The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 01:22 PM
Re: RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 01:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Disagreeing with you is a dodge? Then you're disingenuous and a liar. :thumbsup:

Any gun is a deadly tool, and you can kill as many people with a shotgun as you can with a rifle. If you want to say that a guy with a rifle can shoot more people, then say so. I don't think that's the case in a realistic situation.

Would it tickle your taint if the kids at Sandy Hook were hit with double ought buck instead of two twenty three or ten millimeter? Would it make you feel better? Would it make you feel safer? If the dead children were mutilated by a slightly different weapon?

Fuck you for going there. I'll not reply to you anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
So you say.

^ And with that I've doubled your determination, for a few days. Wink


You worry about your children, and you would do anything to protect them. Even if it means sacrificing your liberty and the liberty of others. Even if it means doing the impossible. That's laudable. But your children are not, for most of us, the most important thing in the universe, and we will not give up things we hold dear for the sake of yours. So if you want to protect your children from something like Sandy Hook happening, if you really want to protect them, then you need to look at what you can actually accomplish. You will not get your ridiculous ideas about gun laws passed. Not this decade. What you can do, is work on reforming psychiatric care in America. And rather than argue on the internet with people you have no interest in listening to, you should work actively to accomplish things that can actually be accomplished. You should listen to your opponents, rather than deny their every word. And if they get upset with you, you could do better than putting them on your ignore list.

Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
And a neg rep! A double! Wow, you are something special.

Or something like that.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Well, that devolved. Drinking Beverage

Everyone stop being fucktards and we can have a discussion.

Phaedrus, you're being confrontational. Leave 'terse' to those who do it better. Dodgy

TBD, you're not defining the problem you want to solve or describing how your proposal solves a problem.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
TBD is a liar; if he could ban all guns he would. I think we've discovered this in the last few pages. This talk about only banning certain guns is a disingenuous attempt at a compromise on his terms, an olive branch delivered with bad intentions. I only want to see him honestly admit it.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 03:33 PM
Re: RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 09:57 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 09:47 AM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  How so?

I own three firearms quite legally a I do not support registration laws. I know one gun shop owner who does not support those laws and a number of my friends and family members do not support them.

Of course, it could also be argued that there's no such thing as a law abiding citizen. ;)

I said nothing of registration laws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 03:35 PM
Re: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
TBD's go to tactic lately is the fingers-in-ears response.


Hornady tells us why ammo is short

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/25/ammo-m...onjecture/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2013 04:04 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(28-04-2013 11:57 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  I for one am in favour of quickly and readily stockpiling ammunition like the Sandy hook shooter. I want an arsenal, and a means to use an arsenal whenever I want (just in case of zombies, or hitler, or zombie hitler). Just because I can. It's so crazy, it does a full 360 degrees back to sanity.

...insanity. Drinking Beverage

It's been a few pages, so, where are we on people limiting my freedoms from stopping zombie hitler? Has reason and empathy prevailed yet?

Has the initial point of the thread that "having the status quo amount of ammunition or MORE ammunition in personal holding is smarter than limiting personal holding of ammunition?" been settled?

Third question, did we recently change definitions to mean the exact opposite lately? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 01:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Disagreeing with you is a dodge? Then you're disingenuous and a liar. Thumbsup

Any gun is a deadly tool, and you can kill as many people with a shotgun as you can with a rifle. If you want to say that a guy with a rifle can shoot more people, then say so. I don't think that's the case in a realistic situation.

Would it tickle your taint if the kids at Sandy Hook were hit with double ought buck instead of two twenty three or ten millimeter? Would it make you feel better? Would it make you feel safer? If the dead children were mutilated by a slightly different weapon?

Wow...that's harsh.
I really see no reason anyone should own a gun or any type of rifle today. Really you or anyone else can't convince me they are needed or nessisary. So yes, maybe you can keep your guns and apply to the government to receive an annual allotment or ammo.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 08:44 PM
Re: RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 04:11 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 01:10 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Disagreeing with you is a dodge? Then you're disingenuous and a liar. :thumbsup:

Any gun is a deadly tool, and you can kill as many people with a shotgun as you can with a rifle. If you want to say that a guy with a rifle can shoot more people, then say so. I don't think that's the case in a realistic situation.

Would it tickle your taint if the kids at Sandy Hook were hit with double ought buck instead of two twenty three or ten millimeter? Would it make you feel better? Would it make you feel safer? If the dead children were mutilated by a slightly different weapon?

Wow...that's harsh.
I really see no reason anyone should own a gun or any type of rifle today. Really you or anyone else can't convince me they are needed or nessisary. So yes, maybe you can keep your guns and apply to the government to receive an annual allotment or ammo.

'You can't convince me' arnt the words of a sceptic. If firearms wernt need, then police and military wouldn't carry them, as they are heavy and wear you down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: