Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    Conservatives are more concerned about David Gregory holding up an empty magazine not attached to a gun than they are about fully loaded assault rifles in the hands of the mentally ill.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    Enforcing current city laws is different than the feds making NEW bans for every state!

    Part of the point is that these laws do not work or are not enforced.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    absolutely, make them live by their own rules.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Enforcing current city laws is different than the feds making NEW bans for every state!

    Part of the point is that these laws do not work or are not enforced.

    [/QUOTE]


    And they won't be enforced against Gregory,.  They were not enforced against that well known reporter (Rowan?) who railed against gun control, and then shot a teenager who broke into his house with an illegal gun in D.C.

    The law never applies to enlightened moonbats.  The laws are for the little people.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    Conservatives are more concerned about David Gregory holding up an empty magazine not attached to a gun than they are about fully loaded assault rifles in the hands of the mentally ill.



    So it would seem.

     

    Equal application of the law I can get behind as a general point, but if they really mean what they say on the gun control front shouldn't they also be defending him by demanding the law be changed?

    Instead it's just "burn him! Burn the witch!"

    [/QUOTE]

    The David Gregory issue is amusing.  The simple answer is that we have laws and they should be enforced; its not a pick and choose scenario whether its about guns or illegal immigrants.

    If we don't like the laws then we need to change them before we break them or move to a state that better matches ones personal views.  This used to be the way but with an over reaching federal government that beocomes a problem.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Christ. Save yourself further embarassment and just admit that with all the guns out there, AR-15s aren't necessary to ward off any of your under-the-bed monsters.

     [/QUOTE]

    Necessary or not is up to the individual. It would not be my first choice since it has limited knock down power on larger targets and there ae other weapons that are much more lethal!

    The AR-15 is largely a collectors/enthusiast item and NOT a true survivalist choice.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I just don't see why they should be legal if they aren't even terribly useful for self defense. They're mainly useful for making a tremendous amount of noise at the shooting range, or for gunning down a lot of people quickly and doing a large amount of damage per shot.

    [/QUOTE]


    Do we really have to think this out?  The benefit of these guns is entertainment. The detriment is mass killings.  Apparently some conservatives can't get see this basic dichotomy.  Fun or First graders... 

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    They're not "pro-gun".  They're "Pro-Death".

    Except with abortions, in which case, they claim to be "Pro-Life".

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Necessary or not is up to the individual. It would not be my first choice since it has limited knock down power on larger targets and there ae other weapons that are much more lethal!   The point about necessity is that I think the most logical way to decide which guns should be legal or not is to look to the Court's decision in Heller defining the scope of the right.

    Self-defense first. To a lesser extent, the benefits of hunting and an armed citizenry's deterrant power against oppressive government.

    The third - detterence against government - is virtually meaningless given the massive aresenal we have extending beyond guns. Ok, sure, citizen militias with AR-15s might do a little damage.....

    ...before the drone strikes, cruise missiles, etc, splatter them all over. 

    So really it's primarily self-defense and hunting. And for the reasons I've repeated ad nauseum, there are so many weapons that are actually better for self-defense than an AR-15.

    The thing is big. You have to walk around with it slung over your shoulder (or else you are probably going to get stopped by the cops, 2nd amd or not). It can thus be grabbed from behind. Really, it's only useful in a home invasion.

    But so too are handguns, shotguns, and rifles that aren't barely modified M16s.... 

     

    I just don't see why they should be legal if they aren't even terribly useful for self defense. They're mainly useful for making a tremendous amount of noise at the shooting range, or for gunning down a lot of people quickly and doing a large amount of damage per shot.

    [/QUOTE]

    So things you dont understand or find terribly useful should be banned for everyone by the federal govt?

    gotcha!

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share