No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer

No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer

There are 218 comments on the Wizbang story from Jan 9, 2013, titled No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer. In it, Wizbang reports that:

So sayeth New York Governor Andrew "Son of Mario" Cuomo in his State of the State speech today as he railed against the semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine politicians refer to as assault weapons and high-capacity magazines used in said assault weapons and many modern handguns.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wizbang.

Teddy R

Houston, TX

#201 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
If the guns weren't legal to own to begin with, the so-called "law-abiding & responsible" gun owner wouldn't have owned them in the first place.
But they ARE legal to own - and if Grandma had wheels, she'd be a trolley.

Nonsense argument - you should be embarrassed.

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#202 Feb 6, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again pretending this silly view of yours wasn't completely destroyed by my simply citing the hundreds of actual cases of innocent law-abiding citizens left facing home invasions by multiple armed intruders.
No - a simple 6-shot revolver is NOT an adequate or practical defense choice in such scenarios.
More importantly - this is a choice that by RIGHT is the citizen whose family's lives are on the line to make, NOT YOURS, Mr. Internet hero judging from the safety of your keyboard, nor is it the GOVERNMENT'S choice.
Are you done?
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#203 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess now we're going BACK to the "Government Tyranny" theory?
Fine. Again, more important to you than it is to me I guess. I don't deal with low watt half-wits who are more interested in insults than debating facts & opinion. Carry on with your ignorant NRA non-logic hyperbole.
Ahhh - the dramatic irony of the gun-grabbing lib control-freak idealogue.

Most amusing.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#204 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
(cue the "the AR isn't a military weapon" stance in 5...4...3...2...)
The AR-15 semiauto carbine is not a military weapon - it is not to be found as a service issue arm in any military on the planet.

You deny this fact? Or you just find this indisputable fact galling to your foolishly bankrupt position on the subject?
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#205 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you done?
With destroying your foolish memes?

Nah - I'm just getting warmed up.

Skippy.

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#206 Feb 6, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh - the dramatic irony of the gun-grabbing lib control-freak idealogue.
Most amusing.
I guess not.

I'm giving you the chance to get the last word in. I know how important it is to you. Take it already.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#207 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
... on a debate you clearly know nothing about.
Pot ... kettle ... black.

It is quite clear to the readers who has distinguished themselves as most ignorant on the subject.

Congratulations - you win the prize. How would you like your sheepdog wrapped?

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#208 Feb 6, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Pot ... kettle ... black.
It is quite clear to the readers who has distinguished themselves as most ignorant on the subject.
Congratulations - you win the prize. How would you like your sheepdog wrapped?
Now are you done?

Dance little sister, Dance.
Obskeptic

Northville, MI

#209 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you have no real answer to counter my opinions, so you'll switch subjects & move on to other topics I'm talking about on other forums that have ansolutely nothing to do with anything in this forum because you feel the need devote all your time & energy in defeating a total stranger in a public message board on a debate you clearly know nothing about.
I'm home from work today with a sick kid. I have all day to bury you. It appears I don't even need the big shovel, you're grasping after only a few posts. Don't worry though, I'm already growing bored of you.
To demonstrate how absurd the argument that a military style looking weapon is "more dangerous" then a hunting style weapon, I point to the example we have been using in discussion with our friends. My son has a Ruger .22 Long Rifle that holds a ten shot clip, but also fits a forty round banana style clip. He has changed out the stock to a collapsable military style with pistol grip, a muzzle flash reducer, and a laser style scope. It looks all business. Compare that to my Ruger .44 Mag rifle that looks almost identical to the .22 before it was modified. Granted, the .22 holds many more rounds due to the smaller casing and size of the ammo, but when asked, every single person without fail feared the .22 over the .44 mag. Even the anti-troll knows the difference in outcome of a head shot with .44 mag versus the .22 LR. It's a stupid argument because history as already shown that these gun law restrictions will do nothing to address the real problem. It is not the law abiding citizen that we should be fearful of, and making it easier for that individual to arm themselves will reduce crime. I said all that without even insulting you, imagine that.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#210 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Now are you done?
Dance little sister, Dance.
Only if you're done posting nonsensical anti-gun propaganda; it's up to you.

Keep teeing up those BS anti-2A gun-grabber memes, and I'll keep smacking 'em into the upper deck.

Have a pleasant evening.

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#211 Feb 6, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you're done posting nonsensical anti-gun propaganda; it's up to you.
Keep teeing up those BS anti-2A gun-grabber memes, and I'll keep smacking 'em into the upper deck.
Have a pleasant evening.
Oh, I'll hear from you tomorrow, I'm sure...

