Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Sometimes I feel like I would love to live in this illusion where you live. It's very very simple. When the founding fathers created the bill the right to bear arms. There is a reason we cannot carry every type of weapon under the sun simply because it say's right to bear arms. You can and should defend yourself with a gun if you so choose. However this is about.

Assault weapons that are capable of firing off more then 100 bullets in a small amount of time. It's about the design of a lethal weapon shooting the most bullets in the smallest amount of time. It's about this weapon being used in a half dozen in last year biggest murders that dominated the news station. This weapon was used not in a small number.

When shootings like this happen. (And they do) most people like the kid in NewTown use a 223 Bush Master. That's FACT he used that and it's not an appeal to emotion. It's a appeal to common sense gun rights. You are severely being dishonest about the intention of the bill and the reason we do not need assault weapons. What exactly do you need this weapon for.

That's right you don't. It's not our job to prove you don't need the weapon. That's already done. It's you to prove why you do NEED this weapon. Why certain guns are outlawed but the basic need to have this? perhaps hunting..not likely unless you are a horrible shot. Self defense? A shotgun or a Pistol can do the job. There is no reason. Not one. To have this weapon.

To poster above me. I already cited NUMEROUS news circles and people in Congress including the President who all have already defined an AR-15 as an assault weapon on top of that numerous posting on the front page. If you choose to ignore that it's not my job to convince you other wise.

It is your job: You made this post.

This is an appeal to emotion. It being flashe don the news is an appeal to emotion. The fact that they are used in very little crime but in your eyes are an imminent threat, shows you are being controlled by that new channel, who is appealing to your emotion.

The Ar-15 is called and assault weapon because it can have pistol grips and special stocks. Not because it is used in the military.

[ugotownd]

As I said, an insanely high homicide rate is, apparently, not a good enough reason for some people. The argument has been made and rejected by the pro gun crowd.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 12:27 AM ----------



You must have missed the part right under my quote, let me point it out to you:

So your for banning all guns then. Since rifles were only used in LESS then 400 deaths. So again how about a good reason for the weapon ban.

[knudnat]

All of this is kinda of amusing to me. I don't think this bill is going anywhere with a Republican controlled house. At best I think you are going to see a capacity restriction put in place. If that happens what we will see is sales of higher caliber firearms increase.

If you are only allowed 10 shots a 9mm is not the best choice. People will start looking at .45ACP or higher in a handgun... hell .454 casull if you can afford it. It will be the same with rifles. 5.56 is a pretty small round when compared to 8mm Mauser or .30-06. Limited shots, people will move to maximum damage.

[ImpTaimer]

An assault weapon is a weapon which exceeds its purpose to cause violence. It is a tool of violence, and nothing more. Overkill.

People take "the right to bear arms" out of context. You have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to offend others.

People don't want weapon bans because it insults their ego. You're less powerful, while others aren't. You must fear them because they have more power, instead of fearing them because they'll shoot first. This comes from the delusions of a materialist. Because people make money from selling assault weapons, banning them threatens them. They then instigate violence in an attempt to deter the ban. It's pathetic and predictable.

Weapon bans won't stop someone from killing you with a pencil, but it'll stop them from making it easier for them to kill you.

Stop looking for a better weapon and start looking for a better shield.

On an unrelated note: Why do people insist on using the word "factual" as if it has any more credibility than "irregardless"?

[Mr. Casual]

i say forget guns let go back to medieval warfare, only melee weapons allowed

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

An assault weapon is a weapon which exceeds its purpose to cause violence. It is a tool of violence, and nothing more. Overkill.

People take "the right to bear arms" out of context. You have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to offend others.

People don't want weapon bans because it insults their ego. You're less powerful, while others aren't. You must fear them because they have more power, instead of fearing them because they'll shoot first. This comes from the delusions of a materialist. Because people make money from selling assault weapons, banning them threatens them. They then instigate violence in an attempt to deter the ban. It's pathetic and predictable.

