Cruz Correct About Gun Control Laws

[longknife]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

 

[Programmer]

Both of the Cubans, or one or the other?

 

[billyerock1991]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

 

[Pete7469]

The bed wetters get lava rocks in their vag everytime Cruz says anything.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

 

[billyerock1991]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

 

[billyerock1991]

The bed wetters get lava rocks in their vag everytime Cruz says anything.

you being the head bed wetter here tells us a lot ... even more any one that uses ted nugent as a source on guns has a bigger bed wetting problem then most ... after all he 's known for wetting his pants to keep out of the service ... but to shoot some thing or some one, he would ... just as long as they didn't have a gun to shoot back ted nugent is a big coward and I've told it to his face ... he turned away walking as fast as he could ... I'm kind of a big huge person 6.5 260lbs... kind of scary they say...

 

[martybegan]

The bed wetters get lava rocks in their vag everytime Cruz says anything.

you being the head bed wetter here tells us a lot ... even more any one that uses ted nugent as a source on guns has a bigger bed wetting problem then most ... after all he 's known for wetting his pants to keep out of the service ... but to shoot some thing or some one, he would ... just as long as they didn't have a gun to shoot back ted nugent is a big coward and I've told it to his face ... he turned away walking as fast as he could ... I'm kind of a big huge person 6.5 260lbs... kind of scary they say...

 

[billyerock1991]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

 

[billyerock1991]

The bed wetters get lava rocks in their vag everytime Cruz says anything.

you being the head bed wetter here tells us a lot ... even more any one that uses ted nugent as a source on guns has a bigger bed wetting problem then most ... after all he 's known for wetting his pants to keep out of the service ... but to shoot some thing or some one, he would ... just as long as they didn't have a gun to shoot back ted nugent is a big coward and I've told it to his face ... he turned away walking as fast as he could ... I'm kind of a big huge person 6.5 260lbs... kind of scary they say...

is that your diaper ??? a diaper with sponge bob square pants on it???? you must be happy and dry ... you might wet them sponge bob square pants diapers when you find out how wrong you are about the federal law that says they were banded

 

[Dr.Traveler]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.

There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?

I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

 

[martybegan]

The bed wetters get lava rocks in their vag everytime Cruz says anything.

you being the head bed wetter here tells us a lot ... even more any one that uses ted nugent as a source on guns has a bigger bed wetting problem then most ... after all he 's known for wetting his pants to keep out of the service ... but to shoot some thing or some one, he would ... just as long as they didn't have a gun to shoot back ted nugent is a big coward and I've told it to his face ... he turned away walking as fast as he could ... I'm kind of a big huge person 6.5 260lbs... kind of scary they say...

is that your diaper ??? a diaper with sponge bob square pants on it???? you must be happy and dry ... you might wet them sponge bob square pants diapers when you find out how wrong you are about the federal law that says they were banded

Stop digging yourself a deeper hole, oxygen thief.

 

[paulitician]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

 

[martybegan]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.

There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?

I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

Based on the 2nd amendment, who are you to ask me if I "need" an assault weapon or not. The same applies to the government.
My issue is that since I live in NYC it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 or so to just get a home use handgun permit. If I can't even get that overturned, why would I support MORE laws restricting my rights even further?

 

[billyerock1991]

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

 

[martybegan]

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher mount

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.