Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, it was postings which focused on Utah and you posted them for quite some time (as unhinged people like you tend to do).   

You may have also posted about IDAHO, because who knows, maybe you have a freakish beef with Idahoans just as you have this freakish fixation with people in Utah.  

Like I said, you have issues so....    LOL

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I am not bothered by a 10 round or less restriction. Higher capacity magazines make the weapon more awkward to handle......and I can change a 10 round clip out in a couple seconds. So much like the silly ban on silly bump stocks its just another red herring.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Well no, I live in a world of sanity, so obviously I can't relate to anything you obsessively post.  

At least in this thread, you didn't simply have a conversation with yourself (as you regularly do on the forum), posting something, then answering your own postsn 10 or 12 times in a row, then arguing with yourself, etc....  

Nope... I just thank my lucky stars everyday that I don't GET you.  That would put me in the realm of your insanity. 

I wouldn't even want to go there!    LOL  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

When dealing with these types of judges, who base their rulings on a specific agenda they have, there is no "reasoning", just a ruling based upon their politics.

I have magazines with capacity up to 12, some 10, and some 15, and it isn't any 'easier' to change a 10 round mag than it is to change a 15 round mags.  

It is identical in length, just carries more bullets.  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

So you are not bothered by the fact that his reasoning was flawed since you addressed none of that...... I bet it bothers you that his ruling can be overturned based on its legal flaws though lol

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Unlike you, I blame the criminal, not the inanimate object that is used by the criminal to kill people.

Not one of your laws that you want to pass, which violates the rights of law abiding citizens, would have stopped 99.9999999999% of any shooting out there.

That's what it boils down to in the end.

The person who pulled the gun is the culprit, not the weapon itself, however when one engages in simpleton reasoning of banning an inanimate object to solve a problem, what one gets is stupidity and mindlessness and nothing that will matter.

I'm not interested in wasting my time with rehashing the nonsense coming from the left.  

When you can come up with a rational solution that works, then I'll take a look and see.  

What we get from the leftist politician and most of their sycophants is that when some crazy or evil person goes in and kills one or more people with a handgun (and not an AR-15), we still get the stupidity of Joe Biden and those like him who say "we've got to ban the AR-15 rifle" even though an AR-15 wasn't even used in said mass shooting.  

If the man had a brain it would rattle in his mostly empty head.  

Therefore not interested in discussing the issue when nonsensical assertions are in play.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And of course you respond with utter stupidity, as you always do.

Your link talks about 100 round magazines.  Where in my posting did I ever mention, let alone discuss 100 round magazines?

To answer the most ignorant among us, I spoke specifically about 10 round magazines vs. 15 round magazines.

I know you're not the brightest bulb in the box, but here's a hint for you anyway.

If I'm having a discussion with another person about a manual transmission and the problems I'm having with shifting, it is probably not the most intelligent move for the other guy to start telling me that the problem might lie in the torque converter, but if that's your mindset, then explain why I need to bother having a subsequent discussion with someone like you, who links an irrelevant study about 100 round magazines.

Like I said previously, someone must have dropped you on your head earlier in life.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Let me just respond to what a strange human being you are and how UNclever you are that you can't even come up with your own ideas.

For the last several posts, you keep reciting over and over "look at my posting Republicans have issues".

Greg said it earlier, when he pointed out how transparent you are.

Let's go over what transpired.

I made a comment about you to Greg at 1:35 in this thread telling Greg "he has issues".

Then suddenly right after that, you made a posting titled "Republicans have issues" precisely 16 minutes later at 1:51.   LOL 

Now you keep referencing it as if you had an epiphany and came up with that line, when I spoon fed it to you, and now you're so damned weird you want everyone here to think you're some clever guy.

Dude, you're not just weird, you're bizarre!     

Get a grip on reality man.  You really are a head case.  Now I know why I left this part of the political forum behind.  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Evidently your reading comprehension was tested and found wanting lol

His whole premise was based on at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified high capacity magazines didnt exist and was therefore not covered but instead could be now limited because of that.

I cited at least 3 instances disproving his premise.....and can come up with more going back close to 200 years.... its pretty simple so I didnt think I needed to actually spell it out for you

However, as I said, I am fine with a 10 round limit as it is little more than a feel good ruling for people like you.....if it makes you feel safer I can live with it, its called compromise. 

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

What link? there are only 2 links in this thread and neither of them reference any of what you are speaking of regarding that reasoning dumbass.....