Gun Control & RKBA

ellisonz

(27,776 posts)

188. That's not the argument.

Wed Dec 28, 2011, 07:04 PM

Dec 2011

I agree that "anyone who predicates their choices based on that protection being there is a moron," but even you would not deny that they have an obligation to general public safety.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

197 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Florida: Man shot dead at Edison Mall [View all] ellisonz Dec 2011 OP

I was there last night to pick my mother up from last minute Christmas shopping. William769 Dec 2011 #1

"High-powered rifles" have been in private hands since about 1885. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #2

No gun ban can ever keep guns from criminals Deejai Dec 2011 #3

This is what the "Anti's" do not understand! Criminals will always have guns. Logical Dec 2011 #7

If that is true, then why do Japan, Australia, and Europe... ellisonz Dec 2011 #12

They had virtually the same gun homicide rate *before* substantive gun control X_Digger Dec 2011 #15

So Americans are just more violent? ellisonz Dec 2011 #17

no just less suicidal gejohnston Dec 2011 #19

"...Japanese reporting - but imagine it'd still be much lower than ours." And you'd be wrong. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #23

Most of them not using guns... ellisonz Dec 2011 #25

no kidding gejohnston Dec 2011 #26

I, personally, have never made such a "lump" ellisonz Dec 2011 #30

you would be the exception gejohnston Dec 2011 #31

Do we even what to talk about what your "allies' believe? ellisonz Dec 2011 #35

I think we are reality based gejohnston Dec 2011 #39

... ellisonz Dec 2011 #46

so Obama agrees with us gejohnston Dec 2011 #48

"I think the definition should be left to people who actually know what they are talking about" ellisonz Dec 2011 #59

this one is actually dishonest gejohnston Dec 2011 #77

Well, there goes your "militia clause" argument! LOL. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #162

Your allies, from your own lips... beevul Dec 2011 #176

OMG...I support the Brady Campaign. ellisonz Dec 2011 #177

No, really? beevul Dec 2011 #181

... ellisonz Dec 2011 #187

Apparently so. Our *non* gun homicide rate strips most european countries *total* homicide rates. nt X_Digger Dec 2011 #32

That comic makes no sense Pacafishmate Dec 2011 #53

"If you wanted to kill someone and didn't have access to a gun, you'd just use a common object" ellisonz Dec 2011 #60

Glad you got the chance rl6214 Dec 2011 #91

Yeah, no NRA royalty check for that one. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #163

Actually, yes, we are more violent. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #56

I don't understand harping the European angle. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #79

"There is no doubt that fewer firearms in circulation will mean fewer deaths." ellisonz Dec 2011 #120

limits on the numbers of guns you can own. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #134

"I'll live with the higher crime rate so that I can enjoy the right to own firearms as I will." ellisonz Dec 2011 #139

I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #153

Preztel logic. ellisonz Dec 2011 #155

I do not understand your post. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #156

The statements don't merit a direct answer. ellisonz Dec 2011 #157

Then why bother posting at all? Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #160

What you quote there... beevul Dec 2011 #178

Yeah... ellisonz Dec 2011 #179

Do you really think nobody can see what you're doing?" beevul Dec 2011 #180

Your *concern* for my doings is noted... ellisonz Dec 2011 #185

Intentional misrepresentation or lack of reading comprehension? X_Digger Dec 2011 #186

That's not the argument. ellisonz Dec 2011 #188

'general public safety', yes. X_Digger Dec 2011 #189

So I guess when the Constitution says "the people" they don't mean individuals... ellisonz Dec 2011 #191

You're not making sense now.. nobody said 'the people' in any of the previous replies.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #193

You missed the sarcasm... ellisonz Dec 2011 #195

When you misrepresent the words of other posters , thats what you get hereabouts, concerned people. beevul Dec 2011 #190

So basically you're conceeding that in actuality... ellisonz Dec 2011 #192

Only under the gun control reality distortion field... beevul Dec 2011 #194

Now, that one should get an NRA royalty check! SteveW Dec 2011 #164

in Europe gejohnston Dec 2011 #18

"the guns flow with the drugs." ellisonz Dec 2011 #22

your side is the one gejohnston Dec 2011 #28

Do you think the Russians kill more by other means? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #159

So many questions.... aikoaiko Dec 2011 #4

What would one need a 30 round magazine for realistically that's a legitimate use? ellisonz Dec 2011 #14

Unless one prefers that criminals be forced to reload, banning them is rather pointless. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #20

Being forced to reload stopped Jared Lee Loughner... ellisonz Dec 2011 #24

He wasn't reloading. His gun jammed. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #38

