What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[nat4900]

"What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?"

What makes you think you have a right to demand an answer? Would a simple "yes" make you happy?

Actually the BEST answer to the O/P is that NORMAL Americans don't need an army assault weapon to hunt Bambis and shoot at targets......However, ABNORMAL Americans need to show how macho they are.....and succumb to the NRA propaganda.

 

[Papageorgio]

We need to protect our freedoms instead of buckling to fear

Keep the above in mind when it comes to women's right to choose and gay/lesbians right to marriage.

Where have I said anything to the contrary. I am against abortions, but it is between you and your God. Gays and lesbians marrying who cares, their right to marry does not define my marriage.

I object to the hate spewed by these issues on both the right and the left. It's called tolerance.

 

[nat4900]

It did, Obama didn't overturn the tax cuts because it would HURT the economy and slow the recovery. So tax cuts in a recession good but aren't good now.

That is why the whole tax cut crap was BS. It was a rich against poor game that is played over and over by left wing nutters to stir up emotions. Nothing factual, just emotional.

Don't be an eternal idiot on this forum.....the question was (and is) HOW DID THE IDIOT GWB OFFER TAX CUTS WHEN ENGAGED IN TWO COSTLY [UNFUNDED] WARS????

 

[Papageorgio]

It did, Obama didn't overturn the tax cuts because it would HURT the economy and slow the recovery. So tax cuts in a recession good but aren't good now.

That is why the whole tax cut crap was BS. It was a rich against poor game that is played over and over by left wing nutters to stir up emotions. Nothing factual, just emotional.

Don't be an eternal idiot on this forum.....the question was (and is) HOW DID THE IDIOT GWB OFFER TAX CUTS WHEN ENGAGED IN TWO COSTLY [UNFUNDED] WARS????

Don't be an idiot. The wars were both going on, yet Obama knew the recessions of the tax cuts would damage the economy, in spite of the fact there were two wars still going on and we were in a major recession.

So IDIOT OBAMA kept the tax cuts in place. Lol! You regressives are funny.

 

[nat4900]

Don't be an idiot. The wars were both going on, yet Obama knew the recessions of the tax cuts would damage the economy, in spite of the fact there were two wars still going on and we were in a major recession.

So IDIOT OBAMA kept the tax cuts in place. Lol! You regressives are funny.

Your rebuttal is worthy of a 12 year old's reasoning.....Sad, but expected.

 

[Papageorgio]

Don't be an idiot. The wars were both going on, yet Obama knew the recessions of the tax cuts would damage the economy, in spite of the fact there were two wars still going on and we were in a major recession.

So IDIOT OBAMA kept the tax cuts in place. Lol! You regressives are funny.

Your rebuttal is worthy of a 12 year old's reasoning.....Sad, but expected.

No substance, no facts just insults. Lol! So predictable from the regressives.

 

[Campbell]

Hey......anti-gunners call that stabbing/throat slashing a win/win......the killer didn't use a gun and the woman he murdered didn't use a gun either.........it was a success for gun control all the way around.......

And so you guys know.....according to Illinois concealed carry law....you have to unload your weapon and put it in a container to take it on public transportation...so even if a concealed carry permit holder was on the train.......that woman would have been dead long before he could have accessed the weapon....

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

And to that I reply.....

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a de facto list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
----
More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.”

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US.

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia.

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):

Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members. In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons). But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.

And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones:

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

And further....you are implying it is guns that are the issue...when in fact it is the criminal culture that is the issue....criminals in other countries do not commit murder at the rate American criminals do....

For example...our non-gun murder rate is higher than the entire murder rate of Britain......

Britain confiscated the guns of law abiding citizens....their gun crime rate did not go down....in fact, it initially spiked...and then returned to the same level it was before they confiscated guns....if fact....their gun crime rate increased 4% last year.......

Also...I have posted articles in other threads that show that even in our own country, our criminals have different behaviors regarding gun murder.....Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than L.A. and New York combined......of course you will try to link to an article about Chicago thugs driving to Indiana.......

Before you do that...please explain why New York criminals can't drive to Vermont, or Pennsylvania....or L.A. thugs can't drive to Nevada or Arizona......

Chicago gangs are more fractured than New York gangs and are shoot each other over facebook insults....

Chicago has a 1.5 year sentence for felons caught with illegal guns, New York used to have stop and frisk and a 3.5 year sentence for felons caught with illegal guns...

Guns do not cause murder......criminals commit crimes with guns......in Europe, the criminals and terrorists easily get guns, they just murder less often than our criminals do......

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

Here.....learn something so you can post more intelligently on the topic...

The Left’s Phony War on Guns, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review

Chicago has Wild West levels of homicide.

