Another mass shooting. Another assault rifle

[2aguy]

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

Please...tell the class what licensing law abiding gun owners does to stop gun crimes or prevent gun crimes......

Considering that criminals cannot buy, own or carry a gun, they can't get a license for a gun......so what is the point?

And before you say...so we know who owns the gun.....again, what does that do to stop or solve a gun crime?

Be brave...answer the question.

Keeping in mind that the criminals in this country steal their guns, from homes, stores, train cars and cars......so if a gun is found, the original owner has no connection to the actual crime.

If a criminal gets the gun from a straw buyer...someone who can pass a background check, both at a store and at a private sale, we can find out that straw buyer when we arrest the criminal who actually used the gun for the crime...right? Again, the license did nothing to stop or prevent that crime.

And since most of the time a straw buyer is the baby momma of the criminal, or the criminals grandmother....prosecutors do not tend to prosecute them for their gun selling....since juries don't like to convict baby momma's who say they had to get the gun or the gang would beat the shit out of them.....

So please....tell the class why we need to license guns...

 

[2aguy]

"Nothing can be done" says only country where this sort of thing happens.

No one has said that....only you anti gunners who want to pass laws that actually don't address the problem.

As we keep telling you.....when you catch a felon with an illegal gun, you know, the guys who eventually shoot and kill people...you lock them up before they shoot and kill people, and you keep them locked up for 30 years so they can't get out and shoot and kill people.

When you catch an armed robber......30 years....especially if he used a gun.....

If you catch an attempted murderer and he used a gun...30 years.


You guys...you want to add paperwork when John Q. Law abiding citizen buys his gun........we have seen how that works out in Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., New Orlean...L.A...........

And then you fight to let violent criminals out in California and around the country...then you post stupid posts like the one you just posted..

We want to deal with actual criminals who use guns in actual criminal acts.......you want to punish law abiding gun owners.

You have far too many guns and that is why you are killing each other. Ban guns and then lock up anyone caught with one. That would make everyone safer.

You banned guns......gun crime in Britain is going up, not down.....your violent crime...up 90% in some areas of England....

And after we bought more guns and started carrying them....?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
=======

The truth......good to see it makes you laugh...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Lol, you trot out this bollox after every mass shooting in the states.The truth of it is that you dont give a fuck who gets killed as long as you get to play with your penis extensions.

 

[2aguy]

Lol, you trot out this bollox after every mass shooting in the states.The truth of it is that you dont give a fuck who gets killed as long as you get to play with your penis extensions.

And there we see......even in Britain the anti gunners have a sexual fixation on guns.....which is why they want them banned.....somehow, they get sexually aroused by the image or thoughts of guns.......it makes them feel dirty, and guilty, but they can't help themselves.....so to combat these....urges......they want them all banned.....cause they can't control themselves....

then....as another way to deal with the guilt and the unclean feeling, they project their illness onto others...that is called projection...

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]

 

[2aguy]

Lol, you trot out this bollox after every mass shooting in the states.The truth of it is that you dont give a fuck who gets killed as long as you get to play with your penis extensions.

Wow.....great post.....it doesn't refute any of the actual information I provided...it doesn't support anything you have tried to say.......so it was essentially nonsense.....but I guess you typed it well....so there is that....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

No....those are both unConstitutional.....licensing is a Poll Tax on the right to own a gun....

Registration violates the 14th Amendment.....felons do not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States decision.....they can't be compelled to register a gun because it violates their right against self incrimination....therefore neither can law abiding citizens...

And registration is stupid...it doesn't stop or solve gun crimes....and the only reason you want it is so that later, when you get the political power, you know where the guns are and who has them when you ban and order them turned in....

You never answered any question. You make shit up, and that's all you post - shit.

 

[2aguy]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

No....those are both unConstitutional.....licensing is a Poll Tax on the right to own a gun....

Registration violates the 14th Amendment.....felons do not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States decision.....they can't be compelled to register a gun because it violates their right against self incrimination....therefore neither can law abiding citizens...

And registration is stupid...it doesn't stop or solve gun crimes....and the only reason you want it is so that later, when you get the political power, you know where the guns are and who has them when you ban and order them turned in....

