[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

How can you put an extended magazine on a semi-auto with a fixed magazine? I'm talking about a fixed magazine that cannot be removed without disassembling the weapon, not one with a bullet button.

If it's part of the gun, I don't consider this a magazine. But if you want to own a gun with a fixed magazine (I never saw one in a store) go right ahead. I don't. I'm insulted that you want to require me to own one, so I will politically fight you tooth and nail.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

What about killing with intent?

Intent is something fictional you're attributing meaning to. The Chinese invented dynamite with the intent to use it for fireworks.

Fact is, Alcohol and Guns are produced and sold so they can be used LEGALLY. Both Guns and Alcohol can be used with LEGAL intent, but they can also be used ILLEGALLY. In the end of the day, Alcohol kills more and has less uses than guns.

You don't care about dead kids. You're lying. You're using this to ban guns. Shamelessly I may add. If you cared about dead kids, you'd start with the issues that are killing them more which is alcohol. Once you start there and find a solution, I'll take you seriously. I now consider you just a partisan 'ban the guns' person, louder than intelligent.

[dfwuno]

HER EMAILS!!! BENGHAZI!!! ALCOHOL!!!! Follow the leader....If you say it long enough and loud enough it will change the conversation......... not this time.. America is better than this

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by dfwuno

HER EMAILS!!! BENGHAZI!!! ALCOHOL!!!! Follow the leader....If you say it long enough and loud enough it will change the conversation......... not this time.. America is better than this

I remembered the climate during Sandy Hook and it seemed that something was definitely going to happen. Nothing happened then, and this time the senate and president and house are controlled by Republicans. You might get bump stocks banned and some age requirements increased for buying guns - that's it. Other than the age requirements (I'm fine with 21 being the legal age you can buy a gun) I'm against any proposals such as banning bump stocks.

[britinspain]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

You accept kids losing their lives to drunk drivers. Just today, another (average) 28 people were killed by drunk drivers. All innocent. All minding their business. But because you won't ban alcohol, and do what's needed, they lost their lives unnecessarily. Shame on you, because of your selfish addiction to alcohol, you're fine with the loss of human life.

You keep twisting facts to try to deflect the issues here which is guns kill many people intentionally and as such something needs to be done.

If you want facts about alcohol even though its got absolutely nothing to do with this thread and you keep mentions kids

Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver, the rest will in all probability be single vehicle accidents where the drunk kills himself

So 4 kids a week will die because of alcohol, a terrible statistic which we all agree is far too high, however the chances of anyone setting out to kill a kid in the fist place is close to zero.

Whilst From 2012 to 2014, on average, 1,297 children died annually from a gun-related injury in the US, according to the study, published in the journal Pediatrics.

That' s 24 kids a week


Please stop banging the same drum, you've made it perfectly clear you love your guns and no matter how many kids are killed you feel that your right to own a gun comes first.

More reasonable folk here have already said it will come down to the ballot box.

Like any free society laws are made, changed and eradicated depending on the will of the people and the will of the people is governed by the ballot box.

The world is changing and so is the will of the people, so you better get ready to be dragged into the civilized world where people lives mean more than they do today

The way things are moving guns of war, be it semi automatic or whatever name you want to give them will be first to be banned and you will have no choice despite the grandstanding to hand over your guns when you are ordered to just like everyone else.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by britinspain

Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver, the rest will in all probability be single vehicle accidents where the drunk kills himself

Post your sources. 40,000 traffic deaths involve alcohol (posted earlier in the thread) whereas 11,000 of those are people killed by a drunk driver and the other are the drunk driver himself.

The way things are moving guns of war, be it semi automatic or whatever name you want to give them will be first to be banned and you will have no choice despite the grandstanding to hand over your guns when you are ordered to just like everyone else.

If you want to have bet, I will bet with you that semi automatic weapons won't be banned from this.

[Pincho-toot]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

Nobody is talking about banning alcohol. Just banning CERTAIN types of alcohol. Why is that so bad? Why do you need to drink hard liquor?



Well the Virginia Tech shooting came close, and killed 36 people with handguns. This was the worst school shooting (by death toll) in American history and only two other mass shootings have surpassed it (Pulse and Vegas).



This is a strawmen, no one is saying this.



Because it is. You don't waive your self defense rights if the intruder is unarmed.



Go ahead, nothing is stopping you. I'll just shoot him.

Virginia Tech was one example. I know it can happen, but a lot harder. In most cases it's not a handgun at least not solely. You can't compare liquor because it's not a weapon. It's a stupid argument. And when you drink you are affecting your own body. Huuuuuge difference. If you wanna bring up banning alcohol as a talking point, do it where it fits such as in a discussion of drugs. Also, drunk driving is also a bad comparison because we are not talking about drunk shooters. And just because that argument about getting guns legally hasn't been brought up in this thread doesn't mean it's not constantly being brought up.

The right to self defence is NOT an excuse to murder. There's still limitations. That mentality is very worrisome considering the amount of unarmed individuals shot by cops. Though I am sure you don't think that's a problem either

[britinspain]

Originally Posted by BeachBum87

Post your sources. 40,000 traffic deaths involve alcohol (posted earlier in the thread) whereas 11,000 of those are people killed by a drunk driver and the other are the drunk driver himself.


I'm not sure what you asking here ?


If you want to have bet, I will bet with you that semi automatic weapons won't be banned from this.

Semi automatic weapons will be banned for sure, may not happen after this or the next mas shooting that is just around the corner but it will surely happen in the not very distant future so you best enjoy polishing it while you've still got it.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by britinspain

Semi automatic weapons will be banned for sure, may not happen after this or the next mas shooting that is just around the corner but it will surely happen in the not very distant future so you best enjoy polishing it while you've still got it.

It won't happen in my life time.

[BeachBum87]

Originally Posted by BadgerFilms

Virginia Tech was one example. I know it can happen, but a lot harder. In most cases it's not a handgun at least not solely. You can't compare liquor because it's not a weapon. It's a stupid argument. And when you drink you are affecting your own body. Huuuuuge difference. If you wanna bring up banning alcohol as a talking point, do it where it fits such as in a discussion of drugs. Also, drunk driving is also a bad comparison because we are not talking about drunk shooters. And just because that argument about getting guns legally hasn't been brought up in this thread doesn't mean it's not constantly being brought up.

The right to self defence is NOT an excuse to murder. There's still limitations. That mentality is very worrisome considering the amount of unarmed individuals shot by cops. Though I am sure you don't think that's a problem either

Most of what you typed is word salad - ignorant word salad and nonsensical. I just want to remind you that murder is a legal term and you're allowed to legally shoot an unarmed intruder breaking into your home just about everywhere in the USA. I posted an article where an Oklahoma man legally shot and killed 3 unarmed intruders.