(Worse, in fact; the criminality and violence of the ungoverned West has been greatly exaggerated, and some of those old cow towns had lower per capita crime rates back when they had no formal government than they do today.)

Do you know what kind of crime illegal possession of a firearm is in the state of Illinois?

It is a misdemeanor.

A 2014 study conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times found that in most cases, Cook County judges handed down the minimum sentence for gun possession, and in most cases, the criminals ended up serving far less than that, doing only a few months.

Those charged with simple possession had an average of four prior arrests; those charged with the more serious crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm had an average of ten previous arrests.
Ten arrests, and the eleventh is for a gun-related crime.

One wonders how many undetected crimes are covered by such criminal careers.

Many in Illinois have argued that, given the state of crime there, stiffer sentences are warranted.

A bill was introduced to that end, and it was opposed by Democrats who argued that stiffer sentences for those actually committing crimes with guns would “unfairly target African-Americans,” as the Sun-Times put it.

The NRA, to its discredit, opposed that bill, too, arguing that the penalties for simple possession in absence of other criminal activity were too stiff.
But that’s an argument for liberalizing Illinois gun laws, not for forgoing the punishment of criminals.
The NRA did support harsher punishment for felons in possession of firearms, and for the use of firearms in crimes. Democrats have generally opposed them.

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

And here is another article you need to read about criminal culture...and lack of prosecution of gun crime in the United States..

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

And here....even inside the United States, the criminal culture is different, showing up in different levels of gun murder....

This article points out the key difference between New York and Chicago.......in New York...


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html?_r=0


And Chicago is more lenient about illegal handguns than New York, prescribing a one-year minimum for possession versus three and a half years in New York. An attempt to match the New York law in 2013 was rejected by the Illinois legislature out of concern for skyrocketing incarceration rates for young black men.

And there you have it....the real reason....put criminals away for a long time...discourages random gun violence...and intentional gun violence......

Japan has a 95% conviction rate for all crimes...and a 30 year sentence for any gun crime.....

That is how you stop gun violence...not by attacking normal gun owners...

Also...stop and frisk....keeps thugs from carrying guns and shooting on impulse....

New York also hired a lot more police officers in response to the crime of the 1990s, and, during its stop-and-frisk era of the 2000s, steeply increased gun enforcement. Recent studies, including one that looked at increased police presence in London after a terrorist attack, have suggested more police might mean less crime, said Jens Ludwig, the director of Crime Lab at the University of Chicago, which studies crime in both Chicago and New York.

Chicago’s Police Department, overwhelmed, can respond only to the most serious problems, leaving citizens to feel responsible for their own security, he said.

------------

Dr. Hagedorn also points out that though the city also has a lot of Latino gang members, Chicago’s violence is much higher among African-Americans. Three quarters of all homicide offenders and victims are black, he said.

“The shootings today are more spontaneous over day-to-day humiliations of youthful African-Americans,” he said.


Thug culture...not guns....


Many of Chicago’s gangs have fractured, leading to more violence, said Arthur Lurigio, a criminology professor at Loyola University Chicago. While Latino gangs have remained more hierarchical, black gangs have splintered into small, disparate factions, whose disputes are less over territory and profits, and more over personal insults or shames, often fueled by social media, he said.

“Young people are making a lot of indirect threats toward cliques and rival gangs that are being interpreted as being threatening,” said Desmond Patton, a professor at Columbia University who has studied violence on social media. “Tagging is the conversation starter that could lead to someone getting a gun.”

In addition to making threats, individuals at times post their location on social media to prove to rivals that they’re tough, he said.

In one well-known instance, Gakirah Barnes, a Chicago gang member who was rumored to have killed or shot up to 20 rival gang members, referenced an address she frequented on Twitter. In the tweet, provided by Dr. Patton, Ms. Barnes says “Lz,” which has multiple meanings in Chicago gang cultures, including living life, at address number 6347. Later that day, she was shot and killed near the address.

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Yeah....we have pretty much looked past fully automatic rifles......and would almost be willing to give up on those...but then you guys come after AR-15s, and mislabel them so you can get them banned too......
And the founders had no idea about the computer you are using....so what you are saying by your logic is that because of the damage computer crime causes...through sex trafficking, allowing terrorists to murder people by allowing them to recruit, move money and plan their attacks, and cyber bullying, and identity theft an the theft of state secrets.....you are saying that only the police and military need computers....right? According to your hair brained logic...right?

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Terrorists do it.....sex traffickers do it.......computers harm as many people as guns do......so we need background checks to stop them...right?

A very good point. Campbell hasn't harmed anyone with his computer, but is that because computers aren't dangerous, or because HE isn't? Likewise, you could give me the entire contents of a gun shop, plus a flamethrower, plus a fully operational tank, and society would be no more in danger than it is right now, because I'M not dangerous. The danger is ALWAYS from the human, not from the tools. And taking away the tools (assuming you could even do so successfully) won't make the human any less dangerous.

