HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What does a law abiding c...

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:18 PM

 

What does a law abiding citizen need with an assault weapon??

I'm asking for a friend.

162 replies, 7803 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply What does a law abiding citizen need with an assault weapon?? (Original post)
Gomez163 Jun 2016 OP
elleng Jun 2016 #1
TeddyR Jun 2016 #2
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #3
TeddyR Jun 2016 #4
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #8
TeddyR Jun 2016 #10
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #13
TeddyR Jun 2016 #21
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #23
annavictorious Jun 2016 #39
Straw Man Jun 2016 #85
840high Jun 2016 #129
jack_krass Jun 2016 #159
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #12
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #14
Straw Man Jun 2016 #5
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #7
Straw Man Jun 2016 #16
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #19
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #22
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #25
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #40
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #64
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #66
Quackers Jun 2016 #54
Quackers Jun 2016 #27
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #30
Quackers Jun 2016 #34
Straw Man Jun 2016 #31
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #32
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #36
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #38
sarisataka Jun 2016 #76
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #80
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #89
sarisataka Jun 2016 #95
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #97
sarisataka Jun 2016 #104
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #105
sarisataka Jun 2016 #106
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #35
Straw Man Jun 2016 #61
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #68
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #73
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #78
Straw Man Jun 2016 #81
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #149
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #150
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #153
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #155
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #156
TeddyR Jun 2016 #17
840high Jun 2016 #130
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #20
braddy Jun 2016 #124
annavictorious Jun 2016 #46
Straw Man Jun 2016 #67
DCBob Jun 2016 #15
Adrahil Jun 2016 #131
DCBob Jun 2016 #135
Adrahil Jun 2016 #136
DCBob Jun 2016 #140
Hoyt Jun 2016 #127
REP Jun 2016 #133
Arkansas Granny Jun 2016 #6
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #24
yallerdawg Jun 2016 #71
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #86
yallerdawg Jun 2016 #94
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #98
yallerdawg Jun 2016 #110
Arkansas Granny Jun 2016 #79
raccoon Jun 2016 #121
Matt_R Jun 2016 #146
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #9
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #11
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #18
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #42
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #44
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #49
Kang Colby Jun 2016 #51
Dem2 Jun 2016 #118
Matt_R Jun 2016 #147
Dem2 Jun 2016 #148
Matt_R Jun 2016 #154
Adrahil Jun 2016 #132
jmg257 Jun 2016 #26
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #28
jmg257 Jun 2016 #41
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #43
jmg257 Jun 2016 #65
linuxman Jun 2016 #29
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #37
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #45
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #48
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #55
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #62
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #70
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #77
beevul Jun 2016 #96
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #100
annavictorious Jun 2016 #53
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #47
linuxman Jun 2016 #60
ileus Jun 2016 #50
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #52
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #58
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #63
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #82
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #84
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #87
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #91
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #102
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #103
aikoaiko Jun 2016 #107
Recursion Jun 2016 #56
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #69
Recursion Jun 2016 #74
Lance Bass esquire Jun 2016 #57
LineLineReply .
linuxman Jun 2016 #88
Kentonio Jun 2016 #115
linuxman Jun 2016 #117
Kentonio Jun 2016 #119
linuxman Jun 2016 #120
Kentonio Jun 2016 #122
linuxman Jun 2016 #123
Kentonio Jun 2016 #125
jmg257 Jun 2016 #92
Matrosov Jun 2016 #59
One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #72
jpak Jun 2016 #75
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #101
ileus Jun 2016 #83
Hoyt Jun 2016 #90
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #93
Hoyt Jun 2016 #99
spanone Jun 2016 #108
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #109
Adrahil Jun 2016 #134
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #137
Adrahil Jun 2016 #139
Gomez163 Jun 2016 #142
Adrahil Jun 2016 #145
Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #112
JustABozoOnThisBus Jun 2016 #111
JohnnyRingo Jun 2016 #113
Kentonio Jun 2016 #116
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #114
still_one Jun 2016 #126
Cosmocat Jun 2016 #128
Adrahil Jun 2016 #138
Cosmocat Jun 2016 #157
Adrahil Jun 2016 #160
Cosmocat Jun 2016 #161
Adrahil Jun 2016 #162
Rex Jun 2016 #143
Rex Jun 2016 #141
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #144
Calista241 Jun 2016 #151
Skittles Jun 2016 #152
Orrex Jun 2016 #158

Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:19 PM

1. NOTHING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:24 PM

2. What is an "assault weapon"?

 

That type of rifle fires one bullet per trigger pull. In other words, it looks different but functions just like your grandfathers .22. A semiauto pistol operates just the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:25 PM

3. My response would be to widen the ban if you nitpick. Gonna nitpick??

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:28 PM

4. I am

 

Civil rights deserve nitpicking. There's never going to be a gun ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:30 PM

8. Does the right to keep and bear arms have limits? I say it does.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:31 PM

10. It does!

 

Completely agree. But the devil is in the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:32 PM

13. I would limit it to one hand gun and one rifle. And I would chip them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:35 PM

21. Ok

 

Don't really agree but not a terrible idea. Wouldn't have stopped today's tragedy though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:36 PM

23. We dont know what would have stopped today's tragedy.

 

I want to stop tomorrow's tragedy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:44 PM

39. It's pointless to argue. They will never admit that Sanders self-serving position

 

on guns is a major flaw in their candidate.

They'll posture and pose and pretend to have expertise because they know that Sanders's gun record is absolutely indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM

85. You want to make this about Sanders?

Really? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:16 PM

129. How stupid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:45 AM

159. ???? WTF

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:32 PM

12. Ye, we already have many limits in place

 

Prohibited person's are not allowed to own firearms. Firearm types are highly regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:33 PM

14. Today is proof the system is not working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:28 PM

5. Of course it would.

My response would be to widen the ban if you nitpick. Gonna nitpick??

Thanks for confirming that your broader agenda is to ban as many weapons as possible, and that "assault weapons" are just the low-hanging fruit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:29 PM

7. Do you have enough guns now? Or would you like more??

 

How many guns does a human being need??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

16. "Enough guns"?

Do you have enough guns now? Or would you like more??

How many guns does a human being need??

What does the number of guns have to do with it? The Orlando shooter had two.

You want to ban as many types of guns as possible. Does that sound about right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:35 PM

19. I want to limit them as needed. One hand gun and one rifle per person.

 

Chipped so the sheriff can track them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:36 PM

22. Real time tracking?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 PM

25. I would. Its a dangerous object. I would want to know where it was at all times.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:41 PM

33. How do you power it?

 

How do you retrofit 300 million weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:44 PM

40. I would put the onus on the owner to arrange it or turn the gun over.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #40)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:53 PM

64. Quite unconstitutional

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:54 PM

66. I think Heller would still allow reasonable regulation. It forbid an outright ban.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

54. It's not possible.

The only ways to do this are by using a SIM chip similar to a cell phone or by GPS. GPS signals are not reliable once indoors or in a shielded structure. Sim tracking requires a monthly subscription. It also doesn't affect those who want to remove the device and hide the weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:38 PM

27. What do you mean by chip them? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quackers (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:39 PM

30. Affix a tracking device to them. It could be a small sticker if necessary.

 

I'm sure some genius could make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:41 PM

34. Ok gotcha. Fwiw, all firearms already have individual serial numbers on them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:40 PM

31. Which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.

One rifle and one handgun.

