At least 14 dead in shooting at Batman opening.

[snwbrdr435]

+1 TMS

[bigbadberry3]

. If you are not harming others and at worst only harming yourself you should not be barred from doing anything you want to do.

Your argument is so well written that it makes perfect sense. Except that guns are intended to destroy and harm. A 100 round magazine is needless. This massacre. QED.

[themadscientist]

You are applying intent to an inanimate object. A gun is a tool. In the hands of this guy it was a terrible thing. In the hands of this guy it was something to be celebrated.
http://www.kmbc.com/Police-Woman-Kills- ... index.html

You again lean on need. Any of the items I mentioned could not be successfully defended against a need-based measurement and are thus susceptible to being taken from you as well.

[bigbadberry3]

Why allow a 100 round magazine? Please explain.

EDIT: Some "tools" are banned. Just a thought.

[themadscientist]

I have already explained it. You and I are coming from different schools of thought. I believe things should not be regulated that are only harmful with the help of a person. In that I do not have to demonstrate need as that is your construct. You think need must be proven.

I invite you to defend the other items I listed based upon your own need-based criteria.

[themadscientist]

Ok, let me.

Alright, let’s apply the aforementioned filters of “need” and “how many people have to die?” to a few of the examples I mentioned.

I think we all know sodas and fast food are just useless crap. Again, we don’t “need” them so metric one is met and we also know that poor nutrition leads to obesity and death so metric number two is met. No worries though, government will step in to save you from yourself.
http://foresthills.patch.com/articles/p ... s-69acda85

Is Queens about to be restricted to little sodas?
If Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, that's what's coming next to your favorite five-borough restaurant, movie theater or street vendor.
The mayor plans to eliminate the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces in each of those places in an "ambitious" effort to combat obesity, The New York Times reported today.

We have adequate genetically-altered food production so that nobody in this country except survivalist kooks “needs” to grow their own food. Giant factory farms have saved us from that drudgery. Thank you Monsanto for destroying original species crops and pushing your Barry Bonds superwheat down our throats! In fact, some people have actually died from privately-grown food. That cannot stand! No worries, here comes our buddies to protect us from those subversive turnips!
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/quail-hol ... dinner.htm

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2012 ... 241889.txt

NEW HAVEN — Police arrested an alleged street racer from Seymour this week after interrupting about 100 tricked-out cars in the Sargent and Long Wharf drives area.
Officer Matt Abbate responded to a complaint about racing early Thursday and reported up to 100 “tricked out whips” poised for racing.
According to Hartman, “this illegal activity has in past years resulted in accidents, injuries to both civilians, officers and troopers, and even fatalities.”

These cars are being raced. This implies that they must have reasonably high power figures. We all know that nobody “needs” to go more than the posted speed limit which is no higher than 65MPH as far as I know so we need to immediately ensure cars are not powerful enough to exceed that as it breaks the “need” threshold.

Now, people are dying so we have to put a stop to that and we all know the only way to do that is to attack the tool not the tool behind the tool. I expect you two to be the first to donate your cars to be crushed and receive your voucher for the purchase of a 50hp car.

Wait! since we really only need that small power figure and many of us only go for short trips let’s ban gas-powered cars altogether and even better we will make people justify the car they have. In some locations public transportation is adequate and owning a car at all a needless extravagance.

[bigbadberry3]

Need? That's a dangerous mode of thinking. Let's explore it for a moment.

Who "needs" a cigarette?
Who "needs" a beer?
Who "needs" a Big Mac?
Who "needs" sugary soda?
Who "needs" more food choices and portion sizes?
Who "needs" to grow their own food?
Who "needs" more land than they can use at one time?
Who "needs" a gas-guzzling car?
Who "needs" a gas-powered car?
Who "needs" more than one car?

1) A deranged person with a cigarette will not kill me
2) A deranged person with a beer will not kill me
3) A deranged person with a big mac will not kill me
4) A deranged person with a sugary soda will not kill me
Got bored.
A deranged person with a vehicle may kill me I'll give you that one.

A deranged person with a 100 round magazine just killed 12 people. It is now a fact that 12 people were killed.

Please name something used daily that is not used with the help of a person seeing how you believe things should not be regulated that are only harmful with the help of a person. Great logic here. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it is right.

Please explain why 100 round magazine is something that is logical.

[snwbrdr435]

How are those gun laws in chicago working out

[bigbadberry3]

Ok, let me.

