• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

CRUE CAB said:
Well we are plenty sane and I have used everything from a .45acp to a .454 Casull on boar. Sure you can use a rifle. Its a matter of personal preference and what land you are on.
And your little one upsmanship of how many guns and or ammo you have means little to me if you are going to question what legal means we have hunted and what legal means I use to protect and defend my home and family.
I know dealers that sell to current, former military and police only because even though they are "dealers". The feel the general public has no biz owning guns.
Click to expand...

.454 Casull is typically (if not always) in a revolver. My Raging Bull would be an example. I have at least a half dozen or more 1911's and they are 7 rounds in officer edition and 8 rounds in full. Neither equates to 52 rounds. I am a huge proponent of every American that can legally own weapons actually having them. I sell mostly to friends, and never sell to police departments. I am just wondering WHY you think it takes high cap magazines for home protection or hunting. What limits do you think should exist for private ownership? Should General Electric be allowed to sell GE Miniguns to civilians for private use? Do you think anyone should be allowed to own a Ma Deuce or a 1919A4? I just had to break down my 1919A4 because NY said I can no longer have belt fed machine guns. Are my constitutional rights being violated by that?
 
CRUE CAB said:
I am not waiting around for the G to come save me.
Click to expand...

If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
 
Snappo said:
.454 Casull is typically (if not always) in a revolver. My Raging Bull would be an example. I have at least a half dozen or more 1911's and they are 7 rounds in officer edition and 8 rounds in full. Neither equates to 52 rounds. I am a huge proponent of every American that can legally own weapons actually having them. I sell mostly to friends, and never sell to police departments. I am just wondering WHY you think it takes high cap magazines for home protection or hunting. What limits do you think should exist for private ownership? Should General Electric be allowed to sell GE Miniguns to civilians for private use? Do you think anyone should be allowed to own a Ma Deuce or a 1919A4? I just had to break down my 1919A4 because NY said I can no longer have belt fed machine guns. Are my constitutional rights being violated by that?
Click to expand...
Did you even bother to read my post on the issue at the beginning?
I am going to say no. 52 rounds was a max that most cops would carry if carrying a Glock with 17 rnd mags. One in the pipe, full mag in the gun two in pouches. Heck most cops even carry a back up piece.
You are pulling the oldest anti gun trick in the book by going to extremes of regular citizens with machine guns. Tanks and nukes will be next.
But yes, I dont see a problem with law abiding citizens owning full auto guns as long as they are meeting all the requirements. And I have 10 round Chip McCormick mags for my full size 1911s as well as 2 Mec Car 15 rounders.
So what. My Glock 19C had extended mags as well with Peirce extenders. And of course the obligatory 33 rounders that fetched a pretty profit during the frenzy.
And guess what, when I was on. I carried a SW 686 4" with two extra speed loaders. A whopping 18 rounds with alittle 5 round J frame in the boot.
Then the North Hollywood shoot out happened. Little game changer for the big city boys.
 
Snappo said:
If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
Click to expand...
I am not "expecting" anything. Just like I am not expecting a blow out on the way home. But I have a spare tire in my truck. I dont expect a fire in my home. But I have multiple extingushers.
 
Snappo said:
If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
Click to expand...
Care to quote me on any "story". So you dont think I was every a cop? Big deal what you think. I doubt you passed basic or even bothered to go.
Indian River Gun club, we can see what kind of shot Iam any weekend you wish to show up.
 
Snappo said:
Why do people need high capacity magazines?
Click to expand...
Why not? Remember, you supposedly swore to defend and uphold the constitution. The 2A is part of the constitution. You are the kind of government drone I fear.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Different? How so? Their lives are worth more? More civilians are killed every year than officers. So I would say that Iam in more danger than a police officer.
Click to expand...

No. As I linked earlier, they have greater responsibility and are put in harms way more often. and as there are more civilians, you would expect more would be killed. Just saying. But I addressed that in my links.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. As I linked earlier, they have greater responsibility and are put in harms way more often. and as there are more civilians, you would expect more would be killed. Just saying. But I addressed that in my links.
Click to expand...

