Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban

[Stormdash]

At the end of the raft of sarcasm, is it depressing to sit back and realize just how fringe, how marginal the "screw it, we need gun confiscation" position is in the US?

[TITAN308]

Ohh! Me! Me! Me! They should permit nukes, because I need to fight the government! I don't mean like terrorists, I mean because they don't represent me.

Shoot me down!

*clears throat*

Nuclear weapons are not permitted because of the same reasons booby traps are illegal. They target indiscriminately.

Biological Weapons also fall under this category.

Its as strawman as strawman gets.

[Felya]

In all fairness, if he had the actual power to do so without hanging his party out to dry like Clinton did, he probably would have done more.

So many Democrats and Republicans alike took a major hit after the Clinton AWB expired.

It is a form of political suicide in actual states where you can run the risk of loosing your position.

(places like CA and NY are pretty safe to pass whatever or vote on whatever they want)

Yeah, he used a nuclear option and all those executive orders on other crap like healthcare. If only some one told him he could do more about guns! /sigh

[chrisberb]

You must think those things called guns the "bad" guys are firing can't be see while they are being fired? You think someone can't determine which ones are firing into a group? In Paris, the first hint was the black balaclavas and the the AK-47s (wood not plastic) and everyone was running away from that area.

If you're in a restaurant, and you hear gun fire. You doubt it for a second, then hear another shot, pull out your handgun, and see 7 other people standing up with hand guns. Do you know which one is the shooter?
I think that's why people talk about shooting bystanders, because the more people who try to be the hero, the more potential mis-identifications possible.

[Felya]

*clears throat*

Nuclear weapons are not permitted because of the same reasons booby traps are illegal. They target indiscriminately.

Biological Weapons also fall under this category.

Its as strawman as strawman gets.

Do automatic weapons have recoil?

[TITAN308]

Do automatic weapons have recoil?

Again. Strawman.

Automatic weapons are in the hands of collectors regardless, they require a special tax from the ATF and are considered a Title II firearm. You cannot buy automatic weapons at a gun store, take a background check, and walk out the same day. Title II firearms require direct approval from the ATF.

How do I know? I myself collect Title II firearms.

Title II:

Suppressors
Short Barrel Rifles / Shotguns
Machineguns
AOW (All Other Weapon, example: brief case gun, pen gun, etc etc)
Destructible Device

Edit: Machineguns are also cost prohibitive as any manufactured after 1984 can no longer be purchased by civilians period, so you end up with guns that cost $25,000 due to a dwindling inventory.

[Felya]

If you're in a restaurant, and you hear gun fire. You doubt it for a second, then hear another shot, pull out your handgun, and see 7 other people standing up with hand guns. Do you know which one is the shooter?
I think that's why people talk about shooting bystanders, because the more people who try to be the hero, the more potential mis-identifications possible.

Yep, and then another guy looks up and sees 8 other people standing with guns. Sucks to be between them...

[Mistame]

Do automatic weapons have recoil?

That has literally nothing to do with anything.

[Felya]

Again. Strawman.

Yes, saying that the reason weapons are banned is due to targeting indescribably. Me trying to show how a weapon fits that criteria, means that I am building a 'targeting indescribably' strawman. You sure shut me down, targeted precisely, so it's legal... Oh crap, did I just build a 'targeted precisely' strawman? My bad...

- - - Updated - - -

That has literally nothing to do with anything.

The person who I responded to, knew exactly what I meant. Sorry if you cannot follow...

[TITAN308]

Yes, saying that the reason weapons are banned is due to targeting indescribably. Me trying to show how a weapon fits that criteria, means that I am building a 'targeting indescribably' strawman. You sure shut me down, targeted precisely, so it's legal... Oh crap, did I just build a 'targeted precisely' strawman? My bad...

Well yes, you drawing a comparison between a machine gun and a nuclear bomb is a strawman. Why wouldn't it be?

I'll quote myself since you like to cherry pick;

Automatic weapons are in the hands of collectors regardless, they require a special tax from the ATF and are considered a Title II firearm. You cannot buy automatic weapons at a gun store, take a background check, and walk out the same day. Title II firearms require direct approval from the ATF.

How do I know? I myself collect Title II firearms.

Title II:

Suppressors
Short Barrel Rifles / Shotguns
Machineguns
AOW (All Other Weapon, example: brief case gun, pen gun, etc etc)
Destructible Device

Edit: Machineguns are also cost prohibitive as any manufactured after 1984 can no longer be purchased by civilians period, so you end up with guns that cost $25,000 due to a dwindling inventory.

And...

The person who I responded to, knew exactly what I meant. Sorry if you cannot follow...

I would argue you are being purposefully obtuse...

[Stormdash]

Yep, and then another guy looks up and sees 8 other people standing with guns. Sucks to be between them...

So, two scenarios in which you are stuck in a place where bullets are flying --

1) someone is shooting and would like to hit you

2) someone is shooting and would like to hit you; others are shooting and hoping not to hit you but only to stop the person who would like to hit you from shooting.

And if you had a choice, a wish to place on a star the second the shooting starts... you'd wish to be in situation (1)? That is ree ree.