Weapon bans won't stop someone from killing you with a pencil, but it'll stop them from making it easier for them to kill you.

Stop looking for a better weapon and start looking for a better shield.

On an unrelated note: Why do people insist on using the word "factual" as if it has any more credibility than "irregardless"?

Well, I don't think the very obvious and to the point amendment can be out of context. How does someone owning a gun offend you?

[Extrazero8]

An assault weapon is a weapon which exceeds its purpose to cause violence. It is a tool of violence, and nothing more. Overkill.

What?

People take "the right to bear arms" out of context. You have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to offend others.

I don't know why anyone would be offended by me owning my AR15.

People don't want weapon bans because it insults their ego. You're less powerful, while others are. You must fear them because they have more power, instead of fearing them because they'll shoot first. This comes from the delusions of a materialist. Because people make money from selling assault weapons, banning them threatens them.

Well I don't make them and I don't sell them but I still do not support a ban.

They then instigate violence in an attempt to deter the ban. It's pathetic and predictable.

People tend to get testy when politicians threaten one of their rights.

Weapon bans won't stop someone from killing you with a pencil, but it'll stop them from making it easier for them to kill you.

No it will just make them switch to something different while making it difficult to impossible for me to acquire that weapon for my own self defense.

Stop looking for a better weapon and start looking for a better shield.

I don't think I can buy a personal shield but if the technology existed that would be awesome.

[Findlyn]

Funniest part about this thread, imo, is the people claiming the reason for needing to ban 'assault weapons' is due to the Sandy Hook incident. While it hasnt made recent popular news, cause lets face it, it isnt going to pull in the ratings, you might want to look up the RECENT factual finding is that in the incident, not a SINGLE person, was killed or injured by an 'assault weapon.

That is right folks, actually follow news! You might find out sensational headlines are just that, sensational, not factual! Just google it if you dont believe me, supported by CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

[PhaelixWW]

It's to ban weapons that can have over 100 bullets in ammo and fire a 100 bullets In less then a minute.

That's all semi-automatic firearms. Nothing about the "characteristics" of an assault weapon (pistol grip, collapsing stock, etc.) make it fire any more or any faster than any other semi-automatic.

The fact that it can be done at all. That IS the problem. What's so hard to wrap you're head head that I'm saying it's possible to do that much like it's possible to modify a shot gun turning it illegal saw off shot gun.

Making a shotgun into a sawed off shotgun requires... a hacksaw. Modifying a semi-automatic firearm to shoot fully automatic takes special parts, special milling machinery, detailed plans, and a willingness to risk an expensive piece of hardware for an incredibly illegal act for very little potential gain.

I assure you there are people who are capable of doing this quite easily.

No, there are not. Because it's anything but an easy process. If it's easy to do, then it should be easy to explain how to do.

The REAL question is why you would need that weapon AT ALL.

The real question is why you keep asking the same stupid question when you've already been answered at least 20 times.

Even if you prove your point to me personally you still fail at the largest picture the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in the Mass Murders.

Don't you get tired of repeating incorrect information? Do you remember this post, where I listed every mass killing since columbine, which showed that only 10 of the 56 used an assault weapon, while 29 used a handgun as the only firearm. Or how about this post, where I refuted the information on the MJ website and showed that of their 62 cherry-picked public mass shootings over the last 30 years, only 14 used an assault weapon while 37 used handguns. In fact, the most deadly mass shooting during that timeframe (VA Tech, 32 killed) was with handguns, not an assault weapon.

But of course the only two mass killings you seem to want to talk about are Aurora and Newtown, completely ignoring all the rest because they don't support your case. Just don't expect us to let you get away with it.

You could only fire ten shots before you have to re-load. Compare that to AR-15 you can fire 100 shots before you have to re-load.

That's a function of the magazine, not the firearm. You could just as easily drop a drum magazine into a handgun...



So much for that theory, eh?

I never not once said they look and the Keyword is Scary. I said their magazines could be changed to different amount of bullets. Then it can modified from a semi automatic to a fully automatic. How in the world can you take I said they look scary when telling you what they can actually do. News Flash unless someone actually say's something.

You can't throw a ton of words into their mouth.

He's not saying that you said it. He's saying that the proposed definition for assault weapons considers itself with "scary looking" features.

From Feinstein's proposed bill, the characteristics of an assault weapon are:

(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.

Aside from the grenade/rocket launcher (which, frankly, nobody's going to put on their firearm anyway), all those characteristics are cosmetic; they don't make the firearm any more dangerous.

Do you even see "capable of being modified to fully automatic" anywhere on that list? No. Because that has nothing to do with assault weapons or an assault weapons ban.

Honestly, if the ATF considered these firearms easily capable of being modified to be automatic, they'd just issue a ruling considering them automatic, like they did for many open-bolt semi-automatic firearms in the 80s. The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a machine gun (otherwise referred to as a fully-automatic firearm) as:

…any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The bolded section allows them to declare certain semi-automatic firearms to be machine guns, based on how easy they are to convert.

So if the ATF doesn't feel worried enough about the convertibility of an AR-15, then why should you?

If you cannot tell the difference from the weapon damage from a pistol and an AR-15.

Perhaps this isn't the best place for you to debate that. Just saying.

Wow. I couldn't have said it better myself. Say... can you tell the difference?

With this logic. I could simply dismiss your entire post as not knowing anything.

That's quite a dangerous precedent you'd like to set there, considering the (non)factual content of the majority of your posts.

Since you could't accurately tell the difference if he used an AR-15 or a Pistol.

Since you thought Canada had 0-1 murder a year.

Glass houses and all. Just sayin'.

While I'm not making Fused's argument, pistols have common application for self defense.

And what makes a semi-automatic handgun better for home defense than a semi-automatic rifle? And how would any argument to that effect not imply that handguns are more dangerous in the realm of public shootings? Especially considering that any person committed to a mass shooting, if their desire for a semi-automatic rifle were frustrated, would almost certainly turn to handguns for the act instead.

So in a way, if you think that handgun calibers tend to be more effective at putting people down, then you could argue that banning assault weapons and turning those nutcases to handguns instead of a .223 rifle would actually be making the streets more dangerous.

Their was a certain reason that it was banned for almost a decade. There is a very certain reason that it was kept out of the hands of the public.

The reason was fear. 1992 was the highest peak in crime rates since the Great Depression in the 30s. People wanted to try anything they could to drive crime rates down. What's funny is that by the time the ban was passed in late 1994, crime rates were already starting to decline. And they've been declining ever since, to the point where crime rates now are half of what they were in 1992.

And since the ban was ended, nearly a decade ago, crime has continued to drop even while AR-15 sales have grown exponentially.

The more bullets you can fire off in the shortest amount of time less chance of people getting away and general point why does someone need an AR-15 capable of shooting more then a hundred bullets in less then a minute. If you look at the situation logically there was a reason it stayed banned.

If your issue is with drum magazines, then advocate the ban of drum magazines. See my above explanation why capacity is a function of the magazine itself and has nothing to do with the firearm.

Military Style Assault Weapons have no place outside of war. You can fire the most bullets in the shortest amount of time with these weapons which is able to easy modify from a Semi Automatic to a Fully Auto matic.

No offense but if you're too lazy to read the past few pages and want me to make a brand new argument for you. Then you are sadly mistaken.

These two statements, made back to back; dear god, the hypocrisy.

Considering just how many times you've been told that semi-automatics all have the same rate-of-fire and that it's not easy to convert assault weapons from semi- to fully automatic.

As I said, an insanely high homicide rate is, apparently, not a good enough reason for some people.

It's actually an insanely low homicide rate, as it applies to assault weapons. 90% of firearm homicides are via handgun; there's your insanely high rate.

But dead people is, apparently, not a good enough reason to deny people their Saturday afternoons at the shooting range. At least not the 3/4 majority required.

Not when you can't even conceivably claim that a ban would save those lives. Even if a criminal were unable to find and illegally purchase an assault weapon on the street, would they then also magically be unable to procure a non-banned semi-automatic firearm and achieve the same goals? Does it make a difference to the victim if they're killed with a Glock 40 vs. an AR-15?

It's about this weapon being used in a half dozen in last year biggest murders that dominated the news station. This weapon was used not in a small number.

Wait, what, now it's half a dozen? You've only ever listed two. Feel free to try and scrounge up four more mass shootings with assault weapons last year. But be sure to also count the number of handgun shootings at the same time.

When shootings like this happen. (And they do) most people like the kid in NewTown use a 223 Bush Master.

No, actually, a Bushmaster was only used in one of the two assault weapon mass killings last year. The firearm used in Aurora was a Smith & Wesson M&P15.

What exactly do you need this weapon for.

That's right you don't. It's not our job to prove you don't need the weapon.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.

That's already done.

Not even close. You don't understand the concept of 'proof', do you?

An assault weapon is a weapon which exceeds its purpose to cause violence. It is a tool of violence, and nothing more. Overkill.

People take "the right to bear arms" out of context. You have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to offend others.

You know, this kind of self-righteous tripe is really starting to annoy me. First you try to dictate what it is, as if you're an authority, then you imply that it should be done away with because it's offensive to others or that its only possible use is to hurt people.

You talk as if having a rifle in your hands is one half-step shy of shooting someone in the face. You seem entirely like the kind of person who thinks they know what the deal is, but really don't have a single clue.

Firearms in general are merely tools; tools of the user's intent. If the user intends violence, then yes, it's a tool of violence. But that's only true of a very, very small percentage of people. For most gun owners, they're a tool of sport, or defense, or hunting.

Do yourself a favor and don't make yourself look stupid by typecasting a huge segment of the US population as violent.

On an unrelated note: Why do people insist on using the word "factual" as if it has any more credibility than "irregardless"?

Maybe because "factual" is an actual word and "irregardless" is just a non-standard, semantically imprecise screw-up?

[Laize]

Sometimes I feel like I would love to live in this illusion where you live. It's very very simple. When the founding fathers created the bill the right to bear arms. There is a reason we cannot carry every type of weapon under the sun simply because it say's right to bear arms. You can and should defend yourself with a gun if you so choose. However this is about.

Assault weapons that are capable of firing off more then 100 bullets in a small amount of time. It's about the design of a lethal weapon shooting the most bullets in the smallest amount of time. It's about this weapon being used in a half dozen in last year biggest murders that dominated the news station. This weapon was used not in a small number.

When shootings like this happen. (And they do) most people like the kid in NewTown use a 223 Bush Master. That's FACT he used that and it's not an appeal to emotion. It's a appeal to common sense gun rights. You are severely being dishonest about the intention of the bill and the reason we do not need assault weapons. What exactly do you need this weapon for.

That's right you don't. It's not our job to prove you don't need the weapon. That's already done. It's you to prove why you do NEED this weapon. Why certain guns are outlawed but the basic need to have this? perhaps hunting..not likely unless you are a horrible shot. Self defense? A shotgun or a Pistol can do the job. There is no reason. Not one. To have this weapon.

To poster above me. I already cited NUMEROUS news circles and people in Congress including the President who all have already defined an AR-15 as an assault weapon on top of that numerous posting on the front page. If you choose to ignore that it's not my job to convince you other wise.

I never said we should be able to carry any weapon under the sun. I said that when you want to abridge a constitutional right, you must provide compelling evidence that the benefits of that abridgment outweigh the costs. The AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon. It can't fire more than 45-60 rounds per minute, and that's in the hands of a skilled operator. It is no different from a more traditional hunting rifle in anything other than appearance.

