Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace. I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.
If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise.
Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Indeed. Since the sunset of the 1994 'assault weapons' ban, the number of murders with'assault weapons', in real and relative terms, has dropped.But today America is awash with guns and suffering from an epidemic of unnecessary gun deaths.
An "epidemic" that has been steadily decreasing. The murder rate, the violent crime rate, and the mass killings rate are all on the decline in America. Can you really call something on the decline an "epidemic"? Shouldn't it be getting worse to use that word?
If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
I can think of only one.
Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?
There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'..
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.
Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
I can think of only one.
Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Handguns aren't as scary looking as an AR-15.Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
Wow, Circe, I hate to say it but you're sounding just a bit racists (in my opinion). Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post above!
First of all, many of the victims in poor areas of Chicago to the gun violence are women and children. Not sure if poor minority women in children hold the same level of importance as rich white women and children in your view, but to me they are the same.
Secondly, my point is this...
If assault weapons are killing maybe 50 people a year and handguns maybe 7,000+ people a year, and you had limited time and resources, wouldn't it make sense to go after the handgun deaths first above all?
Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?
It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths. But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.
They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'..
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
How do you think American criminals get their weapons? Should it be easy for them to obtain them?If one of two or thirty states ban assault weapons, the criminal is going to use a straw man gun runner to get his weapon of choice from another state, perhaps a state that does not value the lives of its citizens so well as other states, or a state where the gun lobby has completed its shopping for legislators.Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
I can think of only one.
Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Why do you believe that? Mexico bans guns. How's there murder rate? England and Australia banned them and their murder and violent crime rates increased. You have no evidence that criminals in these countries all of sudden got their guns from other countries. Similarly, you have no evidence because California attempts to ban "assault weapons", that criminals must go out of state to get theirs.
A comprehensive ban, as history demonstrates, only serves to ensure the criminals are armed. You want to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and wait for someone else to save you, that's your choice. I choose differently.
Semi automatic firing systems are ones where every time you pull the trigger, the gun fires. There's no need to engage a bolt to eject a shell, or engage a pump lever to eject and reload. It's easy, squeeze and shoot. No cylinder revolves, no bolt is pulled.Are you limiting any discussion to assault rifles, or all weapons, including hand guns, featuring a semi-automatic firing system and fitted with high capacity magazines?
It would be a simple thing to dismiss the assault rife as insignificant when discussing gun deaths. But the handgun with the same firing system and with a high capacity clip are really to be factored in when a serious discussion of gun violence in America is proffered.
I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. The AR-15 (as I understand) fires in the same way as any other rifle - you pull the trigger once and it fires once.
What variations on handguns are you talking about exactly? Can you explain the difference between the firing system of a 'normal' handgun, and a firing system of a handgun that behaves like an AR-15?
.
They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'..
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'.
Are they?
Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of 315 million people. If we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the least)?
.
I never said anything about 'disarming' the populace.Exactly. Tyrants are reticent to impose their will on an armed populace, which means more suppression by peaceful means. Why would you want to change that by disarming the populace, thereby removing any obstacles for the tyrant?
Okay. That's Senator Feinstein plan, but I happy to see you're more reasonable.
I advocate laws making the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of assault weapons illegal. The populace can still maintain arms in the form of bolt action rifles, revolvers, and pump action shot guns.
Can you point to a single example of assault weapons used by a criminal?
I can think of only one.
Just as the populace is prohibited from bearing rocket propelled grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, artillery pieces and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, the populace should not have semi-automatic rifles and pistols which can be fitted with magazines holding greater than 10 rounds
Setting aside those are not assault weapons, my question is why? I assume you're not one of those folks that think criminals will begin obeying the law and will not possess these ubiquitous weapons, so why would you want to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing criminals that don't care about the rules?
We know no law is going to prevent a bad guy from getting a semi auto firearm (Norway anyone?). By "banning" them, you're only giving an edge to the criminals and crazies. Why would you want to do that?
They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'..
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
Show this to be true. Be sure to bring only facts and exclude opinion and/or conjecture.They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.There is no sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'..
A comprehensive ban on manufacturers is what's needed. Stop the flow of these weapons at the source.
There's not a Mini-14 in the world that will ourshoot my NM AR15.They both shoot the exact same round at the same rate in fact I'll say the Mini 14 is more accurate and therefore more deadly
They are too dangerous to be on the streets, campuses, school yards, theaters, shopping malls, and churches and temples of America.
Are they?
Again, we're talking maybe 50 deaths a year out of a country of 315 million people. If we're talking about dangers to the public, shouldn't we start at the most significant killers first (vs the least)?
.
If you limit the definition of 'assault weapons' to rifles. But handguns with semi automatic firing systems and fitted with high capacity clips bring more destruction than most other types of weapons. See the streets of Chicago or Detroit.
If Obama was sincere at reducing gun violence, instead of going after an' Assault Weapon' that kills less than 50 people every year, he (in my opinion) would instead be tough on the big banks for sending our economy into a downward spiral and putting millions of Americans out of work. When the economy tanks, people get desperate and violent crime goes on the rise.
Wait, wait! I hate to paraphrase the gun nuts, but banks don't shoot people, people shoot people!
"Poverty" is no excuse for the entire South Side of Chicago being a free-fire zone. That's purely criminal behavior. It's on purpose. I have no sympathy with that.
Hundreds of minority children in the inner cities can die from handguns and MSNBC remains silent. No solutions, no commentary, just total silence. But then when 20 people from a wealthy background die, all of a sudden we have an all-out, 24/7 media campaign to ban "Assault Weapons" and our very own President dropping everything else to spearhead the new initiative. Do you see where I'm coming from?
I love it. You are telling all the secrets!!
Okay, true. But I don't care: let the South Side take care of its own. We've got troubles enough: we've got white crazies, old and teens, from sea to shining sea shooting up every place they can find enough people to make it worthwhile. And we've got white men who are the very pool these crazies come out of who are fighting tooth and nail against gun control so it can all go on and on and on forever!
I suggest that the argument "it's too few to matter" is not a good one and is also unattractive to a whole lot of people, especially to the majority of the population who get shot more than the minority who does the shooting ---- I refer to women. Women and children are the usual victims of white gun violence. MOST killed are women and children. Think back to some of the recent massacres. In Newtown it was 100% women and children. That's pretty much usual, if they have time to aim.
I don't know how gender breaks down with black gun violence. That seems to me to be predominantly simply the way blackmarket contracts are enforced (worldwide) since blackmarkets have no access to legal systems, so they use violence instead. So probably it's more male victims, but basically, let them take care of their gun problems and we'll try to take care of ours ---- that's turning out to be QUITE hard enough, thank you.
