Images of NRA, Congressional Republicans on the decline

Well the biggest problem I have with people defending large clips (which potentially make sense such as in a .22 pistol such as the Kel-Tec PMR-30 where you are counting on hitting more often with smaller bullets to stop the attacker), is that people often say "Well they don't really help mass shooters kill more people because they can reload really fast anyway" then turn around and say "A person defending their home with a high capacity clip can shoot more bad guys without needing to reload."

On one hand you seem to take credit for many states that have outlawed this practice but then resist stopping it in other states by claiming that it might not help things. Hmm... You wonder why I feel the need to put my text so close to yours. It's because you falsely slice and dice the quotes of others. I've said no such thing. You made the claim that a 20 year old CT resident could buy certain guns. I've shown why that is wrong. Now you will claim my in line quote is because I don't want to respond to this sort of false accusation.

Since borders between states are wide open, no law that is enforced in one state will be effective even in that one state.As on a gun forum how many private sellers would even consider selling without being shown some form of state ID? It's illegal to sell alcohol to a minor. Are you expecting background checks on beer buyers too?

Also, saying this will not be effective undermines your boasting that many states already have this law and IMO also undermines the requirement that FFLs must do BGCs.This is a false argument that you have put forth repeatedly. It has been repeatedly shown to be false. Posting again and again doesn't make you right. In a sense, it makes you like the NRA (or your version of the NRA). It's a lie often repeated becomes true...

Lastly IMO we are beyond showing things and getting data.....we have done this the NRA way for years and we are in trouble. Time to do what logic says should work and most people want. No time to demand comprehensive studies where good data are drowned by crappy data.We've done things the NRAs way? Did the NRA ask for the 1994 ban? Conversely maybe you are right since the murder rate is down and crime is down and gun ownership is up.

1. The CT shooter could have been a few years older. Same result.The shooter could have used 2 pistols with lots of 10 round magazines... same result.

2. He happened to be in a state where this is not legal (no BGCs). But he also could have been in a state where this is legal. And that is the point: same result.Yes, it could have happened in a state with out a BGC law. Since he got the guns from his mom it appears it made no difference. Thus you are arguing the thing you want would have been useless in this case.

3. The law SAYS selling to out of staters is illegal but that law has no teeth. For example, is the seller required to check the ID? Even if yes, is he supposed to document this or can he simply later on merely claim that he checked the ID and the ID was ok? See why I do "wink wink"?

Let's review some of the incorrect information in here. Since I'm actually curious to know how you will defend yourself I will, this time, go through the extra effort to cut up your quote rather than in line marking since you can't be bothered to put the extra effort into your own replies.


The NRA likely does try to put things in where they can to protect their interests. In this regard they are the same as just about any other lobbying group.


Again you fixate on this and use the disingenuous "wink wink". You act as if this is a common happening (it's not) and paint all who might actually engage in private transactions as if they are uncaring about the potential to sell to felons. This practice isn't even legal in many states. What you have, repeatedly, failed to understand (perhaps you refuse to consider the points made by others) is that closing this "loophole" many not seriously reduce the problem you are worried about but will increase the number of people who, though otherwise law abiding, become "criminals" because they are now illegally passing a gun on to a family member for example. Would you actually deny that people without criminal records have been prosecuted for accidentally running afoul of various gun laws? What do you say to someone who is now being declared a felon simply because of an honest mistake or random happenstance related to some random gun law violation?

Your gut is not well qualified. Let's make this clear. The CT shooter almost certainly could not walk into any flea market and buy a gun. First, it would have been illegal for several reasons. 1. He is under age for a pistol 2. He is in a state where this is not legal and if he were in another state it would be illegal since the buyer was out of state. Contrary to what you THINK and the false premiss you are putting forth, private gun sellers DO check IDs when they don't know the person. They can't verify the lack of a felony but they can make sure the buyer is from in state and he is old enough to buy (as far as I know his age is the only thing that would have stopped him from buying in CT, I haven't seen anything saying his mental status put him on a no-by list). Thus you have made a false argument. Funny that you speak of NRA half truths but you are happy to spin your own.

Well he couldn't have but that doesn't stop you from claiming it does it. You have been told repeatedly this is simply a false argument. You have been shown the facts and stats that support this as a red herring yet you are still trying to fry that fish. There is lots of whining and moaning around here. You seem to do a lot of it (especially when I put my replies in line ).

I hear today (I think) on MSNBC that using large clips on ducks is illegal. Is this true?

Same difference. If we banned guns how could have "straw purchases and corrupt FFLs"?

Speaking of dishonest arguments.....

I did a study of AR owners at my gun club and they tend to be educated professionals, married with children, with incomes that allow them to both provide well for their families and have nice toys.

Because unilateral disarming is kinda stupid.

Because under certain circumstances having a gun doses improve your chance of surviving a killer's attack.

Same difference. If we banned guns how could have "straw purchases and corrupt FFLs"?

Speaking of dishonest arguments.....

I hear today (I think) on MSNBC that using large clips on ducks is illegal. Is this true?

You can ban the sell of guns all you want, but how exactly will the government go about rounding up all the millions of guns already in the hands of the public?

You can ban the sell of guns all you want, but how exactly will the government go about rounding up all the millions of guns already in the hands of the public?

I see why you say "wink wink". It's a childish attempt to denigrate what you don't like. It's like saying "stupid liberal" or "tax and spend democrat". Regardless, it's clear the BGC law in CT didn't stop the shooting from happening.

You are all sorts of off on this.
1. Clips are used on almost NO modern guns. You are thinking of magazines.
2. Ducks are hunted with shotguns, not rifles. Duck hunting with rifles is totally not OK because you shoot UP and ducks and rifle bullets can go well over a mile when shot up.

You tried a similar verbal trick asking about the self defense ammo that was illegal for military use. It was a loaded question (yes, I'm using that term again) since you tried to imply there was some compelling reasons why civilians shouldn't have this ammo that the army wasn't "allowed" to use.


Most states do have a limit on the number of rounds allowed in a gun when hunting. For shotguns it's typically 3-4. Also "large" is not a defined term. In the T-Vech shooting people talked about the "high capacity" magazines he had. The implication was he had 75+ round drum magazines or something. No, he had an assortment of 10 and 15 round magazines. 15 is the standard capacity for the gun he used. The magazine fit totally within the handle of the pistol.