Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 5 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Mar 2012, 3:41 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
TM wrote:
I'm as much of a fan of the constitution as anyone else, but if you insist on the right to bear arms, it should be a musket from 1776, not a Glock with an extended clip and expanding bullets.


Good point. "Arms" is a very broad term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear arms. And you may not only own them but also bear them according to the Second Amendment. Are US citizens allowed to bear explosives when boarding a plane? Are they allowed to walk the streets with a fully virulent petri dish culture of anthrax bacilli or with a flamethrower? Is it legal to drive around with a canister of nerve gas or a small nuclear warhead on the back of of one's truck?

I somehow can't imagine that. I believe if someone were to exercise his right to bear arms in this way, he would be treated as a terrorist. The government infringes quite a bit on people's alleged right to bear deadly arms that the founding fathers would never have dreamed of. So why allow other modern weaponry? It doesn't make any sense.

Besides, where is the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment? Are gun owners a part of such a militia? Is it well regulated? Is there really any chance that the British red coats will be coming back for seconds anytime soon, and isn't the bloated US military capable of handling this hypothetical threat?


You guys are killing me. Apply your reasoning to the 1st amendment and suddenly the only protected forms of speech are those that were available in the 1700s like newspapers and spoken words, not radio, TV, the net, etc; clearly the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted that way and the courts agree.

Also, you can spare me the argument ad absurdum, "arms" refers to small arms like pistols and rifles, anything larger at the time would have been referred to as "ordnance" and is thus not covered under the amendment.

Also, flamethrowers are legal with a lot of paperwork, and yet I've never heard of one being used in a crime. Go figure.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Mar 2012, 3:57 am

TM wrote:
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.


What is really needed is for the people who don't know what they're talking (or typing) about to sit on their hands.

Ever hunted? Let's say I hunt a full spectrum of North American game, and discuss the required weaponry. Deer hunting is pretty common, going to need something like a 7mm, .308, 30-30 rifle for that. Duck? Going to need a 12 gauge shotgun, probably pump. Goose? Pencil me in for a 10 gauge, wouldn't want to risk just wounding them with a 12. Turkey? Different 12 gauge, semi-auto 3 1/2 inch chamber with a tight choke, camo paint and a point sight. Upland game? Better get a 28 gauge over/under to hump over those hills. Elk or moose? Start at a .300 WinMag and go up into the .338s. Prairie dogs or other varmits? Going to need a heavy barreled .22-250. Squirrels and rabbits? A nice .22 pistol or carbine. Bear? I'll take a lever gun in .378 or higher, maybe jump to .45-70 if we're talking grizzly. Should I keep going?

Sports is similar. Every shooter should have a variety of .22 target pistols, but depending on the sport it can get pretty equipment intensive. 3 gun you're talking a semi auto pistol, rifle, and shotgun in reasonably powerful chamberings, cowboy action requires 2 single action revolvers, a lever rifle and a double barreled shotgun, skeet requires a variety of shotguns, IPSC and IDPA each require a variety of pistols depending on the division, bowling pin matches have their own specialized pistols, etc etc.

Am I making my point yet? I and only I know how many guns I need and why, the same as every other gun owner out there. The "you can't own that because someone else might steal it and misuse it" argument is baseless and punishes the law abiding for the possible actions of the lawbreaking.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

05 Mar 2012, 6:18 am

Dox47 wrote:
TM wrote:
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.


What is really needed is for the people who don't know what they're talking (or typing) about to sit on their hands.

Ever hunted? Let's say I hunt a full spectrum of North American game, and discuss the required weaponry. Deer hunting is pretty common, going to need something like a 7mm, .308, 30-30 rifle for that. Duck? Going to need a 12 gauge shotgun, probably pump. Goose? Pencil me in for a 10 gauge, wouldn't want to risk just wounding them with a 12. Turkey? Different 12 gauge, semi-auto 3 1/2 inch chamber with a tight choke, camo paint and a point sight. Upland game? Better get a 28 gauge over/under to hump over those hills. Elk or moose? Start at a .300 WinMag and go up into the .338s. Prairie dogs or other varmits? Going to need a heavy barreled .22-250. Squirrels and rabbits? A nice .22 pistol or carbine. Bear? I'll take a lever gun in .378 or higher, maybe jump to .45-70 if we're talking grizzly. Should I keep going?

