4 Points for No Assault Weapon Ban

TurtleDude said:

that's both idiotic and a dishonest disconnect from reality. driving drunk is a harmful action. Owning a normal capacity magazine is not.

and your complete evasion of obvious fact-that criminals are less likely to obey laws that criminalize currently legal behavior than honest people is a tsunami of stupidity.

I can only assume you believe that honest people possessing normal capacity magazines is the "harmful activity" you want to criminalize

Click to expand...

“that's both idiotic and a dishonest disconnect from reality. driving drunk is a harmful action. Owning a normal capacity magazine is not.”

What you don’t understand is public safety. Somebody with a DUI is considered a threat to public safety. That’s why they are fined, jailed and have their driver license taken away or some combination thereof. Someone that violates a firearm law is considered a threat to public safety. That’s why they are fined, jailed and have their firearm taken away or some combination thereof. Once what you consider is a “normal” capacity mag becomes illegal, that’s the deal. Or, is it you, the man, that decides whether or not to follow the law is the way?

“and your complete evasion of obvious fact-that criminals are less likely to obey laws that criminalize currently legal behavior than honest people is a tsunami of stupidity.”

And your complete evasion of the obvious fact that you can’t quote me on what you allege is proof you’re wrong.

‘I can only assume you believe that honest people possessing normal capacity magazines is the "harmful activity" you want to criminalize’

Why would you need a mag of greater capacity than 10 rounds?

bluesmoke said:

“that's both idiotic and a dishonest disconnect from reality. driving drunk is a harmful action. Owning a normal capacity magazine is not.”

What you don’t understand is public safety. Somebody with a DUI is considered a threat to public safety. That’s why they are fined, jailed and have their driver license taken away or some combination thereof. Someone that violates a firearm law is considered a threat to public safety. That’s why they are fined, jailed and have their firearm taken away or some combination thereof. Once what you consider is a “normal” capacity mag becomes illegal, that’s the deal. Or, is it you, the man, that decides whether or not to follow the law is the way?

“and your complete evasion of obvious fact-that criminals are less likely to obey laws that criminalize currently legal behavior than honest people is a tsunami of stupidity.”

And your complete evasion of the obvious fact that you can’t quote me on what you allege is proof you’re wrong.

‘I can only assume you believe that honest people possessing normal capacity magazines is the "harmful activity" you want to criminalize’

Why would you need a mag of greater capacity than 10 rounds?

Click to expand...

why do police? if you could guarantee society, that no honest citizen would EVER need more than ten round in a defensive situation, you still fail

No one has ever died because they had more ammunition than needed to end a threat.

people like you will then claim why does anyone need more than 7 rounds or 6 rounds etc.

you don't understand the concept of a negative restriction. The government doesn't suddenly get the power to limit magazine size at a certain number. and more importantly, a person you "trust" to own a firearm with 10 rounds, doesn't become untrustworthy at 11

Finally, your analogy is idiotic. Driving drunk presents a clear and present danger. Government employees are not furnished alcohol and directed to drive while intoxicated. Owning normal capacity magazines does not present any danger whatsoever

TurtleDude said:

you're lying. I am not afraid of that. I spent 30 years as a prosecutor and thus I am a bit more likely to be attacked, but unlike you, I am not afraid of honest people being armed. You are. You are trying to disarm honest people because you are afraid of them owning guns-or more likely, you hate them voting based on gun rights.

I doubt you are even honest about why you really want to ban guns. I bet you vote mainly Democrat and you don't like how the NRA votes

Click to expand...

As before, you accuse me of lying but can’t cite any quote of such. You don’t use facts to back up what you say. If you followed the same MO as a prosecutor, that must have been 30 years of being laughed out of court. A lot of bad guys getting away.

I’ve never said, nor do I want, to disarm people in their own home. You can’t show otherwise. It’s obvious that since you don’t use facts and tend to make emotional statement without having any substantive evidence, you are pretty much ruled by your limbic/amygdala. You shoot from the hip, go based on your gut feelings, shoot first and ask questions later, etc.

You certainly have a better reason than most for keeping a gun readily available at home or on your person, having been a prosecutor for 30 yrs. I can’t help but think there’s a lot of people who lost loved ones where you screwed the case and let the offender get away with it. Considering the fact that you don’t believe in facts, only your own unsupported belief. You see, I just gave you a logical reason for drawing the conclusion I did about how rational it is for you to keep a gun at home.

bluesmoke said:

As before, you accuse me of lying but can’t cite any quote of such. You don’t use facts to back up what you say. If you followed the same MO as a prosecutor, that must have been 30 years of being laughed out of court. A lot of bad guys getting away.

I’ve never said, nor do I want, to disarm people in their own home. You can’t show otherwise. It’s obvious that since you don’t use facts and tend to make emotional statement without having any substantive evidence, you are pretty much ruled by your limbic/amygdala. You shoot from the hip, go based on your gut feelings, shoot first and ask questions later, etc.

You certainly have a better reason than most for keeping a gun readily available at home or on your person, having been a prosecutor for 30 yrs. I can’t help but think there’s a lot of people who lost loved ones where you screwed the case and let the offender get away with it. Considering the fact that you don’t believe in facts, only your own unsupported belief. You see, I just gave you a logical reason for drawing the conclusion I did about how rational it is for you to keep a gun at home.

Click to expand...

This shows how idiotic the anti gun movement is.

and stop lying-your anti gun position is based on the fact that you don't like how gun owners tend to vote

bluesmoke said:

Those same honest people would no more likely misuse a machine gun, either, if they were legal. Or a hand grenade.

Click to expand...

and thousands of people legally own machine guns. NONE have been used in a murder in over 50 years. It would help if you knew what you are talking about

TurtleDude said:

This shows how idiotic the anti gun movement is.

and stop lying-your anti gun position is based on the fact that you don't like how gun owners tend to vote

Click to expand...

//// your anti- gun position is based on the 'fact' that you don't like how gun owners tend to vote //// <--- Please provide a valid link to support the words you put in the other's poster's mouth is 'factual' ////

TurtleDude said:

why do police? if you could guarantee society, that no honest citizen would EVER need more than ten round in a defensive situation, you still fail

No one has ever died because they had more ammunition than needed to end a threat.

people like you will then claim why does anyone need more than 7 rounds or 6 rounds etc.

you don't understand the concept of a negative restriction. The government doesn't suddenly get the power to limit magazine size at a certain number. and more importantly, a person you "trust" to own a firearm with 10 rounds, doesn't become untrustworthy at 11

Finally, your analogy is idiotic. Driving drunk presents a clear and present danger. Government employees are not furnished alcohol and directed to drive while intoxicated. Owning normal capacity magazines does not present any danger whatsoever

Click to expand...

“why do police?”

Because police are much more likely to be involved with multiple shooters. Police also have access to weapons that are illegal for the average citizen to own. That doesn’t make it OK for that weapon to be legal for your use.

“if you could guarantee society, that no honest citizen would EVER need more than ten round in a defensive situation, you still fail”

I couldn’t guarantee that no honest citizen would ever need an AUTOMATIC rifle in a defensive situation.

“No one has ever died because they had more ammunition than needed to end a threat.”

But they have died still having more ammo than was needed.

“people like you will then claim why does anyone need more than 7 rounds or 6 rounds etc.”

Or bolt action rifle / revolver hand gun only. And why not 6 or 7 rounds? Revolvers are often rated at or near the top of recommended hand guns for self-defense and most, by far, have a 6-round capacity limit.

“you don't understand the concept of a negative restriction. The government doesn't suddenly get the power to limit magazine size at a certain number.”

Again, you make an allegation unsupported by anything I’ve said. And I’ve not said I support unlimited government restriction of firearms. Neither have the courts, which found the NYS law that restricted mag loads to 7 rounds. You know, the one you said I was ignorant about because you said that the 7-round limit was upheld. Your allegation of not understanding concept in this case is just as plain on-face wrong as was your allegation of ignorance. How foolish can you possibly be? A.) More.

“and more importantly, a person you "trust" to own a firearm with 10 rounds, doesn't become untrustworthy at 11”

I’ve not said otherwise.

“Finally, your analogy is idiotic. Driving drunk presents a clear and present danger. Government employees are not furnished alcohol and directed to drive while intoxicated. Owning normal capacity magazines does not present any danger whatsoever”

We are a nation of law, not of man. You see it in reverse. If a law is passed for purpose of public safety is violated, then that violation was an incidence of a possible threat to public safety. It doesn’t mean that the incident is a greater threat or not than other kind of violation, except as may be written into the law (sentencing, misdemeanor vs. possible felony, etc.).

bluesmoke said:

“why do police?”

Because police are much more likely to be involved with multiple shooters. Police also have access to weapons that are illegal for the average citizen to own. That doesn’t make it OK for that weapon to be legal for your use.

“if you could guarantee society, that no honest citizen would EVER need more than ten round in a defensive situation, you still fail”

I couldn’t guarantee that no honest citizen would ever need an AUTOMATIC rifle in a defensive situation.

