General Discussion

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)

120. What did the VT punk use?

Reply to Walk away (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:00 AM

Dec 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

149 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For those of you who support gun ownership answer me this...... [View all] LynneSin Dec 2012 OP

The need to protect ourselves Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1

Bullshit!!!!!!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #31

He probably means protect himself from the police and military. Walk away Dec 2012 #146

You are asking the wrong question SajayHobbs Dec 2012 #2

no, shesn't!!!!!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #32

FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB!!! Odin2005 Dec 2012 #108

I doubt you'll get a coherent response. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #3

right- Non Coherent all over the place!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #33

See reply #2 for incoherent. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #71

Kill lots of prairie dogs at one time? exboyfil Dec 2012 #4

You mean no removable magazines? (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #7

I admit I know almost nothing about guns exboyfil Dec 2012 #12

The magazine is just a box with a spring in it Recursion Dec 2012 #17

This varies by state. In MA it is illegal to buy new magazines with more than 10 round capacity. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #26

Or make one AlexSatan Dec 2012 #100

Ha... so funny at a time like this! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #34

It's not a joke. .223s are powerful enough for groundhogs and coyotes but not much more Recursion Dec 2012 #44

Add six year olds to that mzmolly Dec 2012 #76

Unfortunately (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #78

And six adults, mzmolly Dec 2012 #79

ummmmmmm DustyJoe Dec 2012 #81

Because I know what "assault weapon" actually means Recursion Dec 2012 #5

It does not seem to be about the power exboyfil Dec 2012 #15

OK, but neither of those have anything to do with something being an assault weapon Recursion Dec 2012 #19

problematic DustyJoe Dec 2012 #87

WHAT ?? 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #37

Exactly what I wrote Recursion Dec 2012 #39

Known for years.nt Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #119

no weapons no! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #6

They'll scream 'It wasn't an assault weapon!!!' Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #8

It may or may not have been, depending on whether or not it had a bayonet lug Recursion Dec 2012 #10

5th recommendation CountAllVotes Dec 2012 #9

You want to ban weapons with removable magazines? Recursion Dec 2012 #11

Didn't know there was a Dept of Need that had to approve these things rl6214 Dec 2012 #88

OK, how's this union_maid Dec 2012 #13

no more guns! why you want more guns?!?! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #16

Um, I don't union_maid Dec 2012 #25

+1 robinlynne Dec 2012 #126

Looks like someone is trolling the site with ridiculousness rl6214 Dec 2012 #91

Media coverage of mass shootings aside, they really aren't used in crimes Recursion Dec 2012 #21

Let's not forget that the "non-hand gun" is the preferred gun for mass murders. Walk away Dec 2012 #27

You're right. It's a horrifying... Recursion Dec 2012 #28

Wow! Maybe we should ban assault weapons and then those "miniscule" mass murders might be prevented Walk away Dec 2012 #59

What did the VT punk use? Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #120

And what does that have to do with it? nt Walk away Dec 2012 #136

Since the punk used pistols "maybe" an AWB wouldn't Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #142

The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle. Walk away Dec 2012 #143

But you ignore VT? Not very compassionate. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #147

Actually these types of guns have only been used a few times in crimes rl6214 Dec 2012 #92

Yep, however, handguns are responsible for the vast majority AlexSatan Dec 2012 #102

"so rare that thet get a lot of media attention (case in point)" thucythucy Dec 2012 #36

That's true Recursion Dec 2012 #38

10 shootings in Chicago last night alone , 4 of them were teenagers shot former-republican Dec 2012 #54

And yet Chicago has a total gun ban rl6214 Dec 2012 #93

You gloat...eom Kolesar Dec 2012 #112

Just a fact rl6214 Dec 2012 #128

Too bad the country doesn't have a total gun ban... Walk away Dec 2012 #137

So they can shoot down the UN black helicopters. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #110

Bullets should cost $5000 apiece. Chris Rock is right. nt valerief Dec 2012 #14

no money for guns! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #18

So we again return to the calls to ban all firearms, and hand power back over to the GOP. Kennah Dec 2012 #20

Yep, that worked in 1994. Why not try it again? AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #42

It seems to me that most assault weapon aficionados have law enforcement and... Walk away Dec 2012 #22

That's not always true democrattotheend Dec 2012 #83

Hard to explain to people who are not familiar with firearms. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #23

Oh Lynne, you're just asking for a long, dyspeptic dissertation Aristus Dec 2012 #24

Hit the nail on the head bongbong Dec 2012 #29

Maybe we need a moratorium on that phrase. I admit my knee jerks when I see it Recursion Dec 2012 #30

Ok. How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines? Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #40

We freak out about the definition because a horribly stupid definition became law in 1994 Recursion Dec 2012 #43

I haven't made a exhaustive study of weapons (unless you count 5 inch 54 caliber naval guns). Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #48

No. The minutiae are what become law Recursion Dec 2012 #50

I don't disagree with you in principle. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #63

I don't know. From this side, I see *any* attempt to get people to actually be specific... Recursion Dec 2012 #75