"So the sheriff can track them"? What sheriff's department has the staffing to track every gun owner all the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:40 PM

32. I would provide federal funds for that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:42 PM

36. Sure you would

 

How much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #36)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:43 PM

38. Whatever is necessary. Mind you the money is to uphold the Second Amendment.

 

It would be a lot cheaper to confiscate them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #38)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:01 PM

76. Not if you follow

The Fifth Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:02 PM

80. The fourth amendment would apply to persons, not what you carry

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:06 PM

89. Sure if you believe so

 

That's why they can track cell phones and cars with no warrants.talk about a police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #80)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

95. I was thinking of

The last clauses of the Fifth.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


Even if you change the second and pass laws to allow legal confiscation of guns, the owners have to be fairly compensated for their property

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #95)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:11 PM

97. I would gladly pay to be rid of the offending item.

 

I would put them in a heap and melt them down and make a big peace sign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #97)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:19 PM

104. Perhaps you would

And it would likely reduce gun deaths. The cost would be astronomical; not even considering the political capital to get to that point.

Even then we would not be a gun free society

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #104)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:23 PM

105. I would ransom all of my tomorrows to have those 50 people back.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #105)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:25 PM

106. I can appreciate

Your passion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:42 PM

35. The shooter had an AR 15. Im talking about a rife to kill dangerous wildlife

 

or hunt with. The hand gun would be for home invasions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM

61. Right -- an AR 15 is underpowered for dangerous game.

Something like this would be preferable:



This handgun for home invasions certainly wouldn't have magazine-capacity restrictions, would it? The ones the home invaders use certainly won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:57 PM

68. The AR is great for small dangerous animals

 

Light, very accurate, quick follow-up shots against small targets. You would need it's big brother, the AR-10 for large game. But again a great hunting rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #68)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:59 PM

73. You go hunting with an AR-15 or this AR-10

 

What is the go to rifle of choice for hunting? Do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:02 PM

78. They are used for feral hogs around here

 

I do not hunt. I do know they are the least used weapons in mass shootings and gun related murders per the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:02 PM

81. Lots of people do.

You go hunting with an AR-15 or this AR-10

What is the go to rifle of choice for hunting? Do you know?

That's like asking what the "go-to car for highway driving" is. The choices are too many and too varied to have a cogent response. People hunt with bolt-actions, lever-actions, semi-autos, double-barrels, single-shots, and muzzle-loaders. People even hunt with air guns. What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:32 PM

149. What about someone who already owns three (or more) guns? Will they be confiscated?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #149)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:33 PM

150. Buyback plan

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #150)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:37 PM

153. That would cost (roughly) $300 billion dollars. What do you think are the chances of such a plan

 

being passed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Just reading posts (Reply #153)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:57 PM

155. Over 10 years

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #155)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:57 PM

156. Again, I ask: What do you think the chances are of such legislation being passed?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

17. I have 1

 

But may buy another. Why does the number of guns matter? If I own 100 guns but never shoot anyone where is the harm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #17)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:19 PM

130. .+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:35 PM

20. I have several

 

Most are bolt action military specification rifles. I have a few AR platform weapons that are not military specifications. All locked in my safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:57 PM

124. Guns are like golf clubs, different game, different gun sports, different activities, seasonal

 

wardrobes, all call for different guns.

You can't go skeet shooting with your pistol, and you want a powerful rifle for defense against large animals when hiking in wilderness, not the little AR-15 that you use to kill coyotes, and on and on.

Also guns change, and your wants change, there is no such thing as a single perfect gun for all sexes and all people, and all ages, and all times, and all sports, and all calibers, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 PM

46. Posturing, and posing, and strutting around pretending to have expertise

 

is not going to work. Sanders against reasonable controls on guns because he is afraid he would lose his seat otherwise. His position is rooted in pure self-interest, and everyone knows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:55 PM

67. I'm not "pretending" anything.

Posturing, and posing, and strutting around pretending to have expertise

is not going to work.

I'm using facts to counter what I see as ridiculous and ultimately fruitless proposals -- proposals which most certainly are "not going to work."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

15. Anything with a detachable magazine or clip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 PM

131. Wait, so.....

 

My antique bolt action rifle, built in 1896, is an "assault weapon" because it has a detachable magazine?