You never answered any question. You make shit up, and that's all you post - shit.

Yeah....I answered your question.....According to the Murdoch v. Pennsylvania Supreme Court decion you cannot charge for the exercise of a Right...

So any fee is unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[2aguy]

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

No....those are both unConstitutional.....licensing is a Poll Tax on the right to own a gun....

Registration violates the 14th Amendment.....felons do not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States decision.....they can't be compelled to register a gun because it violates their right against self incrimination....therefore neither can law abiding citizens...

And registration is stupid...it doesn't stop or solve gun crimes....and the only reason you want it is so that later, when you get the political power, you know where the guns are and who has them when you ban and order them turned in....

You never answered any question. You make shit up, and that's all you post - shit.

I have backed up my answers......you don't back up yours......

Do felons have to register their illegal guns? Tell me if that is true........

Can you be charged for the exercise of a Constitutional Right.....? Tell me how I am wrong...

 

[Marianne]

The difference is in killing power.

Trucks & planes of other uses that killing.

IDK ISIS seems to be doing a decent enough job with cars, trucks and bombs. Matter of fact they haven't been using guns at all lately.

I'm more worried about the U.S. and the OP is about the shooting of six innocent doctors and med students going about their work at a hospital when they were gunned down by an ex coworker using an AR15, widely available in any hunting goods store and WalMart. We aren't talking about terrorists.

Well actually we are. This guy left that job in 2015. He's been stewing for a while and probably planning this for a while;its domestic terrorism of a sort. Take away the AR-15 and he still would have had his revenge. Like ISIS he could have used a bomb,knife,car,poison, the only limit is his imagination. Timothy McVeigh used a truck and made a fertilizer bomb. This isn't rocket science and this guy was a doctor so I'm thinking he could figure out by way of internet how to make a bomb. Emergency rooms have drive up access so it really would have been nothing for Dr. Bello blow shit up if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a AR-15. The terrorists in London used cars,homemade bombs and knives and so could have Bello. If this country wants to stop guys like Bello and Lanza maybe we should invest more into mental health. Clearly Bello had anger management problems and a screw loose as did Lanza. It's not the guns it's the mind of the people with the guns. Our society is producing nut jobs at an alarming rate and maybe we should also put some cash into why that is. This type of thing didn't happen with this frequency 30 years ago. Somethings gone horribly wrong in the last 30 years.

I am willing to bet that mass shootings would actually increase significantly if there were to be a total (unconstitutional) ban on firearms. Even if the ban were specific to only certain types or calibers.

Banning guns will not in any way convert insane criminals into law abiding upstanding members of a society.

Making assault type rifles illegal will make them harder to obtain, allow police to arrest them on the way to commit their slaughter, or arrest them in the planning stages.

Trucks & knives have actual uses outside of killing things. Really. Quit being sofa king stupid by declaring there are other ways to kill people. No fucking shit. It has no change ton the FACT that a AK47 has far more killing power than a knife or pistol or bolt action rifle or a baseball bast. A fact you assholes can't seem to grasp.

Why own one? It is a crappy home defense weapon.

The same way marijuana, meth,cocaine and opioids are hard to obtain? My Great Grandparents were bootleggers during prohibition. It would stop nothing because the problem isn't the object it's the hands that control them. If those hands are morally devoid or mentally ill any object in that person's hands are dangerous no matter what it's use. Mass shootings didn't happen 30 years ago or at least not at the alarming rate we have them today.We need to ask ourselves what happened to society that has deranged it so horribly. IMHO We took God out of the public view such as school, we allowed big money to direct our way like take the cheap way out of proper mental healthcare. We stopped caring about each other and closed ourselves off.

