General Discussion

EOTE

(13,409 posts)

100. You live in a fantasy world.

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:22 AM

Apr 2013

You and all the rest of the gun nuts.

What you are utterly able to understand is that by your standard, NOTHING is off limits. When police have access to armed drones, should we have those as well? Nutters like you are dangerous to society. Do you have any idea as to what mutually assured destruction is? When will it stop? You haven't addressed this issue at all. What is to prevent a terrorist from gunning down your family with an attack helicopter? NOTHING. So that means we should have those as well? YOU are the liar. I've said absolutely nada that's incorrect. You are taking things to utterly ludicrous extremes.

Here's a question that I'm fairly sure I won't get an answer to. Do you support Americans' right to own fully automatics? If so, why? I'm guessing you're not going to even attempt to answer this, but I look forward to it anyway. You have all the logic of Wayne LaPierre and his toadies. They don't give one tiny damn about the lives of innocents and children, they only care about their toys. I look forward to your answer, but I have a feeling you won't be able to.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

117 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The terrorists fired over 200 rounds in last night's gun battle with police. [View all] onehandle Apr 2013 OP

O M G! avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #1

There should be a law against owning bombs & throwing them at police Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #2

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #3

How? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #7

We can't keep hardcore drugs and weapons out of federal prisons FFS... pipoman Apr 2013 #18

Good -- and sad -- point n/t Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #22

because they don't want to BainsBane Apr 2013 #43

The point is... pipoman Apr 2013 #97

What is your point? BainsBane Apr 2013 #98

You don't know what you are talking about.. pipoman Apr 2013 #99

Good point. theaocp Apr 2013 #63

WHAT ABOUT DUIS!!?//!1!11!1!1! morningfog Apr 2013 #78

Really? premium Apr 2013 #12

We have a right to bare bombs!!!!!!! Heather MC Apr 2013 #9

Straw-man alert discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #11

Bear bombs vs bare bums Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #49

Can your fourth grade teacher take a joke? Heather MC Apr 2013 #51

Not an ungrammatical one, no. n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #53

Ioun care! Heather MC Apr 2013 #55

I think you mean "fourth" grade teacher Coyotl Apr 2013 #92

pert of da joke Heather MC Apr 2013 #93

I no Coyotl Apr 2013 #105

o'tay! Heather MC Apr 2013 #106

You can bare arms... ljm2002 Apr 2013 #54

You're right!!! n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #56

Now that we've got that, maybe we should take the next sensible step EOTE Apr 2013 #15

The elder, the dead one, has a domestic violence conviction Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #26

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. EOTE Apr 2013 #27

Yeah, just like people have a hard time getting hardcore drugs. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #28

And how many innocent bystanders has heroin killed last year? EOTE Apr 2013 #29

People don't have a right to heroin. People do have a right to self-defense. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #31

And self defense means 100 round mags? Perhaps 1000? The right to own aircraft carriers? EOTE Apr 2013 #32

The legal standard is common-use personal arms Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #41

source? NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #52

Gun nuts don't provide sources. EOTE Apr 2013 #101

And "common use" includes high capacity magazines? EOTE Apr 2013 #70

Standard issue is 30 rounds. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #79

That's insane. As are 100 round magazines. EOTE Apr 2013 #80

Law is not based on your personal phobias and willful ignorance. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #86

Ahhh, so my opposition to unlimited capacity magazines is ignorance and a phobia? EOTE Apr 2013 #87

If mass-killing were its only purpose police wouldn't carry them for lone-criminal encounters. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #90

Non law enforcement don't need to get involved in massive shoot outs. EOTE Apr 2013 #91

Who said get involved? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #94

So again you propose we be able to own attack helicopters. EOTE Apr 2013 #95

A reasonable limit would be what professionals and hobbyists find to be most practical. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #96

You live in a fantasy world. EOTE Apr 2013 #100

You conjure non-existent scenario after non-existent scenario Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #102

Non-existent scenarios? Like the one where you need to take on a dozen terrorists? EOTE Apr 2013 #103

This message was self-deleted by its author clffrdjk Apr 2013 #114

Um, no. premium Apr 2013 #33

It's not my fault if the gun nuts in this country make the only possible actions watered down ones. EOTE Apr 2013 #35

Would you also extend this to LE personnel? If not, why? oneshooter Apr 2013 #38

Should law enforcement be able to purchase guns without a background check? No. EOTE Apr 2013 #71