Sports is similar. Every shooter should have a variety of .22 target pistols, but depending on the sport it can get pretty equipment intensive. 3 gun you're talking a semi auto pistol, rifle, and shotgun in reasonably powerful chamberings, cowboy action requires 2 single action revolvers, a lever rifle and a double barreled shotgun, skeet requires a variety of shotguns, IPSC and IDPA each require a variety of pistols depending on the division, bowling pin matches have their own specialized pistols, etc etc.

Am I making my point yet? I and only I know how many guns I need and why, the same as every other gun owner out there. The "you can't own that because someone else might steal it and misuse it" argument is baseless and punishes the law abiding for the possible actions of the lawbreaking.


Hi Dox47,

The closest the Castle Doctrine comes to hunting is maybe the tent. Resorting to guns in situations that might come under under the Castle Doctrine is far removed from hunting and sport. Trying for exoneration under the doctrine isn't helped by the ready availability of the weapon normally useful in other situations, and in fact, the "luck" of having the weapon turns easily into a curse when the strict limits of the doctrine are not satisfied, with being friends in with the "establishment" only extends stretching the benefits of positive hindsight a limited additional amount. Many of "the same as every other gun owner out there" have many inappropriate discharges resulting in a vast panoply of legal & moral problems. Then a jogger in the woods should wear bright orange, and shouldn't be jogging away from any tent that might have been violated from the evidence of the approaching and departing person in a jog.

The defendant being a gun expert probably increases the already stringent requirements of the Castle Doctrine being difficult to satisfy, much like any other expert experiencing an adverse event by chance inclusive in their field of expertise (for example, the anesthesiologist "not" knowing Nitrous Oxide Abuse at a party could be deadly, or a "sure shot" making the deadly shot instead of an only incapacitating shot, readily available to any expert marksman). Even having the foresight to know the Castle Doctrine can be construed as evidence of planning a defense for a near future crime (so Joe-Blow expects anyone to believe that by coincidence he studied the Castle Doctrine a couple weeks before the "innocent" fatal encounter?). Besides, a wide assortment of weapons were available, and the fatal one was chosen by the verified expert? So, the person knew that the weapon was to be needed beforehand? A pea-shooter was available, but an elephant gun was used?

Sure a swimming pool is more dangerous than a gun in the house, frequency wise, but look at who's liable for the trespassing body in the pool, even without a more troublesome bullet hole included.

Was the movie version of possible unfortunate events "Dial C for Castle Doctrine" or "Dial M for Murder"? Hear of Phil Spector in his Castle?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14spector.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03 ... ong-inmate

Tadzio

P.S. It's those dastardly "LIBERAL" justices that regard the divine constitution, & ten original, "Living Documents" morphing into modernity (pseudo-Scalia is the one who restricts his use to a 200+ year old dictionary to maintain original non-morphing scope, with bizarre exceptions (like bankruptcy and copyrights for Mickey Mouse and Norths).



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

05 Mar 2012, 6:32 am

Dox47 wrote:
You guys are killing me. Apply your reasoning to the 1st amendment and suddenly the only protected forms of speech are those that were available in the 1700s like newspapers and spoken words, not radio, TV, the net, etc; clearly the Constitution was not meant to be interpreted that way and the courts agree.

Also, you can spare me the argument ad absurdum, "arms" refers to small arms like pistols and rifles, anything larger at the time would have been referred to as "ordnance" and is thus not covered under the amendment.

Also, flamethrowers are legal with a lot of paperwork, and yet I've never heard of one being used in a crime. Go figure.


Fully automatic firearms have as little in common with an oldfashioned musket as a canister of nerve gas. Both modern weapons can be used to kill a large amount of people in a very short time, with remarkably little effort and skill. I don't really see how free speech compares to this. A news speaker on TV isn't all that different from a town crier, it's simply a different medium. And news publications don't kill people.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

05 Mar 2012, 6:43 am

Dox47 wrote:
TM wrote:
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.


What is really needed is for the people who don't know what they're talking (or typing) about to sit on their hands.

