3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[Nosmo King]

Question A: what was the knife designed to do?

Question B: what is the semi-automatic firing system designed to do.

Quit looking for equivalence among kitchen implements and weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

All a rifle is designed to do is to propel a projectile at a target.

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All a rifle is designed to do is to propel a projectile at a target.

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

A bat used to beat someone is an assault weapon.

And no, rifles of any kind pose no danger to anyone. A rifle is an inanimate object. A rifle is a tool. A rifle is just a rifle.

Why is it you don't realize that PEOPLE are the problem?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All a rifle is designed to do is to propel a projectile at a target.

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

 

[Nosmo King]

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

A bat used to beat someone is an assault weapon.

And no, rifles of any kind pose no danger to anyone. A rifle is an inanimate object. A rifle is a tool. A rifle is just a rifle.

Why is it you don't realize that PEOPLE are the problem?

People with rifles. What about that situation can be altered?

 

[Nosmo King]

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The fsct is that if all your guns were taken & I handed you a single shot 22 rifle, you would be bearing arms.

Yeah ... Bring a single shot .22 when you come to take the firearms I own ... You probably won't be all that excited about how that trade works out for ya.

.

The keyboard commandos are restless tonight....

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

A bat used to beat someone is an assault weapon.

And no, rifles of any kind pose no danger to anyone. A rifle is an inanimate object. A rifle is a tool. A rifle is just a rifle.

Why is it you don't realize that PEOPLE are the problem?

People with rifles. What about that situation can be altered?

People with rifles are the problem. People with handguns are the problem. People with knives are the problem. People with rental trucks are the problem. People with fists are the problems. People with baseball bats are the problem.

What about that situation can be altered?

People!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

A bat used to beat someone is an assault weapon.

And no, rifles of any kind pose no danger to anyone. A rifle is an inanimate object. A rifle is a tool. A rifle is just a rifle.

Why is it you don't realize that PEOPLE are the problem?

People with rifles. What about that situation can be altered?

Enforce our laws that already exist.

 

[Vandalshandle]

All a rifle is designed to do is to propel a projectile at a target.

...in varying degrees of rapidity and accuracy. And all too often, that target is human flesh and blood.

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

The gun nuts will tell you that they intend to fight off the evil federal government by shooting down stealth bombers with their Ak-47s. The real reason is that their macho image would be ruined if they did not have the baddest ass gun in the neighborhood. They are toys, plain and simple. They are a lot cheaper than owning a Corvette with 700+ horsepower, but it is really just the same thing. In fact, they would be just as happy if they could buy a Harley, and get to wear all the Harley shirts, vests, and head bandanas. Gun nuts think that they look like this:

When they really look like this;

You can't reason with this mentality.

 

[BlackSand]

The keyboard commandos are restless tonight....

Yeah ... You suck at that too ...

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

I want to hear your suggestions that
a) are not unconstitutional
b) do not punish law abiding citizens
c) actually have an impact on gun crimes.

Every thing I have heard from you and the gun grabbers usually hits all three of these conditions at once.

My argument is legitimate. The fact you dismiss it is proof that you are an idiot.

 

[BlackSand]

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

You have pretty much made your case to address the problem as you see it ... How well is that working out for ya ...
You really ought to take it to your Representatives ... Your argument is not gaining any ground here ... Perhaps they are more sympathetic to your desires.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

I want to hear your suggestions that
a) are not unconstitutional
b) do not punish law abiding citizens
c) actually have an impact on gun crimes.

Every thing I have heard from you and the gun grabbers usually hits all three of these conditions at once.

My argument is legitimate. The fact you dismiss it is proof that you are an idiot.

Every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen sometime or other, before he decided to gun down everyone he could.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

I want to hear your suggestions that
a) are not unconstitutional
b) do not punish law abiding citizens
c) actually have an impact on gun crimes.

Every thing I have heard from you and the gun grabbers usually hits all three of these conditions at once.

My argument is legitimate. The fact you dismiss it is proof that you are an idiot.

Every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen sometime or other, before he decided to gun down everyone he could.