If the weapon was used in "a half dozen" shootings as you say, then perhaps you should realize that even if every shooting killed 20 people, that's only 120 deaths in the face of over 8000 gun crimes.

So you still provide no compelling reason to restrict the freedom of millions.

These are not fully automatic weapons you're trying to ban. They are semiautomatic... EVERY weapon is semiautomatic with the sole exception of bolt-action rifles. A frigging 6-shooter revolver is semiautomatic.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 02:06 PM ----------

There's the powerfully anti gun side, and the powerfully pro gun side, and then there are all kinds of shades of gray in the middle.

The facts, logic, reason and evidence have all been presented. Laize, we both know that you will not listen or change your stance, and neither will a lot of people here, no matter what is put in front of you, so it's rather pointless to ask people to convince you of anything. The arguments have been made and done. Facts and figures are dismissed with the wave of a hand. It's basically boiled down to... "It doesn't matter, second amendment! Need to convince everyone to vote that way!"

No, they haven't. The pro-control side seems to believe that fully automatic weapons are available to the public. They're not and haven't been since the 80s. The weapons people are railing against are simply semi-automatic weapons when EVERY gun is semiautomatic aside from bolt action rifles. You seem to think it's acceptable to restrict MILLIONS simply to save about 84 lives a year (Which was the approximate number of people killed last year by "assault weapons").

You talk of wanting to control guns and save lives but provide no evidence that regulating the weapons themselves into the ground will help. Instead of keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerous (such as violent criminals) you would rather neuter the guns themselves despite the fact that you're shitting all over every one of the 100+ million people who managed to NOT kill anyone with their weapons last year.

You've apparently not been paying attention, but you're going to dismiss anything factual because you don't like it.

If you can point out how the AWB worked in the past I'm all ears. Promise.

[lockedout]

How dare you come here with your logic!

[Dillon]

An assault weapon is a weapon which exceeds its purpose to cause violence. It is a tool of violence, and nothing more. Overkill.

People take "the right to bear arms" out of context. You have the right to defend yourself. You do not have the right to offend others.

People don't want weapon bans because it insults their ego. You're less powerful, while others aren't. You must fear them because they have more power, instead of fearing them because they'll shoot first. This comes from the delusions of a materialist. Because people make money from selling assault weapons, banning them threatens them. They then instigate violence in an attempt to deter the ban. It's pathetic and predictable.

Weapon bans won't stop someone from killing you with a pencil, but it'll stop them from making it easier for them to kill you.

Stop looking for a better weapon and start looking for a better shield.

On an unrelated note: Why do people insist on using the word "factual" as if it has any more credibility than "irregardless"?

You don't get to tell me what is overkill in defending myself from harm. The entire concept is to use whatever amount of force necessary to stop a threat; threats are not constant in their degree, rather contrary they indeed vary. I'm not going to insist someone can only carry seven rounds in a magazine (LOL NEW YORK) because I cannot be there to see for sure that seven rounds is all they need.

Free speech includes a license to offend.

Though I'm going to assume you didn't mean that, but rather you don't have a right to go on the offensive against others. In which case, you're right in a way, that would be a preemptive strike, which is inherently unamerican and contrary to our founding principles. But what do you expect people to do? There's no real reliable means to stop being hit by bullets, should someone attack you. Owning weapons are about having a chance and the ability to counter against criminals and tyranny.

Which brings me to my next point, because in a way you are also right about it being an ego thing. Just not the way you insist. It means that government should not have a monopoly on power, nor should criminals, which is exactly the scenario banning guns creates. The only monopoly of power there should be is the in the hands of the citizenry.

[FusedMass]

I never said we should be able to carry any weapon under the sun. I said that when you want to abridge a constitutional right, you must provide compelling evidence that the benefits of that abridgment outweigh the costs. The AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon. It can't fire more than 45-60 rounds per minute, and that's in the hands of a skilled operator. It is no different from a more traditional hunting rifle in anything other than appearance.