Alright, let’s apply the aforementioned filters of “need” and “how many people have to die?” to a few of the examples I mentioned.

I think we all know sodas and fast food are just useless crap. Again, we don’t “need” them so metric one is met and we also know that poor nutrition leads to obesity and death so metric number two is met. No worries though, government will step in to save you from yourself.
http://foresthills.patch.com/articles/p ... s-69acda85

Is Queens about to be restricted to little sodas?
If Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, that's what's coming next to your favorite five-borough restaurant, movie theater or street vendor.
The mayor plans to eliminate the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 fluid ounces in each of those places in an "ambitious" effort to combat obesity, The New York Times reported today.

Your attempt to drum up a fear for a nanny state of the universe has just saved me 11$ instead of going to see TED.

We have adeq....

Your attempt to create a sense of fear of a nanny state universe has saved me 11$ by not going to see TED.

Justify a 100 magazine round.

[bigbadberry3]

How are those gun laws in chicago working out

Maybe not well in Chicago but please go look at other countries who have strict gun laws such as the UK.

[themadscientist]

1) A deranged person with a cigarette will not kill me

Second hand smoke, next?

2) A deranged person with a beer will not kill me

Drunk driver, next?

3) A deranged person with a big mac will not kill me

You are killing yourself and your kids, next?

4) A deranged person with a sugary soda will not kill me

Same thing, we can't have you hurt yourself with things you don't "need."

Got bored.

It happens when things you don't need get taken away.

A deranged person with a vehicle may kill me I'll give you that one.

He's probably drunk and racing.

A deranged person with a 100 round magazine just killed 12 people. It is now a fact that 12 people were killed.

He could have shot that many people with the Glock and it doesn't have a mag that large.

Please name something used daily that is not used with the help of a person seeing how you believe things should not be regulated that are only harmful with the help of a person.

You are starting to get it now.

Great logic here. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it is right.

EXACTLY! You have the right to own a firearm, you do not have the right to walk into a theatre and shoot people. You are damming the mindless tool, I am, correctly, damming the mindless tool holding the mindless tool.

Please explain why 100 round magazine is something that is logical.

It exists. Are you arguing that this object defies some fundamental law of physics? You are coming back to need-based and as I have already explained, that is not a model I believe in. You need to defend your car, your big mac, your beer etc better because by your own standard you have no right to them.

[themadscientist]

How are those gun laws in chicago working out

Maybe not well in Chicago but please go look at other countries who have strict gun laws such as the UK.

Yeah, I would say "not well."
http://www.bet.com/news/health/2012/02/ ... e-u-s.html

Worldwide murder rates look like this.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

5.22 to 1.57

[bigbadberry3]

1) A deranged person with a cigarette will not kill me

Second hand smoke, next?

2) A deranged person with a beer will not kill me

Drunk driver, next?

3) A deranged person with a big mac will not kill me

You are killing yourself and your kids, next?

4) A deranged person with a sugary soda will not kill me

Same thing, we can't have you hurt yourself with things you don't "need."

Got bored.

It happens when things you don't need get taken away.

A deranged person with a vehicle may kill me I'll give you that one.

He's probably drunk and racing.

A deranged person with a 100 round magazine just killed 12 people. It is now a fact that 12 people were killed.

He could have shot that many people with the Glock and it doesn't have a mag that large.

Please name something used daily that is not used with the help of a person seeing how you believe things should not be regulated that are only harmful with the help of a person.

You are starting to get it now.

Great logic here. Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it is right.

EXACTLY! You have the right to own a firearm, you do not have the right to walk into a theatre and shoot people. You are damming the mindless tool, I am, correctly, damming the mindless tool holding the mindless tool.

Please explain why 100 round magazine is something that is logical.

It exists. Are you arguing that this object defies some fundamental law of physics? You are coming back to need-based and as I have already explained, that is not a model I believe in. You need to defend your car, your big mac, your beer etc better because by your own standard you have no right to them.

1) I can walk away from a smoker
2) I took this to be as an actual beer can see point of driving below so see #1
3) I don't eat unhealthy
4) See #3

Like I said a drunk person with a vehicle may kill me. Good thing I got my Sherman in the garage. WAIT IT'S NOT LEGAL!?!?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?! LAWYEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR?!!?!

Did you skip over the 60 people wounded part? Quick youtube clip shows how fast a 100 rounds can go off on a semi automatic AR15. Remind you AR is an ATTACK rifle, not a defend rifle. He shot for a total of less than 2 minutes.

