Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Please explain why you would be against a law-abiding person who has never committed a crime owning weaponry capable of holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition at a time.
Lets see how honest you are
1) do you admit or deny that a law abiding citizen cannot predict the nature of a future criminal attack against him
2) do you admit or deny that there are some cases of criminal attack that may need an armed homeowner or citizen on the street to need more than 7 rounds in his gun
If you admit yes to #1 and #2 your argument completely loses any semblance of merit you think it might have
if you deny either you are being dishonest
Oh he won't take a concrete stand and say he is against you having that . Rather his SOP is to argue you don't need it and he will argue he doesn't need it and thus insinuates you are irrational or paranoid in believing you need something. Its been his standard attack on gun rights for all the time he has been on this board.
we get "I have never felt a need to carry a gun"
well what is the point of such a silly argument being projected onto others?
its like saying I have never felt the need to have a mammogram or a pap smear
or to get a rabies shot
I don't need to show a significant number of times. I cannot recount in the last 50 years when Cincinnati cops had to deal with more than 2 perps at once so using your moronic argument, they shouldn't be carrying anything more than 6 shot revolvers but their "studies" found that 17 round SW semi autos were better
SIGNIFICANT to me means if there is even a remote chance I might need more I should carry them
I see you cannot answer my question. I didn't expect you to
your argument is pathetic and is nothing more than contrarian mental masturbation.
since you cannot establish any reason NOT to have 17 or so rounds in your gun, that destroys your silly bit of baiting