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#212 Feb 6, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
To demonstrate how absurd the argument that a military style looking weapon is "more dangerous" then a hunting style weapon, I point to the example we have been using in discussion with our friends. My son has a Ruger .22 Long Rifle that holds a ten shot clip, but also fits a forty round banana style clip. He has changed out the stock to a collapsable military style with pistol grip, a muzzle flash reducer, and a laser style scope. It looks all business. Compare that to my Ruger .44 Mag rifle that looks almost identical to the .22 before it was modified. Granted, the .22 holds many more rounds due to the smaller casing and size of the ammo, but when asked, every single person without fail feared the .22 over the .44 mag. Even the anti-troll knows the difference in outcome of a head shot with .44 mag versus the .22 LR. It's a stupid argument because history as already shown that these gun law restrictions will do nothing to address the real problem. It is not the law abiding citizen that we should be fearful of, and making it easier for that individual to arm themselves will reduce crime. I said all that without even insulting you, imagine that.
All you really did was brag about the guns you suppoesdly own. You proved no point.
Just Saying

Mineola, NY

#213 Feb 6, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one with a Wikipedia degree. Spare me your "30+ years on the force" crap. Bottom line - A cop is trained to fire his gun & hit what he's aiming at. Regardless of whether it's moving, spinning, jumping or bouncing off the walls. If he can't get the job done in less than 10 shots, he's doing it wrong.
"Hollywood". That's a pip. You idiots are talking about Government Tyranny scenarios & "Escaped convicts out for revenge" & you're going to preach to me about Hollywood?(insert face palm here)
The Hollywood reference referred to actors playing cops and robbers, who hit everything they shoot at with prop guns, and has nothing to do with reality. Look at every police shootout, and you'll see that the vast majority involve multiple rounds with few hits. If your adrenaline is pumping, and you're ducking fire, you're going to have a hard time putting shots on target, and even more so if you and your target are moving, no matter how well you're trained. That's not Wikipedia, that's a fact. I know what I'm talking about, unlike Internet tough guys like you who hide behind your keyboards.
ole boy

Lexington, TN

#214 Feb 7, 2013
Why can't y'all just leave those of us that acullay like guns the hell alone y'all can be disarmed just like y'all want so damn bad and ill sit here and watch everything go to hell with my shotgun by my door
Obskeptic

Farmington, MI

#215 Feb 7, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
All you really did was brag about the guns you suppoesdly own. You proved no point.
Why don't you allow me to prove my point then Anti-troll. You bring a bullet proof vest to the party and I will discharge one round from each weapon directed at your chest, and then you tell me which one you fear more.
Greg Drollman

New York, NY

#217 Feb 7, 2013
Cuz teddy r has always been right before he must be right now.... Wait a minute.......

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#218 Feb 7, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you allow me to prove my point then Anti-troll. You bring a bullet proof vest to the party and I will discharge one round from each weapon directed at your chest, and then you tell me which one you fear more.
You're EXACTLY the kind of guy that needs to be on the registry.
Obskeptic

Farmington, MI

#219 Feb 7, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
You're EXACTLY the kind of guy that needs to be on the registry.
I have no record of mental illness or ever been convicted of any crime, so what makes you more lawful then me when it comes to being registered?

“The No Troll Zone”

Since: Jan 13

Where it's at.

#220 Feb 7, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no record of mental illness or ever been convicted of any crime, so what makes you more lawful then me when it comes to being registered?
I'm not the guy threatening to shoot anybody in the chest.
Obskeptic

Farmington, MI

#221 Feb 7, 2013
The Anti-Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the guy threatening to shoot anybody in the chest.
I simply suggested a way to demonstrate the difference in the two weapons TAT. I'm not threatening anybody, simply trying to prove a point. Apparently it went over your head. The .22 would be against the law to own, yet the .44 mag would be legal, and holds a clip as well. The law is stupid, and like before, will have no effect other then talking about gun control causing millions of guns and rounds of ammo to be sold in the last month. The constitution is off limits, period!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

South-Ozone-Park Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Republicans are going to hate what Donald Trump... Sun jimi-yank 29
Noise problem in one section of Queens Village (Oct '14) Sat John 2
The Book of the century is finally here.-NY Yan... Fri Paul Priore 1
My Support for Donald Trump Presidential Bid: Fri Paul Priore 1
News Airgas workers join Teamsters Aug 26 Ringleader 2
News 14 Years In Prison For Man Who Sexually Assault... (May '14) Jun '15 asosweet 3
pn. readiness May '15 annieharr6 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

South-Ozone-Park Mortgages