this stupid political game.

Gun dealers worked the crowd at a police community gun buy out offering better deals than the cops.

Attachment 22747

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

I mean, you want proof that gun control works, just look at Chicago. Safest place in the nation right? It's not like they're leading the nation in violent crime and homicides or anything.

---

Good ol' Chicago and their gun problem. Where 80+% of their violent crime is gang related and 96% of the homicides are committed by people with history of arrest.

Sounds like a different kind of problem to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Firstly, let me preface this with, it is not a response to YOU, because I know where you stand on the situation, it's a response to the NEED argument.

The need argument is THE absolute worst argument for the anti-gun side. It's based on the notion that everything you have is out of necessity, not pure desire or pleasure.

People have boats, jet-skis, snow mobiles, $200,000 RV's, $3mil houses, 12 cars, 17 motorcycles, a maid, a butler, a driver, 1,000 acres of land, WHATEVER. Tell me why you or anyone needs that?

I just laugh and walk away whenever someone presents the need argument, because it shows they have no grounds for a logical, rational argument. Why do I need a 25 round magazine for my 10/22, or a 30 round magazine for my AR, or a 17 round magazine for my carry pistol? Because I can, because I want to, because I feel it more adequately allows me to defend myself. Why do you need to try to impose your beliefs onto me?

---

I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.

---

I think this applies to almost anything, not just a right, and not just gun control. If you want to take something away from someone, then you have to show why. The more people impacted, the higher the bar. Simply saying 'This should be taken away because you don't need it' is not sound reasoning or justification.

We should ban alcohol as nobody NEEDS alcohol.. and look how effective the current limitation has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

I've always figured that if someone wants to restrict or take away a right, they should have the burden of proof.

---

Which is why I'm not advocating restricting or taking away the right to bear arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Of course you have to use our words. You have none of your own on this topic that don't make you look like a buffoon. So yes, do continue, your credibility shrinks by the second.

You have to turn it into a game. That is the last resort of a defeated fool.

---

Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded. You and the others claim that magazine capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change. You then moved the goal line claiming that it does matter in a scenario when it suited you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

I mean, you want proof that gun control works, just look at Chicago. Safest place in the nation right? It's not like they're leading the nation in violent crime and homicides or anything.

---

I've addressed this issue before. Research in Chicago (and other places like Newark) has shown the majority of the guns used in homicides were obtained via the secondary market in states where there are lax rules regarding transactions at gun shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

It should be banned because you don't need it.

Perhaps the same logic should be applied to abortion? Or minimum wage? Or same sex marriage? You really don't need any of those things either so banning them should be ok, right?

---

Not good analogies until someone uses minimum wage or same sex marriage to gun down a bunch of six year olds or sneaks them into a theater to kill or wound five dozen people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Ladies and Gentlemen,

SCFire has admitted defeat in his very own special way.

Do any of you honestly believe this is the tactic of someone who believes he is winning a debate? Do any of you honestly believe he has any ability to seriously, with facts, debate this topic? He has resorted to diversions, outright lies, taking things out of context, and refusing to comment on direct answers to his idiotic posts. He knows he is beaten and now resorts to childish antics in a phony attempt to claim some kind of high ground.

The truth is the 2nd Ammendment is crystal clear in its meaning. The amount of law enforcement departments across the nation refusing to enforce new federal anti-gun laws , and states that are passing laws prohibiting the feds from enforcing anti-2nd Ammendment laws grows every day. This will not go away...the resistance continues to grow.

The wanna be king is gonna get bitch slapped for this stupid political game.

---

The delusions and meltdown continues. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear in its meaning. However, the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly (including some of the more conservative jurists) that it is not an absolute. Legislation has been passed repeatedly that places limits on what types of weapons the citizens can own. You should read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act or 1968, or the Brady Act. They are fascinating topics. Be forewarned, there are usually very few pictures in legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Good ol' Chicago and their gun problem. Where 80+% of their violent crime is gang related and 96% of the homicides are committed by people with history of arrest.

Sounds like a different kind of problem to me.

---

Addressed the Chicago earlier. Feel free to read near the beginning of this post.

Again with a broad, sweeping statement. Where is the proof of these guns used in Chicago are from a secondary market in states with lax gun show laws. Until I can read it for myself, its nothing more than unfounded BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Again with a broad, sweeping statement. Where is the proof of these guns used in Chicago are from a secondary market in states with lax gun show laws. Until I can read it for myself, its nothing more than unfounded BS.

---

I saw an interview with the mayor of Newark. He asked his police chief to research the issue. That was the conclusion. According to him, Rahm Emanuel has discovered the same thing.

I'll take their word for it till proven otherwise. BTW, neither of those mayors are advocating restricting firearms ownership. So don't get all wacky about them assaulting the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded. You and the others claim that magazine capacity is not an issue due to the brief amount of time required to change. You then moved the goal line claiming that it does matter in a scenario when it suited you.

Yet another lie. You called for shutting down gun shows.

I have repeatedly responded to your idiotic ramblings about magazine capacity, as have others. Your inability to comprehend what was said is not our problem.



The delusions and meltdown continues. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear in its meaning. However, the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly (including some of the more conservative jurists) that it is not an absolute. Legislation has been passed repeatedly that places limits on what types of weapons the citizens can own. You should read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act or 1968, or the Brady Act. They are fascinating topics. Be forewarned, there are usually very few pictures in legislation.

No delusions or melt down. No matter how badly you wish it to be so. You said this was nothing but fun for you. This is deadly serious to me.

---

Nice try to redeem yourself...too bad it didn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I saw an interview with the mayor of Newark. He asked his police chief to research the issue. That was the conclusion. According to him, Rahm Emanuel has discovered the same thing.

I'll take their word for it till proven otherwise. BTW, neither of those mayors are advocating restricting firearms ownership. So don't get all wacky about them assaulting the 2nd Amendment.

---

That's it, that's all you have? You are being funny, right? All the evidence posted on here, and none of it is adequate enough for you, and you expect us to believe something only you heard from 2 politicians? Right up to this moment you had a shred of credibility. Come on man, get out from under the liberal skirt and start thinking for yourself. At minimum, provide even 1 iota of evidence to back your claims up. If even only to humor us.