Attention, gun control supporters:

[ScreamingEagle]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

any gun could be an assault weapon....

any knife could be an assault weapon....

any rock could be an assault weapon.....

any car could be an assault weapon....

ad infinitum....

are you going to limit people from the millions of things that could be an assault weapon..........?

will permits for knives or baseball bats be next......?

How about ASSAULT WEAPON AS DEFINED BY LAW?

and which law would that be......? the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.....?

A common mistake in informal discourse is to confuse the term assault rifle (which has full-automatic, "machine gun" capability) with the term 'assault weapon.' Unlike assault rifle, 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition and, so, is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military and non-military-style firearms.[1] Civilian ownership of firearms is generally restricted to semi-automatic weapons. Civilian ownership of assault 'rifles' or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many idiots think that obama will just stop at semi-automatic weapons?
Does anyone recall what obama said during the second presidential debates when he finally admitted to wanting an assault weapons ban.
"Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

You may not have an AR platform rifle or an AK variant but if you have a hand gun you might want to speak out. Because they are no longer safe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are a few here who claim to own firearms but suggest AR platform rifles or AK variants are not needed in the public sector. I would like to point something out to those who may support obama's assault weapons ban.
Back during the second presidential debate when he finally admitted he would support an assault weapons ban. He made this comment.

......."Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
It's a foolish idea to think that obama would just stop with "assault weapons"
I think he will go for the brass ring. So if the only firearm you own is a hand gun you might want to be not so supportive of a assault weapons ban.

 

[Lakhota]

Another dumbass redneck Rambo thread...

 

[daveman]

I have no problem with guns in the hands of responsible owners.

So, why does the NRA and you folks on the right vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check?

What does that do about guns that are illegally sold to criminals?

Sources of Guns Used in Crimes – FBI Report : Buy A Gun Day

FBI reports:
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

No law is or will ever be perfect. But you are avoiding my question. Where do you think many private sellers get these weapons. And there is no risk having a trunk full of assault weapons upon a traffic stop that turns into a vehicle search, if you were able to buy them legally, now is there???

If they were banned, there is NO legal means of buying one, only illegal. So if you have one in your trunk or twenty...spread 'em, place your hands on the hood...you have the right to remain...

So, you have nothing to back up your claims. Just emotion. That's all.

Not at all surprising.

 

[chikenwing]

Another dumbass redneck Rambo thread...

Yet here you are

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another dumbass redneck Rambo thread...

another stupid retort from a troll.

 

[daveman]

I have no problem with guns in the hands of responsible owners.

So, why does the NRA and you folks on the right vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check?

What does that do about guns that are illegally sold to criminals?

Sources of Guns Used in Crimes – FBI Report : Buy A Gun Day

FBI reports:
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Seriously? A 1997 source? Fully 40% of all guns sold in the US have no background checks. It's interesting that your source doesn't include private transactions, through classified ads. That's a common way that people are now buying guns. In many states, there's no questions asked, and in states like Virginia, the only law is you can't knowingly sell a gun to a felon. In South Carolina, there's not even that on the books.

I have seen nothing to back up the bolded claim. NOTE: Bob Costas' ignorant rant is not sufficient.

Got anything credible, are are we just supposed to accept it because it feels right to you?

 

[Meister]

merged

 

[daveman]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

any gun could be an assault weapon....

any knife could be an assault weapon....

any rock could be an assault weapon.....

any car could be an assault weapon....

ad infinitum....

are you going to limit people from the millions of things that could be an assault weapon..........?

will permits for knives or baseball bats be next......?

How about ASSAULT WEAPON AS DEFINED BY LAW?

Assault weapons are select-fire, able to select between semi-automatic and fully automatic or burst.

There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon.

 

[daveman]

On the contrary, a number of posters have answered your question . None of them ,including mine, are what you want to hear! Besides, I don't recall anyone advocating taking all guns away from people. Most of the responsible people here are advocating taking assault weapons out of the hands of right wing nut jobs who cannot even see their own insanity.

Here's another chance for one of you ersatz gun-grabbers to answer a question.

How do you define 'assault weapon', and what makes it different from my semi-auto Remington deer rifle?

Well, your deer rifle probably uses a higher power round and your deer rifle is probably more accurate.

However, as the government once defined it, an "assault weapon" just looks scary...and after all, shouldn't laws be about feelings and emotions, even if they lack any logic or reason? It's about what feels right that matters, right...

Why should it be any different from everything else the left does?

 

[daveman]

Another dumbass redneck Rambo thread...

Okay, we'll just check you off in the "Wants more gun control laws but has no idea how to get criminals to obey them" column.

 

[bayoubill]

There are a few here who claim to own firearms but suggest AR platform rifles or AK variants are not needed in the public sector. I would like to point something out to those who may support obama's assault weapons ban.
Back during the second presidential debate when he finally admitted he would support an assault weapons ban. He made this comment.

......."Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
It's a foolish idea to think that obama would just stop with "assault weapons"
I think he will go for the brass ring. So if the only firearm you own is a hand gun you might want to be not so supportive of a assault weapons ban.

funny thing... before I saw your thread, I was thinking to myself that, a few years after the coming assault weapons ban is signed into law (and I have no doubt it's coming... I've lost all faith in the GOP-held House holding the line on this or anything else that's important to the best interests of the citizens...), and it's obvious to all that an assault-weapons ban has done nothing to stem the tide of bad guys using guns to do bad things, that the libs will come back and say "well, we now must do something to stop the proliferation of handguns in this country if we're ever able to get a handle on gun violence"...

which then reminded me of the story about the frog in the stew pot...

i.e., if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will immediately jump out...

but if you put the frog into a pot of room-temperature water and slowly raise it to a boil, the frog will allow himself to be cooked...

 

[JoeB131]

Here's a question I have never heard a pro-gun nut be able to answer.

If more guns is the solution here, and we have more guns in this nation than any other country, why aren't we the safest country in the world at this point?

More guns isn't the solution, and no one's claiming it is.

More guns in the hands of responsible owners is the solution.

And most of the left opposes that idea.

So, can you answer the question in the OP? No one else has been able to.

But wait, guy. You're argument is that 99.99999% of gun owners ARE responsible.

So it seems like if you've armed the entire country, we lock up more people than any country in the world, and we still have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world, we are probably not doing it right.

 

[daveman]

Here's a question I have never heard a pro-gun nut be able to answer.

If more guns is the solution here, and we have more guns in this nation than any other country, why aren't we the safest country in the world at this point?

More guns isn't the solution, and no one's claiming it is.

More guns in the hands of responsible owners is the solution.

And most of the left opposes that idea.

So, can you answer the question in the OP? No one else has been able to.

But wait, guy. You're argument is that 99.99999% of gun owners ARE responsible.

So it seems like if you've armed the entire country, we lock up more people than any country in the world, and we still have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world, we are probably not doing it right.

We haven't armed the entire country. We've made it illegal in many places for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

And you oppose anyone being able to defend themselves on the streets, where much of the crime occurs.

What makes you think that's an effective deterrent to crime?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are a few here who claim to own firearms but suggest AR platform rifles or AK variants are not needed in the public sector. I would like to point something out to those who may support obama's assault weapons ban.
Back during the second presidential debate when he finally admitted he would support an assault weapons ban. He made this comment.

......."Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
It's a foolish idea to think that obama would just stop with "assault weapons"
I think he will go for the brass ring. So if the only firearm you own is a hand gun you might want to be not so supportive of a assault weapons ban.

funny thing... before I saw your thread, I was thinking to myself that, a few years after the coming assault weapons ban is signed into law (and I have no doubt it's coming... I've lost all faith in the GOP-held House holding the line on this or anything else that's important to the best interests of the citizens...), and it's obvious to all that an assault-weapons ban has done nothing to stem the tide of bad guys using guns to do bad things, that the libs will come back and say "well, we now must do something to stop the proliferation of handguns in this country if we're ever able to get a handle on gun violence"...

which then reminded me of the story about the frog in the stew pot...

i.e., if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will immediately jump out...

but if you put the frog into a pot of room-temperature water and slowly raise it to a boil, the frog will allow himself to be cooked...

And some people thinks it's just about those evil liberal redefined assault weapon's, Any firearms owner should be concerned about what obama said in that debate especially that last part.
Even when obama lies he gives himself away.

 

[Rinata]

How are you going to get criminals to obey the law?


I've never gotten a rational, workable answer to this question in all the years I've asked it on this and other boards.

That is a really stupid question. Obviously criminals do not obey the law or there would be no laws and no criminals!!! But at least we can make it hard for them. You right wing nuts want to make it easy. Why?? Because YOU want to carry a gun and feel important. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone. You do not want gun control because then you can't have your toy. Idiots.

You want to make it harder for criminals to get guns by passing laws that won't have any affect on them, as you've just admitted.

Who's the idiot, again?

You are. Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you really this stupid??

 

[daveman]

That is a really stupid question. Obviously criminals do not obey the law or there would be no laws and no criminals!!! But at least we can make it hard for them. You right wing nuts want to make it easy. Why?? Because YOU want to carry a gun and feel important. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone. You do not want gun control because then you can't have your toy. Idiots.

You want to make it harder for criminals to get guns by passing laws that won't have any affect on them, as you've just admitted.

Who's the idiot, again?

You are. Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you really this stupid??

Let's examine this.

Your views are:

1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

2. You want more gun restriction laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Would you please explain the painfully obvious dichotomy here?

 

[RDD_1210]

You want to make it harder for criminals to get guns by passing laws that won't have any affect on them, as you've just admitted.

Who's the idiot, again?

You are. Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you really this stupid??

Let's examine this.

Your views are:

1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

2. You want more gun restriction laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Would you please explain the painfully obvious dichotomy here?

You really need this explained to you??

 

[daveman]

You are. Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you really this stupid??

Let's examine this.

Your views are:

1. "Obviously criminals do not obey the law..."

2. You want more gun restriction laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Would you please explain the painfully obvious dichotomy here?

You really need this explained to you??

Yes, because the two statements are mutually exclusive.

I know leftists are experts at doublethink, but normal people have trouble simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs.