13
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 11:04 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


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.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 03:19 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

You

a) called people gun nuts, and

b) falsely accused them of having a small penis.


The people that irrationally oppose gun regulation are gun nuts. Some of them do have small penises.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 03:23 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

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.


Oh, I'm sure you compensate in different ways.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 04:37 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.

New York reloads require no expertise. They just require someone to carry a bunch of revolvers.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 04:38 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:03 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


Civil rights and freedoms mean little if the concepts are used to allow the mass murders of children.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:09 pm
@BillRM,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:17 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


Sorry not being allow to have weapons design to do mass murders is hardly harming anyone.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:22 pm
@BillRM,
This isn't about weapons designed for mass murder. This is about ordinary hunting rifles that merely have a pistol grip attached to them.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:39 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


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

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


The likelihood is higher with gun nuts.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 05:58 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 06:06 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 06:13 pm
@BillRM,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 06:28 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


LOL ok pistol grips are there to allow/help you to control the gun during rapid firing so you do not end up shooting the clouds.

Such rapid firing is not something that you would be concern about dealing with in a hunting rifle.

Once more I suggest you would do better by being honest about such things as the reason for having pistol grips on such weapons.

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 06:35 pm
@BillRM,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 06:51 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


Somehow my concern is the civil liberties of being able to send your children to school and not then getting them back in body bags due to the available of weapons design to do mass murder and there is no reason to have pistol grips on rifles except to control them better during rapid firing as for example gunning down running children.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 08:12 pm
@BillRM,
Even if it is true that pistol grips help to control full-auto fire (a point that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with, for the record), that has nothing whatsoever to do with the semi-auto-only guns that we are talking about here.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 10:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Uh-huh.
Quote:
All there is is rational opposition to progressives violating people's civil liberties for fun.
Nuh-uh.


oralloy wrote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 10:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 10:25 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.

Considering gun control as a violation of people's civil liberties for fun is irrational.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh.

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

Nuh-UH.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 08:13:33