“No one has ever died because they had more ammunition than needed to end a threat.”

But they have died still having more ammo than was needed.

“people like you will then claim why does anyone need more than 7 rounds or 6 rounds etc.”

Or bolt action rifle / revolver hand gun only. And why not 6 or 7 rounds? Revolvers are often rated at or near the top of recommended hand guns for self-defense and most, by far, have a 6-round capacity limit.

“you don't understand the concept of a negative restriction. The government doesn't suddenly get the power to limit magazine size at a certain number.”

Again, you make an allegation unsupported by anything I’ve said. And I’ve not said I support unlimited government restriction of firearms. Neither have the courts, which found the NYS law that restricted mag loads to 7 rounds. You know, the one you said I was ignorant about because you said that the 7-round limit was upheld. Your allegation of not understanding concept in this case is just as plain on-face wrong as was your allegation of ignorance. How foolish can you possibly be? A.) More.

“and more importantly, a person you "trust" to own a firearm with 10 rounds, doesn't become untrustworthy at 11”

I’ve not said otherwise.

“Finally, your analogy is idiotic. Driving drunk presents a clear and present danger. Government employees are not furnished alcohol and directed to drive while intoxicated. Owning normal capacity magazines does not present any danger whatsoever”

We are a nation of law, not of man. You see it in reverse. If a law is passed for purpose of public safety is violated, then that violation was an incidence of a possible threat to public safety. It doesn’t mean that the incident is a greater threat or not than other kind of violation, except as may be written into the law (sentencing, misdemeanor vs. possible felony, etc.).

Click to expand...

if a law is passed that violates the bill of rights-patriots have a duty to resist it.

the constitution makes no division between civilian police and citizens. If civilian police can use it against citizens, it is clearly protected by the second amendment

TurtleDude said:

if a law is passed that violates the bill of rights-patriots have a duty to resist it.

the constitution makes no division between civilian police and citizens. If civilian police can use it against citizens, it is clearly protected by the second amendment

Click to expand...

“if a law is passed that violates the bill of rights-patriots have a duty to resist it.”

What kind/range of resistance are you talking about?

“the constitution makes no division between civilian police and citizens. If civilian police can use it against citizens, it is clearly protected by the second amendment”

Then why is it otherwise so by law? And what is it, assuming you’re a patriot, you’re doing to resist what you call a violation of the Bill of Rights?

bluesmoke said:

“if a law is passed that violates the bill of rights-patriots have a duty to resist it.”

What kind/range of resistance are you talking about?

“the constitution makes no division between civilian police and citizens. If civilian police can use it against citizens, it is clearly protected by the second amendment”

Then why is it otherwise so by law? And what is it, assuming you’re a patriot, you’re doing to resist what you call a violation of the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

the first thing to do is vote out of office the chumps who passed a law and then support the appointment of judges who will overturn it.

TurtleDude said:

This shows how idiotic the anti gun movement is.

and stop lying-your anti gun position is based on the fact that you don't like how gun owners tend to vote

Click to expand...

You apparently believe there is something more sinister behind people who want more gun safety law. You distrust what is being said and are close-minded to the possibility of alternative explanation. Those are typical characteristics of one who operates on a lower level of analytical thinking, as exhibited by your lack of using fact in your argument, fact being part and parcel to basic debate. A bit of narcissism in there too, considering you think you know it all and thus don’t need to do the work of any research, as exhibited by your inability to refute facts and thereby resorting to unsupportable accusation. This post is pretty much the same as one you posted in the AR-15 thread. If you can’t debate the issue on the facts, start your own thread on whatever it is you really want to argue. I’m not going to pursue any further posting of yours on this thread for lack of you staying on topic and not debating the facts. There's just no sense in going any further.

bluesmoke said:

You apparently believe there is something more sinister behind people who want more gun safety law. You distrust what is being said and are close-minded to the possibility of alternative explanation. Those are typical characteristics of one who operates on a lower level of analytical thinking, as exhibited by your lack of using fact in your argument, fact being part and parcel to basic debate. A bit of narcissism in there too, considering you think you know it all and thus don’t need to do the work of any research, as exhibited by your inability to refute facts and thereby resorting to unsupportable accusation. This post is pretty much the same as one you posted in the AR-15 thread. If you can’t debate the issue on the facts, start your own thread on whatever it is you really want to argue. I’m not going to pursue any further posting of yours on this thread for lack of you staying on topic and not debating the facts. There's just no sense in going any further.

Click to expand...

how is safety increased by telling millions of currently law abiding people that they will be treated as felons if they don't turn in guns that cause people like you to fear.