RealDave
Gold Member
- Sep 28, 2016
- 26,521
- 3,565
- 290
- Thread starter
- #861
But the rifle makes certain intents more deadly.If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?
Do we really need to say assault type rifles?
Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.
The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.
That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle
The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.
That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.
It's not how it looks. It's how it operates and what it is intended to be used as. If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.
Really? Look at a Ruger Mini14 and at an AR. The AR gives people nightmares. The Ruger is just an old style, wood stocked rifle.
But other than the modular build of the AR, there is not much difference as far as features and use. The intent has nothing to do with the rifle. The intent is with the shooter.