I don't think there's much chance of reasoning with this guy.

So you also believe military armaments need not be in civilian hands. For the same reason grenade launchers and 155 mm howitzer also are not needed. IOW we are saying a same thing.

Military weapons are designed to kill people - despite those silly denials. Killing is their purpose. Those large caliber rounds fired from large magazines on semi and fully automatic weapons are not useful (ie have no purpose in hunting). Those are only widely available because the NRA's purpose is to increase industry profits.

What was this week's mass murder?


I don't need no stink'in airline ticket. I have an AR-15. Next stop: Cuba.

Irrelevant, the Constitution doesn't limit the right to bear arms to hunting purposes; or, to self defense for that matter. Nor does it restrict arms to use for a singular purpose. Many have done Close Quarters Battle with carbines. A wide variety of ammunition is available that makes rifles and especially carbines acceptable in many different self protection situations. This has been demonstrated by the US Army issuing the M4 carbine as a standard personal weapon which is used in CQB. Even a carbine converted pistol is treated as a standard rifle under Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

The developmentally impaired tw still chooses to remain ignorant by refusing to get facts. He's not well grounded in reality and it seems he suffers from barrel length envy.

Tw is so ignorant that in a discussion about 223 Remington/5.56mm NATO ammunition he says "Those large caliber rounds" when that ammunition is small caliber. It's just lie after lie ... ad infinitum with tw.

Pathetic are those debarred from owning firearms who try to take them away from everyone else because they can't be trusted with firearms themselves.

There is too many people who would be shocked at this picture of a mere lad with an arsenal of killing machines.
The boy has poor trigger discipline however. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

That's Timmy. Lassie had gotten old and he was getting ready to put her down; but, he knew she wouldn't go easily.

Yeah, he told that bitch to go get help and she went to a psychiatrist.

Trump administration says to make schools safe, more guns are needed.

But to keep Vice President Pence safe, guns are prohibited.

Which position is more plausible?

They're both plausible. Security specialists do a front end analysis looking at how many principals (people to be protected) there are, the threat level against them, and the efficiency of the screening process for armed personnel at the venue. Some situations may benefit from more armed personnel, others less. The nature of the threat against controversial individual celebrities at a large venue is generally better served with less since the security they bring with them is sufficient and too many cooks spoil the pot. OTOH, when are many principals to be protected, who don't bring their own security, in a small venue where the screening process can be more efficient, more armed personnel may be of benefit. A front end analysis needs to be done for each situation. There's no one size fits all.

Some have more compact frames...

welp

School superintendent Dr Leigh Wall said in a statement: "We experienced an unthinkable tragedy at our high school this morning."

.... But it's not UNTHINKABLE because IT KEEPS FUCKING HAPPENING

(from BBC article)

Ya know, maybe we should control the ammo not the guns?

Seems like this is another thing that is everywhere but everyone thinks won't happen to them. Like teenage pregnancy. But controlling the ammo (via condoms and the pill) has been proven effective there whereas trying to stop them having sex was not, so.... ???

That's been tried, on and off, for a couple decades now. Everything from banning its manufacture to taxing it out of the reach of most people. The courts have decided that it's protected to the same extent as the firearms. The same goes for going after any other components that would make the firearms unserviceable.

maybe it's time to try again. or not. perhaps we won't need to worry about teenage pregnancy if they're getting shot first :(

Maybe it's time to take away parental rights and make children wards of the State. That way they can be segregated and locked down so they don't get pregnant or shot.

People have the option of doing it the American way and changing the Constitution. It's been changed before; but, I guess they don't think their kids are worth the effort. After all, it's only other people's kids that will have these problems; so, why go through all that trouble. If the kids' own parents won't do what it takes, why should anyone else jump on some other bandwagon with them?