As you can see from these stats by the CDC......rifles kill few people.....you need to worry about assault knives....

So....my source......Mother Jones....has a record of mass shootings from 1982....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Total deaths from "Assault" rifles since 1982......149.....over 34 years.....

And I will show you how many were murdered with knives, clubs and bare hands....

From the FBI homicide table 8, weapons used to commit murder...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2014....

Knives..... 1,567 in 2014 vs 149 for Assault rifles in 34 years including Sunday's....

Hands and feet....660 in 2014 vs. 149 for assault rifles in 34 years......

clubs.... 435 in 2014 vs. 149 for assault rifles for the last 34 years....

 

[nat4900]

Debating with right wingers on this issue is like debating tolerance and human rights with ISIS......

We are talking about (as the title clearly states) military assault weapons' bans......and the dimwitted right wingers revert to the moronic "....they're trying to yake our guns away and I know my 2nd amendment rights...."

Too simplistic a view of right wingers.....so. let them play with all the guns they want to either ease their inordinate FEARS, or embellish their weak egos..

 

[Papageorgio]

"What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?"

What makes you think you have a right to demand an answer? Would a simple "yes" make you happy?

Actually the BEST answer to the O/P is that NORMAL Americans don't need an army assault weapon to hunt Bambis and shoot at targets......However, ABNORMAL Americans need to show how macho they are.....and succumb to the NRA propaganda.

Regressive's lack of tolerance and free choice on display here.

 

[Papageorgio]

Debating with right wingers on this issue is like debating tolerance and human rights with ISIS......

We are talking about (as the title clearly states) military assault weapons' bans......and the dimwitted right wingers revert to the moronic "....they're trying to yake our guns away and I know my 2nd amendment rights...."

Too simplistic a view of right wingers.....so. let them play with all the guns they want to either ease their inordinate FEARS, or embellish their weak egos..

I don't think they will take all the guns away, but the reason a person buys an assault rifle is theirs to make. I personally despise guns, I have shot a rifle since I was 15 or 16 for target practice. But it isn't my say what choice a person makes. You can abort a baby, you can legally marry your gay lover, we allow citizens from Syria in, but a person can't buy a weapon of choice. Sounds silly.

 

[owebo]

Debating with right wingers on this issue is like debating tolerance and human rights with ISIS......

We are talking about (as the title clearly states) military assault weapons' bans......and the dimwitted right wingers revert to the moronic "....they're trying to yake our guns away and I know my 2nd amendment rights...."

Too simplistic a view of right wingers.....so. let them play with all the guns they want to either ease their inordinate FEARS, or embellish their weak egos..

Strange way of saying you own no guns......

 

[2aguy]

Debating with right wingers on this issue is like debating tolerance and human rights with ISIS......

We are talking about (as the title clearly states) military assault weapons' bans......and the dimwitted right wingers revert to the moronic "....they're trying to yake our guns away and I know my 2nd amendment rights...."

Too simplistic a view of right wingers.....so. let them play with all the guns they want to either ease their inordinate FEARS, or embellish their weak egos..

Strange.....there are 8 million rifles in America with detachable magazines......and they aren't military rifles.....that is the problem.......you nuts see a rifle that looks scary...and you call it a military rifle simply to get the emotions of the uninformed riled up to ban it........you lie, and you use the uninformed to do your dirty work....

 

[9thIDdoc]

"What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?"

What makes you think you have a right to demand an answer? Would a simple "yes" make you happy?

Actually the BEST answer to the O/P is that NORMAL Americans don't need an army assault weapon to hunt Bambis and shoot at targets......However, ABNORMAL Americans need to show how macho they are.....and succumb to the NRA propaganda.

What normal Americans don't need is for you to tell them what they can have. Assault weapons (if there were such a thing) might come in handy should you decide to try.

 

[P@triot]

Debating with right wingers on this issue is like debating tolerance and human rights with ISIS......

We are talking about (as the title clearly states) military assault weapons' bans......and the dimwitted right wingers revert to the moronic "....they're trying to yake our guns away and I know my 2nd amendment rights...."

Too simplistic a view of right wingers.....so. let them play with all the guns they want to either ease their inordinate FEARS, or embellish their weak egos..

You want to talk about "simplistic"? That's liberalism. Posing this question is every bit as stupid and outrageous as someone posing the question "What the hell does a normal American need a computer and internet access for....spreading propaganda?"

The technology you use to piss and moan like a child about the 2nd Amendment is far more advanced and far more dangerous than any fully automatic weapon, junior. The fact that this simple reality never even crossed your very small mind is why you are completely unqualified to be having a discussion about the 2nd Amednement.