3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[Blues Man]

FYI 3 10 round magazine = 1 30 round magazine. So banning a 30 round magazine will not stop anyone from shooting 30 rounds in virtually the same amount of time

Bullshit, Any time a magazine has to be changed the shooter becomes vulnerable. In the Gabby Giffords shooting that was when the shooter was over powered. When he was changing Mags.

But you're right. Even a ten round mag and the relatively quick change of these is exceedingly dangerous.

Which is why weapons that are magazine fed should be banned.

We have no real need for such weapons. Not for self defense and not for hunting

Your opinion and you know what I think that's worth.

 

[Blues Man]

Not this stupid ******* argument again.
Jesus **** can you get a ******* brain.

So, you are too embarrassed to say why you need to own an assault rifle? You are embarrassed to say what you do with it?
Is it you can;'t shoot? Is it because it makes you feel like a tough guy when you carry it? Are you such an asshole, thousands of people want to attack you?

A semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle

How many times do you have to be told this?

And FYI I don't own an AR 15 because I think it's underpowered. I prefer my .308 with hollow point ammo.

You think an AR 15 does damage? You should see what my .308 does

JESUS ******* CHRIST will you assholes quit running around with this "OMG OMG OMNG the assault type rifles are not assault rifles" bullshit.
We all know what guns are being discussed. So really, quit being such a ******* dick about it.

We are talking about semi automatics & the number of bullets they can fire especially with oversized magazines.

Furthermore, don;t think you people are the only ones who know about guns. I probably own more than you.

I know what guns are being discussed

You obviously don't and you are obviously incapable of learning what rifles are being discussed.

FYI 3 10 round magazine = 1 30 round magazine. So banning a 30 round magazine will not stop anyone from shooting 30 rounds in virtually the same amount of time


Unlike you I don't give a shit if you own guns or how many you own. Your language illustrates that you don't know the most fundamental differences between types of firearms.

**** off.

Obviously, the guns being used are semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. I know what they are. I also know the term "Assault rifle" is typically used to discuss these weapons whether or not they fit your definition. We had an assault rifle ban & I guess you have zero clue what was banned. You just spew that same bullshit to avoid the real problem of these assault type rifle.

If larger magazines save no time why the **** do you need them? Hell, lets limit them to 5. Since they make no difference. But hey, you're the expert, right?

I already told you what the assault rifle ban prohibited.

It prohibited cosmetic add ons that did nothing to enhance the lethality of the rifle

And why do you care if I have a 5, or10 or 20 round magazine?

I and 99.99% of all gun owners will never commit murder

 

[Blues Man]

As you know you cannot prove this intent, your statement is a lie.

You throw the word "lie" around rather easily. It's my OPINION as to why this argument over a gun's look is being made...and the post above (YOUR post) shows my opinion is accurate

You have lied enough in my time here to be labeled a perpetual lying sack of shit

 

[Lesh]

The "nonsense about look" was manufactured in 1994 by Democrats when they passed and Clinton signed a bill that banned guns based on how they LOOKED.

The law specifically named 19 different firearms as patently illegal, and specified that three or more of the following features present on a single firearm constitutes an assault weapon: A folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or threads to attach one, a muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher (seriously), and a magazine capacity over 10 round. All cosmetic (that means what they look like) save for magazine/clip capacity.

The suggestion in your last paragraph that I, or anyone else here, fantasizes about shooting people in the head is disgusting and you can go **** yourself.

So your claim was that Dems just decreed this law and did all that because...well why exactly?

Oh that's right. Because people like you were trying to weasel word what was and was not eligible to be banned.

Oh...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.
Background checks?
If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.
The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.
Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.
Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.
Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.
Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.
Just those crazy ***** running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

Good news:
You definition of "crazy" does not create a compelling argument for infringing upon my rights.

Wrong.

Background checks don't "infringe" on any rights.

Actually they do, because you have a right to privacy, so that the government does not know who has guns to come and illegally confiscate them from.
Exactly how can government ever get the authority to deny any citizens the right to be able to defend themselves and their home?
Those are basic 4th and 5th amendment rights, that the federal government most definitely has no jurisdiction over.
In fact, if police and military has weapons, then under the 14th amendment, we have to be able to have the same ones.
Why? Because ultimately government, police/soldiers, are historically the most corrupt and dangerous factor.
All democratic republics are always threatened by government police states by the police/military.

The courts have consistently upheld UCBs to be Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue – UBCs in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

Should the Supreme Court at some point invalidate UBC laws, then – and only then – will such measures infringe on citizens’ rights.

U.S. judge upholds Colorado gun restrictions

 

[Lesh]

I and 99.99% of all gun owners will never commit murder

Maybe...maybe not. Don't forget we've read your posts.

But the fact remains that with these weapons...when you DO go off the deep end...you'll do a lot more damage

 

[M14 Shooter]

Great. Solve the "confusion"
Ban all magazine fed semi-auto rifle, That would solve your "issue" true?

You cannot in any way soundly show the necessity for this.
You also cannot soundly argue as to how this does not violate the constitution.
Thus, your idea has no merit.
As usual.

Your idiot arguments are an attempt to confuse the issue.

By that, you mean you know you cannot soundly counter them.

Great. Solve the confusion by banning all magazine fed semi-autos.

You cannot in any way soundly show the necessity for this.
You also cannot soundly argue as to how this does not violate the constitution.
Thus, your idea has no merit.

