Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[Circe]

In my opinion, these gun nuts with assault rifles are paranoid psychos and are probably a public menace. They sure are the pool from which the mass killers all come from!! Especially the old white guys who go on shooting sprees when their brains soften. Certainly the gun nut's schizophrenic teen son or neighbor who steals their assault rifle and all their fancy high-capacity magazines to shoot up the mall or movie theather are a public menace.

Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability.

Please don't bother to reply with a lot of word-splitting and the old, bad arguments used so often. These are all stupid arguments chopping logic that miss the whole point. The bottom line is, there is no reason to have assault rifles except that certain men who don't have a good hold on reality dream of killing lots and lots of people at once. Usually minorities, of course. This vicious fantasy culture has led to many people running around actually killing lots and lots of people with these guns: usually whites and usually children.

This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.

 

[KevinWestern]

This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.

Just to play devil's advocate, less than 350 people are murdered every year with a rifle (all rifles, according to FBI stats). If we want to look at how many of those rifle murders were done with "assault weapons", you're going to be looking at an even smaller number.

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

 

[KevinWestern]

This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to keep and bear will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.

Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right? A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs: I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt.


The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.

And that's what we are trying to get away from.

Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in literally tens of thousands of murders every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?

Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!


.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability. .

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934.. They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986. Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"? If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?

 

[eflatminor]

This chipping away will continue until the only firearm the American citizen will have a right to keep and bear will be a single-shot .22, chambered for short, and there will be a ten round limit to possession of ammunition.

Nonsense. The six-gun is traditional. Most people have a 5 or 6-shot something under their bed, right?

Wrong. The majority of sidearms out there are semi autos with 10 to 15 round magazines, depending on the caliber. Revolvers haven't been the dominate choice since polymer-framed semi autos were introduced back in the 1970s.

A revolver and a .22 normal rifle or 20-gauge shotgun for varmints is all anyone actually needs

Since you don't get to decide what someone needs and what they do not, this is a moot point. It's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.

A 20 gauge for varmints, eh? I've taken varmints at over 600 yards. A shotgun won't do that. But since you know what everyone else needs...

I speak who know, I live on a farm. Okay, a deer rifle if you actually hunt.

I use an AR platform semi auto for hogs and another for shorter range varmint hunting, as do lots of other hunters. So no, you do not speak "who know".

The assault rifle guy is just playing fantasy games of killing lots of people in his head.

An 'assault rifle' requires full/burst capability, which outside of a few rich collectors, only the military has. Your so-called 'assault rifle guy' is in actuality, just a guy with a semi auto rifle...a common thing for over 100 years now.

That said, semi auto rifles are NOT 'fantasy' weapons, as the Korean store owners that required such firepower to save their lives during the LA riots proved, as the hunters that use AR platforms on hogs and varmints prove, and as the homeowners that understand that a short barreled semi auto rifle is an excellent choice for home defense.

Either way, it's not your choice to impose on others.

And that's what we are trying to get away from.

Well, WE'RE trying to get away from your bans and regulations that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your rules. We're trying to get away from stomping on the inalienable rights of US citizens. We're trying to get away from "feel good" legislation that does more harm than good.

 

[eflatminor]

In my opinion

In my opinion, these gun grabbers are paranoid psychos and are DEFINITELY a public menace.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is a major public danger. It's the fault of the gun nuts. It needs to stop.

Just to play devil's advocate, less than 350 people are murdered every year with a rifle (all rifles, according to FBI stats). If we want to look at how many of those rifle murders were done with "assault weapons", you're going to be looking at an even smaller number.

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

Aw, be real! They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Anybody who has an assault rifle is a bad guy, IMO. There is no legal or legitimate reason to want to kill dozens of people at once. That's simply morally wrong and ought to be illegal. It's also a very bad sign about the gun owner's mental stability. .

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934.. They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986. Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"? If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?

You are addressing one of the crowd who firmly believes that magazines and ammunition are the same thing. One who believes that by robbing all of us of our right to defend ourselves, our families and homes, she will be guarded from some boogeyman.

 

[Circe]

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.

Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.

Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.

You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.

 

[Circe]

Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in literally tens of thousands of murders every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?

Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!


.

Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.

Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis.

Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.

Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.

Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.

You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.

There are perfectly acceptable ways to prevent this without the theft of the property and freedoms of the law-abiding. One, learn to stand on your hind legs, like a human being, and defend yourself and your children and grandchildren. Barring the willingness to defend yourself and yours, at least incorporate the fathers of those children and grandchildren into your family life, make them responsible for more than just a sperm donation.
If you are so convinced that taking law-abiding citizens' firearms is absolutely the right thing to do,

 

[gallantwarrior]

Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in literally tens of thousands of murders every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?

Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!


.

Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.

Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis.

Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!

Epic Fail!

 

[Circe]

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934.. They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986. Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"? If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?

This is the old and bad argument that somehow there is no such thing as assault rifles so there is nothing to talk about, and no problem.

This doesn't fool anyone. You don't really think this argument makes sense, do you?

 

[Circe]

They think it's fair to punish millions of people who are innocent of killing anything by confiscation of legally obtained and Constitutionally protected property, by levying untenable taxes on that property, or placing onerous financial burdens on any law-abiding citizen who chooses to own an object they find terrifying.

I don't want to punish you.

I want to make it illegal for you to own assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, grenades, submachine guns, cannon, shoulder-fired rocket artillery, flamethrowers, poison gas, and anything else that you don't belong to have because we the people do not want you in the business of making war on us and our little first graders.

You can carry all that down to the police station to turn them in yourselves.

And the sooner the better.

 

[eflatminor]

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases

Worked beautifully in Norway...

By the way, there are over 100 countries with a higher murder rate than in the US and the majority of those countries virtually ban civilian gun ownership.

The facts are not supporting your agenda...

such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.

And guess what happened after those bans? The murder rate, and the violent crime rate, increased! And this during a time period when the violent crime rates were dropping around the world.

There are those pesky facts again...

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.

Can you even define what a so called 'assault weapon' is? The floor is yours...

Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.

What you say is someone's argument is not the same thing as what their argument actually is. You're choosing to not listen.

Particularly women

Ah yes, women. Giving a 120lb woman the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist. Talk about a war on women! Yea...pass.

Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.

And you expect to stop these crazies how? More gun free zones? Banning firearms didn't stop such madness in Norway. Banning firearms doesn't stop mass killings and out-of-control murder rates in Mexico. Hint: criminals will not obey your laws. The only way to stop a madmen with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That, or you can just wait until the madman is finished and kills himself...a heck of a plan.

You can say it's not a problem over and over

No one is saying that. You are.

, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem

It is a problem, just one that MORE laws handicapping good citizens is not going to fix.

 

[eflatminor]

Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too.

Actually, you can't.

 

[eflatminor]

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or select fire rifle of intermediate power and is strictly regulated by the NFA of 1934.. They are rarely owned by civilians as the Hughes amend prohibited the sale of any to the civilian market manufactured after 1986. Perhaps you are referring to "assualt weapons"? If so can you tell us what are the functional diferences between your "evil assault weapon" and a semi autmatic deer rifle?

This is the old and bad argument that somehow there is no such thing as assault rifles so there is nothing to talk about, and no problem.

This doesn't fool anyone. You don't really think this argument makes sense, do you?

No one said "there is no such thing as assault rifles". What we're saying is that you don't know what one is.

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you think it's fair to list a weapon that's involved with maybe less than 50 murders every year as a major public danger in a country of 315,000,000 people?

Personally, I don't.


.

Yes. And every developed country does exactly that, viewing it as a major public danger and banning most guns entirely in many cases, such as happened in Australia and Great Britain, because of terrible mass kills by crazies with guns.

You should jettison the assault rifles, IMO: before you get hit by bans on ALL guns. Assault rifles are what the crazies are mostly using, along with costumes and high-capacity magazines and so much ammo in their special backpacks and costume pockets they can hardly walk.

Your argument is that these deaths don't matter.

Bad argument: it does matter. To a lot of people. Particularly women. Maybe you don't care about madmen killing children, but a lot of people would rather not be mowed down by a crazy and we particularly don't want our children and grandchildren mowed down by crazies with assault rifles -------- or any other kind of guns.

You can say it's not a problem over and over, but I note there are continual hearings in Congress and all the states and many threads in every forum, so I'm guessing that quite a lot of people think it IS a problem.

Circe, what makes you feel safer about the gov't and criminals having the monopoly on high powered weapons?

Wouldn't you rather law-abiding citizens be thrown into that mix?


.

 

[KevinWestern]

Again, not trying to be a jerk, but why would you say it's OK to have a handgun (when they're involved in literally tens of thousands of murders every year in the US) but NOT OK to have an assault weapon (when they're involved in well less than 350 murders every year)?

Statistically speaking, I can't understand where you're coming from. I'm just trying to be logical here!


.

Okay, fine, we can ban handguns, too. Certainly that's what many, many developed countries have done. I think the gun nuts are cruising on the edge here. They should jettison the assault rifles, for which there is NO moral or reasonable argument whatsoever, and which the crazies just luuuuuuvvvvvv, and try to keep the handguns and shotguns and and and.

Why not? Gun nuts and criminals would STILL get to kill tens of thousands of people, using your numbers, and they hardly get to kill anyone, using your numbers, with the assault rifles, the crazies get all the fun there, after they steal or buy them when they go into the gun store drooling with psychosis.

Hey, I'm just trying to be logical here!

Here's another way of looking at it...

Obama is (apparently) adamantly concerned with saving the lives of the innocent, yet continues to drastically expand the flying death machine program in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which ultimately has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians (not 50) in the middle east. Is that not a true statement?

Can't you see why I'm just a bit skeptical about his intentions here?





.

 

[Circe]

There are perfectly acceptable ways to prevent this without the theft of the property and freedoms of the law-abiding.

It's not theft if it's law. Then, it's law. I want a law against assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Hey, you know they jam: jettison them. It's bad equipment anyway, you aren't really losing anything.

One, learn to stand on your hind legs, like a human being, and defend yourself and your children and grandchildren.

Did I mention I live on a farm? Do I really SOUND like a pushover to you? I'm the one wants to take all your big, bad guns away, buster.

Barring the willingness to defend yourself and yours, at least incorporate the fathers of those children and grandchildren into your family life, make them responsible for more than just a sperm donation.

I would LOVE to have a conversation with you, but only if you are capable of being reasonably polite. Are you aware this is the Clean Zone? I have noticed that most conversations on this topic deteriorate quickly because, simply, most gun nuts are poorly educated douchebags. I simply put them on Ignore as not worth bothering with.

I hope none of the above applies to you. We'll see. The comment above was NOT a great sign.

If you are so convinced that taking law-abiding citizens' firearms is absolutely the right thing to do, grow a set...go on over to your neighbor's place and demand that they hand over their guns to you so you can dispose of them appropriately. You don't have the stones to actually stand by your demented opinions.

I don't have "stones" at all. You seem to be aware I'm a woman poster, what with the slur above, but you seem to have a really surprising lack of knowledge about female reproductive anatomy! See, there are things we have that males don't have, and vice versa. We could have a nice talk about this sometime, if you are confused about the differences, but I suggest you start by googling it.