Liberal Media - Stop Embarrassing Yourselves, Again

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

a right that is licensed isn't a right.

Cool platitude?

We have a right to free speech but that right has certain limitations, no? I have a right to petition the government for a redress of my grievances but I can't simply walk into the Oval Office and rattle of my litany of grievances to POTUS do I?

I can go on.

What limits are there on the first amendment? Other than weaponizing your voice and causing people to die (the yelling "fire" scenario)? Is there a single instance of an American needing to apply for licensure to have access to their first amendment right? Is it suspended for criminal activity?

Your second example is ridiculous. Your right to redress grievances doesn't give you a right to unannounced visitation with another person.

The only limits you seem to have relate to the notion of one persons rights ceasing where anothers begin. With the 2nd, that would mean my right to gun ownership should only be hampered when I use my gun to violate another persons rights. Meaning, i shoot them.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Ignoring the adorable ad homs, I guess your statement has unequivocally ended the debate. Liberals don't want to get guns away from lawful, and law abiding, gun owners.

Curious that it's generally the liberals that want to do things like magazine restrictions, model restrictions, forced registration, and bring up Australia's forced gun "buyback" program. But nah, they don't want to take guns away.

a reply to: projectvxn I will say I know some far left people that want us to be like the UK. That is a very sad thing. But I can only speak for myself. I promise that I will not try to take your guns. Most likely.... If the zombies and bandits force me to hold you up for your ammo and guns then yaa

a reply to: Shamrock6

If im being fair, 2 people I work with our die hard liberals. One is from the capital of Liberal politics, San Fran. Each of them has a CCW and carries daily.

I think the issue isn't "liberals", its city dwellers who think the rest of the world has 24x7 police presence, and people who learned to take an ass whooping in school rather than fight back and take swats for defending themselves.

a reply to: Shamrock6 I am all for magazine restrictions. I don't need a thirty round mag to go hunting. I can understand the want to have one for self defense but just having a gun and one round should do the trick. If it doesn't than hit the range.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I am all for magazine restrictions.

Surprise!

I don't need a thirty round mag to go hunting.

The second amendment isn't about hunting. Moreover this sentence illustrates how little you respect the rights retained by others just because you don't care to retain them for yourself.

I can understand the want to have one for self defense but just having a gun and one round should do the trick.

How many firefights have you been in to make this determination?

This is what I mean when I say liberals are completely devoid of facts when it comes to guns. You guys don't even try.

How Many Rounds Are Fired On Average In A Gunfight?

There are many factors that go into a "gun fight". But not all gun fights are equal.

If it doesn't than hit the range.

If your one round bull# fails you an opportunity to hit the range will not appear. You'll be dead.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

TBH, if i wanted to go on a shooting rampage, the magazine size wouldn't matter at all. I can pop a new mag in and chamber a round in maybe a second and a half. Meanwhile, after I get through mowing through 60 rounds my muzzle will be hot enough that it may not fire.

Thats the thing: magazine capacity restrictions don't really consider the reality, only the theory.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Allaroundyou

TBH, if i wanted to go on a shooting rampage, the magazine size wouldn't matter at all. I can pop a new mag in and chamber a round in maybe a second and a half. Meanwhile, after I get through mowing through 60 rounds my muzzle will be hot enough that it may not fire.

Thats the thing: magazine capacity restrictions don't really consider the reality, only the theory.

Indeed. While mag capacity is irrelevant to a mass shooter. To a self defender it can mean life or death.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Lol okay.

If you can't end an attack with one round then you can't shoot?

Spoken like somebody who's punched a lot of holes in paper and nothing else.

a reply to: projectvxn



A video anybody talking about magazine restrictions should be forced to watch.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Wow.

One round when defending yourself? Have you ever been in a life or death situation? I have, and I'm sorry, you couldn't be further off the mark if you tried.

If there's more than one attacker? What then? Call a time out? There's a reason multiple shot repeaters were invented...they're superior in every way.

a reply to: seagull I have been in 3 life or death situations. Only one did I need a gun. And from my experience needing more that one round was plenty. Next time you go around assuming you know what someone has dealt with.....don't

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: seagull I have been in 3 life or death situations. Only one did I need a gun. And from my experience needing more that one round was plenty. Next time you go around assuming you know what someone has dealt with.....don't

Anecdotes are not the same thing as trending data.

Your experience is not the typical experience, and since every gun fight is different, what is good for you in one instance may not serve you in the other. You took a sample of ONE instance and are trying to apply it to a dynamic set of situations.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: theantediluvian

a right that is licensed isn't a right.

Cool platitude?

We have a right to free speech but that right has certain limitations, no? I have a right to petition the government for a redress of my grievances but I can't simply walk into the Oval Office and rattle of my litany of grievances to POTUS do I?

I can go on.

You're mixing issues with that. The Right to redress grievances remains solid regardless, what is there, however, are regulations governing the venue, procedure, and process of the redressing. In a similar vein, we have laws stating what can and cannot be legally shot at, where firearms may be legally carried and discharged, and additional tack-on laws related to commission of crime while armed. Gun control efforts, however, actually target the base of the Right, itself.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

So based off your supposed one experience, you can definitively state that if you need more than one round in a gunfight you need to go to the range more?

That's some pretty hardcore data man.

Deleted for personal reasons

a reply to: Allaroundyou

It has now got to a personal level that I don't want to get into.

Yea, that started with this

I take it you are the guy that just learned how to fast load a double and now think anyone that doesn't wants to take yours away.

Amazing when somebody starts off personal literally from word one, then gets upset when others disagree with them.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: projectvxn

They do not care about facts. Their feelings says guns are bad, because they "HATE" Guns.

Their feelings say guns are bad because tens of thousands of innocent women, men, and children keep getting slaughtered in mass shootings.

What a potent example of the uninformed anti-gun extremist. Tens of thousands killed in mass shootings?

With few exceptions, gun control proponents are consistently the least informed people on any political issue I bother discussing.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Allaroundyou

So based off your supposed one experience, you can definitively state that if you need more than one round in a gunfight you need to go to the range more?

That's some pretty hardcore data man.

It's delusional is what it is. I'll say it for you.