Now before anyone screams about not having God in public view as not being PC consider this. When God was in public view it dictated to society a moral compass. Don't kill, don't steal, honor your parents Etc. This view of the world was still in the school system when I was coming up as was a moment of silence for prayer. Our parents took us to church where this was reinforced. We feared God, our parents and authority figures because that is what we were taught. We were also spanked if we didn't; spare the rod, spoil the child(biblical principle). When Liberals in the 70's,80's and 90's insisted we take this view our of public places and started dictating how to raise our children the kids ran amok because all they ever had to fear was removed and replaced with absolutely nothing. It's 2017 and those kids are adults. The lawlessness is slowly creeping forward as the once undisciplined kids are now undisciplined adults. Now I'm not saying that kids should be forced to follow Judeo-Christianity but something now needs to replace these values. Really the only possible objectionable parts of the Ten Commandments which has been removed from public view are #1-4 which talks about God, graven images and rest on the sabbath. The rest is the corner stone to most society. So why can't the 10 commandments be taught with the first four removed or with the first four optional? Here's 5-10. #7 Adultery could be seen as don't cheat.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Without guns to use, these shootings would not have taken place.

And if I were 25 instead of 81 I'd be a young man. So much for wishful thinking.

Has it ever occurred to you that in spite of the drug laws drugs are available to anyone with the cash to pay for them? The same thing quite obviously applies to guns. So it follows that no matter how many new laws you anti-gun squeakers manage to get passed the simple fact is you will be depriving only the law-abiding, making them defenseless against illegally armed criminals.

 

[MikeK]

The same way marijuana, meth,cocaine and opioids are hard to obtain? My Great Grandparents were bootleggers during prohibition. It would stop nothing because the problem isn't the object it's the hands that control them.

[...]

Good commentary. And that list linked in your Signature Line is impressive to say the least.

 

[Marianne]

You can remove guns but they will find another means of killing people. If a person wants to kill they will find a way. This man could have used a baseball bat,knife, bomb,chemical agent,vehicle. Timothy McVeigh and the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 were both trucks with bombs. The 2001 WTC were planes loaded with jet fuel, no gun necessary.

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia
1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia

The difference is in killing power.

Trucks & planes of other uses that killing.

IDK ISIS seems to be doing a decent enough job with cars, trucks and bombs. Matter of fact they haven't been using guns at all lately.

I'm more worried about the U.S. and the OP is about the shooting of six innocent doctors and med students going about their work at a hospital when they were gunned down by an ex coworker using an AR15, widely available in any hunting goods store and WalMart. We aren't talking about terrorists.

Well actually we are. This guy left that job in 2015. He's been stewing for a while and probably planning this for a while;its domestic terrorism of a sort. Take away the AR-15 and he still would have had his revenge. Like ISIS he could have used a bomb,knife,car,poison, the only limit is his imagination. Timothy McVeigh used a truck and made a fertilizer bomb. This isn't rocket science and this guy was a doctor so I'm thinking he could figure out by way of internet how to make a bomb. Emergency rooms have drive up access so it really would have been nothing for Dr. Bello blow shit up if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a AR-15. The terrorists in London used cars,homemade bombs and knives and so could have Bello. If this country wants to stop guys like Bello and Lanza maybe we should invest more into mental health. Clearly Bello had anger management problems and a screw loose as did Lanza. It's not the guns it's the mind of the people with the guns. Our society is producing nut jobs at an alarming rate and maybe we should also put some cash into why that is. This type of thing didn't happen with this frequency 30 years ago. Somethings gone horribly wrong in the last 30 years.

No actually terrorism is for a political purpose, and none of the shootings by Americans this week fit that bill. Our frustrated doc clearly had problems, I agree. More mental health treatment and more education to eliminate the stigma associated with getting treatment and seeking help for people who need treatment both should be emphasized.

Your definition is correct. I said terrorism of a sort. What this man did isn't actually terrorism. What I meant is that he created terror to get his non political position heard. He wanted people to know about his case. When he entered the hospital he asked after a certain colleague and was told that person wasn't there. Now he knew that could happen, he knew that person might be off that day and didn't really go to any lengths to make sure they were there I.E. stalking. When the person wasn't there he just went ahead and kill those who were. He had a planned agenda. He wanted that colleague to know it was for them. He wanted the public to know he thought the allegations were false and his life ruined. Whether that is actual fact or not is Irrelevant because in his eye's it was the truth.

