A Complete Waste of Space

Buzz wrote: How did I know you'd miss the point again.

sadly, he didn't, Buzz.

Let me explain. Take away the assault rifles, and the nuts turn to shotguns. Do you think they'll be less killed?

yes, because of greater difficulty to conceal, and far slower fire rate with greater recoil. You know this, of course.

Then you do what? Ban shotguns?

they already plug waterfowl guns to limit capacity to 3 shells.

Then what?

then a few less people get killed. Sorta the goal, huh??

Buzz wrote:How did I know you'd miss the point again.

I didn't miss your point, Buzz.
I made an example of your point.

The dead don't give a shit what they were killed with.

You're showing your lack of knowledge of guns slick.

There's a guy who can hold in his hand 10 clay targets. He throws them in the air and hits them all before they hit the ground. It sounds like an automatic gun going off.

Not fast enough? Too much recoil? Yeah right.

Before you say it. It's a production gun.

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Buzz wrote:Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?

Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have a bazooka or an RPG?

Let me ask you both a question. Let's say we're in a room and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I made you eat a store-bought fruitcake or undercooked pork chops? Or, my wife's gnocchi? Or, that hot dog I found under the couch in the fishing cabin?



I love this 'what-if' stuff.....it's been the key tool of the idiots arguing against commonsense gun regulations. Let's just take it to an extreme!

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Buzz wrote:How did I know you'd miss the point again.

I didn't miss your point, Buzz.
I made an example of your point.

The dead don't give a shit what they were killed with.

You missed the point, and so did slick. You actually missed the point twice with your explanation.

You keep talking like that Buzz?
Slick will pee his self.

Buzz, I know you realize that if "they" can get a ban of any type?
It get's real easy to just keep adding to the list.
That's their agenda/plan.

You said it best earlier....Slick should stick to fly rod jousting
in the privacy of his own home. It's just not safe for him anymore,
out in public. Him, being voluntarily disarmed and vulnerable.
Thank the good Lord, he has a cell phone.

callmeslick wrote:

Reservoir_Dog wrote:

Buzz wrote:Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have an assault rifle with a 30 round mag, or a semi auto shotgun loaded with 10 rounds of buckshot?

Let me ask you a question? Lets say we're in a room, and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I have a bazooka or an RPG?

Let me ask you both a question. Let's say we're in a room and my intention is to kill you and your family. Would you rather I made you eat a store-bought fruitcake or undercooked pork chops? Or, my wife's gnocchi? Or, that hot dog I found under the couch in the fishing cabin?



I love this 'what-if' stuff.....it's been the key tool of the idiots arguing against commonsense gun regulations. Let's just take it to an extreme!

It's not what if slick. It's what will happen if they ban assault rifles. What do you think the nuts will do if they ban AK's? Do you think they say to themselves..........Hell, I can't kill now that they banned the gun I was going to use. No, they just take the next gun that will do the job. A shotgun will be a good choice.

Buzz wrote:You're showing your lack of knowledge of guns slick.

There's a guy who can hold in his hand 10 clay targets. He throws them in the air and hits them all before they hit the ground. It sounds like an automatic gun going off.

so, you're suggesting that your average, run-of-the-mill psychopath will practice trick shots for, say, 10 years or so, so he can get good enough at handling a shotgun with those skills? As opposed to the same nut grabbing an off-the-rack AR-15, slapping a 30 shot mag into it and squeezing the trigger. Sure, that seems to be similar enough in practice, huh, Buzz?

Not fast enough? Too much recoil? Yeah right

Before you say it. It's a production gun.

so one guy(and likely a few dozen) acquires that level of expertise, accuracy and comfort with the weapon. Get real, Buzz. You're dancing, and it ain't pretty.

Slick...your weapons expertise is showing like....yer slip.

meanwhile, Pud keeps babbling about the 'secret plan'. The idea here is making mass killing of innocents more difficult. Not impossible, not 'unheard of', not even rare. Simply removing the most common tools for mass shootings: high capacity magazines, and assault-style weapons.
To Pud, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING A TOTAL BAN, NO ONE. Get that into your head. Not Pelosi, nor Obama, nor Barney Frank. Nobody. We all understand the intent and reality of the 2nd Amendment. No one is seriously proposing to repeal the 2nd Amendment. However, that amendment was never designed to be the skirt that the cowards of the NRA and their simpleminded lackeys hide behind and contribute to a less safe, more scared society.

explain where I'm wrong, Pud.