Why does another democrat want a rifle ban? What is the point?

[2aguy]

Another democrat is pushing another call for banning rifles with magazines.....what is the point? The Mother Jones mass public shooting data base shows that at most about 20 of these rifles were used in Mass public shootings....in 35 years. They were used to murder 164 people....over 35 years....

How many people are knives used to murder every single year.....1,500 or more...every single year.

According to some information, there are close to or over 11 million rifles with magazines in private hands in this country....well over 5 million of them are AR-15s....

So...in order to push this anti gun, anti-rifle agenda....you have to see this set of numbers....

11,000,000 to 20.............and see a problem.

Sen. Kamala Harris: Past Time to Ban Private Ownership of 'Assault Weapons' - Breitbart

The United States had a federal “assault weapons” ban from 1994 to 2004 without any noticeable impact on crime. Moreover, it is evident that most Democrats who call for the reimplementation of such a ban do not realize that the ban did not even ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned “assault weapons” with certain cosmetic features–i.e., it was all a ruse; another example of the Democrats claiming they did that which they did not do.

 

[JGalt]

At this point, any Democrat calling for bans is only doing so to justify their own existence, to keep their job, or to get votes from their constituents.

If they were so concerned about people being shot, they'd take a stand against the black violence in places like Chicago.

 

[irosie91]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of
terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution. 135
human beans is not chopped liver

 

[toobfreak]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of
terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution. 135
human beans is not chopped liver

That is right. 135 people are not chopped liver.

And TV is bad for your eyes, masturbation leads to blindness, and processed fast food takes years off your life. Did I mention taxes greatly limit most people from owning a second home?

Those too anxious to give up Liberty for security shall have neither!

(I think someone famous said that)

 

[MikeK]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution.

135 human beans is not chopped liver

Has it occurred to you, rather are you capable of understanding, that those 135 individuals could just as easily been killed by rifles which are not magazine-fed, or by shotguns? The critical and decisive factor in these mass-shootings is a large group of unarmed people confined in an enclosed area

You, along with all who share your ignorant position, know nothing about guns so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A much more effective deterrent to mass shootings than banning certain types of guns would be more armed citizens who could return fire and repel if not eliminate the shooter.

 

[irosie91]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution.

135 human beans is not chopped liver

Has it occurred to you, rather are you capable of understanding, that those 135 individuals could just as easily been killed by rifles which are not magazine-fed, or by shotguns? The critical and decisive factor in these mass-shootings is a large group of unarmed people confined in an enclosed area

You, along with all who share your ignorant position, know nothing about guns so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A much more effective deterrent to mass shootings than banning certain types of guns would be more armed citizens who could return fire and repel if not eliminate the shooter.

just as easily? I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me
that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

 

[Silent Warrior]

Perhaps if we banned large groups of unarmed people in confined areas we would be more effective.

 

[miketx]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution.

135 human beans is not chopped liver

Has it occurred to you, rather are you capable of understanding, that those 135 individuals could just as easily been killed by rifles which are not magazine-fed, or by shotguns? The critical and decisive factor in these mass-shootings is a large group of unarmed people confined in an enclosed area

You, along with all who share your ignorant position, know nothing about guns so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A much more effective deterrent to mass shootings than banning certain types of guns would be more armed citizens who could return fire and repel if not eliminate the shooter.

just as easily? I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me
that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

you sound pretty nutty with that statement.

 

[irosie91]

Perhaps if we banned large groups of unarmed people in confined areas we would be more effective.

long ago--- I attended a meeting devoted to the transmission of "domestic \
security" information. Lots of time was devoted to the DANGER of creating
situations involving large groups in enclosed spaces-----the speaker claimed that
he ROUTINELY avoided such situations-----like "basket ball games" with spectators,
all public sporting events----stuff like that. A few years ago, I was in an area of town
which was a south east Asian enclave------a holiday was in progress-----DIVALI-----
south east Asian enclave---which means Pakistanis too. The place was mobbed---
I decided to leave and hope for the best------but am still apprehensive every time a
"divali" comes around

 

[MikeK]

just as easily?

I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

Again, when there is a large gathering of unarmed people in a confined space, the type of firearm used to slaughter them is of secondary concern. Just as many could be killed (executed) by an experienced shooter with a six-shot revolver and a pocket full of ammo, because It takes just a few seconds to reload.

Regarding your inordinate fear of magazine-fed rifles; one of the most common sporting weapons in use today is the ordinary "bird gun," which is a five shot, slide-action shotgun. One shot from this formidable gun at fifteen yard distance, if loaded with the right kind of shot-shell, is capable of killing as many as four closely-situated people because it throws out nine .32 pellets (bullets) that spread outward and impact with the same force as nine separate handguns or rifles of similar caliber would deliver. It truly is a fearsome weapon to be on the wrong end of.

Where the sport of hunting is concerned, banning the "pump" shotgun would be comparatively equal to banning the sports car, the trampoline, skis, the motorcycle, and dozens more sporting implements the use of which result in numerous deaths and injuries every year.

The magazine-fed rifle is essential for defense against an aggressor who is armed with a magazine-fed rifle (AR-15, etc). To ban these weapons, or to limit their capacity, will serve to indirectly but effectively defeat the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Unless you can suggest an effective way to deprive the criminal element and the anti-American aggressor of access to magazine-fed rifles you should not be recommending a symbolic ban which would deprive the law-abiding citizen from access to such essential defense weaponry.

