3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[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

Nope it's the near endless supply of ammo theory

Wrong as usual

The amount of ammo one has in no way predicts he will be a killer

The entire everyone isn't a criminal until he is shit is the most moronic argument ever posed by you idiots

 

[Lesh]

So you got one.

BFD

We know you get obsessed with the littlest things

Big ******* deal??

Parkland?

Really?

Oh...

 

[Lesh]

The amount of ammo one has in no way predicts he will be a killer

No one ever said it did. But I guess if you're losing ...you might as well argue against something no one said

 

[Blues Man]

So you got one.

BFD

We know you get obsessed with the littlest things

Big ******* deal??

Parkland?

Really?

Oh...

Who was shooting back at Parkland?
Who was shooting back at Sandy Hook
Who was shooting back at Pulse

Need I go on?

 

[Lesh]

Or the killer would have another weapon.

Yea one not as capable of producing so many dead kids...

 

[Blues Man]

The amount of ammo one has in no way predicts he will be a killer

No one ever said it did. But I guess if you're losing ...you might as well argue against something no one said

No you just said that everyone is a criminal in waiting and that somehow the endless amount of ammo was related to that

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet? You are afraid someone will be stabbed by a rifle with a bayonet? Yeah, that speaks volumes.

 

[Lesh]

So you got one.

BFD

We know you get obsessed with the littlest things

Big ******* deal??

Parkland?

Really?

Oh...

Who was shooting back at Parkland?
Who was shooting back at Sandy Hook
Who was shooting back at Pulse

Need I go on?

You could go on all you want. Nothing changes the fact that football players and wrestlers etc COULD over power a shooter if he has to stop shooting to reload.

With magazine fed weapons...that's not much more than a spit second

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Indeed.

View attachment 250366

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

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

It truly is a failed, ignorant, and ridiculous "argument."

What constitutes an assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, having nothing to do with the configuration or functionality of the weapon.

And even more important is that since clearly assault weapons are necessary, since police and security have them, it is illegal for government to prevent honest citizens from also having them for protection.
It is not like anyone attacks police.
It is average citizens who get attacked.
So if police have them, we all most certainly do.
In fact, the LAST people I want to have them are the police, since they have been proven to be the most trigger happy.
Where would government even get jurisdiction to regulate weapons from anyway?
They were never delegated that authority in the Constitution.

“Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any broad category of firearms with certain features. Assault weapons include some semi-automatic rifle, some pistols and some shotguns.”

Assault Weapon Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

That a rifle or carbine is not select-fire doesn’t mean it isn’t an assault weapon, and it doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated as such.

An assault weapon exists as a consequence of the law, regardless its configuration and functionality.

 

[Blues Man]

So you got one.

BFD

We know you get obsessed with the littlest things

Big ******* deal??

Parkland?

Really?

Oh...

Who was shooting back at Parkland?
Who was shooting back at Sandy Hook
Who was shooting back at Pulse

Need I go on?

You could go on all you want. Nothing changes the fact that football players and wrestlers etc COULD over power a shooter if he has to stop shooting to reload.

With magazine fed weapons...that's not much more than a spit second

And that has NEVER happened has it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Or the killer would have another weapon.

Yea one not as capable of producing so many dead kids...

I did not mean a different weapon from the one you are afraid of. I meant a 2nd or 3rd weapon.

And for every instance when the shooter could be overpowered while reloading, how many shooting were done by people who were known (by mental health professionals) to be dangerously mentally ill? And yet their names were not reported to the federal background check system.

 

[Lesh]

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet?

No. Can you find a quote of me doing that?

No?

Not surprising.

Lets take that idiot argument away and talk about the real issue.

Magazine fed semi-auto weapons.

So much simpler and elegant isn't it?

 

[hjmick]

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...

You think you know what I did or said? You don't. All you know is that I speak up against ignorant calls for arbitrary and ineffective laws. I "weaseled" nothing. The list I posted above is accurate for the 1994 law. If you don't like being proven wrong, I suggest you go find a cooking message board.

For the record, I was and am opposed to bump stocks and clips or magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Ban those if you want.

 

[Lesh]

And that has NEVER happened has it?

What? Shooters being over powered while reloading? It HAS occurred and it has been attempted numerous times. Of course it fails often resulting in heroic deaths because...well magazines are so quick and easy to reload with

 

[Deno]

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.

Were you drinking or sniffing glue when you typed this?

 

[WinterBorn]

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet?

No. Can you find a quote of me doing that?

No?

Not surprising.

Lets take that idiot argument away and talk about the real issue.

Magazine fed semi-auto weapons.

So much simpler and elegant isn't it?

Is it? You think the tool itself is the culprit? Some lunatic is able to buy a firearm because his therapist doesn't report him to the federal system, as required by law, and you think the magazine capacity is the issue? So it is ok to kill 6 or 8, but we need federal laws to prevent the deaths of 12 or 14?

 

[Mindful]

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

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet? You are afraid someone will be stabbed by a rifle with a bayonet? Yeah, that speaks volumes.

Well; over in England, they're killing people with knives. Almost every day now.

 

[Blues Man]

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...

You think you know what I did or said? You don't. All you know is that I speak up against ignorant calls for arbitrary and ineffective laws. I "weaseled" nothing. The list I posted above is accurate for the 1994 law. If you don't like being proven wrong, I suggest you go find a cooking message board.

For the record, I was and am opposed to bump stocks and clips or magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Ban those if you want.

And you just nailed Lesh's ( AKA the USMB"s biggest lying sack of shit) modus operandi.

Fabricate things other people say then argue against those fabrications

 

[Lesh]

For the record, I was and am opposed to bump stocks and clips or magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds. Ban those if you want.

They absolutely should be banned. Should have been long ago but people like you fought against it.
And all they are is issues "around the margins"

 

[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

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet? You are afraid someone will be stabbed by a rifle with a bayonet? Yeah, that speaks volumes.

Well; over in England, they're killing people with knives. Almost every day now.

the murder rate in England is less than a quarter what it is here.

You really don't want to try that argument