PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...oaded.html
Apparently magazines are called "Magazine clips" and can not be reloaded. :biglmao:
So mine are defective lol.:lolrage:
How quick can they be reloaded, whatever they're called? In the time that the CT gunman was reloading, 11 kids escaped. Wouldn't you be glad if your kid went there, and all he had was 10 round clips? Are we into semantics now? Would you be posting the laughing icon if someone came into one of the Paintsville schools and opened fire?
TheRealVille Wrote:How quick can they be reloaded, whatever they're called? In the time that the CT gunman was reloading, 11 kids escaped. Wouldn't you be glad if your kid went there, and all he had was 10 round clips? Are we into semantics now? Would you be posting the laughing icon if someone came into one of the Paintsville schools and opened fire?
Didn't watch the video did you? She was saying that the supply would dry up after people shot them because they are like ammunition. She thought that they were one time use deals and if they banned new ones the supply would go down because people would shoot them.
Her exact quote
"I will tell you these are ammunition, theyâre bullets, so the people who have those now theyâre going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there wonât be any more available."
But good try TRV Im sure TRT and hoot will get a kick out of you on this one. This is a perfect example of politicians trying to legislate what they know nothing of.
Btw I highly doubt any kids escaped when he was reloading because it takes less than a couple of seconds to reload a mag on an ar plus he had two sidearms to shoot anyone while they escaped. And he was hot-swapping half empty mags. SO there goes your high capacity myth. Your own side has openly admitted these laws would have done nothing to stop the tragedy at newtown.
More likely is his POS bushmaster jammed on him like the Colorado shooters did.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Didn't watch the video did you? She was saying that the supply would dry up after people shot them because they are like ammunition. She thought that they were one time use deals and if they banned new ones the supply would go down because people would shoot them.
Her exact quote
"I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."
But good try TRV Im sure TRT and hoot will get a kick out of you on this one. This is a perfect example of politicians trying to legislate what they know nothing of.
Btw I highly doubt any kids escaped when he was reloading because it takes less than a couple of seconds to reload a mag on an ar plus he had two sidearms to shoot anyone while they escaped. And he was hot-swapping half empty mags. SO there goes your high capacity myth. Your own side has openly admitted these laws would have done nothing to stop the tragedy at newtown.
More likely is his POS bushmaster jammed on him like the Colorado shooters did.
Yes, I watched the video. Her point was high capacity clips, and the time it took to reload, no matter what she called them. If you have lower capacity clips, it's fact that it takes longer to shoot bullets. It's a fact that 11 kids escaped while he was reloading. It's not hard to find.
Edit: Of course, you're looking for word twisting help from the pros.
^ From the video it is obvious she doesn't know gun terms, but her point is obvious. It's only funny to you because your kid hasn't been killed by a gunman with high capacity clips, in one of the Paintsville schools.
TheRealVille Wrote:^ From the video it is obvious she doesn't know gun terms, but her point is obvious. It's only funny to you because your kid hasn't been killed by a gunman with high capacity clips, in one of the Paintsville schools.
Once more she said that the supply would run dry after people shot them up because they were like ammo or bullets in her term. In other words she has no idea what she is talking about. She thinks if you ban Hi-Caps the supply will run out because in her mind they are single use. A dem screwed up dude admit it.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Once more she said that the supply would run dry after people shot them up because they were like ammo or bullets in her term. In other words she has no idea what she is talking about. She thinks if you ban Hi-Caps the supply will run out because in her mind they are single use. A dem screwed up dude admit it.
Yea, she screwed up her words, but it is obvious what she meant. Keep laughing, your kid wasn't a dead one in CT.
TheRealVille Wrote:Yea, she screwed up her words, but it is obvious what she meant. Keep laughing, your kid wasn't a dead one in CT.