Ever hunted? Let's say I hunt a full spectrum of North American game, and discuss the required weaponry. Deer hunting is pretty common, going to need something like a 7mm, .308, 30-30 rifle for that. Duck? Going to need a 12 gauge shotgun, probably pump. Goose? Pencil me in for a 10 gauge, wouldn't want to risk just wounding them with a 12. Turkey? Different 12 gauge, semi-auto 3 1/2 inch chamber with a tight choke, camo paint and a point sight. Upland game? Better get a 28 gauge over/under to hump over those hills. Elk or moose? Start at a .300 WinMag and go up into the .338s. Prairie dogs or other varmits? Going to need a heavy barreled .22-250. Squirrels and rabbits? A nice .22 pistol or carbine. Bear? I'll take a lever gun in .378 or higher, maybe jump to .45-70 if we're talking grizzly. Should I keep going?
...


I admit that I can see the need to own a weapon or two if you live out in the sticks, where you might be faced by a grizzly when you open the door. But I don't see why someone who lives in a metropolitan area should be allowed to own a collection of handguns, assault rifles, grenades and whatnot.

Just out of interest, are you a licensed hunter or forester? Or can anybody in the USA walk into the woods and start shooting wildlife left and right?



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

05 Mar 2012, 7:26 am

Hi Raptor,

YOUR:

Raptor wrote:
I’ll just hit on a few of these. Call it a copout or whatever but I have other things on my to-do list today.....

Tadzio wrote:
Quote:
Where can I find the records verifying your reports of "streets......running red with blood" levels?

The thing about the “streets running red with blood” is an anti-gun crowd expression intended to evoke emotion. Every time some piece of gun control legislation is defeated, an existing gun law rescinded, etc… they say the streets will run red with blood. It doesn’t pan out that way and the anti-gun crowd loses credibility.
Look up the source of all this by yourself. No matter what I find you’ll label it as being from a right wing source and no matter what you find I’ll label it as a left wing source.



DOESN'T FOLLOW FROM YOUR:

Raptor wrote:
:roll: :roll:
My state has had the same castle doctrine policy for a few years now and last time I checked the streets weren't running red with blood.
About the only places where the streets even come close to running red with blood are the states and cities that forbid it's citizens from defending themselves. Go figure.............. :idea:
The handwringers said that after the 1994 assault weapons ban lifted in 2004 that the streets would run red with blood yet eight years later the streets are the same color as before.
Why is this so hard for some to figure out?
:roll: :roll:


This isn't the right wing versus the left wing. It's more about the brains between the wings and just behind the beak. The famous "Polly parrots the command for a cracker, but Polly has no desire for a cracker" scenario.

Anyways, the Castle Doctrine strangely disappears, at least in available previews, in an interesting book also addressing the previous subject of self-cannibalization in your ring being illegal (though the Queen almost pardons), between editions: "CRIMINAL LAW" by Joel Samaha, (2007 versus 2010 editions).

"Castle Doctrine" (2007) pages 151-152, "eating people" pages 158-159, and plenty of "protecting home & property" between:

U.S. v. Peterson, 483 F2d 1222 (2nd Cir. 1973):
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... ed+role%22

"Choice of Evils" in eating (The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)) :
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +overboard

Tadzio

P.S. Are the links successful wherever?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Mar 2012, 8:52 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Fully automatic firearms have as little in common with an oldfashioned musket as a canister of nerve gas.


Really? Two mechanical devices that share the same basic structure, design and mechanism bear only as much resemblance to each other as they do to an engineered organophosphate chemical compound? Well I'm no chemist, but I am a gunsmith, and last I checked I can build a musket or a machinegun pretty readily with machine tools, but organic chemistry is a whole different field requiring an entirely different set of tools and skills.
Now I do have a book on my shelf by one Uncle Fester claiming to contain formulas for most of the known nerve toxins, but I certainly wouldn't try and synthesize them, though the Japanese proved it is possible in the civilian sector.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Both modern weapons can be used to kill a large amount of people in a very short time, with remarkably little effort and skill.


That you can't see the difference tells me a lot about your level of understanding. Gas, explosives, large scale weapons; all of these are indiscriminate weapons of no use for self defense. You couldn't protect yourself with a hand grenade, though it would be handy on the offense, but you certainly can with all manner of firearms. They're generally precise weapons, at least so long as you stay within the small arms category that I'm speaking of.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
I don't really see how free speech compares to this. A news speaker on TV isn't all that different from a town crier, it's simply a different medium. And news publications don't kill people.