So he bought it off of John Doe on street and with no doc03 Apr 2013 #39

That's illegal in Massachusetts. Straw Man Apr 2013 #89

So he bought a gun illegally? Recursion Apr 2013 #109

My wife was up at last night and heard the booms. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #20

On the video - you can hear lots of gun shots - and "cracks" that were the explosions jpak Apr 2013 #37

In before some gunhead starts talking about "magazines" vs. "clips". Marr Apr 2013 #4

wonder how many ball bearings were in the pressure cookers Dreamer Tatum Apr 2013 #5

Fuck the NRA n/t malaise Apr 2013 #6

Impossible, I saw a fellow DUer say no guns were involved. Rex Apr 2013 #8

No guns involved? LOL! sandmann Apr 2013 #40

For your reading pleasure. Rex Apr 2013 #48

Not a fellow DUer, it seems. Robb Apr 2013 #72

NO FUCKN WAY! Rex Apr 2013 #73

holee shit.. frylock Apr 2013 #77

An eye witness to the shooting last night claimed they were using handguns jpak Apr 2013 #10

One of those was from the MIT officer that was shot and killed, premium Apr 2013 #14

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #23

I agree to a point, premium Apr 2013 #25

And where and how they acquired all that firepower. Legally or illegally... nt riderinthestorm Apr 2013 #13

And when did they acquire it? They may have been stockpiling for some time. nt BootinUp Apr 2013 #16

When I lived in Cambridge 35 years ago the mafia had to share their guns olddots Apr 2013 #17

Source? kudzu22 Apr 2013 #19

News conference just finished by officials stated as such. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #76

Shit!!!! that's a lot of fire power bigdarryl Apr 2013 #21

Do you have a link? nt. premium Apr 2013 #24

This doesn't sound right...The police exchanged 200 rounds... HipChick Apr 2013 #30

Exchanged over 200 rounds OldHippieChick Apr 2013 #34

Well turns out Tamarlan was barred from buying and owning guns! riderinthestorm Apr 2013 #36

Tamerlan could have bought a gun from you me or anyone else doc03 Apr 2013 #42

Damage rifle barrels sarisataka Apr 2013 #45

That was the talking point from the NRA at the time when doc03 Apr 2013 #46

Damn them gun nuts at the National Academy of Sciences sarisataka Apr 2013 #47

Times have changed - haven't they jpak Apr 2013 #58

The three criteria recommended sarisataka Apr 2013 #60

Three bodies on Boylston jpak Apr 2013 #61

No - they claimed taggants "degraded ballistic performance". jpak Apr 2013 #57

Nope sarisataka Apr 2013 #59

Yeah - we're so much safer thanks to the fucking NRA jpak Apr 2013 #64

Strange position sarisataka Apr 2013 #67

Let's see - dumb hobby vs. public safety and security? jpak Apr 2013 #68

Think it through sarisataka Apr 2013 #69

The police can use untagged ammo - and I see no evidence that taggants are a safety issue jpak Apr 2013 #74

Police use commercial ammo sarisataka Apr 2013 #75

Give me a break a tagget isn't going to make a gun explode. The only way doc03 Apr 2013 #82

You were close sarisataka Apr 2013 #88

Yes affect acuracy, I remember that was another of many arguments the doc03 Apr 2013 #81

Not in Massachusetts. Straw Man Apr 2013 #83

Gotta a link? CokeMachine Apr 2013 #44

Hmm. It's my understanding that cliffordu Apr 2013 #50

That's what I've seen everywhere Travelman Apr 2013 #65

Right. Unless these two morons had full auto assault weapons. I would doubt that. cliffordu Apr 2013 #66

There is no such thing as a full-auto assault weapon. Cops *may* have full auto weapons Recursion Apr 2013 #104

Thats funny. I shot a full-auto assault weapon in the Army. cliffordu Apr 2013 #110

No, you did not. You fired a full auto assault rifle. Here's a Venn diagram Recursion Apr 2013 #111

Ah. So you are nitpicking the weapon/rifle thingy there. cliffordu Apr 2013 #112

I'm not nit-picking a God d****d thing. This is central to the ****ing law. Recursion Apr 2013 #115

Fabulous. cliffordu Apr 2013 #116

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Apr 2013 #117

Bingo. Straw Man Apr 2013 #84

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #62

Um ... Straw Man Apr 2013 #85

And how many of those rounds came from the cops? B2G Apr 2013 #107

Didn't do them a lot of good. Zax2me Apr 2013 #108

The terrorists didn't fire over 200 rounds, premium Apr 2013 #113