I am condemning both the tool (100 round clip), and the tool holder.

Why provide an option of a 100 round magazine? Why must it exist? Because. That's all your saying, just because.

[audtatious]

1) A deranged person with a cigarette will not kill me
2) A deranged person with a beer will not kill me
3) A deranged person with a big mac will not kill me
4) A deranged person with a sugary soda will not kill me
Got bored.
A deranged person with a vehicle may kill me I'll give you that one.

They can kill you with a rock, must outlaw rocks. They can kill you with a stick, must outlaw sticks. They can kill you with a baseball bat, must regulate

[bigbadberry3]

5.22 to 1.57

That is a sweet chart. Also I do want to thank you for taking the time to multi quote.

Unfortunately it is too late for Chicago to model itself after the UK

[bigbadberry3]

1) A deranged person with a cigarette will not kill me
2) A deranged person with a beer will not kill me
3) A deranged person with a big mac will not kill me
4) A deranged person with a sugary soda will not kill me
Got bored.
A deranged person with a vehicle may kill me I'll give you that one.

They can kill you with a rock, must outlaw rocks. They can kill you with a stick, must outlaw sticks. They can kill you with a baseball bat, must regulate

An angry ant could kill me if it wanted to. Stop trying to infuse a nanny state.

Edit: Didn't see you had arrived

[alms24sebring]

I see the point but if you buy a gun, you are mentally aware that a gun is only used for in situations of life and death, or killing to be blunt. It has no other task but to kill.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY[/youtube]

And was I really implying that its not ok for everyone and anyone to get a gun so simply. Some people mean to do harm and buy 100 round mags and body armor for more than the novelty of having it. A 15 year old could buy an AK47 on some forum if he had the money and desire to do so. Its f***ed up if you ask me. The more I hear about this crap the more I hate it and the fact is nothing is happening. Why do more people 'need' to die to impose a law. The average traveler only 'needs' to drive. The street racer that actually plans to go fast, 'needs' more power. If your planning a surprise multi-kill attack because your a sick angry at the world f***head, you need more than 1 gun and wearing armor to really make an impressive impact on society.

This isnt about need. Its just sad that it keeps happening, sometimes closer to home.

[audtatious]

An angry ant could kill me if it wanted to. Stop trying to infuse a nanny state.

Edit: Didn't see you had arrived

I arrive in style!!!!!

Some feel starting with guns is nanny state

[bigbadberry3]

Some feel starting with guns is nanny state

I agree with that.

Can someone chime in with why automatic weapons are prohibited? Nvm did a search. Why are they so regulated?

[themadscientist]

1) I can walk away from a smoker

Irrelevant. Your criteria is need and death.

2) I took this to be as an actual beer can see point of driving below so see #1

It can be. Think of all the dangerous things people do that usually hurt or kill others when they are drunk. You don't need it, it kills, it's gone by your own rules.

3) I don't eat unhealthy

Isn't it nice to have the choice to do that?

4) See #3
Like I said a drunk person with a vehicle may kill me. Good thing I got my Sherman in the garage. WAIT IT'S NOT LEGAL!?!?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?! LAWYEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR?!!?!

You don't need that, remember? I do believe you can own a tank. I don't think you can have a live gun or drive it on the roads, though. unless, of course, you are James Garner.

Did you skip over the 60 people wounded part? Quick youtube clip shows how fast a 100 rounds can go off on a semi automatic AR15. Remind you AR is an ATTACK rifle, not a defend rifle. He shot for a total of less than 2 minutes.

I think the overemotional buzzword you were looking for is "Assault Rifle." You are again applying personality to a tool. I had a turbo timer in my car, but I had no turbo. Is it still a "turbo" timer? That same weapon fired at a person breaking into your home with ill-intent still an "attack" tool? It's being used for defense. Wait, that's right, they don't fire when used for that purpose.

I am condemning both the tool (100 round clip), and the tool holder.

Why provide an option of a 100 round magazine? Why must it exist? Because. That's all your saying, just because.

You can condemn them all you want and I am glad you have that right. You DO NOT have the right to deny me the right to the responsible ownership and hopefully never have to, but if I must use of the same to protect myself. That's that second thing.

As far as why must it exist, i will be happy to hear your arguments for why any of those other things MUST exist. They don't. They do. I am ok with that, you want to parse your outrage. You must choose, keep your cake or eat it. Otherwise your argument is not logical as it cannot be demonstrated to apply in all cases.