Removing the stigma would definitely help. What would also help is if the insurance companies would stop dictating treatment. They tell the doctor what they will cover and the doctor usually works along those lines because most people can't afford to pay out of pocket. Unfortunately some people need more than basic therapy and don't get it because of the expense.

 

[Marianne]

The same way marijuana, meth,cocaine and opioids are hard to obtain? My Great Grandparents were bootleggers during prohibition. It would stop nothing because the problem isn't the object it's the hands that control them.

[...]

Good commentary. And that list linked in your Signature Line is impressive to say the least.

Yes Islam has been very busy in 2017.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Many LWs want to ban all guns. This forum is replete with that idea. However, shredding the Constitution isn't a practical path for them. Slowly eating away at individual rights and eroding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment in particular works much better for them. They use words like "for the children" and "common sense" but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it's statements that mean restricting all free citizens from exercising their natural right of self-defense.

BTW, there is not such thing as an "assault rifle" much less an "assault type rifle". It's a fabricated term used by the anti-gun left that means "scary-looking rifle".

What is the difference between these two rifles, RealDave?

Would you call CPS on the parents of this young man?

Premise one is a lie ("Many LWs want to ban all guns"); no one in authority has ever proposed legislation to ban all guns. Most of us believe guns need to be controlled, and kept out of the hands of those who have a demonstrated a lack of self control (drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, etc.).

Any tool can be an assault weapon, from a hammer or screw driver to a a knife or a gun. Assault with a Deadly Weapon is a felony, though no real harm to the victim needs to have occurred.

It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun. If they are caught doing any of those things they can be arrested.....this can already be done, under current law.

If you use a gun to commit an actual crime, rape, robbery, murder, attempted murder, you can already be arrested...under current law, using any type of firearm.

We already have the laws for gun crimes........yet the anti gunners want more laws that solely target law abiding people, who have not, and do not use their guns to commit crimes....

Why is that?

Q. How do felons acquire a gun.

Q. What laws are in place and enforced to prevent the sale of a gun to a felon, by a private party.

Q. The 2nd A. which you argue is clear in its "shall not be infringed" phrase, allows the state to deny this right to felons.

A. They buy it via illegal avenues from other criminals
A It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon in almost every state and more and more states are now requiring that all private gun sales be brokered by am Federally licensed dealer who is obligated to run a background check and keep a record of the transaction

A. Felons are denied other rights as well

But, but, but the only Right not to be infringed is the Second Amendment. Isn't that what you've always posted?

You can't have it both ways, if you agree a felon can be denied this Right, it opens the door for less restrictive gun controls, such as licensing and registration.

I don't know if I have always posted that

besides no one here is saying that everyone should be able to own firearms.

But if I am a law abiding citizen and pass every background check imaginable why should I be told I cannot own a certain rifle or a 15 round magazine?

 

[Skull Pilot]

In reading this thread, the gun nuts have made it clear to me that since the doc did not use and assault rifle, but only a semi-automatic, then everything is hunky dory!

AR-15. Next.

Not an assault rifle

Next.

According to many bans, it is. Next

And once again you prove your absolute ignorance regarding rifles

 

[Skull Pilot]

But Dave, he doesn't need an "assault weapon" to kill people. He can use an automatic pistol and kill just as many, just as quickly. Banning a certain kind of gun isn't going to change a mentally unstable person's state of mind.

The weapons you are calling "assault weapons" are just regular guns. They have some beneficial features like a carbon fiber stock which makes them lighter. They may have a noise suppressor which helps protect the user's hearing. They may be camouflage in color so they are more beneficial to hunting wild animals. They aren't any more deadly than a regular rifle. In fact, there are regular-looking rifles that are much more powerful than an AR-15 or AK-47.

Will you please stop for a minute and think about the number of people killed in numerous attacks across the UK in the past few months? These people have the most strict anti-gun laws in the world... did it prevent people from dying? NO! Look at Chicago... a city with the most stringent gun laws in America and you have more people being shot and killed there daily than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Banning guns doesn't stop people from being killed.

You dickweeds do realize that by stating how other weapons can kill just as quickly that you are arguing there is no need for assault type weapons.

