Questions for those that would ban 'assault weapons'

[LoneLaugher]

I see you, again, aren't interested in discussing the issue with any degree of honesty.
Back on ignore.

This nutter wants honesty....and gets it. Then puts on earmuffs.

SOP

Honesty is not being full of shit. That's exactly what they said....and do to this day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otTiaGPpePs]Gun Grabbing Feinstein: Background Checks Would Not Have Prevented Newtown - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKph80pU4e0]Newtown Dad Pleads At Senate For Assault Weapons Ban - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DPJYA8et4]Senator Feinstein on assault weapons legislation - YouTube[/ame]

I could post these all day. When you want to truly be honest come back and we'll talk.

Which one of those addresses my comments? Nobody claimed that n AWB WOULD HAVE prevented Newtown. Thread fail.

 

[WinterBorn]

Lets make this "discussion" a little more simple.

IF I walk into my local gun store and ask the salesman to show me assault rifles, what weapon(s) would he take off the rack?

You got any pictures of THOSE weapons?

Pretend you are the salesman. I want an assault rifle from your store. What are you gonna sell me? What will it look like?

I need a better understanding of just what it is that YOU think is an assault rifle. Show pictures.

Any gun lover answer what the primary purpose of an AK47 is? At the time it was designed. And how it has been used. As an assault rifle the world over.

I just can't figure out why you gun lovers don't know what an assault rifle is.

Oh please. Yes, we know what you mean when you say "assault rifle". That does not change the fact that the actual definition of the term, as coined by the military, is that of a fully automatic rifle.

However, like many words, terms and phrases, the definition changes over time. The definition now includes the ridiculous notion that a semi-automatic rifle with a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor is an "assault rifle". But the exact same rifle without the flash suppressor and bayonet lug, is not. This is why the OP includes those two pics. And this is why one rifle, like the AR15 with the aforementioned flash suppressor and lug, are apparently so much more dangerous than those without those cosmetic features.

You know, because of all the drive-by bayonetings.

Fine. Ban all semi-automatic weapons AND large ammo clips. How many rounds per second do you need to kill a deer anyway?

I see several bring up deer hunting, despite the fact that these guns are not used to hunt deer.

Nor is the 2nd Amendment about weapons for hunting.

Although, there are hunters who use them for hunting coyote or wild hog. I have used an AR for hunting coyote. I was able to call in multiple dogs and shoot more than one. It worked great. But a neighbor offered me a good price for it, so I went back to a bolt action for varmints.

 

[zeke]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles.......but you don't want to talk about them? WTF?

You want to talk about "assault weapons". OK put up a couple photos of assault weapons. But don't pick photos that look like assault rifles. OK?

You just want to talk about hand guns? OK.

Lynyard Skynyrd said it best; hand guns are made for killing, they ain't good for nothin else. And if you drink your whisky, you might even shoot yourself.

 

[MrMax]

It can't be about the 2nd Amendment, because the government already doesn't allow folks to own all kinds of weapons, like cruise missiles, nukes, cluster bombs, F16s..., the list is endless. It's about people who like to think that they're a ******* bigshot for standing up to the government (because nobody really needs these kinds of guns), when the government is actually laughing at them after having moved the goalposts so far without anyone even noticing.

 

[WinterBorn]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles.......but you don't want to talk about them? WTF?

You want to talk about "assault weapons". OK put up a couple photos of assault weapons. But don't pick photos that look like assault rifles. OK?

You just want to talk about hand guns? OK.

Lynyard Skynyrd said it best; hand guns are made for killing, they ain't good for nothin else. And if you drink your whisky, you might even shoot yourself.

I'm a big fan of Skynyrd. But I would hate to think they had a hand in writing national policies.

Handguns can be used to kill to protect the innocent. They can be used to kill to put meat on the table. They can even be used to kill paper targets and provide entertainment for people (and families).

 

[WinterBorn]

It can't be about the 2nd Amendment, because the government already doesn't allow folks to own all kinds of weapons, like cruise missiles, nukes, cluster bombs, F16s..., the list is endless. It's about people who like to think that they're a ******* bigshot for standing up to the government (because nobody really needs these kinds of guns), when the government is actually laughing at them after having moved the goalposts so far without anyone even noticing.