Doesn't matter, you don't get to interpret the Constitution one way for one amendment and another way for a different one. If you say "the second amendment was only meant to apply to arms current in 1776", they you have to also say "the first amendment only applies to communications media existing in 1776"; it's called consistency. Personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Mar 2012, 9:00 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Fully automatic firearms have as little in common with an oldfashioned musket as a canister of nerve gas.
.


Firearms have always worked on the principle of exploding gases expanding and pushing a solid pellet down through a barrel at high speed. The only differences have been in explosive power. Modern bullets go faster through rifled barrels.

During the war of 1812 the British used rockets against Ft. Wm. McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. And grenadiers have always used solid containers that shattered when explosives were set off. Things that go Boom have changed only in power and quality, not in the underlying physical principles.

You might have a point with nuclear weapons. There was nothing like them when the Constitution was ordained

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Mar 2012, 9:10 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
I admit that I can see the need to own a weapon or two if you live out in the sticks, where you might be faced by a grizzly when you open the door. But I don't see why someone who lives in a metropolitan area should be allowed to own a collection of handguns, assault rifles, grenades and whatnot.


I think I see the problem. You don't know a whole lot about American law, American culture, guns etc, and yet want to express opinions on same and be taken seriously. I live here, I live with guns, I've been studying them a long time. You're opinion is falling short on multiple levels here, you're just not qualified in knowledge or experience. Thankfully you're in Europe, so I don't have to worry about you voting.

You have no idea of the expense and paperwork someone has to go through if they want to own a grenade or short rifle or an assault rifle; months of background checks and thousands of dollars, and there just aren't that many of them out there. If you're so concerned, why not tell me how many legally owned machineguns or destructive devices have ever been used in crimes in the US? Last I checked, which was several years ago, I could count the incidents on one hand and have fingers left over. That's not per year, that's ever. Intriguingly, machineguns are used in crime much more often in Europe because the penalty is the same regardless of the gun used, and it's just as easy to get an automatic weapon as a semiautomatic due to the proximity of the Eastern bloc.

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Just out of interest, are you a licensed hunter or forester? Or can anybody in the USA walk into the woods and start shooting wildlife left and right?


You do need a hunting license and a game tag to hunt most big game, the smaller stuff varies by area. Prairie dogs, for example, are considered a pest animal and are mostly shot on private property where no permits are required, while deer and elk will almost always require a tag.

I'm not a hunter personally, I'm a trained gunsmith, target shooter and occasional competitive shooter. If you haven't guessed already, guns are my consuming interest and have been for a long time; there aren't many people who know as much as I do about how they work, how they're designed, the legal aspects and impacts and the history of firearms development.
Put another way, I've had this exact same argument dozens of times on many forums and even more times in person, plus plenty of even more esoteric ones concerning design aspects of firearms and why people misunderstand them.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 Mar 2012, 11:33 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Fully automatic firearms have as little in common with an oldfashioned musket as a canister of nerve gas. Both modern weapons can be used to kill a large amount of people in a very short time, with remarkably little effort and skill. I don't really see how free speech compares to this. A news speaker on TV isn't all that different from a town crier, it's simply a different medium. And news publications don't kill people.


Obviously the government and courts agree with you about fully automatic weapons having unique qualities. They started placing restrictions on them during the tommy gun era and that has only increased since. Once the government and courts decide there are limits, the nature of the limits will be up for debate. The NRA is fully aware of that, which is why they remain in a perpetual lather.

Dox47 wrote:
If you're so concerned, why not tell me how many legally owned machineguns or destructive devices have ever been used in crimes in the US? Last I checked, which was several years ago, I could count the incidents on one hand and have fingers left over. That's not per year, that's ever. Intriguingly, machineguns are used in crime much more often in Europe because the penalty is the same regardless of the gun used, and it's just as easy to get an automatic weapon as a semiautomatic due to the proximity of the Eastern bloc.