And you still don't get it that the average everyday semiautomatic rifle that has been around since the 1860's is NOT an "assault" weapon

Look buttweed, I am aware of semi-automatic rifles and that would not be considered assault type weapons.

One difference is in available clip / magazine size

Wrong again. My mini 14 which is not classified as an "assault" rifle can take a 30 round magazine

I was referring to the semi automatic deer rifles.

any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine can accommodate literally any number of rounds the magazine is made to hold

you might want to learn a little bit more about firearms before you post any more so you don't look like even more of an idiot

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Nothing can be done" says only country where this sort of thing happens.

No one has said that....only you anti gunners who want to pass laws that actually don't address the problem.

As we keep telling you.....when you catch a felon with an illegal gun, you know, the guys who eventually shoot and kill people...you lock them up before they shoot and kill people, and you keep them locked up for 30 years so they can't get out and shoot and kill people.

When you catch an armed robber......30 years....especially if he used a gun.....

If you catch an attempted murderer and he used a gun...30 years.


You guys...you want to add paperwork when John Q. Law abiding citizen buys his gun........we have seen how that works out in Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., New Orlean...L.A...........

And then you fight to let violent criminals out in California and around the country...then you post stupid posts like the one you just posted..

We want to deal with actual criminals who use guns in actual criminal acts.......you want to punish law abiding gun owners.

You have far too many guns and that is why you are killing each other. Ban guns and then lock up anyone caught with one. That would make everyone safer.

No thanks

Stay in the UK and jerk off to your picture of your jug eared future king

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Meanwhile, millions of the next generation are aborted, and liberals just don't care.

 

[Divine Wind]

The rifle used was an AR-15, which is semi-automatic. The primary performance characteristic of an assault rifle is full-automatic function.

Unfortunately the vast majority of anti-gun commentators know absolutely nothing about guns, they are afraid of guns, and they are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances -- which accounts for their ignorance.

What today's shooter did with his AR-15 could have been done just as well, if not even better, with some of the most ordinary hunting rifles available. In fact there are a number of ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns with which he could have done a lot more damage.

For your information, the AR-15 is mainly a fetish firearm, adored because of its cosmetic resemblance to the military standard M-16. It is over-priced and over-rated. And it is not an "assault" rifle or an "assault-type" rifle. In fact there is no such thing as an "assault-type" rifle. That is a jerk-off designation.

Correct, it is a tool for use in killing in mass, especially when equipped with a large magazine and a quick release magnet.

No.....wrong...again...The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, over 5 million in private hands.....and in 35 years how many people have been murdered with one......less than 167, ...in 35 years....hardly a mass killing weapon...

Knives on the other hand...kill over 1,500 every single year. Knives are actually deadlier by body count than these rifles....

AJune 2016 article: "At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend."

84 in half of 2016. Assault type rifles. Yet you are claiming 137 in 35 years........

It's pretty clear why you didn't include a link to that article, isn't it? Could it be that most of those killed were killed by terrorists? Would you be happier is the terrorists just used trucks to commit mass murder?

The fact remains, most murders are done with handguns and involve gang-bangers shooting other gang-bangers or domestic violence. More than half of the "gun violence" (a term the LW antigunners love to toss around) are suicides. Gang-bangers is an inner-city crime problem. Domestic violence and suicides are a mental health issue. If the LW really gave a shit about saving lives, they'd focus on fixing those areas and less on shredding the Constitution for their authoritarian agenda.

I think I looked up what he was talking about.....I think they include pistols, shotguns and some bolt action rifles as "Assault weapons" I would have to see his link...which he didn't give yet......to be sure...

Correct. It depends if they have "military" features such as a pistol grip, thumb grip or detachable magazine. Example:

Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

MILLER: Feinstein's list of 157 banned guns - Washington Times
None of these guns function any differently than any other standard semi-automatic weapon. What makes a gun get on Mrs. Feinstein’s list is that it appears scary to her. We really should be governing by fact and not not emotion.

Here is the list of 157 makes and models of banned guns:

 

[Divine Wind]

Meanwhile, millions of the next generation are aborted, and liberals just don't care.

But most are liberals, so it's okay with me.