In response to:

Progressives' Ridiculous Gun Control Argument

Ken325 Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 10:17 PM
Talk about logical fallacies. The purpose of a magazine-limit would simply be to prevent mass killings. That's it. So what is the relevance of crime rates or single-incident deaths by some other cause?
John2135 Wrote: Sep 26, 2013 3:03 PM
The naval yard massacre was with a 12 gauge shotgun just like Uncle Joe suggested, but the guy reloaded it a number of times and actually stole a weapon off of someone he shot. What magazine limitation is going to prevent that?
MikeUhl Wrote: Oct 12, 2013 3:18 PM
You state your argument quite well. All it takes to START a massacre is a single shot. All else can be extracted from the debris.

And THESE offenses occur in so-called "Gun Free Zones". So many schools and so many classrooms. If the Teachers were armed there may have been less tragedy to mourn.

But, I am happy to have seen that many private schools have chosen to ARM their Teachers. AND, they have signs on their property perimeters warning that ALL Teachers are ARMED, TRAINED, and DANGEROUS to ANY and ALL threats to the safety of students and personnel on the premises.

What I do NOT understand is why the public school systems have not adopted the SAME policy. Public schools are designated "Gun Free Zones" and therefore INVITE hostilities.
M444ss Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 11:39 PM
Talk about logical (and factual) fallacies. In no way could a limit on magazine capacity prevent, or even reduce, mass killings. A rifle or pistol can be reloaded in a couple seconds. So what's the effective difference between a 20-round magazine, two 10-round magazines, or four 5-round magazine? None.
LtScrounge Wrote: Oct 01, 2013 8:54 PM
Please feel free to move to Russia where your dream is in fact the law. Just remember that they do have a firearm murder rate that is a multiple of ours.
Conrad43 Wrote: Oct 04, 2013 11:25 PM
There you go. Just outlaw all weapons and there will be no crime.

How will be protect ourselves from the Trayvon Martins of the world if we don't have weapons? Or when people riot and a hundred try to kill us?

What will be do when Tyrant Obama, like King George, needs to be expelled from office by force of arms? Or the next progressive fascists who is chosen to rule over us?
MikeUhl Wrote: Oct 12, 2013 3:04 PM
I disagree. ANY firearm that makes one FEEL safe should be legal. Personally, I have a six-shot revolver accompanied by a sizeable number of speed-loaders, which could, I suppose, be considered "magazines". They work well, and can compete, with a well-practiced hand, with magazines and semi-automatic weapons.

Personally, I prefer a revolver, simply because it is far more reliable than a semi-automatic. But, if I had nothing available to defend myself other than a semi-automatic, then, of course, I would use it. When defending myself or another, I have NO qualms about using whatever is at my disposal.

Once again, conservatives have latched onto the bait tossed out by progressives in their never-ending campaign to grab guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Gun control is just one aspect of the Progressive agenda; in essence, they want control of everyone and everything any way they can.

Toward this end, they will tell you anything to get what they want. For example, they say they are multiculturalists, right up until election season when cultures become pawns to move around the political battlefield. All non-compliant free-thinkers are dealt with accordingly.

Consider the war on women last year contrived to...