It is not about "need" and never has been. I also think you underestimate the effect of an armed population. We have had examples in the last century of nations avoiding invasion because of the fear of such a population.

Look at the resistance put up by local populations against the US.

 

[zeke]

It can't be about the 2nd Amendment, because the government already doesn't allow folks to own all kinds of weapons, like cruise missiles, nukes, cluster bombs, F16s..., the list is endless. It's about people who like to think that they're a ******* bigshot for standing up to the government (because nobody really needs these kinds of guns), when the government is actually laughing at them after having moved the goalposts so far without anyone even noticing.

It is not about "need" and never has been. I also think you underestimate the effect of an armed population. We have had examples in the last century of nations avoiding invasion because of the fear of such a population.

Look at the resistance put up by local populations against the US.

Hey lets look at one of those examples of nations avoiding invasion because of fear of such a population. Which example are you gonna use?

Lets see, Iraqis had access to plenty of weapons and made use of them. We invaded them and they tried like hell to throw us out. How did that work out for the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis defeat the US military? **** no. But a lot of them died trying.

But somehow a bunch of Americans are gonna stand up and be killed by our own military.
When our own military sure as **** didn't "invade the USA".

But I digress. Go ahead, what countries with an armed population stopped an invasion.

 

[WinterBorn]

It can't be about the 2nd Amendment, because the government already doesn't allow folks to own all kinds of weapons, like cruise missiles, nukes, cluster bombs, F16s..., the list is endless. It's about people who like to think that they're a ******* bigshot for standing up to the government (because nobody really needs these kinds of guns), when the government is actually laughing at them after having moved the goalposts so far without anyone even noticing.

It is not about "need" and never has been. I also think you underestimate the effect of an armed population. We have had examples in the last century of nations avoiding invasion because of the fear of such a population.

Look at the resistance put up by local populations against the US.

Hey lets look at one of those examples of nations avoiding invasion because of fear of such a population. Which example are you gonna use?

Lets see, Iraqis had access to plenty of weapons and made use of them. We invaded them and they tried like hell to throw us out. How did that work out for the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis defeat the US military? **** no. But a lot of them died trying.

But somehow a bunch of Americans are gonna stand up and be killed by our own military.
When our own military sure as **** didn't "invade the USA".

But I digress. Go ahead, what countries with an armed population stopped an invasion.

First, look at what I said. The words "last century" might be a clue that I was not talking about Iraq.

The Japanese military leaders thought the armed Americans could repel an invasion, and Germany's military leaders were adamant that Hitler not invade Switzerland because their population provided a "sniper behind every tree".

As for the Americans standing and being killed by our own forces, you must be joking if you think they will line up like regular military.

First, I question how much of our military would be willing to attack our own population.

Second, as a guerilla, armed Americans could be quite effective. Since they are part of the civilian population, the military could not bring the heavier weapons into play. The effectiveness of a single sniper has been documented repeatedly. And, the Beltline Snipe aside, hunters make very good snipers.

 

[zeke]

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles.......but you don't want to talk about them? WTF?

You want to talk about "assault weapons". OK put up a couple photos of assault weapons. But don't pick photos that look like assault rifles. OK?

You just want to talk about hand guns? OK.

Lynyard Skynyrd said it best; hand guns are made for killing, they ain't good for nothin else. And if you drink your whisky, you might even shoot yourself.

I'm a big fan of Skynyrd. But I would hate to think they had a hand in writing national policies.

Handguns can be used to kill to protect the innocent. They can be used to kill to put meat on the table. They can even be used to kill paper targets and provide entertainment for people (and families).

Handguns can be used to kill for lots of reasons. That's why they are made. And if you are trying to feed your family hunting with a handgun, you got some hungry people. And the target practice. Yea it's fun to shoot up a paper target. But you are practicing for a reason. So that IF you had to shoot someone, you might have a chance of hitting them.

Or do you "practice" just to waste money and kill paper targets?

 

[WinterBorn]

To bad you all couldn't (or wouldn't) put up a couple photos of what you gun nuts consider "assault weapons".

Apparently, someone didn't read the OP.

