This Republican has got it right.

[kaz]

How do you know he's a Republican?

BTW, assault weapons aren't actually assault weapons and virtually zero percent of murders are committed with the guns you and he are mislabeling as "assault weapons"

Actually the FBI statistics are misleading. Since they have no definition of assault weapon as a required category. It's like claiming that midgets don't commit crimes because the crime stats don't list them committing crimes.

That would be a good argument if I was the one making an argument instead of the one responding to one.

Funny how you didn't make this point to the guy who made the claim, huh?

 

[meaner gene]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

 

[OKTexas]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

I do not believe your numbers are accurate.
This is from the DOJ:
{...
Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns.
...}

Guns Used in Crime

Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT BJS SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995 202-307-0784 HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES THE USE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS...

bjs.ojp.gov

Shotguns are #2, rifles are the lowest, and assault rifles are less then 1%, although increasing.

Police do NOT at all support any assault weapons ban.
That is because laws like assault weapons bans do not reduce the number of them in the hands of the criminals at all, but instead only decrease the number of weapons in the hands of honest people.
So assault weapons bans always increase crime and force police to work harder to defend the honest population the misguided law disarmed.

Anyone who understands and believes in a democratic republic, can't be for any gun control.

Here is the thing, if you gun nuts have to make up shit to support your argument, well your argument is pretty damn weak. Police DO support an assault weapons ban.

First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent. Semi-Automatic assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership has approved several reauthorizations of support in the years since. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/IACP%20Firearms%20Position%20Paper_2018%20(1).pdf

That is directly from the Firearms Policy Position Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Why do you Republicans not support law enforcement?

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

www.washingtontimes.com

DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked

ivn.us

.

 

[kaz]

The whole definition of an assault weapons argument only weakens your position and actually supports mine.

The components in question make a gun look military-style and have little effect on the overall mechanics of the firearm itself.

MSN

www.msn.com

Back to the benefit analysis. Just what is the benefit of allowing legal ownership of guns made to look like military style weapons? Just like I said, it only benefits those weekend warriors. But look at the cost. I mean you can still get the same operational ability with a non-military looking semiautomatic rifle. So again, what is lost to law abiding Americans by banning assault weapons?

You Republicans are a damn hoot. All talk, no action. Like supporting law enforcement. Biden's Covid relief bill included a huge increase in funding to local law enforcement. Not one single Republican voted for it. And that dumbshit MTG is screaming that Biden wants to defund police, and she didn't vote for that funding. Law enforcement supports an assault weapons ban, but that would require ACTION by Republicans. Some might even lose their little toys. Republicans don't support law enforcement financially, nor do they support them through advocating of an assault weapons ban. Actions speak louder than words.

And that assault weapons are responsible for a tiny percentage of the crime and yet they are what you focus on obliterates your argument.

Easier than dealing with the thousands of blacks who are killed in your cities that ban virtually all guns now, huh? That's a hard problem, better to misdirect to an irrelevant one.

Just the term "assault weapon" shows how disingenuous you are on this since they aren't

Illegal immigrants are responsible for a small percentage of violent crimes, why focus on them?

Transgender athletes represent a miniscule percentage of competing athletes in high school and collegiate sports, why focus on them?

Gay marriages represent a tiny fraction of all marriages, why focus on them?

But you are wrong, George Mason estimated that assault weapons were involved in 40% of seriously violent crimes, like multiple homicides and the murdering of police officers. Why do you not support law enforcement?

Actually that's a lie. 23% of Federal inmates according to Homeland Security are illegal aliens. Not immigrants, ILLEGAL immigrants.

So you lied in the first sentence, which invalidates the rest of your argument.

Though if I were to address the rest, I would say illegal immigration is not protected in the Constitution like guns are. Duh. But that's not necessary since your argument had already fallen apart, so never mind

 

[Crepitus]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

 

[Thinker101]

 

[John T. Ford]

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

Yeah .... that's why they made an Amendment to the US Constitution that gave every person in the Country access to weapons and went on to say that Right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !!

Dumbass ....

 

[OKTexas]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

If some weapon had no legitimate purpose, then why would anyone make or sell them?
Rifles like an AR-15 are some of the least powerful and least deadly rifles made.
The tiny .223 bullet was adopted by the military because they decided it made winning easier if they stopped killing people.
The bullet the AR-15 shoots is designed to not be able to kill, but to wound instead.
They are so weak that most states do not allow AR-15s to be used to hunt deer, as they are not lethal enough and cause a slow death.

But really, in a country founded by violent armed rebellion, and with all governments only lasting about 300 years before they become corrupt and need to be destroyed, anyone who does not have combat ready weapons in a democratic republic, is extremely irresponsible, to the point of being a traitor.