Your point is?

Every guy was a straight male until ...

No need to be gross here. I think you get the picture.

 

[BlackSand]

Every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen sometime or other, before he decided to gun down everyone he could.

You should probably kill yourself before you become a mass murderer ...

.

 

[RealDave]

And the men's tally frazzled take all that into account right up to the point they pull the trigger.

What puts the "mass" in "mass shooting"? The weapon.

In China and Japan they have mass slashings with knives. Did they ban knives?

Question A: what was the knife designed to do?

Question B: what is the semi-automatic firing system designed to do.

Quit looking for equivalence among kitchen implements and weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

The knife is designed to cut, which is what it was used for.

The semi-automatic firing system is to reduce reloading time.

How many of those rifles kill people in a given year?

None.

Here we go. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Therefore we should allow people who want to kill people have the fastest, most deadly, weapons with reduced loading time.

Good thinking, Spot

If you were the one standing outside that church in Texas, hearing people die inside that building, wouldn't you want to have a weapon equal to what the the shooter had?

Of course not, you piece of crap gun grabbers are too much of a coward and would just call 911 and hide, listening as more innocent men, women, and children were massacred.

I'll bet you would be so proud of yourself!

I'd want to know that I did every thing possible to keep the killing weapons out of the public.

This argument that we can't ban these weapons because we need to have therm to fight those who do is the dumbest argument ever made.

I would call 911 then grab my gun, make sure of my target, & take him out. I don't need an assault type rifle to do it. There is but one target.

 

[RealDave]

The fsct is that if all your guns were taken & I handed you a single shot 22 rifle, you would be bearing arms.

Yeah ... Bring a single shot .22 when you come to take the firearms I own ... You probably won't be all that excited about how that trade works out for ya.

.

oooooooooooo a tough guy.

 

[RealDave]

Question A: what was the knife designed to do?

Question B: what is the semi-automatic firing system designed to do.

Quit looking for equivalence among kitchen implements and weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

The knife is designed to cut, which is what it was used for.

The semi-automatic firing system is to reduce reloading time.

How many of those rifles kill people in a given year?

None.

You do realize that they have been used at least three time in high profile killings since Labor Day, Right?

If my position was as untenable as yours, I might be tempted to try denial too. But my cons I would not allow that.

You do realize that our right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution and none of your pathetic mental meanderings is likely to change that anytime in yours or my lifetimes.

I see you couldn't manage to spell "conscience" either?

Since when is bearing arms the right to own every single gun known to man?

The USSC said it doesn't.

The fsct is that if all your guns were taken & I handed you a single shot 22 rifle, you would be bearing arms.

So shove this fake Constitution excuse up your ass,
'
How about we reduce the number of innocent people, including children, being slaughtered instead of playing your sick, ignorant , childish games.

In Texas, innocent people were saved because a neighbor had a weapon. In Las Vegas, innocent people were saved when armed police responded to the hotel room.

Your pathetic arguments for violating my rights are beyond stupid.

Why do you want to give these people semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines? Why are you so stupid to make this an argument about all guns & why are you such an ass to think I mean law enforcement can't have them.

Grow the **** up, & quit being so childish.

 

[BlackSand]

oooooooooooo a tough guy.

You are the one talking about taking peoples' firearms and giving them what you think is acceptable ...

That's an example of you thinking you have some kind of magical power you don't ... Not me.
All I suggested is that you probably wouldn't like how your offer was received.
If you have a problem with that ... It has more to do with your insecurities than anything I suggested.

.

 

[RealDave]

oooooooooooo a tough guy.

You are the one talking about taking peoples' firearms and giving them what you think is acceptable ...

That's an example of you thinking you have some kind of magical power you don't ... Not me.
All I suggested is that you probably wouldn't like how your offer was received.
If you have a problem with that ... It has more to do with your insecurities than anything I suggest.

.

I was making a point. A point that obviously went way over your head.

You dip[sticks keep yacking about the right to bear arms as if it means any weapon you want. That is not the case now & the USSC said it didn't.