I guess that depends on how the gangsters of the 20s and 30s aquired their Thompons. They were legal to buy and not regulated until 1934, specifically because gangsters liked them and used them. If legally aquired, I'm pretty sure they used them more than five times. But if you just mean since the layers of regulation and registration were added, well, it sounds like the regulations that have driven civilian fully automatic weapons to extreme rarity might have worked.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

05 Mar 2012, 1:44 pm

I've wavered on this subject for some time, but honestly I really think guns shouldn't be legal anywhere.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

05 Mar 2012, 2:00 pm

I think Jacoby has it right. There's such a thing as a judge and jury, just as with anything that has this much bredth of interpretation there's the 'reasonable person' caveat; ie. would a reasonable person have felt threatened? If the answer to that question is 'no' then they won't go too far with that.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Mar 2012, 8:45 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:
I guess that depends on how the gangsters of the 20s and 30s aquired their Thompons. They were legal to buy and not regulated until 1934, specifically because gangsters liked them and used them. If legally aquired, I'm pretty sure they used them more than five times. But if you just mean since the layers of regulation and registration were added, well, it sounds like the regulations that have driven civilian fully automatic weapons to extreme rarity might have worked.


Supposedly Sears sold them and you could mail order one (or however many) up until the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 took effect. It doesn’t matter what they acquired or how they acquired them, though. It’s what they did with them (shooting people) that should be the crime.
When you see a really obese person do you automatically blame forks and spoons? Why not? That’s what they used to get fat with for the most part. Look how many people die from the health related side effects of obesity. That argument makes about as much sense as this gun fearing thing.

I wouldn’t really need a sub-machinegun to kill off several people. As riflemen go, I consider myself only fair to maybe good on a good day. Give me a concealed vantage point over a high pedestrian traffic area and my old pre-WW1 Swedish Mauser (a 6.5mm five shot bolt action rifle with open sights) and I can hit people out to 300+ yards all day as long as they present themselves. That would go on until I ran out of ammo or the cops finally manned up and stopped me.

The lesson there is that the weapon is only as dangerous as the user. Give a street creep a sub-machinegun with a 30 round mag and I doubt he’d hit but a few people with fatal or disabling hits and probably half of those 30 rounds would miss entirely due to lack of control and generally poor tactics.

This whole topic is really moot, anyway. The trend in the U.S. is and has been favorable to the passage of carry laws enabling citizens the means to protect themselves against society’s predators. That’s the direction we’ve been going in since the 80’s so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to turn any time soon.
I assure you it wouldn’t be going in this direction if the harmful effects outweighed or where even significant compared to the benefits.

If you look at the live map below it shows the progress to be mostly all shall issue states by now. Only Illinois will not issue a permit but that will mostly likely change in time.




CCW map of the United States



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 Mar 2012, 9:57 pm

Your point has nothing to do with my quote, which was dealing with a claim made by Dox suggesting that the number of kills with legal automatic weapons could be counted on one hand. If those were legal purchases and not a result of smuggling, and I have no way of knowing, then the number would be above five. Unless he meant since the regulations were imposed.

But I'm pretty happy with automatic weapons being extremely rare. I think it's a good trend. Inevitably gun owners will continue to make mistakes or lose it. At some point there will be another opportunity to tighten some regulations.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Mar 2012, 10:34 pm

simon_says wrote:
Your point has nothing to do with my quote, which was dealing with a claim made by Dox suggesting that the number of kills with legal automatic weapons could be counted on one hand. If those were legal purchases and not a result of smuggling, and I have no way of knowing, then the number would be above five. Unless he meant since the regulations were imposed.


My reply pretty much pointed out that your quote has no point. You haven't made a point in this whole thread. Why not just repeat "Gunz-r-bad" over and over because that's pretty much the gist of all you, CrazyCatLord, and a few others have said.....
:roll:



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 Mar 2012, 10:37 pm

Raptor wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Your point has nothing to do with my quote, which was dealing with a claim made by Dox suggesting that the number of kills with legal automatic weapons could be counted on one hand. If those were legal purchases and not a result of smuggling, and I have no way of knowing, then the number would be above five. Unless he meant since the regulations were imposed.


My reply pretty much pointed out that your quote has no point. You haven't made a point in this whole thread. Why not just repeat "Gunz-r-bad" over and over because that's pretty much the gist of all you, CrazyCatLord, and a few others have said.....
:roll:


Ah, well, you couldnt possibly think less of me than I do of you. Have a nice day bubba.