By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

kain_kusanagi on 16 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?


As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.

No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.

But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.

I'll say it again. Limited magazine size won't save lives, so why take away my property? I bought it, I've never harmed anyone, and I enjoy owning it. It takes about 1 second to change out a mag. That's not going to save a life undefended by a gun from a madman with guns. So I should give up my property when it would do nothing?



Around the Network
fordy on 16 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:

If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!

Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.

 

 


Let's not discriminate here....

You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.



Wagram on 16 January 2013

I'm not so much against the laws as I am wasting $500,000,000 of taxpayer money. Put it toward the damn deficit.



sc94597 on 16 January 2013
fordy said:
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:

If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!

Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.

 

 


Let's not discriminate here....

You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.

The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on. 



Mr Khan on 16 January 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?


As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.

No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.

But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.

I'll say it again. Limited magazine size won't save lives, so why take away my property? I bought it, I've never harmed anyone, and I enjoy owning it. It takes about 1 second to change out a mag. That's not going to save a life undefended by a gun from a madman with guns. So I should give up my property when it would do nothing?

I thought "seconds count" was one of the arguments you people liked to trot around?

Of course, if seconds don't count, then there's no reason for anyone to have guns at all, because the police are there.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
sc94597 on 16 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?


As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.

No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.

But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.

I'll say it again. Limited magazine size won't save lives, so why take away my property? I bought it, I've never harmed anyone, and I enjoy owning it. It takes about 1 second to change out a mag. That's not going to save a life undefended by a gun from a madman with guns. So I should give up my property when it would do nothing?

I thought "seconds count" was one of the arguments you people liked to trot around?

Of course, if seconds don't count, then there's no reason for anyone to have guns at all, because the police are there.

Last time we called the police (somebody broke into the house when we were out) it took 28 minutes for them to arrive. That's hardly seconds. Of course if we were home, our property wouldn't have been trampled upon. 



JoeTheBro on 16 January 2013
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Mr Khan said:
kain_kusanagi said:
pokoko said:
JoeTheBro said:

About 70% of America is strongly against these gun laws, we will not let it pass!

What is your problem with Obama's proposals?  As a gun owner, I can't see anything to get upset about.  Stronger background checks?  Why is that bad?  The NRA's prized gun-show loopholes might not be as big?  So what?  Why do people want these loopholes to exist?  Ten bullet clips?  Why does anyone need more than that?  What is the big deal?


As a gun owner I have no problem with better background checks and required background checks at gun-shows. I do have a problem with magazine restrictions. When I go out to target shoot I want to load up several large capacity mags so I don't have to stop and reload mags all the time. When it's cold outside it's a bitch to stand there with your gloves off and push cold metal into cold metal. Magazine restrictions won't stop criminals from breaking the law so there's no reason why I shouldn't be alowed to do what I want with my property.

No, but it will mean that criminals (and moreso mass-shooters, who tend to get their stuff legally) will be less likely to be able to fire continuously for sustained amounts of time.

But no, you not getting cold is much more important than people dying. I agree.

I'll say it again. Limited magazine size won't save lives, so why take away my property? I bought it, I've never harmed anyone, and I enjoy owning it. It takes about 1 second to change out a mag. That's not going to save a life undefended by a gun from a madman with guns. So I should give up my property when it would do nothing?

I thought "seconds count" was one of the arguments you people liked to trot around?

Of course, if seconds don't count, then there's no reason for anyone to have guns at all, because the police are there.

Last time we called the police (somebody broke into the house when we were out) it took 28 minutes for them to arrive. That's hardly seconds. Of course if we were home, our property wouldn't have been trampled upon. 

You should have ordered Jimmy Johns while you waited for the cops to show up. They're freaky fast.



Links

fordy on 16 January 2013
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:

If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!

Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.

 

 


Let's not discriminate here....

You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.

The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on. 

You've shown no logic towards the argument at all. Can you provide any kind of evidence in which a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb would NOT help with tyrannical reigimes?

You can't just cherry pick. "Oh this limit is suitable enough", while at the same time criticise others for wanting to impose THEIR limits. THAT is low capacity for logic right there...



haxxiy on 16 January 2013
fordy said:

You've shown no logic towards the argument at all. Can you provide any kind of evidence in which a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb would NOT help with tyrannical reigimes?

You can't just cherry pick. "Oh this limit is suitable enough", while at the same time criticise others for wanting to impose THEIR limits. THAT is low capacity for logic right there...


That's exactly what you are doing right there buddy. His logic is flawed, but so are yours.



 

 

 

 

 

sc94597 on 16 January 2013
fordy said:
sc94597 said:
fordy said:
dsgrue3 said:
fordy said:

If I want a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb, I should be allowed to have it!

Guns, not bombs. Although I think if you wanted to rig your own property with bombs that would only be detrimental to your own property, that should be allowed.

 

 


Let's not discriminate here....

You have your way of "defending" and I have mine.

The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on. 

You've shown no logic towards the argument at all. Can you provide any kind of evidence in which a 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb would NOT help with tyrannical reigimes?

You can't just cherry pick. "Oh this limit is suitable enough", while at the same time criticise others for wanting to impose THEIR limits. THAT is low capacity for logic right there...

A 50MT hydrogen fusion bomb is not a weapon with any use of self-defence. It annihilates all in its path and devastes more than just people but also the environment. This is a violation of the non-aggression axiom. As for the limitations, it has to do with the most recent supreme court interpretation of the second amendment in Heller vs. D.C. It was stated that any common weapon (as these semi-automatic weapons are) should not be restricted from civilians. This was also the intentions of the founding fathers.