The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

Sure. And how about M1A1s? Rocket launchers. F16s. Hell, if the military gets to have one, I do too, right? Excuse me, I need to take some time to go build my missile silo, in the back yard...

Again, you sound as stupid as the people you oppose.

The 2nd Amendment , as clarified through judicial review , clearly limits us to PERSONAL weapons. That's why , though I can legally own a fully automatic M4 ( I actually do own one) I can not own a SAW249. Because those they are both capable of fully auto fire, the SAW is a squad level weapon and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

When I go purchase my NEW Century Arms .308win hunting rifle, I will be required to do a background check. You LIBIDIOTS are too stupid to know this. HEY I GOT AN IDEA, GO TRY TO PURCHASE AN AR-15 AT A GUN SHOP AND SEE IF THEY DONT ASK FOR 2 FORMS OF ID AND DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU. You wont because it goes against your argument.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

Explains why this just keeps going and going, even when they are shown their stupidity.

 

[Czernobog]

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

I hate to be the one to break this to you , but we can legally own fully automatic weapons. I own several. The licensing procedure is extensive, as it should be, but contrary to popular belief fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal in the US.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

 

[2aguy]

the 2nd amendment right for 'the people' to bear arms presupposes what is "necessary to the security of" a FREE state.

totalitarian government my ass, we live by constitutional RULE OF LAW governed by the people for the people!

National Constitution Center

Shays' Rebellion

The Germany of the 1920s was also governed by the rule of law when people like you said that people didn't need weapons of war from World War 1....so people like you passed laws in Germany in the 1920s...they banned weapons of war, and required registration of guns.......then, 20 years later, the national socialists came to power...by beating up their enemies at their political rallies...since those enemies no longer had guns to defend themselves and their families and their businesses from the thugs.....

Then, when they had secured power, the national socialists a government that used to be by the rule of law used the gun registration lists to round up the remaining guns owned by their political enemies and Jews.......they then sent those unarmed men, women and children to gas chambers...

Then they spread through Europe...where the other European nations did the exact same gun control that you want now...and a total of over 12 million men, women and children in were murdered in gas chambers...

Do you know the one country that was not conquered and occupied by the Germans....? The one country that did not hand over it's citizens for the gas chambers...

Switzerland.

Do you know the difference between Switzerland and the rest of Europe....Switzerland had 435,000 civilians armed with rifles ready to fight a resistance against any occupation.....

And twit.....the Iraqi, and afghanistan muslim terrorists....have fought us to the point we are leaving their countries...with our drones, tanks, jets, bombers, Navy Seals....bombs and missiles....and they are making us leave and what did they use to do it....

Rifles and improvised explosives.............

And you think that Americans, in our own country with better communications...better rifles, and better training won't be able to resist you guys and your socialist government if it comes to that?

You are the delusional one......

And you could ask the Mexican Autodefensas, just south of our border.....they would love to have AR-15s...because right now, Mexico follows your gun control laws...only the police and the military can have rifles...like the AR-15...and those police and soldiers are working with the drug cartels to murder Mexican citzens in the 10s of thousands each year....

Go ask them if getting rid of these rifles would be a good idea.....

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

Sure. And how about M1A1s? Rocket launchers. F16s. Hell, if the military gets to have one, I do too, right? Excuse me, I need to take some time to go build my missile silo, in the back yard...

Again, you sound as stupid as the people you oppose.

The 2nd Amendment , as clarified through judicial review , clearly limits us to PERSONAL weapons. That's why , though I can legally own a fully automatic M4 ( I actually do own one) I can not own a SAW249. Because those they are both capable of fully auto fire, the SAW is a squad level weapon and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

So, it wasn't the second amendment that limited us to personal weapons, but some librul activist Supreme Court.

 

[2aguy]

I hate to be the one to break this to you , but we can legally own fully automatic weapons. I own several. The licensing procedure is extensive, as it should be, but contrary to popular belief fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal in the US.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

 

[Valerie]

“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I hate to be the one to break this to you , but we can legally own fully automatic weapons. I own several. The licensing procedure is extensive, as it should be, but contrary to popular belief fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal in the US.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

I have been honest about it, somewhere on this board, prior to the Orlando shooting I pointedly posted that I didn't care if 50 Million Americans killed 50 Million other Americans with guns this year, that doesn't change the fact that I have a right to own a gun. or guns. My rights aren't predicated on what others have done.

Your efforts should be aimed at preventing those who would harm and or kill other humans for no reason from obtaining guns, rather than from preventing EVERYONE from getting guns.

quick comparison.

Should we keep Muslims out of this country because they are Muslims

or

should we attempt to prevent Muslims who would harm Americans from entering this country

which is more reasonable?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Oh, so you know what size magazines Mateen used?

18 rounds.

It was a Sig Sauer MCX.

This is a MUCH smaller carbine than the AR.

 

[Czernobog]

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

When I go purchase my NEW Century Arms .308win hunting rifle, I will be required to do a background check. You LIBIDIOTS are too stupid to know this. HEY I GOT AN IDEA, GO TRY TO PURCHASE AN AR-15 AT A GUN SHOP AND SEE IF THEY DONT ASK FOR 2 FORMS OF ID AND DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU. You wont because it goes against your argument.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

Explains why this just keeps going and going, even when they are shown their stupidity.

