Tough going to reinstate assault weapons ban

[JimH52]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...dvocates-including-nra.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The GOP will line up arm and arm against it. They are are the wrong side again. I say bring it up and let them vote.....wait the Senate is being stalemated by filibustering Republicans. It will never get to a vote there.

Oh well, I guess it will take a couple more mass shootings and dead babies...

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...dvocates-including-nra.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The GOP will line up arm and arm against it. They are are the wrong side again. I say bring it up and let them vote.....wait the Senate is being stalemated by filibustering Republicans. It will never get to a vote there.

Oh well, I guess it will take a couple more mass shootings and dead babies...

Some democrats who would like to keep thier seats will be against it as well.

never let a tragedy go to waste when taking away rights from people WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG, right?

Facist.

 

[eflatminor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...dvocates-including-nra.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The GOP will line up arm and arm against it.

So will many Democrats/Independents from rural states.

They are are the wrong side again.

Wrong side of what, the Bill of Rights? Don't think so.

I say bring it up and let them vote.....wait the Senate is being stalemated by filibustering Republicans. It will never get to a vote there.

Good someone is standing up for the right of self protection. And don't give me that "you don't need" shit. We all know damn well criminals don't obey your laws, which leaves good citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs. Why in the hell you would want to give criminals a tactical edge is beyond me.

Oh well, I guess it will take a couple more mass shootings and dead babies...

Mass shooting are on the decline. Have been for some time. Restricting law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves will have ZERO effect on what crazy motherfuckers and criminal thugs do with a firearm.

 

[JimH52]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

The firearm you decribed is a fully automatic weapon. They are already illegal to own unless you're me and has an FFL.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Common sense shows that banning firearms will only reduce the number of banned firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. We've already tried this and it failed. Miserably.

It's time to try to either start talking about what the cultural issues are, and where we might make some changes in education, etc. Otherwise the gun grabbers aren't going to be taken seriously and will be ignored and blocked as much as possible.

 

[eflatminor]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

Great! Common sense, and plenty of historical evidence from America and other countries, shows that no matter what you attempt to ban, criminals will obtain. It's what they do. So, how does is show common sense to enact laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't give two shits about the regulations?

There are nearly 400 million weapons in this country. You cannot univent them. So why seek to give criminals an edge against good people? That's insane.

 

[eflatminor]

...assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds ...

That's full auto. Not what anyone typically chooses for defense or criminal activity. Semi auto is the right tool for the job, be it committing crime or defending against it.

 

[DiamondDave]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

When assault weapons are defined on AESTHETICS, no they are NOT 'able to fire 100's or rounds in seconds'

You show yet again that you are ignorant when it comes to firearms

 

[martybegan]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

a hundred rounds in seconds? Who is asking to make motorized gatling guns legal?

NO assault rifle can fire a hundred rounds in seconds. before you start commenting on policy, I suggest you brush up on the technical aspects of the argument.

 

[martybegan]

...assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds ...

That's full auto. Not what anyone typically chooses for defense or criminal activity. Semi auto is the right tool for the job, be it committing crime or defending against it.

Even full auto isnt 100 round in "seconds." Thats an external motor gatling style minigun.

 

[JimH52]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

The firearm you decribed is a fully automatic weapon. They are already illegal to own unless you're me and has an FFL.

No, you are wrong. I have used many semi-automatic weapons and it is possible get off 100 shots in less than a minute. If the person shooting is mentally ill, it certainly can be done.

 

[martybegan]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

The firearm you decribed is a fully automatic weapon. They are already illegal to own unless you're me and has an FFL.

No, you are wrong. I have used many semi-automatic weapons and it is possible get off 100 shots in less than a minute. If the person shooting is mentally ill, it certainly can be done.

But you said "in seconds"

Is that goalposts I hear screeching in the background?

 

[eflatminor]

...assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds ...

That's full auto. Not what anyone typically chooses for defense or criminal activity. Semi auto is the right tool for the job, be it committing crime or defending against it.

Even full auto isnt 100 round in "seconds." Thats an external motor gatling style minigun.

That's true. And just to prove the point...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RisIiGuN7eg]Minigun in action - YouTube[/ame]

Now THAT'S an assault weapon!!!

 

[eflatminor]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

Great! Common sense, and plenty of historical evidence from America and other countries, shows that no matter what you attempt to ban, criminals will obtain. It's what they do. So, how does is show common sense to enact laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't give two shits about the regulations?

There are nearly 400 million weapons in this country. You cannot univent them. So why seek to give criminals an edge against good people? That's insane.

Let's set semantics aside. Will you address my point?

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/u...dvocates-including-nra.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The GOP will line up arm and arm against it. They are are the wrong side again. I say bring it up and let them vote.....wait the Senate is being stalemated by filibustering Republicans. It will never get to a vote there.

Oh well, I guess it will take a couple more mass shootings and dead babies...

I'm certain you are looking forward to that.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is trying to take firearms away.

Yes they are, asshole, and no one is buying the liberal/government "you can trust us" line anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

a hundred rounds in seconds? Who is asking to make motorized gatling guns legal?

NO assault rifle can fire a hundred rounds in seconds. before you start commenting on policy, I suggest you brush up on the technical aspects of the argument.

AN M-16 can fire about 600 rounds/min. That's 10 rounds a second.

 

[martybegan]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

a hundred rounds in seconds? Who is asking to make motorized gatling guns legal?

NO assault rifle can fire a hundred rounds in seconds. before you start commenting on policy, I suggest you brush up on the technical aspects of the argument.

AN M-16 can fire about 600 rounds/min. That's 10 rounds a second.

and even with a 60 round clip you run ouy in 6 seconds, for 60 rounds.

Jim's statement was "100 rounds in seconds"

I have never seen a belt fed M-16 that would allow you to get that rate of fire.

 

[eflatminor]

No one is trying to take firearms away. I am a hunter and have numerous guns. The question of whether assault rifles that are able to fire a hundred rounds in seconds are valuable to those who stand by the Second Amendment. The Constitutional amendment should be kept and it will be. All anyone is saying is, Let's take a common sense look at the weapons that are out there. And who can get those weapons...

Great! Common sense, and plenty of historical evidence from America and other countries, shows that no matter what you attempt to ban, criminals will obtain. It's what they do. So, how does is show common sense to enact laws that put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that don't give two shits about the regulations?

There are nearly 400 million weapons in this country. You cannot univent them. So why seek to give criminals an edge against good people? That's insane.

Let's set semantics aside. Will you address my point?

Why is it I can't get a single gun grabber to address this point?

Come on Jimmy, you started the thread.