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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

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.

---

He can't and he won't. Worse is he doesn't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Lol. I've only advocated restricting magazine capacity and eliminating transactions at gun shows that aren't recorded.

---

You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Then eliminate all secondary market transactions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:

---

I thinks it's both!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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

---

I can't believe this got skipped over. This post is HYSTERICAL!!

You're not advocating restricting the right to bear arms, however you want a ten round magazine restriction, only for civilians. You want to restrict private party sales and the secondary market.

Tell me again how that's not a restriction on the right to bear arms?

You so silly SC. I wish I could be this blind and delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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.

---

Look at all the gang bangers in line for the gun shows...
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166...f/Original.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

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

---

It doesn't work for those like you who are in meltdown mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

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.

---

I'm sure the mayors of those cities can back up their claims. Feel free to ask them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

He can't and he won't. Worse is he doesn't care.

---

See above response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

You're either a blatant liar or addled on the brain. Just two pages ago you said:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

I thinks it's both!!

---

This is a twofer meltdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

I can't believe this got skipped over. This post is HYSTERICAL!!

You're not advocating restricting the right to bear arms, however you want a ten round magazine restriction, only for civilians. You want to restrict private party sales and the secondary market.

Tell me again how that's not a restriction on the right to bear arms?

You so silly SC. I wish I could be this blind and delusional.

---

True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.

You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

It doesn't work for those like you who are in meltdown mode.

Another LIE repeated over and over doesn't make it the truth.

I'm sure the mayors of those cities can back up their claims. Feel free to ask them.

No sir, you made the statement now supply dcumentation to back it up. You know like you demand of us.

See above response.

Continued LIES and game playing just show your weakness.

This is a twofer meltdown.

It sure is. Two of us called you on YOUR Bull Schite and you melted down.


True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.

Yes it is, and just because you are an appeaser, the worst kind of anti-gun person, doesn't make us wrong and certainly does not make you right.

You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.

Says the man with his fingers in his ears screaming Nah ner, nah ner.

---

Just once and for all just admit it.

Blind and delusional says the guy that has yet to prove anything. And we are melting down? Your credibility in this issue is a poster for epic fail.
But I guess when you can't counter facts and nobody bites on the race bait, what is left but being the pivot man in your own little circle jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

True. Which one of those beliefs restricts one's right to bear arms. This only shows your belief that any scrutiny of the status quo is an assault on the 2nd Amendment. Which is not the case.

---

Any infringement on my ability to defend my family is an assault on my 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry Obama and Feinstein have convinced you otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

You are way past the wishing stage of wanting to be blind and delusional. You've been there for some time.

---

Far from it, I'm more awake and things are clearer than they ever have been. I've woken up from the delusional state that you can't part from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FyredUp

Just once and for all just admit it.

---

I've admitted it many times that you and others read things that are not being said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

Blind and delusional says the guy that has yet to prove anything. And we are melting down? Your credibility in this issue is a poster for epic fail.
But I guess when you can't counter facts and nobody bites on the race bait, what is left but being the pivot man in your own little circle jerk.

---

I've made my points several times. I've proved my point to the same extent as those whose opinions differ from mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

Any infringement on my ability to defend my family is an assault on my 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry Obama and Feinstein have convinced you otherwise.

Far from it, I'm more awake and things are clearer than they ever have been. I've woken up from the delusional state that you can't part from.

---

The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.

---

You're incorrect.

There is a huge difference between the courts disagreeing and not ruling. As you and i discussed 10 pages ago. To date not of the current laws which restrict firearm ownership have been challenged in the Supreme Court.

The closest they have come is in DC vs Heller:

Quote:

---

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

---

This establishes that civilians. Can own the same firearms as the military and law enforcement.

Ther is also McDonald v Chicago:

Quote:

---

The plurality decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[23] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

---

This didn't establish limits but left the door open to them. Either way the examples cited were based on location or personal history. weapon type or number of rounds is not specifically mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I've admitted it many times that you and others read things that are not being said.


I've made my points several times. I've proved my point to the same extent as those whose opinions differ from mine.


The courts disagree with you regarding the definition of infringement. There are numerous weapons one is not allowed to own. Including several types of firearms that are either prohibited or there is an onerous process one must submit to in either to have possession.

---

More made up facts. Sad, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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

---

Yeah, yeah. Only to reduce magazine size and more stringent background checks.

What, exactly, is reducing magazine size going to do? These people are packing mag upon mag in tactical vests. It's not going to make much of a difference in weight or space to pack 3 ten-round mags vs. 1 thirty-round mag.

The argument that people can take action while one is changing mags is BS. The single example that argument is used on is Tuscon. What those who argue with that one forget to bring up is that Loughner dropped the mag. Dropping the mag gave time for people to react, not changing the mag.

If the whole mag issue made such a difference, why didn't it in Aurora or Sandy Hook? Holmes started with a shotgun (not on the ban list) and then had his "assault rifle" jam after firing less than thirty rounds. From there he used a handgun (again, not on the ban list). He used a pump shotgun, and no one was able to stop him between rounds. He then switch guns, and no one was able to stop him. His gun jammed and he swapped again, but no one was able to stop him. He changed mags in the Glock at least three times, but no one was able to stop him.

Lanza changed out mags several times, but no one managed to stop him.

Harris and Klebold swapped guns and mags several times, yet no one was able to stop them. They were also using banned weapons. (Than ban worked well, didn't it)

Cho swapped mags and weapons several times, yet no one was able to stop him.

So tell me, where is the data that shows that a reduction in magazine size is going to help anyone? Or is it just a hypothesis based we should test on a permanent basis? If we're going to use past experience, perhaps we should require every shooter to drop their mag when they change out.

All the gun control argument does is take away from the real problem- our government can't enforce the laws we already have and prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting them. Yet they want to pass more laws that they can't enforce. Helluva idea!

Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention public hearing:
http://youtu.be/NyYYgLzF6zU

He does a very good job making his points and obviously came prepared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by voyager9

You're incorrect.

There is a huge difference between the courts disagreeing and not ruling. As you and i discussed 10 pages ago. To date not of the current laws which restrict firearm ownership have been challenged in the Supreme Court.

---

The GCA of 1968 has been challenged over 200 times. The courts have tossed all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Yeah, yeah. Only to reduce magazine size and more stringent background checks.

What, exactly, is reducing magazine size going to do? These people are packing mag upon mag in tactical vests. It's not going to make much of a difference in weight or space to pack 3 ten-round mags vs. 1 thirty-round mag.

---

Since many of you have stated the changing magazines is so easy, there should be no problem with limiting capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

The argument that people can take action while one is changing mags is BS. The single example that argument is used on is Tuscon. What those who argue with that one forget to bring up is that Loughner dropped the mag. Dropping the mag gave time for people to react, not changing the mag.

---

Yet that has happened. Loughner dropped the mag and allowed time for his potential victims to act. Precisely my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

If the whole mag issue made such a difference, why didn't it in Aurora or Sandy Hook? Holmes started with a shotgun (not on the ban list) and then had his "assault rifle" jam after firing less than thirty rounds. From there he used a handgun (again, not on the ban list). He used a pump shotgun, and no one was able to stop him between rounds. He then switch guns, and no one was able to stop him. His gun jammed and he swapped again, but no one was able to stop him. He changed mags in the Glock at least three times, but no one was able to stop him.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Lanza changed out mags several times, but no one managed to stop him.

---

I never said the act was an absolute. It's a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Harris and Klebold swapped guns and mags several times, yet no one was able to stop them. They were also using banned weapons. (Than ban worked well, didn't it)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

Cho swapped mags and weapons several times, yet no one was able to stop him.

---

See above response. The school also had numerous armed guards. Using your logic I could say that is not an effective alternative either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

So tell me, where is the data that shows that a reduction in magazine size is going to help anyone? Or is it just a hypothesis based we should test on a permanent basis? If we're going to use past experience, perhaps we should require every shooter to drop their mag when they change out.

---

I used the same data source as yourself when you claim a larger magazine will make you safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

All the gun control argument does is take away from the real problem- our government can't enforce the laws we already have and prevent people who aren't supposed to have guns from getting them. Yet they want to pass more laws that they can't enforce. Helluva idea!

---

So let's get rid of all laws since the government can't enforce all of them all of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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>

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Since many of you have stated the changing magazines is so easy, there should be no problem with limiting capacity.

---

Nor should there be a problem leaving them be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Yet that has happened. Loughner dropped the mag and allowed time for his potential victims to act. Precisely my point.

---

It happened one single time where someone had time and actually acted. A woman grabbed the magazine he dropped. That hardly proves a point. More times people did not act during a mag change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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.

---

How did anyone act? I have yet to read a story or citation of anyone who stopped or escaped due to the fact he changed guns or mags. The sole reason he swapped guns was 1) the pump shotgun ran out of shells and 2) the 100-round drum jammed.

Are you going to use more conjecture and hypothesis of how many escaped while he was swapping? How about something factual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I never said the act was an absolute. It's a possibility.

---

So we should make laws on possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

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.

---

You're right, you're using rationale based upon no facts, just some hypothesis that sounds good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

See above response. The school also had numerous armed guards. Using your logic I could say that is not an effective alternative either.

---

The "armed guards" (AKA campus police) were too busy thinking the incident was confined to a single dorm. The school failed, plain and simple. Had they locked down campus and called in assistance to search for the gunman, there is no telling how many may have lived. Potentially all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

I used the same data source as yourself when you claim a larger magazine will make you safer.

---

So, I should have the burden of proof when you want to take away something from me? That's not how our country operates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

So let's get rid of all laws since the government can't enforce all of them all of the time.

---

Never suggested that. Perhaps we should enforce the laws we have on the books instead of passing more laws we can't enforce.

Every one of these people involved in mass shootings were, by law, restricted from owning a gun. However, they got them anyway.

The problem here is that certain people aren't interested in actually enforcing the law, they are interested in being on TV and pushing their agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenzo

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.

---

That would be the same idiot that said a double-barrel shotgun provides better protection than an "assault rifle". :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catch22

That would be the same idiot that said a double-barrel shotgun provides better protection than an "assault rifle". :rolleyes:

---

DHS disagrees.. Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation
And in fact they want select-fire for personal defense.

Quote:

---

This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scfire86

Since many of you have stated the changing magazines is so easy, there should be no problem with limiting capacity.

---

Congress is having hearings as we speak.
Even members of congress disagree with you.
Grassley on magazine capacity:

Quote:

---

"We hear that no one needs to carry larger magazines than those used to hunt deer, but an attacking criminal, unlike a deer shoots back."

---