[Derpleton]

We don't need the kind of gun control the left is offering, they aim to strip the citizens of deadlier weapons such as Assault Rifles, and the idea of making it so anyone on a list that the government can add people to at its leisure not being able to buy guns is stupid and illegal under the 2nd amendment. Also I like how all the hypcritical lefties on this forum say we can't ban muslims from the US because that would be giving in to fear and giving the terrorists what they want, but how is this any different? We'd just be giving into fear of guns and banning guns like muslims which will leave only the people who don't give a shit about the law armed, which is what I'm sure many of them would love to see happen.

[Mistame]

The person who I responded to, knew exactly what I meant.

So did I. Which was precisely why I posted.

[Felya]

Well yes, you drawing a comparison between a machine gun and a nuclear bomb is a strawman. Why wouldn't it be?

That's the problem with your assertion. I am not building a strawman of machine guns and nuclear weapons. You told me why they are illegal and I am trying to show how it fits that criteria. Not to a nuclear weapon as an abstract, but the reason you listed for the ban. That is not a strawman, it's satisfying the reconstructed goal posts you established...

I'll quote myself since you like to cherry pick;

What fucking cherry pick? I responded directly to your reply to me. Wtf?

- - - Updated - - -

So, two scenarios in which you are stuck in a place where bullets are flying --

1) someone is shooting and would like to hit you

2) someone is shooting and would like to hit you; others are shooting and hoping not to hit you but only to stop the person who would like to hit you from shooting.

And if you had a choice, a wish to place on a star the second the shooting starts... you'd wish to be in situation (1)? That is ree ree.

Yes, because more bullets flying, isn't indicative of the intent...

[satimy]

The assault weapons ban is one of the main reasons the democrats lost control of the congress in the 90s.

[Felya]

So did I. Which was precisely why I posted.

Then why did he know what I was talking about and you said it had nothing to do with it? Color me confused...

[satimy]

That's the problem with your assertion. I am not building a strawman of machine guns and nuclear weapons. You told me why they are illegal and I am trying to show how it fits that criteria. Not to a nuclear weapon as an abstract, but the reason you listed for the ban. That is not a strawman, it's satisfying the reconstructed goal posts you established...



What fucking cherry pick? I responded directly to your reply to me. Wtf?

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because more bullets flying, isn't indicative of the intent...

So what cops shouldnt have guns then because it just adds more guns to the mix

- - - Updated - - -

At the end of the raft of sarcasm, is it depressing to sit back and realize just how fringe, how marginal the "screw it, we need gun confiscation" position is in the US?

I guess it depends where you stand, I think private gun ownership is one of the things that makes this country great

- - - Updated - - -

Good call! Nuclear weapon ban did not work in Paris? Why do people think it would have magical results? Laws against murder and theft didn't work in Paris either... Neither did dog leash laws... Drunk driving laws... No laws worked! Fuckem all! Trust in magic!

- - - Updated - - -



The guy with a red name over his head firing a gun, is a bad guy. The guy with a green name over his head firing a gun, is a good guy. Duh!!

http://youtu.be/4p8_pqlJxmk

Using a nuclear weapon on a gunmen probably isnt the safest strategy

[TITAN308]

That's the problem with your assertion. I am not building a strawman of machine guns and nuclear weapons. You told me why they are illegal and I am trying to show how it fits that criteria. Not to a nuclear weapon as an abstract, but the reason you listed for the ban. That is not a strawman, it's satisfying the reconstructed goal posts you established...



What fucking cherry pick? I responded directly to your reply to me. Wtf?

Because your only argument for "indiscriminately" is a machine gun drawn in comparison to a nuclear device, which I was trying to point out is highly unlikely to happen simply due to the supply and demand, laws required to own one, and also an extremely sparse dwindling supply because of the nature of machine guns.

It was a dumb comparison. Get over it.

If you want to have an adult conversation about gun control, leave the dumb nuclear retorts and sarcasm at the door.

Yes a machine gun has recoil, yes it is quite possible that a single bullet go past its intended target, regardless of all that it is a dumb strawman to bring up nukes.

Its the same dumb strawman when people go, "Well we should be able to buy C4 and remote detonators @ Walmart cause we can buy guns at walmart hurr hurr"

[Felya]

I would argue you are being purposefully obtuse...

So obtuse that you knew exactly where I was going with my question? That doesn't make any sense...

[chrisberb]

Because your only argument for "indiscriminately" is a machine gun drawn in comparison to a nuclear device, which I was trying to point out is highly unlikely to happen simply due to the supply and demand, laws required to own one, and also an extremely sparse dwindling supply because of the nature of machine guns.

It was a dumb comparison. Get over it.

If you want to have an adult conversation about gun control, leave the dumb nuclear retorts and sarcasm at the door.

Yes a machine gun has recoil, yes it is quite possible that a single bullet go past its intended target, regardless of all that it is a dumb strawman to bring up nukes.

Well, I mean, in his defense, it was someone ELSE who said that: "when the public is armed just as well as the government, thats when youll see true freedom"
And last I checked, the government has tanks, fighter jets, nukes, etc.