Why do citizens need a 30 round mag?

[Shockwave]

haven't we been over this before

if it's All or Nothing then anyone who wants it should be allowed heavy artillery, rocket launchers, drones, nuclear weapons etc..

Are you fine with letting anyone have a shoulder mounted rocket launcher

Sure, it may get in the hands of some crazy person and they can shoot down an airplane but that's just the price of freedom right?

Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.

[tu_holmes]

Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.

Thank you!

Someone gets it.

[Straw Man]

Technically not firearms. Those are explosives.

where does The Constitution say FIRE ARMS

they had explosives back then too

[tu_holmes]

where does The Constitution say FIRE ARMS

they had explosives back then too

They say ARMS... ARMS... ARMS!!!

No one ever calls them explosive arms...

[tonymctones]

and they were referred to as explosives, guns are what was being referred to as arms....

ever heard the military term "shoulder arms"

they werent talking about cannons...

[tonymctones]

so straw do you support a ban of semi automatic rifles, specifically the AR-15?

[Straw Man]

They say ARMS... ARMS... ARMS!!!

No one ever calls them explosive arms...

ARMS = armaments which is exactly what a well regulated militia would need

[tonymctones]

ARMS = armaments which is exactly what a well regulated militia would need

so when the military says in drill commands to "right shoulder arms", "left shoulder arms" and they are specifically referring to rifles....

 

[Straw Man]

so when the military says in drill commands to "right shoulder arms", "left shoulder arms" and they are specifically referring to rifles....

The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction

It just says Arms

[tonymctones]

The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction

It just says Arms

agreed, either way doesnt matter technically we have the right to own explosives, cannons, grenades etc. you just have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops.

back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?

[tu_holmes]

The Constitution doesn't make any such distinction

It just says Arms

Who care if they are not anyway? Let's say it makes ZERO distinction... Either way... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Apparently that part escapes people.

[Straw Man]

Who care if they are not anyway? Let's say it makes ZERO distinction... Either way... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Apparently that part escapes people.

so again then, any weapon (arm) should be available to anyone (assuming not a convicted felon, mental patient, etc...)

correct ?

[tu_holmes]

so again then, any weapon (arm) should be available to anyone (assuming not a convicted felon, mental patient, etc...)

correct ?

My belief on it is as I've said very conflicted... While I would not exactly say "yes", I would err to that side much more than to ban any weapon... I always lean toward liberty over tyranny.

Since you keep asking the question, then I simply ask you... What do YOU believe should be banned?

You keep asking everyone else, but I've yet to see you take a firm stand... I've seen you say rifles, then I've seen you see that more handguns cause deaths, so then you are ok with me keeping my semi-auto rifle or my assault rifle and giving up my 9MM?

You tell me what YOU think should be banned?

Only large clips? I mean, I can have 50 small mags and that will work as well as 10 large ones... and yes, you can carry that many... I've seen it done.

[tonymctones]

agreed, either way doesnt matter technically we have the right to own explosives, cannons, grenades etc. you just have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops.

back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?

please quit dodging my question straw

[tu_holmes]

please quit dodging my question straw

Why answer it? It causes a loop... he says yes, and we mention hammers kill more... then he says, well, I'll take the handguns, to which you say, well, why handguns now? 3 months ago they weren't a problem... Nor do the legislature say they are a problem... Even though they do all of the killing... Which then starts the fine... handguns... So you say, then I can keep my rifles because they aren't killing all of the people.

...and you see how this goes.

[tonymctones]

Why answer it? It causes a loop... he says yes, and we mention hammers kill more... then he says, well, I'll take the handguns, to which you say, well, why handguns now? 3 months ago they weren't a problem... Nor do the legislature say they are a problem... Even though they do all of the killing... Which then starts the fine... handguns... So you say, then I can keep my rifles because they aren't killing all of the people.

...and you see how this goes.

well I have a figure he isnt answering it b/c he doesnt want to pin down his position to much but Im not doing it to trap him.

Im geniuenly curious to what extent he feels gun control should be allowed.

I dont care about the hammers, I think it highlights the emotionally retarded pygmy of an argument that ppl who feel banning semi automatic rifles have though.

I really am curious to what extent straw feels gun control is ok.

[tonymctones]

back to my question, would you support a ban on semi automatic rifles specifically the AR-15?

come on straw your posting in other threads, why not answer this question...