One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Shooter Walks Free As Police Tackle,...
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
Aug 14, 2019 18:49:53   #
emarine
 
AuntiE wrote:
It was meant in a fun victim way.





Fun victim … I'll have to sleep on that one...

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 19:01:07   #
gaconservative74
 
emarine wrote:
I totally agree Rose... I own several … It is too easy for the untrained to purchase weapons today... The NRA which I'm a longtime member is wrong on this issue … no one requires 100 round drums...


That statement completely avoids the problem. The problem is the degradation of the family. Lack of accepting responsibility for anything we do. Not tending to our own. Shifting morals.

To say no one needs a 100 rd drum is probably a fair statement if not for the second amendment and the point of it, but for giggles let’s say that’s a true statement.

I say no one needs a car that can go 200mph. Who possibly needs to go 200mph on any street in America? So do we ban all Lamborghinis?

Nobody has a right to say what I need or don’t need when it comes to inanimate objects. Personally, a friend of mine has a 150rd drum for a 22. It’s pretty dang cool if you ask me.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 19:01:26   #
youngwilliam
 
emarine wrote:
I totally agree Rose... I own several … It is too easy for the untrained to purchase weapons today... The NRA which I'm a longtime member is wrong on this issue … no one requires 100 round drums...


Ya, no one needs a Corvette, everyone drive a yugo, no one needs a mansion, apartments for all. Point is it's not about needs. I would rather someone try to use a 100 rd drum as opposed to a quality mill spec 30 rd mag, more chance of the drum jamming.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 19:20:04   #
emarine
 
youngwilliam wrote:
Ya, no one needs a Corvette, everyone drive a yugo, no one needs a mansion, apartments for all. Point is it's not about needs. I would rather someone try to use a 100 rd drum as opposed to a quality mill spec 30 rd mag, more chance of the drum jamming.




I see both points, sometimes a little compromise goes a long way... I'd rather live with 10 round clips than lose assault rifles altogether …

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 19:22:17   #
AuntiE Loc: 46th Least Free State
 
emarine wrote:
I see both points, sometimes a little compromise goes a long way... I'd rather live with 10 round clips than lose assault rifles altogether …


Fifteen is standard.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 19:28:12   #
youngwilliam
 
emarine wrote:
I see both points, sometimes a little compromise goes a long way... I'd rather live with 10 round clips than lose assault rifles altogether …


I agree, but someone proficient can shoot within milliseconds with 10 rounders as 30 rd. mags, very quick reloads are possible. But I guess 10 rds. will placate the sheeple, until it won't.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 22:18:41   #
Navigator
 
emarine wrote:
I see your point... why just kill someone when you can cut them in half... maybe Wal Mart should stock mk-38's for giggles ...


You obviously don't see my point as your post addresses nothing I said and, in addition, doesn't make any sense.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 22:20:52   #
Navigator
 
youngwilliam wrote:
I agree, but someone proficient can shoot within milliseconds with 10 rounders as 30 rd. mags, very quick reloads are possible. But I guess 10 rds. will placate the sheeple, until it won't.


And until it won't will be very soon after. The same with the next meaningless restriction, and the next and the next.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 22:25:14   #
Navigator
 
emarine wrote:
I see both points, sometimes a little compromise goes a long way... I'd rather live with 10 round clips than lose assault rifles altogether …


I agree. The problem is those you intend to compromise with have no intention of compromising and your 10 round clip will become a 7, then a 5 and then it won't matter b/c the weapon meant to take those magazines will be banned. To anyone really paying attention, this should be as obvious as the nose on your face.

| Reply
Aug 14, 2019 22:40:45   #
youngwilliam
 
Navigator wrote:
I agree. The problem is those you intend to compromise with have no intention of compromising and your 10 round clip will become a 7, then a 5 and then it won't matter b/c the weapon meant to take those magazines will be banned. To anyone really paying attention, this should be as obvious as the nose on your face.


Ask any lefty, they don't want to ban guns. Ha ha ha. My belly hurts from laughter.

| Reply
Aug 15, 2019 06:17:12   #
PeterS
 
emarine wrote:
At the time the 2nd amendment was drafted a skilled rifleman could fire 2 rounds per minute … now anyone with the funds can fire 3 rounds per second... food for thought lady E...

The second amendment was written with the intention of having a well-regulated militia replace a freestanding army. But conservatives want both their guns and the worlds largest military begging the question what is the purpose of the second amendment today...

| Reply
Aug 15, 2019 06:18:31   #
PeterS
 
Navigator wrote:
I agree. The problem is those you intend to compromise with have no intention of compromising and your 10 round clip will become a 7, then a 5 and then it won't matter b/c the weapon meant to take those magazines will be banned. To anyone really paying attention, this should be as obvious as the nose on your face.

Yup, and with every shooting banning semi-auto's gets closer and closer...

| Reply
Aug 15, 2019 06:43:51   #
Rose42
 
PeterS wrote:
The second amendment was written with the intention of having a well-regulated militia replace a freestanding army. But conservatives want both their guns and the worlds largest military begging the question what is the purpose of the second amendment today...


No it wasn’t

| Reply
Aug 15, 2019 09:01:34   #
youngwilliam
 
PeterS wrote:
The second amendment was written with the intention of having a well-regulated militia replace a freestanding army. But conservatives want both their guns and the worlds largest military begging the question what is the purpose of the second amendment today...


Who are the "people " in the second?

| Reply
Aug 15, 2019 11:23:43   #
AuntiE Loc: 46th Least Free State
 
PeterS wrote:
The second amendment was written with the intention of having a well-regulated militia replace a freestanding army. But conservatives want both their guns and the worlds largest military begging the question what is the purpose of the second amendment today...



“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson


Tenche Coxe: ”Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”– Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

George Mason: ”I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.