Big difference... ellisonz Dec 2011 #47

what are the odds gejohnston Dec 2011 #49

Reporters are routinely ignorant about guns. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #62

The reports aren't quite clear... ellisonz Dec 2011 #68

Your're wrong. The hi-cap mag caused the jam. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #69

The question is more did he clear the jam and load another magazine. ellisonz Dec 2011 #87

No. The slide was locked back. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #126

...another NRA royalty check... SteveW Dec 2011 #165

Sheer sophistry. ellisonz Dec 2011 #82

cool idea, I'll have to market those in more bike friendly places gejohnston Dec 2011 #97

...maybe an NRA royalty check, but... SteveW Dec 2011 #166

Answer me this: What do you think is an adequate mag capacity to repeal a dangerous person? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #27

No more than 12... ellisonz Dec 2011 #29

What if there were two or three dangerous intruders in your house? aikoaiko Dec 2011 #33

Hypothetically. ellisonz Dec 2011 #34

I see you don't like your own math. You are fine with 12 rounds for a single intruder, aikoaiko Dec 2011 #36

"They've got nothing to show for their efforts for the last ten years." ellisonz Dec 2011 #61

The facts do not bear out the conclusion you assert. beevul Dec 2011 #72

Dubya said he would sign the AWB... Straw Man Dec 2011 #78

He also said he wouldn't engage in "nation building." ellisonz Dec 2011 #84

What don't you understand about congress never even voted on it? rl6214 Dec 2011 #96

He didn't -- he engaged in "nation wrecking." Straw Man Dec 2011 #111

It wasn't GWB that did much for the RKBA. It was individual states and the SCOTUS who did the most. aikoaiko Dec 2011 #81

GWB said he would sign the AWB if it got to his desk rl6214 Dec 2011 #94

You take GWB at his word? ellisonz Dec 2011 #95

His opinion didn't mean shit.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #106

It really is a non issue because the party in control rl6214 Dec 2011 #197

That's quite a reply. X_Digger Dec 2011 #37

Indicative statistics... ellisonz Dec 2011 #44

the real question is gejohnston Dec 2011 #50

That's not at all the suggestion you made.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #51

Well riddle me this then... ellisonz Dec 2011 #52

Answers inline.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #54

"And the toothpaste is out of the tube for the guns & magazines previously covered by the so-called" ellisonz Dec 2011 #57

Flamethrowers are not illegal. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #64

You're right... ellisonz Dec 2011 #66

Grenade launchers are legal too. It is the grenades that are controlled. N/T GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #70

Strike two. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #173

"in common use for lawful purposes" -- both Heller and Miller X_Digger Dec 2011 #73

I'd rather have my ignorance showing... ellisonz Dec 2011 #86

'militarism'?!? Weak sauce. X_Digger Dec 2011 #93

Look who benefits... ellisonz Dec 2011 #98

Militarism, though? I think you lost the train of your thought. X_Digger Dec 2011 #105

Armed Civilians are now "overgrown military establishments"? PavePusher Dec 2011 #112

And you talk about snark? rl6214 Dec 2011 #100

My snark isn't malicious. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #102

You have succeeded DissedByBush Dec 2011 #184

Very interesting link you used there. burf Dec 2011 #118

"How does the dissenting opinion have any bearing?" ellisonz Dec 2011 #119

Mind answering the question? n/t burf Dec 2011 #125

I did answer, you just don't like my reply. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #137

No, you did not. burf Dec 2011 #144

That's your opinion. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #149

even before the NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #55

"That is why my ideology is like my religion, undefined." ellisonz Dec 2011 #58

Wiki has an error in that article. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #65

Huh? PavePusher Dec 2011 #74

Not precisely. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #127

unusual weapons gejohnston Dec 2011 #40

And Empirically, you are wrong. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #41

No, I'm not just as likely to shoot my own family. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #63

Ok. ellisonz Dec 2011 #67

The U.S. does not have a Department of Needs. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #71

But it does have a Constitution... ellisonz Dec 2011 #83

That was the point sailing over your head.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #107

Even the Republicans on the Supreme Court disagree with you on this point... ellisonz Dec 2011 #123

No dear, that's a fundamental principle of our government. Duh. X_Digger Dec 2011 #132

Rubbish, Sophistry, and more Rubbish. ellisonz Dec 2011 #138

So no substantive reply? X_Digger Dec 2011 #141

You didn't merit a substantitive reply. ellisonz Dec 2011 #142

You seem to have lost the thread of conversation.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #145

