Mom had to take him along. Dad was out shopping.
Posted on 01/17/2013 9:00:04 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
For liberals facts are never really important. “Truth” to liberals like Democrat New York City Congressman Jerrold Nadler is what he “feels” it is. Nadler has said: “Hunters don’t use large ammunition clips, and as far as self- defense, I mean who are you defending yourself against? If you’re defending yourself against a robber… two or three or four shots should be enough—period.”
It’s a safe bet Nadler has never faced an assailant fueled by adrenalin drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t matter, of course, since no one will ever challenge Nadler on his supposed knowledge of the danger presented by people who are psychotic and drunk – “period.”
The “period” at the end of Nadler’s pronouncement is the classic liberal dismissal of anyone daring to disagree with...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
why is there a child (bottom right) at this looting?
This congressman ASSUMES somebody else will protect him.
When the time comes, he will be the slow one the zombies eat first.
Have you seen anything on this other than the NRA publication?
The question is not a fallacy. If there is supporting evidence, it should be brought out and used for rebuttal. There are police reports with this info, surely our freeper LEO, lawyers court personnel have been involved in these reports.
There was an incident not too long ago where LEOs emptied something like 105 rounds at some small time crook in a vehicle...
But Ma and Pa in Hacksaw Arkansas should only be allowed a 2 shot pistol. This should be more than adequate for them.
Bring your child to work the riot Day?
Warning to Bruthas: Always attack in gangs of 5 or more!
A single perp absorbed five .38 rounds in a home invasion in GA a couple weeks ago, and wasn’t immediately disabled. Therefore, five is not enough for a single perp.
Presuming that perps work in 2s or 3s, which they do. That gets you to over 10 rounds really fast.
That said, the 2A is intended to allow the citizenry to take on an out of control government. That points back toward the need to have military type capacities.
Mom had to take him along. Dad was out shopping.
No, the question IS a falacy. Since there is no meaning in the result, there is no pupose to the question or research other than to delay or deflect the argument.
The “right to bear arms” is exactly that, and an empty magazine is not arms.
Besides, there are better questions that this stupid falacy keeps us from asking.
Can we remain an armed and free people as the Founders intended while whole generations of little boys are doped out if their minds for the convenience of “public school teachers” to enjoy a classroom filled with quiet zombies?
Can we lose psychiatry as a medicine and psychology as a science to the Alinsky-left and still be a nation of people we would like to see armed?
Those are REAL questions that are NOT being asked while we are lead by our noses through the Democrat’s debate.
I know all that. My point is, if we keep saying we need more rounds available, and there is no good evidence on this, eventually some gun-grabber will do some research on it himself. If it ends up that 99% of home self-defense incidents resulted in only a few rounds being fired, our credibility is reduced and they will pounce on that. I don’t want that. That is why I’m asking if there are any freepers with this data, they should make it available for our arguments.
“If you’re defending yourself against a robber”
What if its, I dunno, two robbers?
Please see my #51. This is similar to the gun-grabbers saying you don’t need 20 rounds for hunting. Anyone that hunts, knows this is true, you really don’t...unless you’re trying to shoot doves, then you need fully auto.
Even though well-intentioned, if we keep saying we need large capacity mags for home defense the only data on that shows it to not be true a majority of the time, it weakens our position and I don’t want that. The media will ping on that as a fact. I don’t want our only defense to be...because I may need it.
It is interesting that Mr. Nadler has conceded that you have a right to shoot in defense against a robber. To shoot, you must have a gun therefore he is conceding your right to bear arms. It is progress if a liberal such as Mr. Nadler is giving up on the argument about the right to bear arms and just wants to debate about the number of rounds you can use.
Just need the correct reply. Like “larger magazines - if they save just one life...” and point out the poor woman that only had five shots - and the perp survived and might have continued to be a threat...
You and I just need that, but the gun-grabbers need much more.
Mark
The question is valid but this argument is specious from the very git-go—the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals; it's about overthrowing tyranny and facing whatever firepower the government's troops possess!!!
We mustn't let the Left frame the debate!
We won’t have a position if we can’t answer the questions I posted. If we do not deserve to be armed, as a people, we WILL lose the right.
The answer to the wrong question is to ask the right one. I do not want to “help” the lib-tard Media “debate” gun-control. Their “debate” is over how to do it, and talking about magazine capacity is simply and ONLY part of that discussion.
If you are arguing this issue, you have already lost the debate. There is no way to “win” a debate with someone making a falacious argument.
Amen.
He is a PUBLIC SERVANT. It’s his job to protect our rights under the Second Amendment to decide ourselves the number of bullets we want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.