America produces lone wolf killers with conveyor belt efficiency

anatta said:
problem is any regulation is up against the 2nd. also no matter how nasty and mean it looked, and how it was marketed
it is nothing more then a semi-automatic. I plead gun (willing) stupidity but ll rifles that hold more then a bullet in the chamber
is the same.

You could limit the capacity of clips
Click to expand...

why?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
people need guns to keep the government in check. hunting and self defense are bonuses.
Click to expand...

We really don't. We have votes to do that. The idea that we need to keep guns like the Sig available for some kind of uprising is pure fantasy, and it's not worth the trade-off of these kinds of tragedies.

You could make that argument for any weapon the military has. Very few want the public to have militarized weapons.
 
Thing1 said:
We really don't. We have votes to do that. The idea that we need to keep guns like the Sig available for some kind of uprising is pure fantasy, and it's not worth the trade-off of these kinds of tragedies. You could make that argument for any weapon the military has. Very few want the public to have militarized weapons.
Click to expand...

Only those who are smarter than few?
 
Thing1 said:
We really don't. We have votes to do that. The idea that we need to keep guns like the Sig available for some kind of uprising is pure fantasy, and it's not worth the trade-off of these kinds of tragedies.
Click to expand...
we really do. we've seen how our government ignores the will of the people time and again, so what should we do when they start ignoring our votes? and why is it fantasy? is tyranny preferable?

Thing1 said:
You could make that argument for any weapon the military has. Very few want the public to have militarized weapons.
Click to expand...

then the founders experiment has failed, miserably. we should ask the queen to bring her troops back over here and surrender our white house to a british governer
 
SmarterthanFew said:
we've seen how our government ignores the will of the people time and again, so what should we do when they start ignoring our votes?
Click to expand...

Didn't you say earlier that thinking the Second Amendment is about overthrowing the US government is "a bullshit Liberal argument used to demonize gun owners"?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we really do. we've seen how our government ignores the will of the people time and again, so what should we do when they start ignoring our votes? and why is it fantasy? is tyranny preferable?
then the founders experiment has failed, miserably. we should ask the queen to bring her troops back over here and surrender our white house to a british governer
Click to expand...

We have a system with exceedingly thorough checks & balances for a reason.

The chances of us needing assault weapons to "take on" the government are infinitesimal. The chances of another tragedy like this one? Well, Obama has had about 15 of these pressers since he started. The math is pretty easy.
 
Thing1 said:
We have a system with exceedingly thorough checks & balances for a reason.
Click to expand...
which has failed time and again.

Thing1 said:
The chances of us needing assault weapons to "take on" the government are infinitesimal. The chances of another tragedy like this one? Well, Obama has had about 15 of these pressers since he started. The math is pretty easy.
Click to expand...

so you prefer tyranny. just embrace that, for once.
 
Legion Troll said:
Can you explain the apparent contradictions in your statements in this thread?
Click to expand...

maybe a revered historical leader can explain it better for you.

The people -- the people -- are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts -- not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it
 
SmarterthanFew said:
maybe a revered historical leader can explain it better for you. The people -- the people -- are the rightful masters of both congresses, and courts -- not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it
Click to expand...

Nope. Not sure who this 'revered historical leader is', but I asked Y O U to explain the apparent contradictions in your own statements in this thread.

I'll understand if you can't.
 
SmarterthanFew said:
i'm sorry you can't understand plain english. get help
Click to expand...

Unable to explain the apparent contradictions in your own statements in this thread, you resort to imitating me?

I'm flattered.

I found your choice of quotations ironically amusing.

Lincoln was shot from behind by a "patriot" (with a gun, naturally) who shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" as he fled the scene of his cowardly one-man "uprising" against the government.

History does not record whether or not he remembered to bring snacks.
 
Milagro said:
Weapons that belong on a battlefield should be banned, they were before and should be again.
Click to expand...

Weapons suited to a battlefield are the reason why the Second Amendment even exists. It's not written to protect shotguns, handguns, or hunting rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top