Originally posted by TheBloop Which is what the left does in trying to ban firearms ... they can talk all they want about limiting the capacity of the mags, but that's not what the left is about. The left is about banning guns, period.
Sure would have been nice if someone could have fired 15-30 rounds into Loughner the minute he started unloading.
What are the pro-ban arguments from the AZ shooting, if not anecdotal?
Actually, the left isn't for banning guns, period. They aren't for banning shotguns or rifles. They are for banning automatic weapons. As a lifelong gun owner, I'm with them. There is no reason to own them other than ego.
Originally posted by whodey So you think Loughner would have been deterred by the law proposed?
I think he would have had a couple of ten round mags. I think he would had gotten 10 shots off and then been overpowered. I think a few people would be alive now who aren't.
Originally posted by whodey So you think Loughner would have been deterred by the law proposed?
Oh hell yeah loughner would never, ever have had a 30 round magazine if it was illegal to own one, he'd just have to have made do witha couple extra 18 round magazines that come with the gun. That would have made a huge difference and everyone would be OK now.
Originally posted by no1marauder BS. How is any criminal going to get a 30 shot mag if their manufacture or import into the US is banned?
Is there ANY weapon that private ownership could be banned of under your argument? Would it be useless to ban people owning maching guns because "criminals and the insane won't obey the law"? How about flamethrowers? Or tanks? Tactical nuclear weapons?
Take a few clips. Cut them. Place and weld the pieces together. Something like that. Any machinist could make a longer clip.
Originally posted by gambit3 Take a few clips. Cut them. Place and weld the pieces together. Something like that. Any machinist could make a longer clip.
Sure, everybody did that when high-capacity mags were banned from 1994-2004.🙄
Originally posted by CliffLandin Actually, the left isn't for banning guns, period. They aren't for banning shotguns or rifles. They are for banning automatic weapons. As a lifelong gun owner, I'm with them. There is no reason to own them other than ego.
... in your opinion.
And that might be true for some on the left, but not for the vast majority.
Of course, plenty of folks on the left, like Rosie O'Donnell, think that no one should be allowed to have guns except for the bodyguards of her kids.
And of course, there's Carl Rowan...
And we have four Supreme Court judges who say that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says.
Originally posted by no1marauder You should post on YouTube like Loughner; it's popular for right wing nuts with little hold on reality.
the more that emerges about Loughner, the more left wing he becomes.
But when you guys on the left resort to creating phony facebook pages for Loughner, saying that he "likes Sarah Palin", that's when you show your complete and utter desperation. It's also funny when you guys don't know how to spell his name.
Originally posted by TheBloop and actually, Democrats refer to people who want the Constitution to be our governing document as having a fetish for the Constitution.
Another absurd lie. You're on quite a delusional roll.
Perhaps our right wing friends could return to the topic of the thread: is there any reason why they oppose McCarthy's proposed ban on high-capacity mags?
Originally posted by no1marauder Perhaps our right wing friends could return to the topic of the thread: is there any reason why they oppose McCarthy's proposed ban on high-capacity mags?
Sure.
Because it's none of McCarthy's business what the capacity of anybody's mag is, nor is it any of yours.
Should High-Capacity Mags be Banned?
15 Jan '11 17:24
Back to Top