Somone also doesn't understand the issue here is 'assault weapons', not assault rifles, and so any discussion of assault rifles is meaningless.

That same someone has yet to address the questions asked in the OP.

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles.......but you don't want to talk about them? WTF?

You want to talk about "assault weapons". OK put up a couple photos of assault weapons. But don't pick photos that look like assault rifles. OK?

You just want to talk about hand guns? OK.

Lynyard Skynyrd said it best; hand guns are made for killing, they ain't good for nothin else. And if you drink your whisky, you might even shoot yourself.

The entire point of the first two pictures is that the '94 ban used the most trivial and cosmetic of features as a basis for the ban.

 

[WinterBorn]

Someone (YOU) is goofy as shit. YOU put up two photos of assault rifles.......but you don't want to talk about them? WTF?

You want to talk about "assault weapons". OK put up a couple photos of assault weapons. But don't pick photos that look like assault rifles. OK?

You just want to talk about hand guns? OK.

Lynyard Skynyrd said it best; hand guns are made for killing, they ain't good for nothin else. And if you drink your whisky, you might even shoot yourself.

I'm a big fan of Skynyrd. But I would hate to think they had a hand in writing national policies.

Handguns can be used to kill to protect the innocent. They can be used to kill to put meat on the table. They can even be used to kill paper targets and provide entertainment for people (and families).

Handguns can be used to kill for lots of reasons. That's why they are made. And if you are trying to feed your family hunting with a handgun, you got some hungry people. And the target practice. Yea it's fun to shoot up a paper target. But you are practicing for a reason. So that IF you had to shoot someone, you might have a chance of hitting them.

Or do you "practice" just to waste money and kill paper targets?

I practice with the guns I use for other purposes. But I also shoot targets for the fun of it. I have guns that are not really suitable for anything but target shooting (or that I have better examples for their other purpose). What I spend on ammunition is well worth the fun I (and often my kids) have.

I have hunted deer and feral hog with a handgun for years. I have put a good supply of meat in the freezer. I assure you we would not have gone hungry. Your idea that handguns are only good for shooting people at close ranges is absolutely wrong.

 

[zeke]

It is not about "need" and never has been. I also think you underestimate the effect of an armed population. We have had examples in the last century of nations avoiding invasion because of the fear of such a population.

Look at the resistance put up by local populations against the US.

Hey lets look at one of those examples of nations avoiding invasion because of fear of such a population. Which example are you gonna use?

Lets see, Iraqis had access to plenty of weapons and made use of them. We invaded them and they tried like hell to throw us out. How did that work out for the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis defeat the US military? **** no. But a lot of them died trying.

But somehow a bunch of Americans are gonna stand up and be killed by our own military.
When our own military sure as **** didn't "invade the USA".

But I digress. Go ahead, what countries with an armed population stopped an invasion.

First, look at what I said. The words "last century" might be a clue that I was not talking about Iraq.

The Japanese military leaders thought the armed Americans could repel an invasion, and Germany's military leaders were adamant that Hitler not invade Switzerland because their population provided a "sniper behind every tree".

As for the Americans standing and being killed by our own forces, you must be joking if you think they will line up like regular military.

First, I question how much of our military would be willing to attack our own population.

Second, as a guerilla, armed Americans could be quite effective. Since they are part of the civilian population, the military could not bring the heavier weapons into play. The effectiveness of a single sniper has been documented repeatedly. And, the Beltline Snipe aside, hunters make very good snipers.

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey lets look at one of those examples of nations avoiding invasion because of fear of such a population. Which example are you gonna use?

Lets see, Iraqis had access to plenty of weapons and made use of them. We invaded them and they tried like hell to throw us out. How did that work out for the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis defeat the US military? **** no. But a lot of them died trying.

But somehow a bunch of Americans are gonna stand up and be killed by our own military.
When our own military sure as **** didn't "invade the USA".

But I digress. Go ahead, what countries with an armed population stopped an invasion.

As for the US Military attacking US citizens, if you listen to the military (especially the soldiers on the ground), they use all sorts of colorful euphemisms for the enemy. And they are rarely polite or complimentary. Any idea why they do this?

First, look at what I said. The words "last century" might be a clue that I was not talking about Iraq.