 

[irosie91]

just as easily?

I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

Again, when there is a large gathering of unarmed people in a confined space, the type of firearm used to slaughter them is of secondary concern. Just as many could be killed (executed) by an experienced shooter with a six-shot revolver and a pocket full of ammo, because It takes just a few seconds to reload.

Regarding your inordinate fear of magazine-fed rifles; one of the most common sporting weapons in use today is the ordinary "bird gun," which is a five shot, slide-action shotgun. One shot from this formidable gun at fifteen yard distance, if loaded with the right kind of shot-shell, is capable of killing as many as four closely-situated people because it throws out nine .32 pellets (bullets) that spread outward and impact with the same force as nine separate handguns or rifles of similar caliber would deliver. It truly is a fearsome weapon to be on the wrong end of.

Where the sport of hunting is concerned, banning the "pump" shotgun would be comparatively equal to banning the sports car, the trampoline, skis, the motorcycle, and dozens more sporting implements the use of which result in numerous deaths and injuries every year.

The magazine-fed rifle is essential for defense against an aggressor who is armed with a magazine-fed rifle (AR-15, etc). To ban these weapons, or to limit their capacity, will serve to indirectly but effectively defeat the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Unless you can suggest an effective way to deprive the criminal element and the anti-American aggressor of access to magazine-fed rifles you should not be recommending a symbolic ban which would deprive the law-abiding citizen from access to such essential defense weaponry.

oh-----well ----you are right-----I know nothing about guns and rifles-------those who do
should come up with the laws and rules------that MIGHT help reduce the OPPORTUNITIES so easily available to NUTS

 

[Gracie]

At this point, any Democrat calling for bans is only doing so to justify their own existence, to keep their job, or to get votes from their constituents.

If they were so concerned about people being shot, they'd take a stand against the black violence in places like Chicago.

I've been reading your posts. I like how you think.

 

[Gracie]

Banning guns is not going to stop murders. Criminals don't give a shit if a weapon is banned. They are criminals. And nuts will still be able to acquire weapons on the black market or on the street corner. The ones that will be victims are those that had their weapons removed because of fear by those who don't want ANYONE to be able to protect themselves from the nuts that got access by criminal means.

 

[2aguy]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of
terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution. 135
human beans is not chopped liver

Cars accidentally killed 36,161 people in one year......

Knives are used to murder 1,500 people every year.

These rifles were used to murder 164 people...in 35 years......

there are 11 million of these rifles in private hands.........20 were used over 35 years.

 

[2aguy]

I have an ALTERNATIVE OPINION ------alt??? I think (yes I do) that the danger of terrorist style things -----IS INCREASING --------anti-magazine is a precaution.

135 human beans is not chopped liver

Has it occurred to you, rather are you capable of understanding, that those 135 individuals could just as easily been killed by rifles which are not magazine-fed, or by shotguns? The critical and decisive factor in these mass-shootings is a large group of unarmed people confined in an enclosed area

You, along with all who share your ignorant position, know nothing about guns so you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

A much more effective deterrent to mass shootings than banning certain types of guns would be more armed citizens who could return fire and repel if not eliminate the shooter.

just as easily? I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me
that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

They are not automatic rifles.....and in each of the mass shootings where these rifles were used, pistols could have been used, shotguns could have been used....so these 20 rifles, out of 11,000,000 have no bearing on these mass shootings.

 

[2aguy]

just as easily?

I am not suggesting that it is HARD to kill people------it just seems to me that automatic rifles makes it easier and more exciting to the average nut

Again, when there is a large gathering of unarmed people in a confined space, the type of firearm used to slaughter them is of secondary concern. Just as many could be killed (executed) by an experienced shooter with a six-shot revolver and a pocket full of ammo, because It takes just a few seconds to reload.

Regarding your inordinate fear of magazine-fed rifles; one of the most common sporting weapons in use today is the ordinary "bird gun," which is a five shot, slide-action shotgun. One shot from this formidable gun at fifteen yard distance, if loaded with the right kind of shot-shell, is capable of killing as many as four closely-situated people because it throws out nine .32 pellets (bullets) that spread outward and impact with the same force as nine separate handguns or rifles of similar caliber would deliver. It truly is a fearsome weapon to be on the wrong end of.

Where the sport of hunting is concerned, banning the "pump" shotgun would be comparatively equal to banning the sports car, the trampoline, skis, the motorcycle, and dozens more sporting implements the use of which result in numerous deaths and injuries every year.

The magazine-fed rifle is essential for defense against an aggressor who is armed with a magazine-fed rifle (AR-15, etc). To ban these weapons, or to limit their capacity, will serve to indirectly but effectively defeat the intended purpose of the Second Amendment. Unless you can suggest an effective way to deprive the criminal element and the anti-American aggressor of access to magazine-fed rifles you should not be recommending a symbolic ban which would deprive the law-abiding citizen from access to such essential defense weaponry.

oh-----well ----you are right-----I know nothing about guns and rifles-------those who do
should come up with the laws and rules------that MIGHT help reduce the OPPORTUNITIES so easily available to NUTS

We have...it is called putting violent criminals who actually commit crimes with guns in prison for a long time...30 years. The problem is that democrats, judges and prosecutors keep allowing these people back on the streets...even after repeated gun offenses and crimes.....