What did she mean? She thinks a firearm magazine is a one time use deal, they are not TRV and you know that. She thinks if they are banned they will be unusable after the ban. How hard is that for you to understand. She does not comprehend that they will still be usable after the ban. Im not talking about her calling it a clip I am talking about her complete lack of knowledge of what exactly a magazine for a rifle is, not the name of it there is no way you can say it is obvious what she meant, she clearly said that magazines are not reusable so the supply will dry up after the ban because once more she thinks they are non reusable, she wasn't talking about a shooting she wasn't talking about reloading them during the act of shooting she clearly said that in her mind they are not reusable. Her staffers said afterwords she was talking about non reloadable clips but those aren't used for a hi-cap rifle so in other words showed that she has no idea what she is passing legislation against but you refuse to admit it.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:What did she mean? She thinks a firearm magazine is a one time use deal, they are not TRV and you know that. She thinks if they are banned they will be unusable after the ban. How hard is that for you to understand. She does not comprehend that they will still be usable after the ban. Im not talking about her calling it a clip I am talking about her complete lack of knowledge of what exactly a magazine for a rifle is, not the name of it there is no way you can say it is obvious what she meant, she clearly said that magazines are not reusable so the supply will dry up after the ban because once more she thinks they are non reusable, she wasn't talking about a shooting she wasn't talking about reloading them during the act of shooting she clearly said that in her mind they are not reusable. Her staffers said afterwords she was talking about non reloadable clips but those aren't used for a hi-cap rifle so in other words showed that she has no idea what she is passing legislation against but you refuse to admit it.
She understands, no matter how screwed up she gets her terminology, that smaller clips means less shooting, and it is obvious from the video. And, you laughed about it. I bet, even republicans in Newtown aren't laughing about it.
TheRealVille Wrote:She understands, no matter how screwed up she gets her terminology, that smaller clips means less shooting, and it is obvious from the video. And, you laughed about it. I bet, even republicans in Newtown aren't laughing about it.
Its not her terminology she screwed up it is the entire concept of what the device she wants to ban is. And since when does smaller magazines mean less shooting? the boy a VT did just fine with handguns and ten round mags? And in fact lanza was dropping his mags half full. According to the CSP he fired 140 rounds out of nine magazines so how exactly would restricting capacity have stopped him any. Fact of the matter is no law they are proposing would have stopped this and you know that as well as I do. Im not laughing about the tragedy in Connecticut no one can ever do that however when you have politicians infringing on our rights without knowing the mechanics of the device they are talking about, and openly admitting that the laws they are proposing would not have stopped the tragedy that is pushing their agendy, that is laugh worthy.
In fact the guy at VT used a 9mm glock, and a 22lr sig shooting at adults and killed more people than lanza did shooting at small children. The fact of the matter is that no law proposed would have stopped either instance.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Its not her terminology she screwed up it is the entire concept of what the device she wants to ban is. And since when does smaller magazines mean less shooting? the boy a VT did just fine with handguns and ten round mags? And in fact lanza was dropping his mags half full. According to the CSP he fired 140 rounds out of nine magazines so how exactly would restricting capacity have stopped him any. Fact of the matter is no law they are proposing would have stopped this and you know that as well as I do. Im not laughing about the tragedy in Connecticut no one can ever do that however when you have politicians infringing on our rights without knowing the mechanics of the device they are talking about, and openly admitting that the laws they are proposing would not have stopped the tragedy that is pushing their agendy, that is laugh worthy.
Where in the 2nd does it state that you are allowed to have high capacity clips, or military style weapons?
TheRealVille Wrote:How quick can they be reloaded, whatever they're called? In the time that the CT gunman was reloading, 11 kids escaped. Wouldn't you be glad if your kid went there, and all he had was 10 round clips? Are we into semantics now? Would you be posting the laughing icon if someone came into one of the Paintsville schools and opened fire?
Just curious, do you believe every single thing the liberals believe in? Or do you just side with them on every single issue, no matter your true feelings?
Ive never once seen you criticize the dems over anything while several republicans on this site just the other day were giving Boehner hell.
I can understand someone being a few things, but you literally believe every word of babble they spout off.
TheRealVille Wrote:Where in the 2nd does it state that you are allowed to have high capacity clips, or military style weapons?
Where in the first does it specify that TV and internet news are protected by freedom of the press?
