[W:22:181]They ARE coming for our guns.

[Black Dog]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

But, they're not talking about taking your gun away are they.

They're just talking about banning sales and transport of certain types of guns and high capacity equipment aren't they.

So, there really is nothing top see and you're just being paranoid again aren't you.

No they aren't talking about any weapon I may or may not own. So what? You as far as I know do not own any firearms? If you don't, how can you support gun control?

I am sick of this stupid and nothing more than a Red Herring argument. Just stop with the nonsense.

So end of discussion right?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Has this issue been litigated?

In various states, yes. Succeeded in some, failed in others.

Are 30 round magazines in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[Rucker61]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Was responding to the notion that bad guys wouldn't obey gun laws so why bother.

Generally we pass laws because the behavior hurts society. Laws that allow us to punish people for hurting society are worthwhile. Laws that punish people for actions that do not hurt society are not worthwhile.

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Generally we pass laws because the behavior hurts society. Laws that allow us to punish people for hurting society are worthwhile. Laws that punish people for actions that do not hurt society are not worthwhile.

Gun laws don’t punish people and more than traffic laws do.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Obviously it makes no sense to pass any laws.

it makes sense to pass laws that punishes behavior that objectively harms others. Its stupid to pass laws designed purely to criminalize currently legal behavior-behavior that does not objectively harm others.

why don't you tell me why someone who is willing to commit murder or robbery and is already violating laws by possessing the firearm, will be deterred by a magazine ban

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Ten sounds like a nice number we all could live with.

you support it because that is the current DNC scheme. We know that democrats -in states like NY and California-want to reduce it even further. THERE HAS BEEN NOT A SINGLE study that demonstrates that the 10 round limit is a rational line drawing

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Why do you say that?

there is no rational argument for such a limit-its designed to harass honest people

 

[Rucker61]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

you support it because that is the current DNC scheme. We know that democrats -in states like NY and California-want to reduce it even further. THERE HAS BEEN NOT A SINGLE study that demonstrates that the 10 round limit is a rational line drawing

Let's see. Denver said 20 was the safe limit. Colorado decided that 15 was the proper limit. California said 10. New York tried 7. I see a trend here.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Let's see. Denver said 20 was the safe limit. Colorado decided that 15 was the proper limit. California said 10. New York tried 7. I see a trend here.

and if there is a shooting with the current limit, the Democrats will demand a further limit. the scum who run NYS didn't even have a massacre with ten round magazines to push for the 7 round limit

I have a great way of drawing a line. whatever civilian LE officers have access to-other civilians ought to be able to own it

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

it makes sense to pass laws that punishes behavior that objectively harms others. Its stupid to pass laws designed purely to criminalize currently legal behavior-behavior that does not objectively harm others.

why don't you tell me why someone who is willing to commit murder or robbery and is already violating laws by possessing the firearm, will be deterred by a magazine ban

No, but he’ll have to stop sooner to reload when in a gunfight with police. That’s it.

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

you support it because that is the current DNC scheme. We know that democrats -in states like NY and California-want to reduce it even further. THERE HAS BEEN NOT A SINGLE study that demonstrates that the 10 round limit is a rational line drawing

Ok, make it five... or fifteen. What’s your objection to limits?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

No, but he’ll have to stop sooner to reload when in a gunfight with police. That’s it.

well that is based on the idiotic assumption that someone who got a gun despite it being illegal for him to have one, won't be able to get a normal capacity magazine

here is why your argument is really stupid. Criminals plan and premeditate when and where they attack an honest citizen. When that happens, an honest citizen normally doesn't have much time to defend-he may only be able to grab his gun and not stuff his pants (assuming he is clothed) with extra magazines. So magazine limits only handicap those who follow the laws.

do you think people who get into gunfights with cops are going to obey a magazine limit?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Ok, make it five... or fifteen. What’s your objection to limits?

I object to stupid laws that are proposed by people who don't have a clue and who push those laws to harass gun owners. and since you have failed to rationally support such laws, it is obvious your support is based on a desire to harass gun owners. Make it five-you really want criminals to have an advantage over honest citizens.

