Simple SOLUTION to gun control

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try this. Can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

Cite for me a violent crime comitted with a legaly-owned belt-fed firearm.
If you cannot, I will accept your withdrawal of the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try this. Can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

According to some of these idiots a gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds/min should be legal because somehow it qualifies as "arms".

Says the idiot that doesnlt realize that these guns ARE legal and that NONE of them have been used to commit crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault weapons ban. Yup, I'm still there.
As for the definition, look, do you have a brain? If you do, I would hope you also possess the common sense to note the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an AR-15.

.223 is a great varmint round; only people completely ignorant of guns and/or hunting think that an AR-15 cannot be effectively used to hunt.

They also refuse to understand than there is NO better example of the sort of gun protected by the 2nd than an AR-15, with 20/30rd USGI magazines.

Words don't seem to get, I guess these kids only like picture books.

What I consider not to be a assault rifle:

Man, if people don't have common sense they're hard to argue with.

So.... you're scared by a gun's appearance.
Explains everything.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let me try this. Can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

According to some of these idiots a gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds/min should be legal because somehow it qualifies as "arms".

Says the idiot that doesnlt realize that these guns ARE legal and that NONE of them have been used to commit crime.

You must remember you're talking to someone who claimed to be in the military who claimed to be a member of the Security Force who says he was a practiced person change a clip and reload in about 2 seconds.

Now if someone was in the military would they use the word clip when talking about a magazine? or a practiced person when talking about being proficient?

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to some of these idiots a gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds/min should be legal because somehow it qualifies as "arms".

Says the idiot that doesnlt realize that these guns ARE legal and that NONE of them have been used to commit crime.

You must remember you're talking to someone who claimed to be in the military who claimed to be a member of the Security Force who says he was a practiced person change a clip and reload in about 2 seconds.

Now if someone was in the military would they use the word clip when talking about a magazine? or a practiced person when talking about being proficient?

He means it takes him 2 seconds to pull a stripper from a magazine, replace it with a full stripper, and then load the rounds into the mag.
-That- isn't bad at all.

 

[candycorn]

Let me try this. Can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

Cite for me a violent crime comitted with a legaly-owned belt-fed firearm.
If you cannot, I will accept your withdrawal of the question.

Here is my answer I cannot;

Nobody has ever used a nuke to commit a violent crime either. Are you saying we should make them available?

So I'll ask again, can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

Try answering the question; just once.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

M14 you're right. You always are.

I can't believe I had a problem with people trading guns for drugs, I'm so naive sometimes lol.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me try this. Can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

Cite for me a violent crime comitted with a legaly-owned belt-fed firearm.
If you cannot, I will accept your withdrawal of the question.

Here is my answer I cannot;

And so, you cannot show where or how these guns have misused by theor legal owners.
How do you suppose you can then show that they shoudl be banned?
What harm does simple posession/ownership cause?
What clear, present and immediate danger does simple posession/ownership of these weapons create?

So I'll ask again, can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

They ARE sold to the general puplic, because the general public has a right to own them, a right that is protected by the Constitution; they shoud contimue to be sold becaue, as you admit, you cannot show where they have been used to harm others.

I thusly accept your withdrawal of the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 you're right. You always are.
I can't believe I had a problem with people trading guns for drugs, I'm so naive sometimes lol.

Translation:
You know you cannot soundly counter what I have said and do not want to further embarass yourself by trying. I accept your concession of the points.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

M14 you're right. You always are.
I can't believe I had a problem with people trading guns for drugs, I'm so naive sometimes lol.

Translation:
You know you cannot soundly counter what I have said and do not want to further embarass yourself by trying. I accept your concession of the points.

Actually, unlike you, I don't consider a "sound counter" a reply. No, I've been working on my thread on assault weapons since last nigh. Idk when i'll finish it, I try to add many details.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 you're right. You always are.
I can't believe I had a problem with people trading guns for drugs, I'm so naive sometimes lol.

Translation:
You know you cannot soundly counter what I have said and do not want to further embarass yourself by trying. I accept your concession of the points.

Actually, unlike you, I don't consider a "sound counter" a reply. No, I've been working on my thread on assault weapons since last nigh. Idk when i'll finish it, I try to add many details.

Huh. Well, good luck with that. I'll be happy to tear it apart for you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Says the idiot that doesnlt realize that these guns ARE legal and that NONE of them have been used to commit crime.

You must remember you're talking to someone who claimed to be in the military who claimed to be a member of the Security Force who says he was a practiced person change a clip and reload in about 2 seconds.

Now if someone was in the military would they use the word clip when talking about a magazine? or a practiced person when talking about being proficient?

He means it takes him 2 seconds to pull a stripper from a magazine, replace it with a full stripper, and then load the rounds into the mag.
-That- isn't bad at all.

that ain't what he means

 

[Bigfoot]

What do gun folks use those assault and semi-auto weapons for? Do you hunt with them?

Are any guns off-limits for regular folk? How about an uzi (is that even a gun)? lol

Just curious.

Yes, I hunt with semi-auto firearms and I have since I was a child.

 

[Bigfoot]

Was just wondering if a semi-auto weapon would pulverize that bunny. lol And no, I did not know that about the SC gun ruling. Thx, RGS.

No, a semi-auto weapon that would be used for rabbit hunting doesn't do any more damage then the same weapon with a different action.

 

[uscitizen]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.

Yes. And the Constitution protects free speech, but says nothing about words.

Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

A statement so uselessly broad it cannot help but be mostly correct.
First time for everything! Congrats!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Dude... you shoud at least let him get his helmet on before you whack him upside the head with the reality bat.

 

[Bigfoot]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

An assault rifle is a weapon that is equipped with selective fire. The weapon (s) used in the Colorado shooting was not so equipped neither are any rifles sold in the U.S. to private citizens who do not posses a special class 3 license. The media as has become normal procedure has convoluted the term and the arguments to support their cause, which is sales of their (media) product.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.