The Japanese military leaders thought the armed Americans could repel an invasion, and Germany's military leaders were adamant that Hitler not invade Switzerland because their population provided a "sniper behind every tree".

As for the Americans standing and being killed by our own forces, you must be joking if you think they will line up like regular military.

First, I question how much of our military would be willing to attack our own population.

Second, as a guerilla, armed Americans could be quite effective. Since they are part of the civilian population, the military could not bring the heavier weapons into play. The effectiveness of a single sniper has been documented repeatedly. And, the Beltline Snipe aside, hunters make very good snipers.

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the contrary, I have not said I wanted any of that to happen. I simply brought it up to counter your notion that the military would sweep the armed resistance aside.

I also did not say Americans would not kill Americans. I did, however, question whether everyone in the US Military would be willing to attack US citizens.

And yes, Iraq did happen in the last century. And our military swept their military aside rather quickly. But that is not the situation I was talking about. And when you asked for examples of when an armed population prevented an invasion, you did not ask me to list every time it did not.

 

[Nosmo King]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey lets look at one of those examples of nations avoiding invasion because of fear of such a population. Which example are you gonna use?

Lets see, Iraqis had access to plenty of weapons and made use of them. We invaded them and they tried like hell to throw us out. How did that work out for the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis defeat the US military? **** no. But a lot of them died trying.

But somehow a bunch of Americans are gonna stand up and be killed by our own military.
When our own military sure as **** didn't "invade the USA".

But I digress. Go ahead, what countries with an armed population stopped an invasion.

First, look at what I said. The words "last century" might be a clue that I was not talking about Iraq.

The Japanese military leaders thought the armed Americans could repel an invasion, and Germany's military leaders were adamant that Hitler not invade Switzerland because their population provided a "sniper behind every tree".

As for the Americans standing and being killed by our own forces, you must be joking if you think they will line up like regular military.

First, I question how much of our military would be willing to attack our own population.

Second, as a guerilla, armed Americans could be quite effective. Since they are part of the civilian population, the military could not bring the heavier weapons into play. The effectiveness of a single sniper has been documented repeatedly. And, the Beltline Snipe aside, hunters make very good snipers.

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

One thing you should consider, when talking about the US military being used against US civilians, and that is the way soldiers see the enemy.

Have you ever heard soldiers discussing the enemy? All too often they use colorful terminology for them. Do you know why they do this??

 

[zeke]

As for the US Military attacking US citizens, if you listen to the military (especially the soldiers on the ground), they use all sorts of colorful euphemisms for the enemy. And they are rarely polite or complimentary. Any idea why they do this?

First, look at what I said. The words "last century" might be a clue that I was not talking about Iraq.

The Japanese military leaders thought the armed Americans could repel an invasion, and Germany's military leaders were adamant that Hitler not invade Switzerland because their population provided a "sniper behind every tree".

As for the Americans standing and being killed by our own forces, you must be joking if you think they will line up like regular military.

First, I question how much of our military would be willing to attack our own population.

Second, as a guerilla, armed Americans could be quite effective. Since they are part of the civilian population, the military could not bring the heavier weapons into play. The effectiveness of a single sniper has been documented repeatedly. And, the Beltline Snipe aside, hunters make very good snipers.

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the contrary, I have not said I wanted any of that to happen. I simply brought it up to counter your notion that the military would sweep the armed resistance aside.

I also did not say Americans would not kill Americans. I did, however, question whether everyone in the US Military would be willing to attack US citizens.

And yes, Iraq did happen in the last century. And our military swept their military aside rather quickly. But that is not the situation I was talking about. And when you asked for examples of when an armed population prevented an invasion, you did not ask me to list every time it did not.

And right there is where your thinking goes all fuzzy. The military would not be killing or attacking "US citizens". They would be attacking and killing an armed group of insurgents or terrorists intent on overthrowing the lawful government of the United States of America. You know, that part where the soldier swears to protect the COTUS and such. You ever read the Patriot Act? You would be declared a "terrorist" so fast it would make you dizzy.

Can you see the difference? I know you can't. But it's there.