The irony is, of course, that under federal law, the gun I mentioned isn't even treated as a firearm at all. It is an antique.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #131)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:35 PM

135. There can be exceptions for antiques as there are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #135)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:37 PM

136. I'd say that anything with a manual action would be exempt.

 

I made the comment because your collage there (I know you didn't make it) include a WWI era SMLE rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #136)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:43 PM

140. Yes, that makes total sense.

That "collage" was simply a Google image search screen capture. Didnt realize there was WW1 era rifle there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:04 PM

127. Oh boy, another gun apologist wants to play he Gun Nomenclature Game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:33 PM

133. An assault rifle is select fire (full auto or semi auto)

Assault style - the kind available to civilians, such as AR15, are semi-auto only. The have the looks of an assault rifle but not the function.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:28 PM

6. I can't think of a single reason that a civilian should have access to military grade weapons.

This is not a hunting rifle. This weapon was designed for no other purpose than to kill people, as fast as possible, and nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 PM

24. It was not military grade

 

You have been misled. The AR platform is a great hunting rifle. Light and very accurate. The AR -15 for varmints and feral hogs. TheAR--10 for large game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:58 PM

71. Killed 50 and wounded 53 in a night club.

"Varmints and feral hogs."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #71)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:04 PM

86. In a criminals hands, anything

 

Can be misused.

So what are you insinuating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #86)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

94. You are insinuating that this assault weapon...

which does exactly what it was designed and marketed to do over and over - including on small school children - is not actually an assault weapon.

Seems like you are very wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #94)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:12 PM

98. When was an AR type weapon ever marketed to murder

 

Small children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #98)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:39 PM

110. Just watch the "news" today.

Just like back on December 14, 2012 from Newtown, Connecticut.

This weapon does exactly what it was designed and marketed to do.

Can you differentiate a "gun enthusiast" from a psycho or a murderer?

Apparently, it's not a skill 'sellers' seem to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:28 PM

121. THANK YOU. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #79)


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:30 PM

9. Depend on what an assault weapon is

 

The weapon he appears to have had functions the same as a NY SAFE act compliant rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:32 PM

11. Assault weapon is just a made up term by gun control advocates.

My preferred answer is because I like firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:34 PM

18. How many do you need?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:45 PM

42. As many as I want.

There are perhaps thousands of different semi-automatic rifles, each one having various distinctions that make them all noteworthy in some way.

I think most gun control laws should be repealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:46 PM

44. Is this the society you want? What if that was a loved one that got shot?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:49 PM

49. I would be very sad

 

The same as when a loved one was killed by a drunk driver

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

51. Over the last 40 years or so...homicide rates have fallen by 50% in the U.S.

If a loved one was shot, I would place blame where blame was due, not on an inanimate object.

Does that make sense to you? It's just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kang Colby (Reply #51)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:01 PM

118. I read all that you're saying in the posts above on gun-nut boards all day long

I don't interact with people who sling NRA/RWNJ talking points. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #118)


Response to Matt_R (Reply #147)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:29 PM

148. I own guns

I'm not a gun-nut though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #148)


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:30 PM

132. Not sure what the point of that question is.

 

If I intend to kill someone with a gun, one is too much. If not, then 100 isn't any threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:37 PM

26. Need, or want? Lots of ways to justify having something.

Your friend's reasons may be different then others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:38 PM

28. You have to ask yourself is this the society you want?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:45 PM

41. I'm more liable to ask what can be done to make things better. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:45 PM

43. I would get rid of alcohol and cell phones

 

They kill many more and I fear the texting driver on the roads. Already been rear ended by one person texting while driving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:54 PM

65. I also worry about a society where murdering radical extremists homophobes

Decide US laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:39 PM

29. Couldn't say. Mine are all counterassault weapons.

 

I exclusively target shoot. In a pinch, I'd use it in home defense if it came to it. I buy ergonomic, lightweight, accurate, and modular guns that shoot popular calibers I can find easily. The ar15 fits the bill in spades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:43 PM

37. Why do you need that much weaponry?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:47 PM

45. Is there now a department of needs?

 

Why does anyyone need a sports car?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 PM

48. Because the price you pay is to foster a gun culture that

 

kills 3 per 100,000 in this country versus .5 per 100,000 in the UK.

