“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[pismoe]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

------------------------------------ they are also the choice for fighting TYRANNY and doing self defense and for other legal purposes RWinger ,

 

[iceberg]

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

except that if i come take your guns because a neighbor said you are dangerous, how is that *not* bypassing due process? where is my trial? where is my right to explain myself?

to me this is bypassing due process because the request doesn't launch an investigation or to see if there is merit to it, it means take my guns cause my neighbor is mad at me. so, to me, red flag laws "do" bypass due process. i would be furious with trump or any elected official if they were to do this because they take power, they never give it back.

That is not bypassing due process. That is following the process used to deal with a potential danger. Police use similar steps when an erratic driver is seen on the interstate even if they haven't broken any law.

they came and took my property and i never had a say in the matter.

if i'm driving erratically then yes, you pull me over and check. but you don't take away my license or car or ability to drive unless found to be guilty of something OF WHICH i will have my day in court to tell my side of the story. i lose nothing until found guilty in court by a judge and telling my story.

that doesn't exist if you just come take my guns w/o cause or reason other than my neighbor says i'm up to no good.

Lots of people arrested for driving erratically.

but they don't lose any rights or property until they are found guilty, correct?

 

[pismoe]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

So we are going to ban security forces and police from having them, is that it?


The elites that rule over this nation would no longer be able to have their body guards and security protection services have access to carry them? Private security contractors can no longer have them?

What a relief.

-------------------------------------------- its alright with me , no Special people or 'knight' of the Realm' allowed in the USA MR. Beale .

 

[BULLDOG]

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

 

[iceberg]

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

hit the local pawn shop and do the same.

again, you keep coming at me on a point in which we agree.

 

[rightwinger]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

isn't this what i said?

i just also said we need to fix the background db before we flood it with even more.

and you never have answered direct questions i've asked. yet you wonder why i tag you "troll".

Stop trolling

Background checks are more than the gun show loophole. If you sell a gun to your son.....he needs a background check

 

[pismoe]

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

---------------------------------- funny comment but also illegal to do that Bulldog .

 

[rightwinger]

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

Best way for criminals to get guns

 

[iceberg]

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

isn't this what i said?

i just also said we need to fix the background db before we flood it with even more.

and you never have answered direct questions i've asked. yet you wonder why i tag you "troll".

Stop trolling

Background checks are more than the gun show loophole. If you sell a gun to your son.....he needs a background check

where have i said otherwise?

the butthurt is strong in you, trollboy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

hit the local pawn shop and do the same.

again, you keep coming at me on a point in which we agree.

I'm surprised, but glad to hear that.

 

[pismoe]

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

Best way for criminals to get guns

------------------------------------- and as I told Bulldog , that action is already ILLEGAL RWinger

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

---------------------------------- funny comment but also illegal to do that Bulldog .

It's perfectly legal. Individual sales require no paperwork or record keeping. of any kind. If you have the money, you can buy a gun.

 

[iceberg]

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

hit the local pawn shop and do the same.

again, you keep coming at me on a point in which we agree.

I'm surprised, but glad to hear that.

now - how are red flag laws NOT violating "due process"

we come and take your guns cause a neighbor said you were dangerous.

that doesn't compare to being arrested for erratic driving, having a day in court, and allowing "due process" to determine what to do from there.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment

Assault weapons are not protected by the second amendment

If you want a definition of assault weapon, it can be done

Yes it is US vs Miller 1939

 

[rightwinger]

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

Best way for criminals to get guns

------------------------------------- and as I told Bulldog , that action is already ILLEGAL RWinger

ILLEGAL and impossible to prove without mandatory background checks

 

[iceberg]

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

yep. and when brought up i can simply point out a revolver can fire 12 rounds in mere seconds. the answer then is to ban revolvers.

and they wonder why these conversations go astray.

 

[pismoe]

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

---------------------------------- funny comment but also illegal to do that Bulldog .

It's perfectly legal. Individual sales require no paperwork or record keeping. of any kind. If you have the money, you can buy a gun.

--------------------------------------- its illegal to sell a gun to an unknown stranger in a 'face to face' sale Bulldog .

 

[rightwinger]

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

The designed function and operation