Also, in Iraq our military kicked everybody's ass. Army, insurgents, terrorists etc. And they (insurgents, terrorists etc) had more weapons and more powerful weapons than your militia ever dreamed about. You got road side bomb material? (Don't answer that)

Not a problem for the US military to put down whatever armed revolution you and your friends think would be appropriate. No matter how many "assault rifles, assault weapons or even deer hunting rifles" that you have. No matter how many rounds of ammo you self load, how much "survival gear" you own, it won't matter.

If the US military comes to kick your ass, you are toast. Hell, even a good SWAT team will do.

 

[zeke]

One other thing Winterborn before I am off to work.

You think those two great big oceans protecting the USA might have been a bigger deterrent from invasion by Germany or Japan? More so than the idea that US citizens have weapons?

Or was it just the fear of an armed populace?

 

[WinterBorn]

See below:



Questions:
-Had the 1994 AWB not sunset, or had it been reinstated once The Obama took office, how would it have stopped the Newton/Sandyhook shooting?
-If it were in place now, how would it stop another?

Please try to answer in a manner that does not involve emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

When the 1994 bill was written, the NRA managed to get the process bogged down with cosmetic differences. They steered everyone clear of the real issue: firing mechanics.

If the semi-automatic firing system had been banned, not just the size of the stock or a flash suppressor, or the details of the grip, we would be twenty years ahead in the process of ridding weapons designed for warfare, not sport, from our streets.

There are plenty of sporting firearms that are semi-automatics.

But more importantly, what percentage of the homicides in the US are committed with semi-automatic rifles??

And what is the most common type of firearm used to commit murders in the US?

So if you actually wanted to make the streets safer, why would you focus on banning these rifles instead of banning easily concealed handguns? Unless you have another agenda.

 

[WinterBorn]

One other thing Winterborn before I am off to work.

You think those two great big oceans protecting the USA might have been a bigger deterrent from invasion by Germany or Japan? More so than the idea that US citizens have weapons?

Or was it just the fear of an armed populace?

Oh the logistics would have made it more difficult for sure. But in the case of the Japanese, their fleet was already closer to the US mainland than to Japan.

And the example I used concerning Germany was not the US, but Switzerland. No ocean there.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am afraid we can't go any further in this discussion.

Did Iraq happen in the "last century". But you don't want to talk about that eh. How convenient.

And nah, Americans won't kill other Americans. Even if they are in the military. Did the Civil War happen in your America?

But it sounds like YOU are willing to see this country turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, just so you gun nuts can have you some "assault weapons".

What a bunch of fucked up thinking. Are you a "guerrilla leader?". Or a
"cell commander?"

Don't answer that. The government is listening and watching. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the contrary, I have not said I wanted any of that to happen. I simply brought it up to counter your notion that the military would sweep the armed resistance aside.

I also did not say Americans would not kill Americans. I did, however, question whether everyone in the US Military would be willing to attack US citizens.

And yes, Iraq did happen in the last century. And our military swept their military aside rather quickly. But that is not the situation I was talking about. And when you asked for examples of when an armed population prevented an invasion, you did not ask me to list every time it did not.

And right there is where your thinking goes all fuzzy. The military would not be killing or attacking "US citizens". They would be attacking and killing an armed group of insurgents or terrorists intent on overthrowing the lawful government of the United States of America. You know, that part where the soldier swears to protect the COTUS and such. You ever read the Patriot Act? You would be declared a "terrorist" so fast it would make you dizzy.

Can you see the difference? I know you can't. But it's there.

Also, in Iraq our military kicked everybody's ass. Army, insurgents, terrorists etc. And they (insurgents, terrorists etc) had more weapons and more powerful weapons than your militia ever dreamed about. You got road side bomb material? (Don't answer that)

Not a problem for the US military to put down whatever armed revolution you and your friends think would be appropriate. No matter how many "assault rifles, assault weapons or even deer hunting rifles" that you have. No matter how many rounds of ammo you self load, how much "survival gear" you own, it won't matter.

If the US military comes to kick your ass, you are toast. Hell, even a good SWAT team will do.

And how do you separate the civilians from the insurgents? If the insurgents are hiding in the civilian population, the advanced weaponry does not matter.

Look at the huge amount of bad press the military got for the civilian casualties in Iraq. Do you think they would have an easier time when the civilian casualties are friends and relatives?