ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

And I see what I did, lol. I meant "cocking" a hammer.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You weren't referring to this, were you? That didn't come from the NRA, and there haven't been any refutations of its contents in that thread, either.

Put this in the wrong thread.

I wasn't talking about Snopes, lol.

And I'm right there with ya on gun violence. I was talking about mass shootings. People keep putting me on the wrong position on things...I agree that there's not any statistical evidence pointing to a decrease in overall gun violence when assault weapons are banned.

I said that there is clear evidence mass shootings can be virtually eliminated when you ban assault style weapons.

Big difference. I don't want to dig for whatever article that was atm, lol.

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pray tell...do go on.

Sandy Hook, for instance.
Same semiautomatic AR that's been on the market since at least the mid-70s. Nothing new at all. One shot per trigger pull.

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And I see what I did, lol. I meant "cocking" a hammer.

No problem, ain't gonna be that kind of dick [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm guessing you mean, you want to ban every semi-automatic weapon?

Yes.

This is OK.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And this is OK.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Put this in the wrong thread.

Aah. My reply is over there where it probably belongs anyway.

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What? My statement was directed at gloine, not you. He was talking about Snopes.

Australia provides a small, statistically inadequate sample. Even so, it just gets back to the point that decreasing only some types of attacks is worthless if overall murder/violence increases.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Goofier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No problem, ain't gonna be that kind of dick [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lol...you had me. That's what I get for not checking a post.

[Autotune]

I for one can't wait for people to start using homemade napalm to kill theaters worth of people. I want to seem them ban gasoline and household items.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Aah. My reply is over there where it probably belongs anyway.

Well...I don't think 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to 1996 and 0 mass shootings since 1996 is statistically insignificant...

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Behaving accordingly to you is nothing short of agreeing with your arguments, lol. When I posted that scientific study from the University of Australia you told me you didn't have the time to go back through it and refute any statistical data they used, or lay a foundation to argue the methodology they used.

Wow... just wow. First of all, no. I posted several times and even in the post you quoted the glaring problem I found with their statistics and you have yet to respond to. This is most likely due to the fact that you can't and all you can do is just ignore it. I gave you an example.

Your cookie cutting arguments not only exemplify your dolt behavior, they also augment your complete ineptitude to have an intelligent discussion. You clearly didn't read my post or much of them for that matter. You are just a monkey banging your head on a keyboard.

What I find the most surprising though is your complete narcissism. Every argument you have made, you were crushed in the same realm so you abscond to the next realm. We are now in the realm of constitutional law which you know little to nothing about which is unsurprising for a fast food cook at McDonalds. Did you ever get the promotion to cashier by the way? I really hope so

Second, all I expect from you is to either concede or refute it logically. You ignoring it and then telling me to reread a giant article isn't a basis for an argument while you slink away to another poorly and hastily formed argument based on your opinion.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You've told me more than once here that you didn't have the "time" to look into anything I showed you, so why should I waste my time arguing with you?

I told you I don't have time to look over it again. Your simian brain can't fathom that I suppose. How is your 47th chromosome?

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When you can show me an argument that includes a legal definition what the Constitution means by the Second Amendment I may listen to your point of view. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has the right to carry whatever you want, because the underlying principle of law has always been to balance Constitutional rights with public safety.

How did your head get so big to the point where you actually believe this? You can't just declare it to be so. This highlights your complete ignorance on the subject matter, and since you clearly unable to contribute anything of intellectual worth to this subject, I ask again for the chimpanzee behind humerox to stop posting.

You could be spending your time doing a lot more productive things like filling out that application to McDonalds I sent you. It would definitely suit society better than you gracing us with the fecal bile that spews from your mouth.