The Political Party

[mauser]

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

.

[willhaven]

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

---

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

[quickie1]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

---

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

Don't state facts to them....It only confuses them more.

[Zooey]

---

quickie1 wrote:.

Since the law was enacted, the ban has proven remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since 1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.

---

In the period from 1994 to present, the federal assault weapons ban has been expired for almost as long as it has been in effect. 

[Telecruiser]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

---

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

Maybe he should have practiced more.

[fretmess]

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

.

---

20 mph in a School Zone is an arbitrary number is it not?  Why not 80 mph or no limit at all?

[flagbasher]

---

Telecruiser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

---

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

Maybe he should have practiced more.

---

Maybe he should have been limited to 10 or fewer rounds instead of the 33 he had. Maybe, instead of 6 dead, it would have been only 2.

[mauser]

---

willhaven wrote:

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

That doesn't make the number any less arbitrary and dumb.

[willhaven]

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

That doesn't make the number any less arbitrary and dumb.

---

Arbitrary, sure. Dumb, no.

See dude above.

[mauser]

---

quickie1 wrote:

Don't state facts to them....It only confuses them more.

---

Nothing confusing about it.  He was tackled when he reloaded.  He could've been tackled when he reloaded if the capacity was twice what it is now, or half what is being called for.

The number is arbitrary, pointless, and dumb.  If 7 is safe, why not 6?  How about 1?

You folks pull numbers out of your **bleep** like it's scripture, and you believe you have the problem solved.    Ahh yes...7 rounds instead of 10....now we're safe. 

Really?  LOL

[nedezero1]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

willhaven wrote:

Banning assault weapons based on how they look is dumb. Limiting clip size has at least one recent clear instance where it could have saved lives.

---

Limiting magazine capacity based upon arbitrary numbers isn't dumb?

---

Jared Lee Loughner was tackled when he reloaded.

---

This one guy, did this thing once, and so we should base law on it....'cuz it happened once.

[willhaven]

---

mauser wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

Don't state facts to them....It only confuses them more.

---

Nothing confusing about it.  He was tackled when he reloaded.  He could've been tackled when he reloaded if the capacity was twice what it is now, or half what is being called for.

The number is arbitrary, pointless, and dumb.  If 7 is safe, why not 6?  How about 1?

You folks pull numbers out of your **bleep** like it's scripture, and you believe you have the problem solved.    Ahh yes...7 rounds instead of 10....now we're safe. 

Really?  LOL

---

Okay. How about 1?

How many people do you think Loughner could have killed with a 1 round magazine before he had to reload?

Would that have made those in Tucson safer?

[dblazer]

Trying to reduce the rate of fire by limiting magazines is like trying to get drunk drivers to be safe in society by putting them in smaller or slower cars. A stupid, ineffective means of accomplishing the goal, which is to get them to NOT DRINK when they're going to be driving.

The goal of gun control measures should be to get people who want to shoot up a crowd of strangers to not want to shoot them.

[mauser]

---

fretmess wrote:

20 mph in a School Zone is an arbitrary number is it not?  Why not 80 mph or no limit at all?

---

How about 19?  Or 1?

[moonlightin]

---

erok123 wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Quickie: our liberties shouldn't be based upon "stats".

---

Aren't you the one that said the constitution gives you the "right" to kill?

---

Did I miss the word 'kill' in the constitution?

[mauser]

---

willhaven wrote:

Arbitrary, sure. Dumb, no.

See dude above.

---

Dude above has been seen.

And?

It's still arbitrary and dumb.

[moonlightin]

---

mauser wrote:
Quickie: You see...the purpose of law is to protect our rights....not infringe upon them.

---

And what laws would be infringed upon?

[TIMKEYS]

How about the guy who is being attacked and is  defending himself and ends up getting getting killed because he has to reload?    Liberals are more concerned about the safety of criminals and murderers than they are the people who are being attacked.   Hell MSNBC , devotes tons of programming to convince people that being in jail is part of main stream society.  They glorify it to make it seem normal. 

[mauser]

---

willhaven wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

quickie1 wrote:

Don't state facts to them....It only confuses them more.

---

Nothing confusing about it.  He was tackled when he reloaded.  He could've been tackled when he reloaded if the capacity was twice what it is now, or half what is being called for.

The number is arbitrary, pointless, and dumb.  If 7 is safe, why not 6?  How about 1?

You folks pull numbers out of your **bleep** like it's scripture, and you believe you have the problem solved.    Ahh yes...7 rounds instead of 10....now we're safe. 

Really?  LOL

---

Okay. How about 1?

How many people do you think Loughner could have killed with a 1 round magazine before he had to reload?

Would that have made those in Tucson safer?

Don't stop...go to zero.

Because that's where we're heading.  7 will be found to still be unsafe...so 5 will be next.

Nope....5 is still unsafe.  3.  Well....maybe 1.

Okay guys....sorry.  You can't have magazines that actually hold any rounds at all.

And you wonder why we oppose this sort of thing.

---

[moonlightin]

---

TIMKEYS wrote:

How about the guy who is being attacked and is  defending himself and ends up getting getting killed because he has to reload?    Liberals are more concerned about the safety of criminals and murderers than they are the people who are being attacked.   Hell MSNBC , devotes tons of programming to convince people that being in jail is part of main stream society.  They glorify it to make it seem normal. 

---

Your post is contrary to what I see in this thread alone. You making assumptions = making an **bleep** out of yourself.