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Where in the first does it specify that TV and internet news are protected by freedom of the press?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not an anti-gun person. I've got a lot of guns. All of my clips are 10 rounds, or less. I've got one in every room of my house for protection. I don't need a 30, 50, or 100 round clip to protect me or my family. But, I don't laugh about lawmakers getting wording wrong, while trying to work out legislation to protect America's kids. It's not funny to me, but that's just me.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Well regulated means well trained in the parlance they used, and includes all able bodied men of the US as they made clear in other writings. Not a government sponsored militia as liberals like to say. It is also clear that this is two separate clauses in a statement not one statement. The founding fathers were very clear about how important it was for the people to keep arms in their possession equivalent to what the military uses. Im sure you were trying to bait me into this so I figured Id cut off the obvious argument all liberals make when presented with the second amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
The above is a rifle that was available to the public in the founding fathers time it fed from a 20 round detachable mag, when compared to a single shot musket with a firing rate of 1 or 2 rpm, this would be like us using a machine gun compared to a bolt action rifle. The founding fathers were obviously cool with this, and lewis and clark actually used one in there expedition for taking deer, and demonstrations to the natives. There were also school shootings back then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sch...ates#1700s
in 1764 four Lenape Indians entered a one room school and killed 10 or 11 people with muskets, hatchets, and pistols. Only 3 children survived.
None of these are new issues TRV and no laws in question would stop these incidents from happening. The fact is Lanza walked into a school and had upwards of 10 minutes to kill as many people as he could there was no one to stop him just as there was no one to stop holmes, or no one to stop Cho. We protect everything but children with guns, The Ar-15 is used in these incidents because it happens to be the most popular rifle sold in the US not because of any inherent lethality it contains.
TheRealVille Wrote:I'm not an anti-gun person. I've got a lot of guns. All of my clips are 10 rounds, or less. I've got one in every room of my house for protection. I don't need a 30, 50, or 100 round clip to protect me or my family. But, I don't laugh about lawmakers getting wording wrong, while trying to work out legislation to protect America's kids. It's not funny to me, but that's just me.
This legislation would do nothing to protect children a lot of your fellow dems know that.
Serious question TRV you ever shot a AR-15?
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:Serious question TRV you ever shot a AR-15?
No.
^I've never hunted with more than 5 rounds, and have never felt the need to have more than 10 to protect me. It seems like a "small pecker, corvette" type thing to me.
TheRealVille Wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You prove his point it doesn't mention TV or Internet. Just like the 2nd doesn't mention semiautomatic pistols.
TheRealVille Wrote:^I've never hunted with more than 5 rounds, and have never felt the need to have more than 10 to protect me. It seems like a "small pecker, corvette" type thing to me.
Until you shoot one and realize that it takes less than a couple seconds to swap mags then you can't comment on them. As for your small pecker comment you realize the ar-15 is a .223 right? And also the most popular rifle in the us because of its extreme accuracy and low recoil. It is extremely popular with new shooters and women because of its ease of use and endless customization options. Not because everybody that owns one has a small pecker and wants to spray rounds down range. I find your comment about people owning ar-15s extremely offensive and a disservice to all gun owners especially considering that as a gun owner I'm sure you own a handgun which is the class of firearms used in the vast majority of gun crimes. After all assault rifles as you like to call them are used in less than 1% of gun crimes.
I was under the impression the Connecticut shooter didnt even use his ar 15?
Wildcatk23 Wrote:I was under the impression the Connecticut shooter didnt even use his ar 15?
The initial info said he didn't but the CPS report said he fired 140 rounds from 9 magazines and was swapping them when they were still half full so ten round mags wouldn't have helped anything. And his mom bought the guns not him so there goes the universal background checks idea. No law being considered would have done a damn thing to stop this tragedy.
PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:The initial info said he didn't but the CPS report said he fired 140 rounds from 9 magazines and was swapping them when they were still half full so ten round mags wouldn't have helped anything. And his mom bought the guns not him so there goes the universal background checks idea. No law being considered would have done a damn thing to stop this tragedy.
Oh, Thanks.