Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Unknown, Jul 20, 2012.
Ok, clearly you're not going to give up regardless of what facts you're given so I will....
My point exactly!
My only comment on this subject here...
I have no problem with the right to bear arms. I do have a problem with clips holding 100 rounds. There is no defensible excuse for a gun like that. If you cant defend yourself with a 9 round clip, you need to rethink packing a gun.
I see why some get pissed, it was Castle law, and I never mentioned Florida.
I did mention a couple cases, and one at least was in Florida.
The other I don't think was.
Like you, I don't have an issue with the right to bear arms, or responsible gun owners.
I do have problems with high rates of fire and large magazines that are intended for military use.
Again... You replied to a post regarding the Florida law and mentioned a Florida case. Your other mention wasn't a case at all, you were just throwing out someone getting shot running away with stolen beer. How is someone not supposed to think you're referring to the Florida law?
I call'em as I read'em... Especially since I'm not a mind reader.
I'm of the same school of thought. I'm all for the right to bear arms but there's no way a 100 round clip on an assault rifle is needed to protect your home. If that's the case then you're dealing with some really bad people or you live in Syria.
Let's take this to PM and "show me".
No need to, I quoted you earlier. Doesn't need to go to PM because you can't read.
I think gun capacity is a lame argument. You can change clips in gun in seconds less time if they taped together. criminals will find a way even if you limit gun capacity.
Lame, maybe, but it sure wasn't in the minds of those that wrote the bill of rights.
Domestic terrorism again. We have seen the enemy, and he is us
God bless us all.
Because there are mucky mucks who think there is nothing wrong with doing something like that. Just ask CNNs Rowland Martin. He's one of them.
And you know this how?
Well let's see, when was the bill of rights passed and when was the first repeating rifle?
That may be but if we could go back and ask the founding fathers which makes more sense, gun control or criminal control I'd bet the family jewels they would choose the latter.
Agreed. They'd probably go ballistic over the ways their words have been manipulated in other areas too.
And they'd never have put up with the designated hitter, either!
Back then, that might even have been the punishment.
We once provided therapy for people like James Eagan Holmes. Electric shock therapy (aka the electric chair). It had a 100% cure rate until some mucky mucks decided it was cruel and unusual.