UnderGround Forum

OtherGround Forum

Training Forums

States Forums

Piers Morgan gets owned over gun control

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

«« Prev FP 36 37 38 39 40 [ 41 ]

12/21/12 3:50 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

awilson82 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/07
Posts: 14842

Ari2 -
awilson82 -
Ari2 -
awilson82 -
Ari2 - perhaps you've noticed we don't see a lot of people getting killed with uzi's today...I wonder whty that might be.
U are aware a citizen can go buy an Uzi right?

if the ATF approves.

and you pay extra.

the extra hoops taht people have to jump through appears to have limited their numbers...in a good way.
U can go buy a semi auto one as well and according to Antigun people those are so deadly that the difference doesn't matter.

can you rewrite taht, beacause I don't understand what you're saying.

are you making some kind of strawman argument?

you and I are talking about hi capacity magazines.

One of the big Antigun arguments I've read on here is "troops use semi auto it doesn't matter that civilian guns can't fire full auto semi auto is just as deadly....."

There are plenty of semi auto Uzi copies out there and u are correct few murders with them same as there are few murders with an AR or an AK. Phone Post

12/21/12 3:52 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
MainelyBJJ Member Since: 11/29/05 Posts: 7810	You have ignored this user.

12/21/12 3:52 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
awilson82 31 Member Since: 11/12/07 Posts: 14843	RobinHood - Twitter I salute you: @shanecomedy: This reminds me of after 9/11 when we decided the only way to be safe is for everyone to own a plane. That is as stupid an analogy if not more stupid as the pro gun "cars kill more...." You have ignored this user.

12/21/12 3:53 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

Ari2

Member Since: 8/26/03
Posts: 15989

" that's about the same amount that die from falling off ladders and 1/2 as much as unarmed attacks."

these are red herrings. we get it. peopel can die other ways. they can be killed other ways. thats no reason not to limit the availabilty of killing machines.

" Millions of people own and use ARs for shooting competitions or hunting or fun. They should not have their rights restricted for the actions of a crazy person. "

you can shoot and hunt without a gun and mag like that. People did it for 10s of thousands of years. if you can't kill a deer with your first 6 shots you don't deserve it.

"obviously a line where people shouldn't have access and that line is fine where it is."

I'm glad you agree that there should bea line. it seems many don't. but I dissagree about where to draw it.

12/21/12 4:02 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

awilson82 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/07
Posts: 14844

Ari2 - " that's about the same amount that die from falling off ladders and 1/2 as much as unarmed attacks."

these are red herrings. we get it. peopel can die other ways. they can be killed other ways. thats no reason not to limit the availabilty of killing machines.

" Millions of people own and use ARs for shooting competitions or hunting or fun. They should not have their rights restricted for the actions of a crazy person. "

you can shoot and hunt without a gun and mag like that. People did it for 10s of thousands of years. if you can't kill a deer with your first 6 shots you don't deserve it.

"obviously a line where people shouldn't have access and that line is fine where it is."

I'm glad you agree that there should bea line. it seems many don't. but I dissagree about where to draw it.

The reason for not banning them is the fact they kill an incredibly small amount of people compared to other weapons. U say a shotgun is fine well they kill just as many.

If u want to ban some gun ban handguns they kill Phone Post

12/21/12 4:04 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

awilson82 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/07
Posts: 14845

awilson82 -
Ari2 - " that's about the same amount that die from falling off ladders and 1/2 as much as unarmed attacks."

these are red herrings. we get it. peopel can die other ways. they can be killed other ways. thats no reason not to limit the availabilty of killing machines.

" Millions of people own and use ARs for shooting competitions or hunting or fun. They should not have their rights restricted for the actions of a crazy person. "

you can shoot and hunt without a gun and mag like that. People did it for 10s of thousands of years. if you can't kill a deer with your first 6 shots you don't deserve it.

"obviously a line where people shouldn't have access and that line is fine where it is."

I'm glad you agree that there should bea line. it seems many don't. but I dissagree about where to draw it.
The reason for not banning them is the fact they kill an incredibly small amount of people compared to other weapons. U say a shotgun is fine well they kill just as many.

