ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Harmonium]

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

[Goofier]

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

This weapon cannot fire more than a single bullet without loading another manually into the chamber via "cocking a bolt".

Which is what you stated.

Yeah, hate to, but he's right.
First it was anything that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull.
Then it was anything semiautomatic.

This is the slippery slope, man.
Keep going, and you'll have harsh language outlawed.

And let's not forget, no guns during 9-11, no guns in Oklahoma City, etc.

I totally understand your point, but what IS your point?
You seem to change it a lot.

[Autotune]

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

Honestly, I'd let you keep that. If you're f'ed up enough to wanna shoot someone, you're gonna do it, but you're not gonna shoot 10+ people in a period of 3 seconds with that rifle, not with any real accuracy (unless you were military trained to do so).

The distance one can be with this (even not militarily trained) combined with the power of the round, you can pin people down in certain settings that you could kill 10+ people. Not all within 10seconds, but you definitely could kill 10+ people in a minute.

This is a type of scenario most normal people would freeze in. Being shot from a person you cannot see and you do not know exactly where they are. A minute in this scenario would go by fast for the shooter and extremely slow for every victim trapped.

Also, there are many places that 10mins is more than enough time to shoot people and bug out before any law enforcement shows up.


Perhaps you are all forgetting Charles Whitman? Military trained yes, but he wasn't using the best of equipment either.

[Goofier]

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

Yeah, hate to, but he's right.
First it was anything that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull.
Then it was anything semiautomatic.

This is the slippery slope, man.
Keep going, and you'll have harsh language outlawed.

And let's not forget, no guns during 9-11, no guns in Oklahoma City, etc.

I totally understand your point, but what IS your point?
You seem to change it a lot.

Sorry, poor quoting there, everyone get the point?

[Humerox]

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

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.

I asked you where the problems were...sources, methodology, what? You said you didn't have time to look at it and you never refuted anything in the study with anything other than your own personal opinion.

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

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.

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have. This is a personal attack...not a refutation of anything.

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

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

No one has crushed anything, lol. If anything we've come to understand that the Constitutional argument can support your position as well as mine...and is why I stated the courts need to clarify it, because the Constitution doesn't.

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

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.

It was a real scientific study. You said it was hogwash and sounded funny...I asked you where the problems were. Statistics, methodology...what? That was a real scientific study done by the University of Sydney...not some off-the-cuff news story from the Examiner.

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

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?

Because you'd rather argue opinion. You don't have time to learn anything...and I'll tell you something. You CAN'T refute that study with anything other than opinion. You're not capable of it. Val should probably take a look at it...we might be able to get some intelligent discourse on the subject then.

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

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.

Believe what? That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

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

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.

Might interest you to know that I'm a volunteer with AmeriCorps, I'm an old fart that doesn't have to work anymore, and that I'm a decorated vet.

I don't usually slip up and let that much personal history escape onto these boards...but whatever. I'm proud of me...and I actually do advocate. You know...do silly things like call congressman and write them nice little letters and such.

You seem to have become very angry lately.

or in internetese...

umad.

[Autotune]

btw, i hear you don't need to be military trained anymore to be a decent sniper.

http://www.sportoptics.com/burris-el...50-200116.aspx

[Humerox]

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

Yeah, hate to, but he's right.
First it was anything that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull.
Then it was anything semiautomatic.

This is the slippery slope, man.
Keep going, and you'll have harsh language outlawed.

And let's not forget, no guns during 9-11, no guns in Oklahoma City, etc.

I totally understand your point, but what IS your point?
You seem to change it a lot.

No...I said a long time ago if you have to manually cock a bolt or pull back a hammer to fire individual rounds it's fine.

The weapon can look as scary as it wants to. I don't care, lol.

[Autotune]

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

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

Ah, so I can keep this that I have coming in a few months then under your laws.

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

Not under the laws I want, lol.

But seeing what kind of half-assed laws we've had in the past and the unwillingness to enforce them...I'd say that you may be right.

Which is unfortunate, because it won't work and we'll all be talking about how it never worked the NEXT mass murder around.

Sad.

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

This weapon cannot fire more than a single bullet without loading another manually into the chamber via "cocking a bolt".

Which is what you stated.

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

No...I said a long time ago if you have to manually cock a bolt or pull back a hammer to fire individual rounds it's fine.

The weapon can look as scary as it wants to. I don't care, lol.

Um... which is it man?

[Humerox]

If it fits what i want have at it. I didn't even really look at it, lol.

Might even discourage a few gang-bangers trying to home invade.

[Vellatri]

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

Still doesn't tell us what arms the Constitution says we can have.

I already did, though.

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

No one has crushed anything, lol.

I shut down your argument about reducing only some types of murder at the expense of having more overall violence.

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

Val should probably take a look at it.

Source please? (To your original post, so I can look over replies.) The forum search doesn't provide exact pages, unless I'm using the wrong settings.

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

That the Constitution isn't clear in meaning as applied to our modern society and we constantly have to try to interpret it to fit our changing world?

I already explained that the only legal way to make "arms" mean something other than "arms" is via ratification.