The minutia is often purposely used to muddy the waters. ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #116

Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines and the Aristus Dec 2012 #127

Well, some good news: altering to full auto is a complete myth Recursion Dec 2012 #130

Well, take a look at the M1 Garand rifle from World War II. Aristus Dec 2012 #138

I could see requiring fixed magazines Recursion Dec 2012 #141

And there's always the multiple contradictions ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #35

The military switched to the M16 because it wounds more than it kills (among other reasons) Recursion Dec 2012 #41

It was more about rate of fire and capacity - nt ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #46

And the cheaper ammo. (nt) ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #117

That's a tricky question. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55

Because I don't want anyone to take retread Dec 2012 #45

other than food, clothing and shelter, people don't NEED much WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #47

I am what probably would pass.. sendero Dec 2012 #49

As a gun owner AlexSatan Dec 2012 #104

The reason I keep reading here is to kill "dangerous" critters NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #51

I know, right? renie408 Dec 2012 #53

You don't have chickens do you? Raccoons are dangerous to us chicken keepers! No, I don't kelly1mm Dec 2012 #89

Not sure why you feel the need to blast them NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #135

So only people in government, bush, etc, you trust? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #52

Guns are PART of the problem. renie408 Dec 2012 #56

Why not change the cause? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #57

No, the easy way out is reading what you want to read renie408 Dec 2012 #58

An admirable idea, but fraught with problems. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #61

We start. renie408 Dec 2012 #65

VIOLENCE is glorified in this country, not guns. davidn3600 Dec 2012 #60

If I read one more recycling of that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' CRAP renie408 Dec 2012 #64

Fine, believe what you want. davidn3600 Dec 2012 #67

Oh. My. God. renie408 Dec 2012 #68

You just said that you are tired of hearing that 'guns dont kill people, people kill people?' davidn3600 Dec 2012 #70

Ok. Let's pretend like I am typing really slowly here and see if you can follow along... renie408 Dec 2012 #72

You just repeated complete BS Tsiyu Dec 2012 #73

The guy in China slashed 22 kids, but none were killed. lob1 Dec 2012 #115

+1 union_maid Dec 2012 #69

The weapons you would ban have been available to US Civilians since WWI ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #82

That would sound great and all, if you were actually CORRECT. renie408 Dec 2012 #86

Violence levels in society is not just measured in homicide rates ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #95

The people you help are carrying assault rifles around? renie408 Dec 2012 #96

Of course not...they are illegal in CA ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98

Honey, I live in South Carolina. renie408 Dec 2012 #103

Really? This is the typical response I expect from gun owner apologists LynneSin Dec 2012 #124

Leave the guns alone...guns don't kill. Ammunition does. It worked for gold. It worked for libdem4life Dec 2012 #62

you do know that an Asssault weapon is a joke right? backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #66

What makes the argument useless is one side muddying the waters with bullshit trivia. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #74

I can tell you how to reduce the drivers of violence in this country TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #94

Which one of those AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107

I am not focused on anomalies. I would hope any number would contribute to an environment TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #148

I don't have an argument AlexSatan Dec 2012 #149

That's easy ... earthside Dec 2012 #77

If we dust off the assault weapons ban and reinstate it Politicub Dec 2012 #80

If you are talking about high capacity magazines; I don't see the need for such. Kaleva Dec 2012 #84

It is just a rifle, labeling it an assault weapon doesn't make the bullets rl6214 Dec 2012 #85

You can't legally buy Rincewind Dec 2012 #90

Sure you can legally buy a full auto assault weapon. You need a $200 transfer fee and about $20K+ kelly1mm Dec 2012 #97

The NFA of 1934 has nothing to do with assault weapons Kaleva Dec 2012 #111

ill you why i own one rdking647 Dec 2012 #99

If the "whack jobs" take over, an assault rifle isn't going to help you. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #113

I support gun ownership up to a point... ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #101

What is an "assault weapon?" Thanx. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #122

You do know how to Google, don't you? n/t ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #125

Yes. What is your definition of an "assault weapon?" Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #132

The only private citizens who should be allowed to have assault weapons are collectors. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #105

There is none JoDog Dec 2012 #106

I am not against gun ownership, Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #109

They're fun to own and shoot recreationally. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #114

Tell me what you mean by "assault weapon." Thanx Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #118

Okay, this is my first gun thread. Sissyk Dec 2012 #121

Are the DU mods tracking those who defend these child killing machines? TRJuan Dec 2012 #123

who died and made you God? bossy22 Dec 2012 #129

A Week Ago DU Gun Militants Were Proclaiming Gun Control A Dead Issue. Paladin Dec 2012 #131

Twenty kindergartners in Connecticut. renie408 Dec 2012 #139

Do you wear khaki army uniforms when issuing edicts? Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #144

Once escalating to a gun, we then escalate to a bigger badder gun. Festivito Dec 2012 #133

A semi automatic rifle is not an assault weapon Ya Basta Dec 2012 #134

nope Marrah_G Dec 2012 #140

Before I can answer, who's definition of Assault Weapon are we using? Glassunion Dec 2012 #145