So according to you, I must be hamstrung in defense of my home and family.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which isn't the question at hand. I can measure those things, all of them, but what has been asked of you is specifically those crimes that require more than seven rounds to address.
Click to expand...

your parameters are idiotic. EVEN IF THERE Is one chance in a million that someone will need more than seven rounds that alone justifies them carrying more because as I have noted, you cannot point to any deleterious impact of them carrying more.

so your argument-as many have pointed out-is nothing more than mental masturbation or contrarian silliness. Since there is absolutely no harm prove by having more and there are situations were people have needed more than 7 rounds, that alone means our argument is specious
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure if there is or isn't a down side. But you've been asked to show that more than seven rounds are needed, thus constituting a hardship. No dancing, just provide your support for your claim.
Click to expand...

again there are cases of people needing more than 7 rounds. that alone destroys your argument
 
CRUE CAB said:
So according to you, I must be hamstrung in defense of my home and family.
Click to expand...

Boo thinks that because most attacks are solved by less than 7 rounds no attack will need more

that is patently moronic as is his argument of "hardship"
 
Snappo said:
If you are expecting a zombie apocalypse, you have issues. The last time we needed the militia to truly organize and repel anything was the Whiskey Rebellion. And if there is ever truly some sort of attempt towards anarchy, at least here in NY you have tens of thousands of trained troops in the National Guard and folks like myself in the Air National Guard. There is probably no need for an unorganized militia to muster. So your story about needing to be ready to save yourself from hundreds of folks storming your double-wide is kind of nonsensical. At best you might need a 1911 and two magazines if a pair of thugs tried coming in your window. Either that or you are beyond a terrible shot and have no clue how to respond to a threat. Which makes me pretty sure you were never a cop, btw.
Click to expand...

well I was never a cop-merely a guy who defended them in court, developed use of force protocols for them and has trained them in defensive shooting tactics. the Korean grocers demonstrated that having normal capacity semi auto rifles was a good tactic when faced with lawless urban assholes bent on rioting.
 
K
CRUE CAB said:
So according to you, I must be hamstrung in defense of my home and family.
Click to expand...

I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
K

I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
Click to expand...
The true point, which some here are straying away from, is that....

Whether you need them or not is irrelevant.
 
Boo Radley said:
K

I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
Click to expand...

What makes you think you know so much about what a person needs? What if the person lives in a gang-infested neighborhood and has experienced a home invasion. Most home invasions are perpetrated by multiple gang members. They will hit you, rape you, torture you and even kill you. Why do you want to limit the fire power a citizen has to protect him or herself against such animals?

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
K

I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
Click to expand...


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
 
Boo Radley said:
K

I've said nothing about you being hamstrung. Seriously, you can't even show where you would need more and you're talking about hamstrung? Do you think just saying that proves your point? Seriously? :lamo
Click to expand...
What do I have to show? I didnt know I had to prove a need to exercise a right.
 
ChrisL said:
What makes you think you know so much about what a person needs? What if the person lives in a gang-infested neighborhood and has experienced a home invasion. Most home invasions are perpetrated by multiple gang members. They will hit you, rape you, torture you and even kill you. Why do you want to limit the fire power a citizen has to protect him or herself against such animals?

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.
Click to expand...


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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like me saying my risk of breast cancer is low, so why bother to get a mammogram ever. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
your parameters are idiotic. EVEN IF THERE Is one chance in a million that someone will need more than seven rounds that alone justifies them carrying more because as I have noted, you cannot point to any deleterious impact of them carrying more.

so your argument-as many have pointed out-is nothing more than mental masturbation or contrarian silliness. Since there is absolutely no harm prove by having more and there are situations were people have needed more than 7 rounds, that alone means our argument is specious
Click to expand...

I'm nit sure there's one in a million. But you said clearly that you could not defend yourself with only seven rounds. To support that kind of claim, you have show seven rounds are needed a significant number of times.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm nit sure there's one in a million. But you said clearly that you could not defend yourself with only seven rounds. To support that kind of claim, you have show seven rounds are needed a significant number of times.
Click to expand...

You are lying again. You have been around long enough to have seen my description of when I shot a mugger-one shot ended the problem. I said I cannot predict what criminals decide to do and how many are in a break in or a street mugging or riot

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom