Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/25/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 7/25/2012 2:34:00 AM (view original):
How many of you would trade your own life, or that of your child, for the right to allow people to own 100-round drums for their AR-15s?

That is the dumbest comment so far on this thread.

Why? You are defending the right of someone to own this particular piece of equipment as somehow being a necessary freedom. And as we all know, "Freedom isn't free." I am asking what the price for that freedom is. You are being extremely hypocritical in defending this right (and I have said nothing about taking away guns...my own children, father, father-in-law, brother-in-law, nephews all have guns, four have military service). In your mind it is necessary to allow this type of massacre to take place, providing someone else pays the price, in return for the right to own this particular piece of equipment, which serves no legitimate civilian usage. You, and all those who somehow see banning a particular piece of equipment, as being an attack on the right to own a gun, are beneath contempt. You want the right, but you want someone else's 6-year old to pay the price for you. Have you no decency?

You don't want to answer because your hypocrisy is exposed, and you aren't man enough to admit the error of your thinking or your own personal cowardice.

The concern we have is the same we had with the assualt gun ban.

They showed pictures of odd ball weapons and talked about huge magazines and then when you read it you find out a shotgun with an 8 round magazine is illegal.

If you want to ban 100 round magazines include in it that all other magazines are legal and cannot be banned in the future.

Posted by seamar_116 on 7/25/2012 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 7/25/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 7/25/2012 2:34:00 AM (view original):
How many of you would trade your own life, or that of your child, for the right to allow people to own 100-round drums for their AR-15s?

That is the dumbest comment so far on this thread.

Why? You are defending the right of someone to own this particular piece of equipment as somehow being a necessary freedom. And as we all know, "Freedom isn't free." I am asking what the price for that freedom is. You are being extremely hypocritical in defending this right (and I have said nothing about taking away guns...my own children, father, father-in-law, brother-in-law, nephews all have guns, four have military service). In your mind it is necessary to allow this type of massacre to take place, providing someone else pays the price, in return for the right to own this particular piece of equipment, which serves no legitimate civilian usage. You, and all those who somehow see banning a particular piece of equipment, as being an attack on the right to own a gun, are beneath contempt. You want the right, but you want someone else's 6-year old to pay the price for you. Have you no decency?

You don't want to answer because your hypocrisy is exposed, and you aren't man enough to admit the error of your thinking or your own personal cowardice.

We already have the right.  You yourself admit it in this post.

How am I being a hypocrite?

And you are putting forth a straw man argument.  You are equating the right to possess firearms with "allowing this type of massacre to take place".

And I'm sorry, if you ban guns, you are by definition "attacking the right to own a gun".

I actual think after reading your post that you might be retarded.

I'm retarded?  I have not been talking about taking away guns. Find any statement that I have made that says I want to take away guns. In fact, I have said several times that I have no problem with gun ownership. Why do you lie?  I've been talking about 100-round drums that allow mass shootings to take place. Again, give me a legitimate reason why a civilian needs to be able to own this.

Posted by seamar_116 on 7/25/2012 6:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm retarded?  I have not been talking about taking away guns. Find any statement that I have made that says I want to take away guns. In fact, I have said several times that I have no problem with gun ownership. Why do you lie?  I've been talking about 100-round drums that allow mass shootings to take place. Again, give me a legitimate reason why a civilian needs to be able to own this.

Have you ever seen a law that was pushed that really just limited extreme weapons?

Can you understand why we dont support a law that bans 8 round shotguns. Or why we would be a little worried about what was going to be limited in a law.

I admit freely no one needs a 100 round clip. Will you admit no one has ever really tried to limit just 100 round clips.

seamar, I re-read your post and I was incorrect to assume you were talking about guns when in fact you were talking about high capacity mags.  I apologize for the personal attack as well, it was uncalled for.

 Please see my previous posts regarding mags.  As I have indicated, the elimination of these mags is not going to prevent this.  My XD9 has a 16 round mag.  I can unload that gun in 10 seconds and reload in 4-5 seconds.  Do the math.

swamp, I'm sorry, but taint is correct.  I don't know anyone who wants to completely eliminate guns either.  I am sure there are such people, but they are so few as to make it not worth talking about.

As to his whole issue, the vast majority of people who commit such crimes are mentally ill.  There is the problem.

thanks jclark..I read a post about what Australia did after the Tasmania shootings a few years back...it dramatically reduced the amount of gun violence and gun related suicides. I will find the link, although I know nobody will be persuaded.

I just want somebody to explain the need for hi-capacity mags.

And no argument on the mental state of those that commit these type of atrocities. But I think our society makes it easier for them to happen with things that are easily and legally purchased. What I hear from the NRA is nothing but hysteria when anyone tries to address an access problem...either through types of weapons, waiting periods, registration, ammunition, or accessories.

There is no need for the 100 round magazine the guy had. It is just something cool looking, like a laser sight, you dont need it.

In reality the 100 round mag is a bad thing. It can jam and it is pretty heavy. Military units would never want it.

Posted by nickbracco on 7/26/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

For those of you not up in your bible studies #6 is "Shall not kill".

The left would have us believe that the NRA, and in turn the Millions of Ameircans who own personal firearms like killing. We are all muderers!

Remember that the next time you are voting.

Posted by nickbracco on 7/26/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

And of course this isnt needed because the left prohibits me from carrying a firearm into a theater.

I guess that keeps me safe from a lunatic!

Posted by nickbracco on 7/26/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
**** you swamp you fat turd.

Wasn't it Voiltaire who originally coined the phrase "grosse Merde"?

Cmon Nick at least try to explain your actions.

Explain why my response was not 100% on the nose!