What benefit do you get from all that weaponry??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

55. Still have not found the study that

 

You reference from your Twitter post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #55)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM

62. How do you explain the disparity between the US and Japan and the UK??

 

And the rest of Europe???

Deny the facts??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #62)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:58 PM

70. Like I said before and you dismissed

 

Culture is the biggest part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #70)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:01 PM

77. I just dont think it tells the whole story.

 

I think we can do better as a people and still protect 2nd amendment rights.

And if its the culture, we need to change that too. We need to start with the children and changes how they're educated to teach peacemaking and dispute resolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:10 PM

96. Gun culture does no such thing.

 

People - individuals - make choices.

2 of your 3 per 100,000 are people who choose to end their own lives, assuming you were talking about gun deaths and not murders.

Blaming that on 'gun culture' does a disservice to those making such decisions, by focusing on the instrument rather than the decision. Not something I'd expect from those who claim to want solutions, but definitely something I'd expect from those that just want to get the guns - as if the dead would be better off dying from an OD or a fall from a tall building or bridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #96)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:13 PM

100. This person does get their facts from Twitter

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

53. Deflecting begs the question. Sanders position on guns is a fatal disqualification.

 

Sanders prime motive is keeping his seat safe, rather than keeping people safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:48 PM

47. Sounds like the poster target shoots like me

 

Different weapons for different types of shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM

60. How much do you think I have, exactly? I gave no number.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:49 PM

50. Exactly....that's why I only buy counter-assault firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

52. No one needs one...

Handgun...okay.
Hunting rifle...fine.
Semi automatic, automatic with a magazine with 8+ bullets...NOPE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #52)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:51 PM

58. Hence the 2013 Obama bill to limit further purchases of the latter.

 

Mind you allowing everyone to keep the ones still out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #58)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:53 PM

63. I really thought we had a chance...

on that one, but obviously it didn't pan out. If it did, this lunatic wouldn't have been able to walk in and buy one less than a week ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #58)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM

82. That law would have easily been defeated by changing the pistol grip for $30.


Lanza had a legal AR15 that was compliant with the CT state level AWB which was identical to the federal ban which went away in 2004.

AWB are flawed for the start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM

84. They seem to work fine everywhere but here. Why is that?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #84)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:05 PM

87. I dont know what you mean by "they work fine by everywhere but here"

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #87)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:06 PM

91. Dont see many mass shootings in the UK or Japan.

 

Just here in the land of freedumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #91)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:15 PM

102. True but there are probably many reasons for that including guns.


Remember that the second most deadly mass shooting was at Virginia Tech and that shooter used two pistols with standard magazines.

We are a nore diverse country with a long history of using violence to solve our problems. There are other countries like us but they too have violence problems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #102)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:16 PM

103. Is this how you want it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #103)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:34 PM

107. I don't know if I have a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:50 PM

56. Basically they are relatively low-power, reliable, and durable rifles

So to the extent that people "need" a rifle, they are popular. They're underpowered for most hunting, but then again only about 20% of gun owners hunt to begin with; they're mostly popular for target shooting. (Which is not a "need" of course, but if you're actually curious why people buy them.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:57 PM

69. I'm not making judgments. Life is a balancing of interests.

 

Is this need to target shoot more important than the need to stop mass shootings??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:00 PM

74. I'm not sure. As awful as it is to say today, mass shootings aren't what I really care about

in terms of gun control. If this is an "average" day, 60 people died in "normal" shootings (almost all from handguns) in addition to the 50 killed in the nightclub. Those are really kind of two unrelated problems, but the "normal" shootings are killing an order of magnitude more people and if we can only pass one law I'd rather it be about them. And the majority of mass shootings are with handguns, anyways. I'd much rather look at handguns first, particularly since they are the majority of both "kinds" of shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:51 PM

57. I always thought the whole malitia vs Govt thing

 

Is a futile argument. If the day ever came where the Govt turned its military on its people its Game Over.