Wrong. ellisonz Dec 2011 #147

Riiiiight.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #148

Is that really correct on how Loughner went down? krispos42 Dec 2011 #117

I admit that there is a lot of confusion on the issue. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #128

Hmmm... krispos42 Dec 2011 #135

I don't know.... PavePusher Dec 2011 #76

I scored 249 out of 250 when I took my Texas CHL class. rl6214 Dec 2011 #101

So you like THAT part of Fat Tony's ruling, eh?... SteveW Dec 2011 #167

When the right-wing Roberts Court thinks you're nuts... ellisonz Dec 2011 #174

So you DID quote Scalia in the Heller decision... SteveW Dec 2011 #175

Cho fired 170 rounds from his pistol, reloading 17 times with 10 round mags rl6214 Dec 2011 #92

You say Cho...I say Loughner. ellisonz Dec 2011 #99

Loughner's gun wouldn't likely have jammed with a 10 round mag. n/t X_Digger Dec 2011 #108

So if these magazines are so unreliable... ellisonz Dec 2011 #122

Some people are stupid. GreenStormCloud Dec 2011 #129

Mostly for range use. X_Digger Dec 2011 #131

A better question would be, why does only one special weapons element of a single miltiary AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #172

Dodge. n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #113

Ah, check-mate again. nt SteveW Dec 2011 #168

Civilians own them for the same reason the military owns them. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #80

The need isn't likely to arise any time soon. ellisonz Dec 2011 #89

The military starts you with a full auto M-16a1 or a2. n/t oneshooter Dec 2011 #103

that was true during gejohnston Dec 2011 #104

I think you need to do more research.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #109

So you're telling me you can walk around town with a flamethrower? ellisonz Dec 2011 #121

the question was NFA gejohnston Dec 2011 #124

They're agricultural implements, regulated by burn codes. Not the NFA or firearms law. X_Digger Dec 2011 #130

Absolutely. I've seen them at gun shows. Atypical Liberal Dec 2011 #133

You know what the A2 and A4 variants of the M-16 are, don't you? AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #171

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #114

"militia... trained up to military standard quickly?" That means full-auto, right? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #170

Speaking from my experience as a USMC veteran... Marengo Dec 2011 #196

Cho at VT had no use for 30-round mags. He used easily-concealed short mags. SteveW Dec 2011 #161

No, the percentage of rifles used in homicides hasn't changed appreciably. X_Digger Dec 2011 #5

Obviously the defunct federal "AWB" does not make any difference slackmaster Dec 2011 #6

People need to have more respect for their 2A rights. ileus Dec 2011 #8

I'll bet $10 it was neither an "assault rifle", nor "high powered". n/t PavePusher Dec 2011 #9

Never mind the fact that the two phrases are mutually exclusive. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #10

Shhhh! This is my action, damnit! 8>P PavePusher Dec 2011 #11

And in other news... Glassunion Dec 2011 #13

"But the 20-year-old victim...was expected to recover from his injuries" ellisonz Dec 2011 #16

Perhaps. Crooks aren't known for their combat shooting skills. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2011 #21

Getting shot has a mortality rate of, IIRC, less than 20%. PavePusher Dec 2011 #42

Are you the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail reincarnated? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #43

And everytime I read posts such as the ones that profligate around here I think of... ellisonz Dec 2011 #45

Carlin predicts something that had already occured? PavePusher Dec 2011 #75

Color you...reading comprehension impaired. ellisonz Dec 2011 #85

Color you (and Carlin) uninformed.. X_Digger Dec 2011 #110

No, anyone with a reasonable knowledge of history and the ability to spell "Google".... PavePusher Dec 2011 #115

Profligate doesn't mean what you think it means. Perhaps you intended "propagate"? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #136

It's an acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #140

An adjective is an acceptable use as a verb? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #143

insert "are" and it's even more of a plainly acceptable use. ellisonz Dec 2011 #146

Insert "are" and it's no longer a verb. Straw Man Dec 2011 #150

Well... ellisonz Dec 2011 #151

"Eat my shorts"????? jebusfukinchrist, are you like 12? Fair Witness Dec 2011 #152

I'm a Simpsons fan. n/t ellisonz Dec 2011 #154

It's pretty funny you posted the definition of the word AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #169

That's fine. Straw Man Dec 2011 #183

This message was self-deleted by its author rl6214 Dec 2011 #88

Answers rl6214 Dec 2011 #90

No. krispos42 Dec 2011 #116

A: Not likely, Fact not in evidence, NA, who knows? nt SteveW Dec 2011 #158

By definition, assault rifles are not high-powered DissedByBush Dec 2011 #182