Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.


You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?
:lol:
That wasn't an assumption.
:cuckoo:

Why don't you at least TRY to be relevant and tell us -why- you did not support the 1994 AWB?

Relevant? You think *you're* relevant. :rofl:

Are you really so stupid that you can't even stand it when someone agrees with you?

G-d, you're a moron. You LISTED the reasons the law was stupid. I said it was stupid. And unless the law was rewritten from the way you described it since I SAID it was stupid, then my comments stand.

Now shut up and try not to look as stupid as you are.
 
That wasn't an assumption.
:cuckoo:

Why don't you at least TRY to be relevant and tell us -why- you did not support the 1994 AWB?
Relevant?
You think *you're* relevant. :rofl:
Are you really so stupid that you can't even stand it when someone agrees with you?
G-d, you're a moron. You LISTED the reasons the law was stupid. I said it was stupid. And unless the law was rewritten from the way you described it since I SAID it was stupid, then my comments stand.
Now shut up and try not to look as stupid as you are.
And the petulant child wonders why I openly laugh at her claims of a college education.
:lmao:
 
Last edited:
The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

I bet they can't even explain what the use is for each item and what it would do to help with mass murder as an assault weapon ?
 
The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

I bet they can't even explain what the use is for each item and what it would do to help with mass murder as an assault weapon ?

You note the absence of any such attempt, right?
:razz:
 
The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

I bet they can't even explain what the use is for each item and what it would do to help with mass murder as an assault weapon ?

You note the absence of any such attempt, right?
:razz:

yep a Bayonet mount will cause a lot of murders.
When was the last time the American military used the bayonet in battle? The flash suppressor doesn't do anything but keep the flash from being bigger than it would without one, it doesn't hide or suppress anything. It's all about the evil look of these firearms.
 
I bet they can't even explain what the use is for each item and what it would do to help with mass murder as an assault weapon ?

You note the absence of any such attempt, right?
:razz:
yep a Bayonet mount will cause a lot of murders.
When was the last time the American military used the bayonet in battle? The flash suppressor doesn't do anything but keep the flash from being bigger than it would without one, it doesn't hide or suppress anything. It's all about the evil look of these firearms.
But, these weapons are CLEARLY too dangerous for the general public to own.
Take all those things off and the rifles are as harmless as any other.
 
Last edited:
You note the absence of any such attempt, right?
:razz:
yep a Bayonet mount will cause a lot of murders.
When was the last time the American military used the bayonet in battle? The flash suppressor doesn't do anything but keep the flash from being bigger than it would without one, it doesn't hide or suppress anything. It's all about the evil look of these firearms.
But, these weapons are CLEARLY too dangerous for the general public to own.
Take all those things off and the rifles are as harmless as any other.

One other thing they over look is a revolver operational function is the same as a semi automatic firearm.
A Ruger GP 100 .357 mag.
1287756996.jpg

shooting action works the same as a
Colt 1911
Colt%201911%20Big.jpg
 
:cuckoo:

Why don't you at least TRY to be relevant and tell us -why- you did not support the 1994 AWB?
Relevant?
You think *you're* relevant. :rofl:
Are you really so stupid that you can't even stand it when someone agrees with you?
G-d, you're a moron. You LISTED the reasons the law was stupid. I said it was stupid. And unless the law was rewritten from the way you described it since I SAID it was stupid, then my comments stand.
Now shut up and try not to look as stupid as you are.
And the petulant child wonders why I openly laugh at her claims of a college education.
:lmao:

having a problem with being made to look like a moron, eh?
 
Relevant?
You think *you're* relevant. :rofl:
Are you really so stupid that you can't even stand it when someone agrees with you?
G-d, you're a moron. You LISTED the reasons the law was stupid. I said it was stupid. And unless the law was rewritten from the way you described it since I SAID it was stupid, then my comments stand.
Now shut up and try not to look as stupid as you are.
And the petulant child wonders why I openly laugh at her claims of a college education.
:lmao:
having a problem with being made to look like a moron, eh?
Asked by the person who (falsely) claims to have a JD and then states that treason is the only crime mentioned in the constitution, and that can't tell the difference between strict/intermediate scrutiny, even when she has the definitions of each right in front of her.
:lol: :lmao:
 
yep a Bayonet mount will cause a lot of murders.
When was the last time the American military used the bayonet in battle? The flash suppressor doesn't do anything but keep the flash from being bigger than it would without one, it doesn't hide or suppress anything. It's all about the evil look of these firearms.
But, these weapons are CLEARLY too dangerous for the general public to own.
Take all those things off and the rifles are as harmless as any other.

One other thing they over look is a revolver operational function is the same as a semi automatic firearm.
Well, no.
The 1911 uses the force of the spent round to cycle the action; the revolver uses the operator's hand.
 
But, these weapons are CLEARLY too dangerous for the general public to own.
Take all those things off and the rifles are as harmless as any other.

One other thing they over look is a revolver operational function is the same as a semi automatic firearm.
Well, no.
The 1911 uses the force of the spent round to cycle the action; the revolver uses the operator's hand.

I mean to shoot one round in either firearm you must squeeze the twigger
 
The AWB was always stupidly written
Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.
In the contrary, she not only answered the question she even agreed with the original POV of the thread....the law IS stupidly written...which WAS the point of the original thread was it not?
No... The point was to see if anyone who supports the ban could address the questions asked in the OP. So far, there's been none.

You might consider abandoning your childish US v THEM presuppositions about what people you presume to be caracature liberals must have meant, and simple read the words they write for meaning.
You could answer the question, should they apply to you.
If they don't, then you're simply wasting time and bandwidth.

You might just discover that people are a lot smarter (or at least lot less threatening to your POV) than you give them credit for.
When I see a supporter of the AWB answer the questions I asked, you'll have a point.
 
Last edited:
The AWB was stupid to begin with. While some of the features really don't apply 98% of the time, it is easier to pass a law that 99% of the people will obey than punish the ones that won't. We already have laws about misusing any weapon all we have to do is enforce it. I have two rifles with large magazine, one with a bayonet mount and they have never committed a crime. Take the small group of tough guy who misuse the weapon and hook them up to 440V and let some of the other tough guys watch and that stuff will stop. Not need for more laws.
 
Last edited:
The 2nd amendment did not list any exceptions.

I have lived around a lot of guns and nobody ever got shot.

The first amendment doesn't have any exception either, but you can't scream fire in a burning building (Freedom of Speech), do animal or human scarifices (Freedom of Religion) or print obvious and knowlingly false information on a person (Freedom of the Press) etc. So take the preschool argument of its not in the constitution and shove it up your ass.

Fake is guns are necessary for ordinary people to protect themselves. See Venezuela, Hugo Chavez enacted a total ban on guns and then gun violence SORED. All dictators from Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot to Hugo Chavez first move is to ban guns.

The result from banning guns takes the power from law abiding citizens and strengthens and emboldens the criminal!
 
The first amendment doesn't have any exception either, but you can't scream fire in a burning building
Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

or print obvious and knowlingly false information on a person (Freedom of the Press) etc
Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

So take the preschool argument of its not in the constitution and shove it up your ass.
See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.
 
The first amendment doesn't have any exception either, but you can't scream fire in a burning building
Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

or print obvious and knowlingly false information on a person (Freedom of the Press) etc
Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

So take the preschool argument of its not in the constitution and shove it up your ass.
See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top