I know quite a bit about guns, I own some, I just think the usual arguments the right trots out are stupid and meant to shirk all the responsibility of responsible gun ownership.

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

.

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

Are you a troll or just an ignorant assed commie?

.

 

[kaz]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

Are you dishonest or stupid? I was mocking the blowhard clayton.

Which is why here is the full quote:

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. You're a propagandist, fascist​

Since you lied I'm going with liar over stupid. Am I right?

It's sick how Democrats rely so heavily on misquotes to make your argument. Misquotes = lies. You keep proving who the liars really are

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

 

[kaz]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

The founders would be horrified at government taxing and registering guns, the level of spending, the income tax, direct vote for Senators, our being policeman to the world, redistribution of wealth, the size of the Federal Government, the obliteration of State rights and a whole lot more things that you support, Creep. And the only one you pick is that one?

 

[progressive hunter]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

are you talking about the same founders that said if you give up freedom for security you deserve neither??

 

[meaner gene]

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

There are two chains of thought for the 2nd amendment. One involves the people as members of the militia, giving the right toward that purpose, and that the 2nd applies to the individual.

The militia idea would translate to allowing people to possess weapons of war, such as machine guns. While the individual right can actually limit the weapons a person possess to those needed by the individual.

The assault weapon question, like the judge who overturned the california assault weapons ban using a strange legal argument. That people can't be prevented from owning assault weapons because of their popularity and general usage. Had states banned them more effectively, thus preventing their popularity, the ban would have stood.

 

[meaner gene]

... and went on to say that Right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !!

Dumbass ....

Why do you always leave out the two other parts of that sentence? There are three parts to what it says.

 

[kaz]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

 

[progressive hunter]

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

There are two chains of thought for the 2nd amendment. One involves the people as members of the militia, giving the right toward that purpose, and that the 2nd applies to the individual.

The militia idea would translate to allowing people to possess weapons of war, such as machine guns. While the individual right can actually limit the weapons a person possess to those needed by the individual.

The assault weapon question, like the judge who overturned the california assault weapons ban using a strange legal argument. That people can't be prevented from owning assault weapons because of their popularity and general usage. Had states banned them more effectively, thus preventing their popularity, the ban would have stood.

your first thought doesnt exist in the real world,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

... and went on to say that Right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !!

Dumbass ....

Why do you always leave out the two other parts of that sentence? There are three parts to what it says.

because they have no meaning other than to show why shall not be infringed is there,,,

the first four words show that it was specific for weapons of war..

 

[OKTexas]

AR-15 with 30 round clip

Helo-Hoggin' ..... Texas Style !!!!

Unfortunately I don't have a helicopter, but I've had my property torn up more than once by hogs. They are the reason I bought my AR. If fucking commies don't understand, fuck'em.

.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

This man gets it.
I don't understand why other Republicans don't.

View attachment 508750

How do you know he's a Republican?

BTW, assault weapons aren't actually assault weapons and virtually zero percent of murders are committed with the guns you and he are mislabeling as "assault weapons"

How do we know you're a Trump cock sucker? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

 

[Winston]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.

So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?

Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?

A little more than zero percent.

Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)

Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed

Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

I do not believe your numbers are accurate.
This is from the DOJ:
{...
Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns.
...}

Guns Used in Crime

Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT BJS SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995 202-307-0784 HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES THE USE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS...

bjs.ojp.gov

Shotguns are #2, rifles are the lowest, and assault rifles are less then 1%, although increasing.

Police do NOT at all support any assault weapons ban.
That is because laws like assault weapons bans do not reduce the number of them in the hands of the criminals at all, but instead only decrease the number of weapons in the hands of honest people.
So assault weapons bans always increase crime and force police to work harder to defend the honest population the misguided law disarmed.

Anyone who understands and believes in a democratic republic, can't be for any gun control.

Here is the thing, if you gun nuts have to make up shit to support your argument, well your argument is pretty damn weak. Police DO support an assault weapons ban.

First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent. Semi-Automatic assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership has approved several reauthorizations of support in the years since. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/IACP%20Firearms%20Position%20Paper_2018%20(1).pdf

That is directly from the Firearms Policy Position Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Why do you Republicans not support law enforcement?

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation’s steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

www.washingtontimes.com

DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked

ivn.us

.

LOL, the second source gave a link to the study, I suggest you at least scan it.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

From that study, a DIRECT QUOTE.

This suggests that the weapons became more available generally, but they must have become less accessible to criminals because there was at least a short-term decrease in criminal use of the banned weapons.

That was also supported by the policy statement from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Banning assault weapons will reduce the use of assault weapons by criminals. Why do you not support law enforcement? Thanks for playing.