actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama
sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again
The principle I agree with, the reality is different though. There is no realistic way that the States could afford to have a modern military force. The technology is just too advanced and too expensive. It comes down to the idea an assault weapon won't cut it if folks really have to rise up. So is it worth it to have those available to the general public when they can't fulfill their purpose?
obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???
under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.
I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.
I think you are in error he is the bandunder bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.
and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."
so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..
But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.
I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.
because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".
There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?
I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.
So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.
But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.
He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.
I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.
because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".
There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?
I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.
So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.