[audtatious]

I would love to hear why 50-cal is illegal in Cali. It's not like people are really killed with it. Criminals like cheap ammo.

[themadscientist]

Can someone chime in with why automatic weapons are prohibited? Nvm did a search. Why are they so regulated?

Dianne Feinstein Take notice, magazine inserted, finger on the trigger. Not at all responsible behavior. I'm glad she doesn't own a gun.


They are not completely prohibited. They require additional steps and reporting criteria to own.

[bigbadberry3]

1) I can walk away from a smoker

Irrelevant. Your criteria is need and death.

2) I took this to be as an actual beer can see point of driving below so see #1

It can be. Think of all the dangerous things people do that usually hurt or kill others when they are drunk. You don't need it, it kills, it's gone by your own rules.

3) I don't eat unhealthy

Isn't it nice to have the choice to do that?

4) See #3
Like I said a drunk person with a vehicle may kill me. Good thing I got my Sherman in the garage. WAIT IT'S NOT LEGAL!?!?! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?!?! LAWYEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR?!!?!

You don't need that, remember? I do believe you can own a tank. I don't think you can have a live gun or drive it on the roads, though. unless, of course, you are James Garner.

Did you skip over the 60 people wounded part? Quick youtube clip shows how fast a 100 rounds can go off on a semi automatic AR15. Remind you AR is an ATTACK rifle, not a defend rifle. He shot for a total of less than 2 minutes.

I think the overemotional buzzword you were looking for is "Assault Rifle." You are again applying personality to a tool. I had a turbo timer in my car, but I had no turbo. Is it still a "turbo" timer? That same weapon fired at a person breaking into your home with ill-intent still an "attack" tool? It's being used for defense. Wait, that's right, they don't fire when used for that purpose.

I am condemning both the tool (100 round clip), and the tool holder.

Why provide an option of a 100 round magazine? Why must it exist? Because. That's all your saying, just because.

You can condemn them all you want and I am glad you have that right. You DO NOT have the right to deny me the right to the responsible ownership and hopefully never have to, but if I must use of the same to protect myself. That's that second thing.

As far as why must it exist, i will be happy to hear your arguments for why any of those other things MUST exist. They don't. They do. I am ok with that, you want to parse your outrage. You must choose, keep your cake or eat it. Otherwise your argument is not logical as it cannot be demonstrated to apply in all cases.

1) Need and death is my criteria? Opportunity more likely. And I see your point as irrelevant.

2) Have you bothered to read where I actually address your drunk driving point. But I'll continue in your character and dismiss your argument as invalid.

3) Oh it's nice to have a choice. But I am thankful that my choice does not have a chance to KILL the person who doesn't eat healthy.

4) You can own a tank and even decommissioned fighters as long as they have had weapons neutralized.

5) You ricer with a turbo timer and no turbo

6)Assault rifle was used to emotionalize a tool that can fire 100's of life ending projectiles in seconds. Go to Aurora CO and see if I am really emotionalizing the bullets/sec part of that statement.

7) So me protecting myself from you is the ultimate game of one ups man ships in terms of weaponry because if you have a right and I have a right to protect myself....That sounds brilliant. I think the US and Russia (maybe China) have one of these too.

A 100 round clip is unnecessary. So is an atomic bomb for self defense but why can't I have one if I am going to use it in self defense.... Promise I'll be responsible with it.

[themadscientist]

1) Need and death is my criteria? Opportunity more likely. And I see your point as irrelevant.

Yes, you started with those criteria and have stuck with them throughout. So now you add opportunity to the list? Wow, we have to outlaw being anywhere near each other as any manner of dangerous things are possible when an unarmed person has "opportunity."

2) Have you bothered to read where I actually address your drunk driving point. But I'll continue in your character and dismiss your argument as invalid.

I read it and refuted it. Have you read it?

3) Oh it's nice to have a choice. But I am thankful that my choice does not have a chance to KILL the person who doesn't eat healthy.

Sure you could. There is a knife right there on your table.

4) You can own a tank and even decommissioned fighters as long as they have had weapons neutralized.

Having been a military mech I can't image paying for those repairs out of my own pocket!

5) You ricer with a turbo timer and no turbo

Hey! Yeah, well. You're mean....