In the real world a bunch of Texas farmers with pop guns stand no chance of defeating air strikes ,Abrahams tanks, RPG and footsoldiers.

They can sit in their backyard bunkers watching Red Dawn and dream of being a Wolverine but that's all it will ever be.

The citizens have not been able or capable of fighting of a Govt military attack sine before the civil war.

I am a gun owner but protecting myself from the Feds with them is downright funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lance Bass esquire (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:05 PM

88. .

 

Just like when we soundly defeated goat herders and rice farmers in the third world using antique firearms?


Do people really think the government is going to drone the suburbs and still have the backing of the people who live there and make up the very military that will supposedly be killing them?


I would never advocate for the violent overthrow of our government, but to suggest that a populace armed with rifles couldn't take on a modern military is so profoundly ignorant I don't even know where to begin

The afghans didn't start their war against the soviets with soviet equipment, but before it was over they had everything up to the rooskies' tanks.

Assymmetric warfare doesn't work like conventional warfare. At all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #88)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:35 PM

115. What is profoundly ignorant is the idea that Vietnam acts as any kind of comparison for this.

 

Or Afghanistan for that matter. Resisting a foreign invader is a completely different situation from resisting your own government who not only speak the same language, know the country just as well as you, and also happen to have huge amounts of data about you.

That's completely setting aside the added difference of course that a bunch of overweight militia wannabes who have spent most of their lives sat on their asses watching TV are not going to suddenly form a fighting force that will leave the US military at a loss how to react. Unless of course they are briefly stopped by uncontrollable fits of laughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #115)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:59 PM

117. You're right, it is different.

 

America has 21.8 million veterans, with several million being young, recently seperated ones fresh from our recent wars. We also would have to draw our armed forces from the very populace we'd be fighting. Most bases are in the conservative south as well, and that would certainly be where your anti-government types would be coming from. Combine that with the fact that the military and veterans tend to lean far to the right and many of them wouldn't blindly start killing their family and neighbors on behalf of the government, you're right. It would be nothing like Vietnam. It would make vietnam look like a ticker tape worthy blowout.

The US will never gave another civil war, but if it did it would certainly nor go how you envision it, guns being the least of the reasons why.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #117)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:05 PM

119. You seem to be conveniently overlooking the fact that any oppressive domestic regime

 

Would almost certainly be a far right government, just like those people you're saying wouldn't start killing their neighbours on behalf of the government.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #119)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:25 PM

120. I wouldn't be sure about that.

 

We've had a solid 8 years of a liberal administration that only seemed interested in beefing up the Patriot act, reinforcing the police state and further curtailing individuals. Authoritarian regimes are equal opportunity, and this administration has shiwn authortarian statusm to be a partyless trend in our politics. I've seen a few documentaries on militia types. They seem to take issue with the government period, not right or left. At any rate, citizens aren't going to see tanks crushing the bricks of mainstreet and drones blowing up a trailer park and say "you know what? I support this! Where do I enlist? " Americans as a whole value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing. It's harder to cow that sort of people than a society where brutality, violence, and total subjugation is the norm, and it doesn't work well in those places either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #120)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:31 PM

122. "Americans as a whole value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing."

 

Why would you think that? 30,000 people die each year from gun violence, and for the most part the majority of people don't care enough to actually force any change. The Patriot Act stripped away a whole raft of personal freedoms, but the one in a million chance of being a terrorist victim was enough for most people to happily wave it through. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people died in the Middle East because of US adventurism, and again most people didn't actually care because they felt it made them safer (which would be funny if it wasn't so ludicrously tragic). Meanwhile tens of thousands of Americans die each year because of a lack of basic healthcare, and once again the majority don't actually care, as long as no-one is trying to put their taxes up a few percentage points.