If the weapon was used in "a half dozen" shootings as you say, then perhaps you should realize that even if every shooting killed 20 people, that's only 120 deaths in the face of over 8000 gun crimes.

So you still provide no compelling reason to restrict the freedom of millions.

These are not fully automatic weapons you're trying to ban. They are semiautomatic... EVERY weapon is semiautomatic with the sole exception of bolt-action rifles. A frigging 6-shooter revolver is semiautomatic.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 02:06 PM ----------



No, they haven't. The pro-control side seems to believe that fully automatic weapons are available to the public. They're not and haven't been since the 80s. The weapons people are railing against are simply semi-automatic weapons when EVERY gun is semiautomatic aside from bolt action rifles. You seem to think it's acceptable to restrict MILLIONS simply to save about 84 lives a year (Which was the approximate number of people killed last year by "assault weapons").

You talk of wanting to control guns and save lives but provide no evidence that regulating the weapons themselves into the ground will help. Instead of keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerous (such as violent criminals) you would rather neuter the guns themselves despite the fact that you're shitting all over every one of the 100+ million people who managed to NOT kill anyone with their weapons last year.



If you can point out how the AWB worked in the past I'm all ears. Promise.

You remind me of this Sheriff on CNN who questioned if he would enforce new gun laws. He said that only if he talked to the Attorney General of his state if any Federal Gun laws were passed. People like this really see them themselves as so unique when it comes to law's like this. I never said anything about the appearance. The evidence is the dozens of dead body's that were killed by this weapon.

Let's recap at the Movies a man used an AR-15 to kill at least 10 people inside the movies. Two out of Four Fire Fighters died when responding to a false hoax about a house being on fire. Turns out a man was there with an AR-15 in ready and gunned them down. He was even quoted as saying he wanted to kill as many people as possible.

Now he had someone else buy his weapon for him. In NewTown the sole weapon that was used. You guessed it the AR-15. Now let's focus on the weapon itself. It's capable of turning from a Semi Automatic to a Fully Automatic. That's not an appeal to emotion. That's a fact. Though some Gun Owners will complain that it's not easy modified the fact you can modify it at all.

Even in Semi Automatic mode depending on how fast you pull the trigger. It's already been confirmed you can shoot a hundred bullets in less then a minute. On Fully Automatic which is illegal but as you Pro Gun users so Politely keep pointing out Outlaws do not follow weapons. Now let you tell you a story that involves Texas.

Some years ago a small community in Waco Texas. Saw the Government much like some of you see it. Their response to letting the Government issues a search warrant was to fire back bullets in response. This is the kind of hostile you will rather have our bullets then our guns attitude that you and others so correctly displayed. A man witnessed the attack on Waco and this is true because he saw the Government as hitting the first attack.

So covered with anger that man blew up a building in response. It was the Oklahoma City Bombing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Why is this so important? much like some other posters it saw the Government as the foe. They had their weapons locked and ready to go. The sole motative behind the attack. The man was convinced the government was trying unlawfully take their weapons.

If Gov wants to pass gun laws. I think they more the proved why they need it. In the end everyone who say's they will not convert at the end of the day as a choice to face. I already covered the people this murder weapon has killed. The fact it can be turned to Fully Automatic. The fact its a weapon designed for lethal kills. Killing the most people in the shortest amount of time.

Is not a weapon in my humble point of view that should belong in hands of our society. It appears Bill and Reagan did agree with me on this because time and again leaders of both party. Republican AND Dems have called for it's ban. In fact Republican President Candidate Mitt Romney in fact signed an assault weapons ban as Gov.

[Rocko9]

Is not a weapon in my humble point of view that should belong in hands of our society. It appears Bill and Reagan did agree with me on this because time and again leaders of both party. Republican AND Dems have called for it's ban. In fact Republican President Candidate Mitt Romney in fact signed an assault weapons ban as Gov.

Holy fuck, Bill was wrong, Reagan was wrong and Mittens was wrong. Just because two of the 3 were Republicans, doesn't make them right or mean that everyone agrees. Mitt Romney is a RINO and should be a Democrat. What he did may be considered Republican by Massachusetts standards, but not the rest of the states standards. Barney Frank is gay, does that make all Democrats gay?


FFS, you don't ban guns because a handful of people went to town. You're a broken record with your posts, you just keep posting them in different sentence order. I'm thinking you're off your rocker. Should we ban Texas liberals from the internet for this? No.

[mrwingtipshoes]

You remind me of this Sheriff on CNN who questioned if he would enforce new gun laws. He said that only if he talked to the Attorney General of his state if any Federal Gun laws were passed. People like this really see them themselves as so unique when it comes to law's like this. I never said anything about the appearance. The evidence is the dozens of dead body's that were killed by this weapon.

Let's recap at the Movies a man used an AR-15 to kill at least 10 people inside the movies. Two out of Four Fire Fighters died when responding to a false hoax about a house being on fire. Turns out a man was there with an AR-15 in ready and gunned them down. He was even quoted as saying he wanted to kill as many people as possible.

Now he had someone else buy his weapon for him. In NewTown the sole weapon that was used. You guessed it the AR-15. Now let's focus on the weapon itself. It's capable of turning from a Semi Automatic to a Fully Automatic. That's not an appeal to emotion. That's a fact. Though some Gun Owners will complain that it's not easy modified the fact you can modify it at all.

Even in Semi Automatic mode depending on how fast you pull the trigger. It's already been confirmed you can shoot a hundred bullets in less then a minute. On Fully Automatic which is illegal but as you Pro Gun users so Politely keep pointing out Outlaws do not follow weapons. Now let you tell you a story that involves Texas.

Some years ago a small community in Waco Texas. Saw the Government much like some of you see it. Their response to letting the Government issues a search warrant was to fire back bullets in response. This is the kind of hostile you will rather have our bullets then our guns attitude that you and others so correctly displayed. A man witnessed the attack on Waco and this is true because he saw the Government as hitting the first attack.

So covered with anger that man blew up a building in response. It was the Oklahoma City Bombing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Why is this so important? much like some other posters it saw the Government as the foe. They had their weapons locked and ready to go. The sole motative behind the attack. The man was convinced the government was trying unlawfully take their weapons.

If Gov wants to pass gun laws. I think they more the proved why they need it. In the end everyone who say's they will not convert at the end of the day as a choice to face. I already covered the people this murder weapon has killed. The fact it can be turned to Fully Automatic. The fact its a weapon designed for lethal kills. Killing the most people in the shortest amount of time.

Is not a weapon in my humble point of view that should belong in hands of our society. It appears Bill and Reagan did agree with me on this because time and again leaders of both party. Republican AND Dems have called for it's ban. In fact Republican President Candidate Mitt Romney in fact signed an assault weapons ban as Gov.

BULL. SHIT.



The top three guns are identical, one of them is an "Assault weapon" and thus banned, the other two are not and exempt. Please tell me how the middle one is more dangerous? Why should it be banned when its brothers are not? How is THIS NOT PURELY ABOUT AESTHETICS?

Stop dodging, stop linking articles or quoting politicians, stop screaming about sandy hook and throwing dead children out as evidence and answer. the. damn. question.

[Daelak]

Saying something like "dead people apparently isn't a good enough reason blah blah blah" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

There's nothing factual about it or statistically beneficial about this AWB. It didn't work in the past and it won't work now. All it is is a stepping stone to broader gun control.

And if you're so concerned with the VERY SMALL number of people who die to these weapons every year that you're willing to outright ban them (despite millions owning them and NOT killing anyone) then maybe you're just a little bit pathetic.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Laize, why do you have to go all conspiracy on me? A stepping stone to broader gun control? How does it show that? Using your same words, if the AWB didn't broaden gun control then why would it now?

