Should these be included in an assault weapons ban?

[Crackerjack]

You know this is both disappointing and disturbing. People want gun control, but they can't even specify what they want banned or why.

You know how pro-choice people tell pro-life men that they aren't qualified to talk about abortion because they aren't capable of being pregnant? Howzabout let's take that logic to the gun control debate and say that people who know fuck-all about firearms need not annoy those of us who do with their inane opinions?

 

[chikenwing]

You know this is both disappointing and disturbing. People want gun control, but they can't even specify what they want banned or why.

You know how pro-choice people tell pro-life men that they aren't qualified to talk about abortion because they aren't capable of being pregnant? Howzabout let's take that logic to the gun control debate and say that people who know fuck-all about firearms need not annoy those of us who do with their inane opinions?

Good point

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but there is absolutely no difference between an AR 15 that fires .223 rounds and any other semi auto rifle that fires .223 rounds.

If I can fire and change out 3 10 round magazines almost as fast as one can empty 1 30 round mag then what's the difference?

Again I'll ask you to be honest and just state outright that you people want to ban all semiautomatic rifles.

no difference at all - I'd support banning both.

 

[chikenwing]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

Why 8 why not 7 or 9 or 6?? what brought that number? is 8 safer than 10 or more dangerous than 7?

 

[nodoginnafight]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

See highlight above ^: And that my friend is precisely why you have no business arguing for the Right to take away the Rights of others.

Just because I don't identify a gun and all it's capabilities from a photo?
I suddenly get no right to an opinion?

I don't pretend to know things I don't. If I just make believe I know (like so many posters on these boards and like so many voters) do I get my vote back?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

Why 8 why not 7 or 9 or 6?? what brought that number? is 8 safer than 10 or more dangerous than 7?

Because I have no problem with 8-shot revolvers

 

[Nosmo King]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Semi-automatic weapons are not weapons of warfare.

You're welcome, mouth breather.

 

[Missourian]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

 

[Nosmo King]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

18, 19, 20 people getting clubbed to death at once? Where's your responsibility?

 

[Missourian]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

This:

Operates no differently than this:

Neither is a "weapon of open warfare".

 

[Nosmo King]

Semi-automatic weapons are not weapons of warfare.

You're welcome, mouth breather.

AR-15 or M-16? What's the difference? The M-16 has a fully automatic as well as a semi-automatic firing system. But the fully automatic system is discouraged by the military as the weapon loses accuracy under fully automatic.

And what is the virtue of an assault weapon? What indispensible good does it provide?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

 

[Nosmo King]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

This:

Operates no differently than this:

Neither is a "weapon of war".

That's what the victims of these weapons want to hear.

 

[chikenwing]

Semi-automatic weapons are not weapons of warfare.

You're welcome, mouth breather.

Thats the new buzz word from the gun hysterical gun grabbers

weapons of warfare??! with that logic a 500 mosberg or a Remington 870 would need to be banned,both have been used by the military. Both are pump guns.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

^Appeal to emotion. A choice logical fallacy for gun grabbers and mouth breathers alike.

 

[Missourian]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271073-cbs-dc-more-murders-with-clubs-than-rifles.html

18, 19, 20 people getting clubbed to death at once? Where's your responsibility?

I own an AR15...unbelievably, I have somehow managed not to kill anyone with it for 20 year.

There are around 200,000 legally owned so called assault weapons in the United States, and yet as the article references, those rifles aren't killing anyone...clubs and hammers kill many more.

At Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people WITHOUT a so called assault weapon.

Explain?

 

[chikenwing]

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

So if they where blasted in two with a double aught buck shot it would have been different?

 

[Missourian]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

This:

Operates no differently than this:

Neither is a "weapon of war".

That's what the victims of these weapons want to hear.

That's the truth, regardless of audience.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

So if they where blasted in two with a double aught buck shot it would have been different?

I don't think as many would have been killed. Takes too long to re-load. By the time he put six or seven shots into each victim with that bad boy, he might of gotten two people before he got taken down during a re-load.