Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

That is incorrect. Assault rifles are capable of either full-auto fire or burst fire. The Virginia Tech shooter's guns were capable of neither.

Assault rifles provide effective fire at a 300 meter range. The Virginia Tech shooter's guns did not.

Long guns also create much more devastating wounds than handguns.

The fact that they were not revolvers is irrelevant given the fact that a bunch of revolvers could have provided the same rate of fire using New York reloads.

You

a) called people gun nuts, and

b) falsely accused them of having a small penis.

Factually.... my penis is the tiny penis that has been the center of discussion on this thread for two pages now. (I don't know why no one has mentioned my very large hairy testicles).

I am actually anti-gun. If you read the OP which I wrote right after the Boston marathon bombing you will see that I am taking a decidedly anti-gun stance.

I don't think it matters. You are all acting like imbeciles.

Maybe an expert with the right equipment could match the rate of fire of such guns using a revolver but it hardly common to have an expert doing mass murders.

The people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts. Some of them do have small penises.

InfraBlue wrote:

The people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts. Some of them do have small penises.

There is nothing irrational about preventing freedom haters from violating people's civil liberties for fun. And freedom haters have just as much likelihood of having a small penis.

Preventing progressives from violating people's civil liberties for fun does not make it any easier to murder people.

The only thing it does is prevent progressives from harming innocent people.

InfraBlue wrote:

The people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts. Some of them do have small penises.

There is nothing irrational about preventing freedom haters from violating people's civil liberties for fun.

And freedom haters have just as much likelihood of having a small penis.

Sure, but this doesn't address the fact that the people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts.

The likelihood is higher with gun nuts.

This isn't about weapons designed for mass murder. This is about ordinary hunting rifles that merely have a pistol grip attached to them.

Nonsense everything from the cal of the rounds to the size of the magazines they will accept is design not as a hunting weapon but as a means of mass murder.

You do not need a hundred or even a fifty round magazines to go hunting.

Suggest you gain nothing by being dishonest

and we both know we are not talking about hunting weapons.

BillRM wrote:

Nonsense everything from the cal of the rounds to the size of the magazines they will accept is design not as a hunting weapon but as a means of mass murder.

First, progressive efforts to outlaw pistol grips have nothing to do with either the caliber of the rounds or the size of the magazines.

Second, there is nothing unusual about the caliber of the rounds. They are just ordinary bullets.

BillRM wrote:

You do not need a hundred or even a fifty round magazines to go hunting.

Progressive efforts to outlaw harmless pistol grips have nothing to do with the number of rounds that are in a magazine.

BillRM wrote:

Suggest you gain nothing by being dishonest

You cannot point out anything untrue in my posts.

BillRM wrote:

and we both know we are not talking about hunting weapons.

That is incorrect. Adding a harmless pistol grip to an ordinary hunting rifle does not change the fact that it is an ordinary hunting rifle.

Irrelevant. There is still no justification for outlawing pistol grips. Progressives are just trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

Once more I point out the fact that you cannot point out anything untrue in my posts.

InfraBlue wrote:

Sure, but this doesn't address the fact that the people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts.

There is no such fact. There is no irrational opposition to gun control.

All there is is rational opposition to progressives violating people's civil liberties for fun.

InfraBlue wrote:

The likelihood is higher with gun nuts.

You engage in lies and name-calling because you are not capable of defending your position with facts or logic.

Nuh-uh.

Nuh-uh.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. When progressives try to violate people's civil liberties for fun, and rational people oppose them in that, the entire fight is about rational opposition to progressives trying to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Your lies and name-calling are evidence that you cannot defend your position using facts or logic.