No one really gives a shit about guns anyways, it's political theater. Any American who barely put any effort into purchasing a firearm can and will. There are no restrictions. You can still walk into any gun dealer's house, gun show, gun depot, etc. etc. and buy as many weapons and ammo until your heart's content.

You can break into your neighbor's house and steal his unsecured and loaded firearms he has under his bed, his mattress, in his kitchen cabinet, etc.

The fear-mongering by the people who want blood to be spilled so they can be wanna-be George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's need to go LARPing or something. No one gives a shit about your little scenarios playing in your head, no one gives a shit if your daughter accidentally blows her head off.

There is no argument that there has been ANY law that has restricted an American's rights to access to firearms.

[Rocko9]

BULL. SHIT.


The top three guns are identical, one of them is an "Assault weapon" and thus banned, the other two are not and exempt. Please tell me how the middle one is more dangerous? Why should it be banned when its brothers are not? How is THIS NOT PURELY ABOUT AESTHETICS?

Stop dodging, stop linking articles or quoting politicians, stop screaming about sandy hook and throwing dead children out as evidence and answer. the. damn. question.

Shes going to say because it has a pistol grip, 6 position stock, "heat shield" (every fucking long gun has one), bird cage and the larger box mag (factory 20 as apposed to factory 5) even though you can buy the 20 and use it on the other two guns.

[Sicarus]

So let me get this straight. When it says regulated it doesn't mean regulated. And when it says militia its really not talking about the militia. But when it says shall not be infringed it means I can own any weapon ever.

This doesn't seem like selective interpretation at all.

Lol dude, are you even reading what I'm posting?

REGULATING BACK THEN MEANT TRAINING. YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT THE WAY THEY WROTE IT.

I said it was talking about a WELL TRAINED militia.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say not talking about it?

Yes, that's what it means, if I want a fucking rocket launcher, I should be able to buy a fucking rocket launcher.

You're selectively interpreting what I'm posting.

[FusedMass]

Holy fuck, Bill was wrong, Reagan was wrong and Mittens was wrong. Just because two of the 3 were Republicans, doesn't make them right or mean that everyone agrees. Mitt Romney is a RINO and should be a Democrat. What he did may be considered Republican by Massachusetts standards, but not the rest of the states standards. Barney Frank is gay, does that make all Democrats gay?


FFS, you don't ban guns because a handful of people went to town. You're a broken record with your posts, you just keep posting them in different sentence order. I'm thinking you're off your rocker. Should we ban Texas liberals from the internet for this? No.

Let me get this straight. Ronald Reagan the person Republicans hail as their hero. The only person in the Republican Party they still compare current candidates to being was incorrect. Bill A Liberal was incorrect. You know what these men have in common. Millions of new jobs were added under both President. In fact Bill got a boost and perhaps some of the best economic times in our country.

My point being. It's perhaps..just perhaps they knew what they were talking about. You are dismissing with a wave of your hand Presidents from both party with a sole cause uniting them to ban assault weapons. Because that doesn't fit into your argument but you better then them..better then our past President..know what's best..

There's more then three Republicans who supported it. That's the only one I am listing. Comparing a person's sexuality to Gun Laws is really kinda mind bobbling. I never said just because one person shares a view then they ALL do it. I said even the most Republican out of the Republican voted for his law and the most liberal out of liberal voted for this. I really think that bothers you on a personal level.

Now please be so kind to enlighten me why our Past Presidents are incorrect on the matter. Please display your points on WHY they were incorrect. I provided my reasons to WHY this weapon should be banned in full detail. However since you know better then our past Presidents from both party. I am interested in your take.

[Rocko9]

How many times do I have to spell this out. Let me be more detailed, they were wrong on the issue. They were wrong on the issue because the Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment ",the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." AR-15's are a type of armament, to ban them is infringing on the right to own one. Essentially, needs are irrelevant when it comes to rights. Again, if I want an AK-74 (I really do), I should be able to get one. A few crazy people killing less than .003% of the population doesn't constitute changing an Amendment and fucking up the rights of over 300 million.