Yeah, the part of that that you hope no one notices is "at a gun shop". Would you like me to list for you the number of states that do not require background checks at gun shows, because they are considered "private sales"? I want background checks required on all gun purchases,. Period. Not just the ones at a gun shop.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

When I go purchase my NEW Century Arms .308win hunting rifle, I will be required to do a background check. You LIBIDIOTS are too stupid to know this. HEY I GOT AN IDEA, GO TRY TO PURCHASE AN AR-15 AT A GUN SHOP AND SEE IF THEY DONT ASK FOR 2 FORMS OF ID AND DO A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU. You wont because it goes against your argument.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

Explains why this just keeps going and going, even when they are shown their stupidity.

Yeah, the part of that that you hope no one notices is "at a gun shop". Would you like me to list for you the number of states that do not require background checks at gun shows, because they are considered "private sales"? I want background checks required on all gun purchases,. Period. Not just the ones at a gun shop.

I actually would like to see that as well, but how wold you POSSIBLY enforce that?

I mean if I sold you a gun, the only way anyone would ever even know is if you used that weapon to commit a crime. And even then you could simply lie about where you got it.

And you are completely ignoring the actual fact that most gun crimes are not committed with an assault weapon. They just aren't.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

I have been honest about it, somewhere on this board, prior to the Orlando shooting I pointedly posted that I didn't care if 50 Million Americans killed 50 Million other Americans with guns this year, that doesn't change the fact that I have a right to own a gun. or guns. My rights aren't predicated on what others have done.

Your efforts should be aimed at preventing those who would harm and or kill other humans for no reason from obtaining guns, rather than from preventing EVERYONE from getting guns.

quick comparison.

Should we keep Muslims out of this country because they are Muslims

or

should we attempt to prevent Muslims who would harm Americans from entering this country

which is more reasonable?

Clearly we should keep Muslims who would harm Americans from entering the country. But, we do not do that by refusing to let any Muslims in, or even by refusing to let any Muslim refugee from entering the country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Sure. And how about M1A1s? Rocket launchers. F16s. Hell, if the military gets to have one, I do too, right? Excuse me, I need to take some time to go build my missile silo, in the back yard...

So then, a valid argument is not part of your repartee.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

I have been honest about it, somewhere on this board, prior to the Orlando shooting I pointedly posted that I didn't care if 50 Million Americans killed 50 Million other Americans with guns this year, that doesn't change the fact that I have a right to own a gun. or guns. My rights aren't predicated on what others have done.

Your efforts should be aimed at preventing those who would harm and or kill other humans for no reason from obtaining guns, rather than from preventing EVERYONE from getting guns.

quick comparison.

Should we keep Muslims out of this country because they are Muslims

or

should we attempt to prevent Muslims who would harm Americans from entering this country

which is more reasonable?

Clearly we should keep Muslims who would harm Americans from entering the country. But, we do not do that by refusing to let any Muslims in, or even by refusing to let any Muslim refugee from entering the country.

Correct, we do not punish every member of the group for the actions of a few.


So, why would you POSSIBLY suggest curtailing MY 2nd Amendment rights because of what other people have done?


I mean what if I advocated throwing you in jail because your neighbor robbed a bank?

You aren't offering REASONABLE gun control. There is NOTHING reasonable about restricting the rights of people who have done nothing wrong.

Forget all these loons who oppose ANY gun control for a moment and just focus on what I'm asking you. How is it reasonable to ban me from owning a weapon that someone else used to commit a crime?

 

[Czernobog]

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

On military weapons? Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

No....it is the price that must be paid for the freedom of this country.....FRance banned all of those rifles.....and they still had the attacks.......tell us how their completely banning those rifles worked out for them.

I do have a question for you though.

Would you agree that assault weapons should be regulated the same as fully automatic weapons are?

For the most part, yeah. I would submit that the tax needs to be closer to what it's equivalent was in 1934, when the standards were set - $3,500. But, then, I would submit that standard needs to be updated for automoatic weapons, too. you see the important part, right? "...to register your gun with the federal government..." In other words, there is a federal registry of all automatic gun owners. There would also be one for all assault weapon owners. Yeah. I would be okay with those standards.for assault weapons.

 

[Valerie]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
On military weapons?

So, the U.S. Military issues the AR-15 as a standard rifle?

Yeah. I do. And so long as you, and yours fight me on that, then resign yourselves to the fact that you have decided that the occasional mass murder of innocent men, women, and children is a cost worth your unfettered access to any gun you want.

I mean, that's fine. But, at least be honest that that is your position.

The AR-15 is responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun deaths each year, right? I mean, this is why you Stalinists specifically target it, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

Brilliant Rati,

I mean Muslim terrorists would never kill if you could just end civil rights. It's not like they would take box cutters and slaughter 3,000.

You Bolsheviks are so smart...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

ZERO (0) That is how many people are killed by an M-16 in the USA every year. That is a trick question for a liberal. They have no clue.