If u want to ban some gun ban handguns they kill

(Hit the post button on accident.)

7000 plus to all rifles 400.

Never mind u ignore the vast gaping whole in an AWB and the fact our system worked and that had Obama put in an AWB the day he got elected this could have easily still happened. Phone Post

12/21/12 6:30 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

Shogun of Harlem

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 19010

awilson82 -
Shogun of Harlem -
awilson82 -
Shogun of Harlem -
awilson82 - "So you are admitting that you are wrong about the purpose. That's a start."

Seriously u need to learn some reading comprehension. In your definition of purpose it clearly says how it's USED. So again a guns purpose can be a lot of things but for 99.9% of gun owners wont intentionally shoot someone they serve a purpose which obviously isn't killing people.

You are a dense. Guns weren't invented for sporting competitions, they were invented to kill. Regardless of what 99.9% of gun owners use them for.
No u are being dense as u have been in this entire thread.

We're arguing the purpose. Included in the definition YOU provided it stated how it is USED.

The overwhelming majority of guns are not used to kill or in ways that harm someone else. Therefore their purpose by your definition is not to kill.

I would say you are trolling, but I actually believe you are this stupid.

You conveniently disregard the major portion of the definition - why it exists! Guns were created to kill - that is why they exist. They were not created for target sport. It's like talking to a retard child.
It's your definition and you've shown multiple times u lack any reading comprehension so ur weak insults mean little other than simply showing me u know u are wrong and are now resorting to name calling.

Fact is the overwhelmingly vast majority of guns and the people who own them are of no danger to society and are obviously using them for purposes which aren't hurting anyone else.

God, you are stupid. The good thing is that you own guns and will probably kill yourself.

12/21/12 6:31 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

Shogun of Harlem

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 19011

Munk - Of curse guns were created to kill and thank God for it.

Guns are a great equalizer. It allows any woman to maintain their own safety against a man they would otherwise have no chance against. Same for any person defending their home against convicts.

It was gun ownership that allowed us to free ourselves from the oppression of a silly Monarch on soggy little island.

"Once ideas and principles consecrating unlimited power are accepted, it is only a matter of time until that power is used in ways that shock those who acquiesced to its expansion. As Senator John Taylor observed in 1821, “Tyranny in form is the first step towards tyranny in substance.”

Mere Parlor Talk"

Thank you, and please pass this on to the idiot that thinks otherwise.

12/21/12 6:37 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

awilson82 31 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/07
Posts: 14856

Shogun of Harlem -
awilson82 -
Shogun of Harlem -
awilson82 -
Shogun of Harlem -
awilson82 - "So you are admitting that you are wrong about the purpose. That's a start."

Seriously u need to learn some reading comprehension. In your definition of purpose it clearly says how it's USED. So again a guns purpose can be a lot of things but for 99.9% of gun owners wont intentionally shoot someone they serve a purpose which obviously isn't killing people.

You are a dense. Guns weren't invented for sporting competitions, they were invented to kill. Regardless of what 99.9% of gun owners use them for.
No u are being dense as u have been in this entire thread.

We're arguing the purpose. Included in the definition YOU provided it stated how it is USED.

The overwhelming majority of guns are not used to kill or in ways that harm someone else. Therefore their purpose by your definition is not to kill.

I would say you are trolling, but I actually believe you are this stupid.

You conveniently disregard the major portion of the definition - why it exists! Guns were created to kill - that is why they exist. They were not created for target sport. It's like talking to a retard child.
It's your definition and you've shown multiple times u lack any reading comprehension so ur weak insults mean little other than simply showing me u know u are wrong and are now resorting to name calling.

Fact is the overwhelmingly vast majority of guns and the people who own them are of no danger to society and are obviously using them for purposes which aren't hurting anyone else.

God, you are stupid. The good thing is that you own guns and will probably kill yourself.

Again resorting to attack tactics.

The only thing my guns will do is protect me and my family and give me the joy of participating in shooting sports and hunting. Phone Post

12/21/12 7:20 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

419 39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/00
Posts: 23402

Malefactor + firearm with hi-capacity detachable magazine + gun-free zone = tragedy.