There's no legitimate need for them anyway

Your opinion is meaningless and unsupported by fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And anyone who knows guns knows that if you put one in a safe and leave it there for any length of time..it will rust up real nice.

So yea...go for it

And everyone knows you need to routinely clean your guns and have a good golden rod

Clean your weapons there sparky

-Geaux

I do. And I oil them as well. But a LOT of the idiots who are gonna run out and buy a gun because they're afraid of a gun ban won't. Fine. Pretty quick they'll have a $600 door stop

Your opinion is meaningless and unsupported by fact.

 

[Blues Man]

I and 99.99% of all gun owners will never commit murder

Maybe...maybe not. Don't forget we've read your posts.

But the fact remains that with these weapons...when you DO go off the deep end...you'll do a lot more damage

OK here we go again

Exactly what posts indicate I will commit murder?

you are a lying sack of shit

 

[Lesh]

And why do you care if I have a 5, or10 or 20 round magazine?

Because every time YOU have to change that magazine during your mass murder event...you become more vulnerable

 

[Blues Man]

And why do you care if I have a 5, or10 or 20 round magazine?

Because every time YOU have to change that magazine during your mass murder event...you become more vulnerable

YEah all those school kids are shooting back

One thing most mass shootings have in common is that the people being shot at are unarmed so the 2 seconds it takes to drop and swap a magazine doesn't make them that vulnerable

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the fact remains that with these weapons...when you DO go off the deep end...you'll do a lot more damage

This supposed statement of fact is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because every time YOU have to change that magazine during your mass murder event...you become more vulnerable

Your opinion is meaningless and unsupported by fact.

 

[Blues Man]

I and 99.99% of all gun owners will never commit murder

Maybe...maybe not. Don't forget we've read your posts.

But the fact remains that with these weapons...when you DO go off the deep end...you'll do a lot more damage

Here we go again with the worst flawed argument ever

The criminal in waiting theory

 

[Lesh]

YEah all those school kids are shooting back

One thing most mass shootings have i common is that the people being shot at are unarmed

I remind you of th Gabby Giffords shooting. That shooter was over powered when he was changing magazines.

I remind you of Parkland where a coach and several football players were gunned down trying to stop that horror. Had they caught that asshoile changing mags..or trying to load bullet by bullet...they might have been successful

 

[WinterBorn]

JESUS ******* CHRIST will you assholes quit running around with this "OMG OMG OMG the guns LOOK like the kind the military use and they LOOK scary! The must be ASSAULT RIFLES" bullshit?

We do what guns are being discussed. So really, quit being such ******* dicks about it.

We are talking about semi automatics & the number of bullets they can fire, one at time, ONE with each pull of the trigger.

Furthermore, don't pretend banning them is the magic pill that end the heinous shootings.

And it doesn't matter how many you own, it doesn't make up for your ignorance on the subject.

It ain't about how they LOOK...asshole. It's what they DO. And what they do is produce mass casualties...as intended.

The nonsense about "look" was manufactured by gun nuts so they could MAKE that stupid argument

And as far as "one with each pull". You mean one with each twitch of a finger and an almost endless supply of bullets.
Ghead folks. twitch a finger rapidly and imagine a head exploding each time you do. Keep going. Do it 30 times...and then 3 seconds later do it again...and then 3 seconds later do it again...and then again and again.

Anyone intent on producing mass casualties will not be deterred by a lack of access to a rifle.

The "nonsense about look" was manufactured in 1994 by Democrats when they passed and Clinton signed a bill that banned guns based on how they LOOKED.

The law specifically named 19 different firearms as patently illegal, and specified that three or more of the following features present on a single firearm constitutes an assault weapon: A folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or threads to attach one, a muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher (seriously), and a magazine capacity over 10 round. All cosmetic (that means what they look like) save for magazine/clip capacity.

The suggestion in your last paragraph that I, or anyone else here, fantasizes about shooting people in the head is disgusting and you can go **** yourself.

I always laughed at the idea that the bayonet mount was one of the criteria. Driveby bayonetings were such a problem back in the 90s.

 

[Lesh]

I and 99.99% of all gun owners will never commit murder

Maybe...maybe not. Don't forget we've read your posts.

But the fact remains that with these weapons...when you DO go off the deep end...you'll do a lot more damage

Here we go again with the worst flawed argument ever

The criminal in waiting theory

Nope it's the near endless supply of ammo theory

 

[Blues Man]

YEah all those school kids are shooting back

One thing most mass shootings have i common is that the people being shot at are unarmed

I remind you of th Gabby Giffords shooting. That shooter was over powered when he was changing magazines.

I remind you of Parkland where a coach and several football players were gunned down trying to stop that horror. Had they caught that asshoile changing mags..or trying to load bullet by bullet...they might have been successful

So you got one.

BFD

We know you get obsessed with the littlest things

 

[WinterBorn]

YEah all those school kids are shooting back

One thing most mass shootings have i common is that the people being shot at are unarmed

I remind you of th Gabby Giffords shooting. That shooter was over powered when he was changing magazines.

I remind you of Parkland where a coach and several football players were gunned down trying to stop that horror. Had they caught that asshoile changing mags..or trying to load bullet by bullet...they might have been successful

Or the killer would have another weapon.

 

[Lesh]

I always laughed at the idea that the bayonet mount was one of the criteria. Driveby bayonetings were such a problem back in the 90s.

Being able to SAY idiot shit like that was why gun nuts insisted on all that wrangling about how to define an assault weapon