6)Assault rifle was used to emotionalize a tool that can fire 100's of life ending projectiles in seconds. Go to Aurora CO and see if I am really emotionalizing the bullets/sec part of that statement.

Argument to emotion is the weakest and arguably does not qualify as a legitimate debate tool. Does it sway some, sure. Does that mean it's valid, no.

7) So me protecting myself from you is the ultimate game of one ups man ships in terms of weaponry because if you have a right and I have a right to protect myself....That sounds brilliant. I think the US and Russia (maybe China) have one of these too.

Protecting yourself is a daily game of one-upsmanship. Ownership of firearms is just a microcosm of society at large. If there are no guns you use a knife. No knives use a brick. This fantasy where the mere existence of a weapon, any weapon somehow contributes to violence is is specious. There will always be people that want to hurt other people. Many of them will be deterred by the remote possibility that the "mark" might fight back. That can take many forms, but concealed carry laws are one manifestation and crime rates drop soon after. It has been demonstrated time and time again. Similarly, draconian gun control laws that bar regular people from a tool of self-defense, leaving only criminals who do not care about laws (who'da thunk it) have been shown to simply increase crime. Chicago and Washington D.C. are prime examples. You ever drive through Southeast at night? Scared of getting jacked? You think those people are law-abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights or are they, instead, scum that will use any means at their disposal to take from you, hurt you, kill you or make you install a turbo timer in a non-turbo car?

Expanding on this, competition is the very essence of society. You want that job, you get the education and write that good resume that beats all those other applicants.

You want another person to love you you make sure you are as attractive as you can be. You want to keep that person you stay on your game.

You want to make sure to address threats to yourself and your loved ones you manage risks. You wear seatbelts and helmets, you eat good and exercise, and you take a serious look at your personal security and adjust your behaviors and preparedness.

A 100 round clip is unnecessary. So is an atomic b0mb for self defense but why can't I have one if I am going to use it in self defense.... Promise I'll be responsible with it.

I don't think Galco makes a holster for that. I think a MERV on your hip would print and scare the antinuke folks and you would be charged with brandishing.

[bigbadberry3]

1) Need and death is my criteria? Opportunity more likely. And I see your point as irrelevant.

Yes, you started with those criteria and have stuck with them throughout. So now you add opportunity to the list? Wow, we have to outlaw being anywhere near each other as any manner of dangerous things are possible when an unarmed person has "opportunity."

2) Have you bothered to read where I actually address your drunk driving point. But I'll continue in your character and dismiss your argument as invalid.

I read it and refuted it. Have you read it?

3) Oh it's nice to have a choice. But I am thankful that my choice does not have a chance to KILL the person who doesn't eat healthy.

Sure you could. There is a knife right there on your table.

4) You can own a tank and even decommissioned fighters as long as they have had weapons neutralized.

Having been a military mech I can't image paying for those repairs out of my own pocket!

5) You ricer with a turbo timer and no turbo

Hey! Yeah, well. You're mean....

6)Assault rifle was used to emotionalize a tool that can fire 100's of life ending projectiles in seconds. Go to Aurora CO and see if I am really emotionalizing the bullets/sec part of that statement.

Argument to emotion is the weakest and arguably does not qualify as a legitimate debate tool. Does it sway some, sure. Does that mean it's valid, no.

7) So me protecting myself from you is the ultimate game of one ups man ships in terms of weaponry because if you have a right and I have a right to protect myself....That sounds brilliant. I think the US and Russia (maybe China) have one of these too.

Protecting yourself is a daily game of one-upsmanship. Ownership of firearms is just a microcosm of society at large. If there are no guns you use a knife. No knives use a brick. This fantasy where the mere existence of a weapon, any weapon somehow contributes to violence is is specious. There will always be people that want to hurt other people. Many of them will be deterred by the remote possibility that the "mark" might fight back. That can take many forms, but concealed carry laws are one manifestation and crime rates drop soon after. It has been demonstrated time and time again. Similarly, draconian gun control laws that bar regular people from a tool of self-defense, leaving only criminals who do not care about laws (who'da thunk it) have been shown to simply increase crime. Chicago and Washington D.C. are prime examples. You ever drive through Southeast at night? Scared of getting jacked? You think those people are law-abiding citizens exercising their second amendment rights or are they, instead, scum that will use any means at their disposal to take from you, hurt you, kill you or make you install a turbo timer in a non-turbo car?

A 100 round clip is unnecessary. So is an atomic b0mb for self defense but why can't I have one if I am going to use it in self defense.... Promise I'll be responsible with it.

I don't think Galco makes a holster for that. I think a MERV on your hip would print and scare the antinuke folks and you would be charged with brandishing.

1) I said need once at the beginning but since then my wording has not said need so please go back and reread those arguments without placing the word need in where it did not exist before.

2) Try and put your argument where the argument is. If I am going to talk about beer cans and you want to go off on a drunk driver tangent, I'll continue to ignore and dismiss it.

3) Again, my actions or non actions are not directly killing someone.

4) I think they would ride rough as you ran everyone over?

5) I don't even have a car I would try and put a turbo timer in

6) What fires more bullets/min? AR15 with 100 round magazine or your standard glock? Please rise above the argument that I can reload at such and such rate because a comparable argument can be made for either gun making the reload argument null.

7) If one upsmanship is soooooooooo bad, why is there no king to rule them all? Must I remind you of other countries with strict gun enforcement laws and their gun homicide per capita? http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

Here's a quick fact check about your proportional link between concealed weapons and crime. Make sure to read it entirely.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapito ... /11204311/

So all I can pick up on from what you've said is that a 100 round magazine is that it is your inalienable right? There is no tangible justification for possessing a tool that is designed to kill things as efficiently as possible?

PS: Nukes are really small now lol :/

[themadscientist]

Got something better than Department of Justice and FBI stats? They agree with me.

http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/c ... fe-savers/

So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this "knee jerk" reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.

Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

Regarding the beer, you don't need it. You can't have it. Whether you are a responsible beer drinker or not is irrelevant. Some people do bad things both in a car or driving a pair of sneakers with it so it has to go. This is the argument you are making for guns. I own quite a few guns. I've never harmed someone with any of them, but by your standard that is to be irrelevant because some people use them for ill.

When did I say one-upsmanship was bad? I'm quite successful in competition with other humans. That's not an accident. That is the result of careful consideration and planning.

You have still not offered justification for any of the other things. You just gloss over that. I would remind you that your big mac is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

As you are the only one that feels that need is a basis for the possession of an item, I feel no need to justify anything to you. It's your skewed theory, not mine.

Small nukes? What self-respecting NNA member would leave the house with anything less than the biggest nuke possible?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE[/youtube]

[bigbadberry3]

Got something better than Department of Justice and FBI stats? They agree with me.

http://www.humanevents.com/2009/01/26/c ... fe-savers/

So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this "knee jerk" reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.

Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

Regarding the beer, you don't need it. You can't have it. Whether you are a responsible beer drinker or not is irrelevant. Some people do bad things both in a car or driving a pair of sneakers with it so it has to go. This is the argument you are making for guns. I own quite a few guns. I've never harmed someone with any of them, but by your standard that is to be irrelevant because some people use them for ill.

When did I say one-upsmanship was bad? I'm quite successful in competition with other humans. That's not an accident. That is the result of careful consideration and planning.

You have still not offered justification for any of the other things. You just gloss over that. I would remind you that your big mac is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

As you are the only one that feels that need is a basis for the possession of an item, I feel no need to justify anything to you. It's your skewed theory, not mine.

Small nukes? What self-respecting NNA member would leave the house with anything less than the biggest nuke possible?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE[/youtube]

As you finished the article I previously linked, I'm sure you saw that violent crime was on the way down nationwide, even in states where gun rights became stricter.

Why provide some one an opportunity to harm others? I don't care if you want to use beer or a gun. You don't have a right to hurt others and making it as difficult to prevent someone from hurting others should be a priority.

I too enjoy a good competition which has lead too many successes as well. However, in terms of competition for destruction,no way.

Constitution, not the greatest thing in the world. Written for a time that no longer exists. Get over it.

Reiterating- 100 round magazines are the best thing since sliced bread because 99 isn't enough?

C'mon, you call yourself a mad scientist? You should know that size doesn't mean anything for nukes.

[themadscientist]

As you finished the article I previously linked, I'm sure you saw that violent crime was on the way down nationwide, even in states where gun rights became stricter.

That would still leave my assertion valid. It would merely add a "job well done" to whatever secondary contributor is causing an across the board drop. CC locales are still ahead.

Why provide some one an opportunity to harm others? I don't care if you want to use beer or a gun. You don't have a right to hurt others and making it as difficult to prevent someone from hurting others should be a priority.

So you are advocating for a return to prohibition then? At least you would finally be assuming a consistent stance.

I too enjoy a good competition which has lead too many successes as well. However, in terms of competition for destruction,no way.

Criminals seek destruction, law-abiding citizens seek peaceful lives. The previous are not going to just go away so the latter must be prepared to stop them if it becomes necessary.

Constitution, not the greatest thing in the world. Written for a time that no longer exists. Get over it.

Reiterating- 100 round magazines are the best thing since sliced bread because 99 isn't enough?

C'mon, you call yourself a mad scientist? You should know that size doesn't mean anything for nukes.

The fact that you can dismiss the founding document of this country in the "public square" over 200 years after the fact simply demonstrates what a pivotal and wise document it was. I've heard that "get over it" argument before. It's used by people who can't win. It's the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening to you."

I don't care if you listen to me, though, because you have demonstrated that as many times as you plead to logic you have yet to filter your arguments through that sieve. You have a right to feel as you do, but that's it. Everything stacks up factually and legally on my side. You have emotional pleas, pleas you do not mount for anything else, but that which you focus on, refusing to apply consistency across the spectrum; very illogical.

As far as that pocket nuke. Only the government could come up with a weapon that kills our own soldiers too. Coincidentally, that is the same government you would be ceding control of your life liberty and happiness to with no recourse. They would tell you the "Constitution, not the greatest thing in the world. Written for a time that no longer exists. Get over it."

[bigbadberry3]

As you finished the article I previously linked, I'm sure you saw that violent crime was on the way down nationwide, even in states where gun rights became stricter.

Why provide some one an opportunity to harm others? I don't care if you want to use beer or a gun. You don't have a right to hurt others and making it as difficult to prevent someone from hurting others should be a priority.

So you are advocating for a return to prohibition then? At least you would finally be assuming a consistent stance.

I too enjoy a good competition which has lead too many successes as well. However, in terms of competition for destruction,no way.

Criminals seek destruction, law-abiding citizens seek peaceful lives. The previous are not going to just go away so the latter must be prepared to stop them if it becomes necessary.

Constitution, not the greatest thing in the world. Written for a time that no longer exists. Get over it.

Reiterating- 100 round magazines are the best thing since sliced bread because 99 isn't enough?

C'mon, you call yourself a mad scientist? You should know that size doesn't mean anything for nukes.

The fact that you can dismiss the founding document of this country in the "public square" over 200 years after the fact simply demonstrates what a pivotal and wise document it was. I've heard that "get over it" argument before. It's used by people who can't win. It's the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening to you."

I don't care if you listen to me, though, because you have demonstrated that as many times as you plead to logic you have yet to filter your arguments through that sieve. You have a right to feel as you do, but that's it. Everything stacks up factually and legally on my side. You have emotional pleas, pleas you do not mount for anything else, but that which you focus on, refusing to apply consistency across the spectrum; very illogical.

As far as that pocket nuke. Only the government could come up with a weapon that kills our own soldiers too. Coincidentally, that is the same government you would be ceding control of your life liberty and happiness to with no recourse. They would tell you to "Constitution, not the greatest thing in the world. Written for a time that no longer exists. Get over it."

1) Don't put up a strawman here.

2) Are all criminal these bad people? And all people who have never been convicted of a crime good people? You betcha.

3) Really? Because the constitution must be the holy grail because no one argues over it ever and the people who wrote it were right in every idea. SUCH AS OWNING PEOPLE!

4) Your facts are as valid as mine, but I will cede the legal side. But again, legally does not equate moral. Go look at wall street.

5) I'd elaborate but then I would have to kill you regarding the nuke.

6) It's happening the government says it is not the best document in the world http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02 ... -as-model/

[themadscientist]

Where's the strawman? I invite you to point him out, but don't shoot him.

You don't need to ask that question. By your theory they are all the same based upon "opportunity."

I assume you are referring to the avoidance of the issue of slavery in the document. I often remind people of that myself. Do you appreciate the context of what was going on when the Constitution was being negotiated? That was corrected, after far too long of a wait, and the scars still linger today, but it was corrected. Again, the genius of the document shows itself, it can evolve.

Wall Street? Who called in the strawman? On that I think you will find a confederate, though. It doesn't come more scummy than a fast-talking banker. I'd trust a lawyer before a banker.

No need to bring the nuke to kill me. BK is doing a fine job.

Oh I know the government hates the constitution, it restricts them. Why would they want to champion it?