The idea that Americans as a whole give a damn about "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal wellbeing" for anyone other than themselves or their family and friends is one of the biggest myths out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #122)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:54 PM

123. Considering 2/3 of those are suicides, the Patriot act is universally loathed,

 

Our adventuring into the middle east is not popular, we elected representatives who passed obamaxare, etc, I'm not quite sure I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to linuxman (Reply #123)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:02 PM

125. Oh its 'universally loathed' is it?

 

Like this 2004 poll which showed a universal 26% of Americans who thought it went too far in restricting civil liberties?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/10858/americans-generally-comfortable-patriot-act.aspx

Even if that number is radically different now, so what exactly? People might tell a pollster 'I don't like that' but what do they actually do to change it? Because last I checked, the vast majority of people do exactly nothing, even if they are one of the maybe 60% who bother to vote once every 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lance Bass esquire (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:09 PM

92. The whole purpose of the 2nd was not so the people could

Fight the govt's huge standing army, but to prevent the pretense for the govt to have s huge standing army in the 1st place,

Obviously a notion that is obsolete. The people decided they prefer the army, but left the laws saying otherwise on the books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:52 PM

59. For Tactical Tier 1 Operator status, of course

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:58 PM

72. Depends upon where you live

If you describe your place as, "If you can see it, I own it" or describe how many days it takes you to transit the property line. Or if you routinely stock the freezer(s) during hunting season. Or have to protect the livestock on your farm/ranch. Or if you live in a ten story high rise apartment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:01 PM

75. To enlarge their inadequate selves and stroke with vigorous affection

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #75)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:14 PM

101. The term is External Death Penis.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:03 PM

83. Don't these people realize guns kill people?

If we can't control citizens at least we can control their devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #83)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:06 PM

90. Yes, and we realize that's why you and other gungeoneers are attracted to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #90)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:09 PM

93. Oh really

 

Then why are 99% of firearms owners not out committing murders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #93)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:12 PM

99. They buy them because they can kill with them. If that was not an interest, a BB gun would work for

the few who are truly only interested in target shooting. If they weren't lethal and intimidating, gunners wouldn't strap them to their body to walk downtown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:37 PM

108. well, this particular weapon has assaulted many....


Orlando: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Umpqua Community College: AR-15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #108)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:38 PM

109. I'm told you can't ban them because there are so many types of them

 

that government is powerless to do anything about it.

Should I believe that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #109)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:35 PM

134. Well, simply naming a model is useless.

 

If you want to ban weapons, you need to specify what is it that makes the weapon unacceptable. The problem is that a lot of gun control advocates have zero technical knowledge about guns, and therefore cannot name the features that make a gun unacceptable to them. You run into the problem of people being scared of crap like grips, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, and barrel shrouds. Crap that has almost nothing to do with the actual lethality of the firearm. The start staying stupid crap like the barrel shroud is the thing that goes up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #134)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:38 PM

137. How about being able to shoot 20 rounds real fast?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #137)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:42 PM

139. That gets to the heart of the matter.... semi-automatic capability.

 

Yes, in the end, a semi-auto gun with a removable magazine is what people REALLY want to get too. And frankly, banning or heavily restricting those are the only thing that would work from a "managing things" point of view. Doing so is an EXTREMELY heavy lift, politically speaking, IMO. Even if you could ban, or heavily restrict new production, we have millions of them in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #139)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:44 PM

142. Most of the mass shootings involve recent purchases

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Reply #142)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:03 PM

145. That is true. Good luck.

 

I don't think this country is willing to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #108)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:59 PM

112. My understanding

 

In Aurora the weapon jammed due to the extremely large magazine and other weapons were used for most of the murders. In Umpqua, the rifle was not used but handguns were used for the murders. Interesting you left out the many more that this type of weapon was not used by a murderer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:41 PM

111. Nobody needs one.

Then again, nobody needs a Porsche, a 3000-sq-foot house, a set of golf clubs, perfume, funny hats, white teeth, etc, etc.