I find this is often the case.. Many liberals oppose honest citizens being able to kill violent criminals. Many liberals see criminals as "victims" of an "unjust society" and tend to side with them. Furthermore, most violent criminals do not vote for Republicans and thus many liberals see those of us who vote for gun rights as more an enemy than criminals

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

well that is based on the idiotic assumption that someone who got a gun despite it being illegal for him to have one, won't be able to get a normal capacity magazine

here is why your argument is really stupid. Criminals plan and premeditate when and where they attack an honest citizen. When that happens, an honest citizen normally doesn't have much time to defend-he may only be able to grab his gun and not stuff his pants (assuming he is clothed) with extra magazines. So magazine limits only handicap those who follow the laws.

do you think people who get into gunfights with cops are going to obey a magazine limit?

Repeat what I said before, why bother with any laws? We work on the margins: fewer huge magazines in circulation, fewer huge magazines used. Otherwise, why outlaw any weapon in any place? Planes? Schools? Presidential meetings on the border?

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

I object to stupid laws that are proposed by people who don't have a clue and who push those laws to harass gun owners. and since you have failed to rationally support such laws, it is obvious your support is based on a desire to harass gun owners. Make it five-you really want criminals to have an advantage over honest citizens.

I find this is often the case.. Many liberals oppose honest citizens being able to kill violent criminals. Many liberals see criminals as "victims" of an "unjust society" and tend to side with them. Furthermore, most violent criminals do not vote for Republicans and thus many liberals see those of us who vote for gun rights as more an enemy than criminals

I will leave you to your paranoid rambling. Keep your powder dry.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Repeat what I said before, why bother with any laws? We work on the margins: fewer huge magazines in circulation, fewer huge magazines used. Otherwise, why outlaw any weapon in any place? Planes? Schools? Presidential meetings on the border?

you want to pass laws that ONLY impact honest people

and no-if cops have them other civilians should

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

I will leave you to your paranoid rambling. Keep your powder dry.

thanks for admitting you really don't have a valid argument for magazine limits

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

you want to pass laws that ONLY impact honest people

and no-if cops have them other civilians should

That makes no sense. Laws impact all of us.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

That makes no sense. Laws impact all of us.

do you understand that it is illegal for someone with a felony record to even possess a gun

do you understand that people who intend to harm others with firearms will face harsher punishments than those who are caught with a magazine that has been banned?

 

[Black Dog]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

And yet, you had no problems going to war to keep other human beings enslaved.

The hypocrisy is rather amusing.

Actually the Red Herring and hyperbole are even more amusing.

 

[PleasantValley]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

I know that it is of cold comfort to you, but someday (say, in the year 2100), those people living in what still remains of the United States of America will look back on 2019 as those halcyon days.

Best wishes.

My spirit will be watching over them, as others are watching over me now.

 

[PleasantValley]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Thanks for proving my paranoia point.

Sincerely,

Another Old White Man

...at least this old white man has the desire and ability to shoot back when the thugs choose to attack me.
I wish you luck with your reason and harsh words when they attack you.

 

[Black Dog]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

The entire premise of the thread is that people are "coming for your guns".

And people are actively trying to ban weapons, yes they are. You are basically arguing bull**** and playing Red Herring.

I addressed said premise by pointing out that no such thing is happening.

And others including myself have shown bills in local, state and now even Federal. Lawmakers are introducing bills for just that.

As for your question.......I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

But I am not interested in listening to even more hysterics.

Because you really have no argument and you know it. So stop with the deflecting and trying to say a ban is not a ban, or they are not trying to take our weapons when they are.

People like you trying to tell lies to deflect away from what's really happening like we are stupid. :roll:

 

[PleasantValley]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Sorry, but I and others through our representatives tell you (and you tell me) what we can and can't do with your property rather frequently on a local, state and federal level. The second amendment is no more absolute than the first. Look it up.

You are wrong. In my state I can sell, transfer, or give away any gun I choose.
I do not need a federal license to do it.
I can sell them at a garage sale if i so choose.
Keep your California laws and California attitudes in California where they belong.

But for some reason, you guys feel it is your right to tell others what they can do.
That is why it shocks you so much when we thumb our noses at your utopia.
It is because your "utopia" is more of a dictatorship.
We can see it clearly, but you can't.

Sooner or later, as an old white man, you will encounter a roving band of thugs.
When you do, you will be helpless against them.
You already are mentally, as you do not feel any need to defend yourself.
...another statistic waiting to happen.

Please understand, I do not want any of this to happen to you.

 

[Nickyjo]

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

thanks for admitting you really don't have a valid argument for magazine limits

Oh I do. We have limits on speech, assembly, what you can print, etc. Second amendment is no more sacred than other parts of the Constitution, but it seems that it’s aficionadoes are more rabid in their absolutism.