If we're serious about reducing these of tragedies, we'll deal with all three factors. The principal would've had a better chance if she were armed and knew what she was doing. I don't know about arming every teacher, but most principals have demonstrated a high level of responsibility. I'm not suggesting that they'd have to carry, but it should be an option.

The problem with banning hi-capacity magazines is that military-style rifles are at the core of arms protected by the second amendment. It sets a dangerous precedent to ignore any Right for the sake of public safety. Of course, the argument could be made that we already have a track record of ignoring the Bill of Rights when it suits us.

Even if we successfully eliminate hi-cap magazines, a malefactor can do a lot of damage with a low-capacity firearm. One would think that they'd adjust their tactics. The best way to reduce these tragedies is to stop them before they happen. We must be more pro-active about mental illness, but we must also comply with due process of law.

12/21/12 7:23 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Roland Bates Member Since: 9/27/11 Posts: 1737	Piers punked and powned by pretty princess! You have ignored this user.

12/21/12 11:56 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Disease 12 Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 413	Ok you anti gun guys realize the point of citizens having firearms is to protect them from the government? Which means we as citizens need to be able to have assault rifles for when our government tries to start putting people in furnaces. If if you try to say something like that would never happen you are either highly medicated or unaware of history.. You have ignored this user.

12/22/12 8:56 AM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

419 39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 11/12/00
Posts: 23416

A high-capacity magazine control advocate could argue that the Civil War amendments altered the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. In 1791, the purpose of the 2A was to prevent the newly-formed Congress from disarming the People. There was a genuine concern with giving power to the Feds. But in 1868, the People gave Congress the power to protect individual liberty. Prior to the 14A, the Bill of Rights didn't apply against the states. Now, for the most part, it does.

The right to arms became less of a political right and more of a civil right to personal protection. One can make a non-frivolous argument that restricting high-capacity magazines doesn't infringe the right to personal protection and is substantially related to the important state interest of public health and safety. No need to bicker about muskets.

12/22/12 9:06 AM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
419 39 Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 23417	Of course, there is the issue of what exactly constitutes a high-capacity magazine. Do we draw the line at 10? Or 20? Or some other number? How do we arrive at the number? How many shots are fired in the average self-defense situation? You have ignored this user.

12/22/12 3:16 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
ChaelsBallTastesSalty 4 Member Since: 12/27/11 Posts: 1785	419 - Of course, there is the issue of what exactly constitutes a high-capacity magazine. Do we draw the line at 10? Or 20? Or some other number? How do we arrive at the number? How many shots are fired in the average self-defense situation? I call them normal capacity magazines You have ignored this user.

12/22/12 3:17 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

ChaelsBallTastesSalty 4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 12/27/11
Posts: 1786

SIGNED

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

12/23/12 6:30 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
occupy_DDF 8 Member Since: 3/29/12 Posts: 909	http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SQcnE5lnPxg#! You have ignored this user.

12/23/12 6:37 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

BaldTony 109 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 12/12/02
Posts: 19808

ChaelsBallTastesSalty - SIGNED

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

Wonder which amendment comes before the second?

12/23/12 6:54 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
othree 121 Member Since: 10/5/10 Posts: 2869	MainelyBJJ - Hey seriously, why are consumers in America able to buy cars that go over 100mph when there is not a single roadway in America where you can go over like 70-75mph? DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE!! You have ignored this user.

12/23/12 6:56 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

GapingAxeWound 229 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 2/5/11
Posts: 5492

BaldTony -
ChaelsBallTastesSalty - SIGNED

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

Wonder which amendment comes before the second?

the 1st?

12/23/12 6:58 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

othree 121 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 10/5/10
Posts: 2870

GapingAxeWound -
BaldTony -
ChaelsBallTastesSalty - SIGNED

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment
British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

Wonder which amendment comes before the second?

the 1st?

TRICK QUESTION HOT SHOT!!!

12/27/12 11:53 AM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
419 39 Member Since: 11/12/00 Posts: 23435	Piers has the right to political speech, but that right comes with a duty to make better arguments. You have ignored this user.

«« Prev FP 36 37 38 39 40 [ 41 ]

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.

Type:	Standard Video
Source (embed code):
Body: [HTML] [Text]