But we have choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:16 PM

113. Not to pick a fight, but you asked...

..Let's say a Montana rancher spent time in the far reaches of his property mending fences and rounding up stray livestock, he could encounter desperate predators that would make such a weapon very handy. One would think a bolt action rifle or handgun sufficient, but those wouldn't grant such decisive firepower against large or rabid game. In such a case in an area of limited cell coverage, I'd like one in the truck's gun rack.

Having said that, I don't have an assault rifle because I have no need for one. Such a weapon in an urban/suburban environment is overwhelmingly a tool for crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #113)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:38 PM

116. Even in most countries with bans there are still exceptions made for farmers.

 

Although its usually for shotguns I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:20 PM

114. They'll play semantic games with this one like they usually do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 PM

126. To kill people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:08 PM

128. They are fucking toys/collectables

for 99% of the people in this country, and they have ginned themselves up to believe it is the most holiest of all american rights to be able to have their toys/guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #128)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:39 PM

138. That's true to some extent.

 

But we tolerate WAY more deaths from alcohol so people can get their buzz on. It's all a matter of who's ox gets gored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #138)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:14 AM

157. Its the most dishonest conversation this country has

And in a country that has its head so far up its ass as we do, that is saying a lot.

This jackass didn't go into that night club and kill 50+ people with a 6 pack, the jackass who killed those kids in Newton didn't use a bottle of rum.

A few weeks ago, a small christian school five miles from our house, a student walked into the office and said he had guns in his trunk. Turns out that was the second day in a row he had brought them, and he was THAT close to go on a shooting rampage in the school.

Why is it that with guns, the "gee, people will get them anyways, so we can't have any meaningful limitations thing stands?

People speed anyways, so we should not have any posted speed limits or law enforcement should not be allowed to give tickets? People will cheat on taxes, so we shouldn't have or enforce tax laws?

Alcohol kills people, so hey, everyone should have the right to have a missile launcher.

We can't even START to have an honest discussion about this issue when the most basic element is completely off the table.

it's exactly like climate change, the complete denial of it ends any effort to truly try to address it. Only with climate change you at least have a majority of the people in this country who see it for the stupid it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #157)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 12:08 PM

160. All rights are a balancing act.

 

I'm just pointing out that people are willing to accept MASSIVE carnage from alcohol and cigarettes, and those products exist for one reason only: personal pleasure. You can deny that point, but it IS relevant.

I'm not opposed to greater gun control, but until gun control advocates address this basic fundamental, they are not going to convince the gun nuts.

All rights are a balancing act. Just consider that as you proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #160)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:23 PM

161. You can't walk into a school room

and massacre children with a six pack or cigarettes ...

You can come up with a much better false equivalency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #161)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 03:59 PM

162. Now, we just kill them over time with second hand smoke.

 

I suffer from chronic lung problems to this day because of my parents smoking. You can declare a false equivalence if you like. I won't even say you're wrong. But the fact is that both cigarettes and alcohol kill MANY more people in this country than gun violence does. If you want to make progress on this issue, ignoring that will not benefit you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #128)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:45 PM

143. The conditioning is rather disturbing, they rush out to be more guns when ever the RWing media

 

uses FUD on them. What will they do with all those firearms? We only have two hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:44 PM

141. My family and extended family mostly consists of game hunters.

 

I can remember being taken dove hunting with a shotgun that was longer then my body. THAT question that you ask, has been one I ask year after year.

Deer rifles are made to kill deer, assault weapons are made to kill people.

We should all be forced to go back to flintlock weapons, that way someone can get a good running start while you pack your powder and the accuracy would be horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:53 PM

144. low self esteem, bad aim, deep insecurities



There's a thread with a video around here showing why it is a bad choice for home defense or hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:34 PM

151. Everyone watch the news tomorrow

and see the uncountable lines of millions of people buying firearms out there. Clearly there is a perceived "need" for firearms in this country whether you want to believe it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gomez163 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:35 PM

152. if you're a gun humping piece of shit coward, you think you need one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #152)

Mon Jun 13, 2016, 07:34 AM

158. ^^That

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread