Attention, gun control supporters:

[JQPublic1]

Rifles are not WMD. That is an absolutely ludicrous statement, and completely shreds whatever claim to credibility you might once have had.

Fortunately for me, you are not the sole arbiter of what is or is not credible. I think my definition aptly describes the carnage done to the kids and teachers at the elementary school massacre. Only a fool or a madman would define it otherwise! BTW, you need to cut down on your posts, they are far too large for a forum like this.

Myth: Assault weapons can be easily converted to machine guns
Fact: Firearms that can be “readily converted” are already prohibited by law.379
Fact: None of the firearms on the list of banned weapons can be readily converted.380
Fact: Only 0.15% of over 4,000 weapons confiscated in Los Angeles in one year were converted, and only 0.3% had any evidence of an attempt to convert.381yt

No, it is NOT a myth. BTW, according to you, an assault weapon already is a machine gun. No conversion would be necessary. When you desperately copy stuff from the INTERNET you are bound to echo the inaccuracies of some other nut with an agenda.
I passed over that website during my own research and google search included actual YOUTUBE videos of people actually showing you how to make those conversions. Any one interested can find it...I won't bother since you already ignored it!

Is it too much to ask that leftists stick with the established definitions of words, and not their hyperemotional, fear-mongering definitions?

Definitions are not set in stone, But whatever definition you choose to use to describe the multiple deaths caused by a single individual with a semi automatic rifle, it all comes down to the same thing. Private citizens should not have that capability regardless of their perceived "responsibility." Anyone can snap at any given time! Even YOU!

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I have asked you more than once and you refuse to answer my question. So, that tells me your answer is: YOU vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check.

 

[Lakhota]

Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

"There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check … 40 percent of guns are sold that way" at gun shows and over the Internet.

Mental Health Checks for Gun Buyers: Weak, Chaotic, Full of Loopholes | Mother Jones

 

[JQPublic1]

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......?

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

All your whining doesn't change the FACT that the Constitution GUARANTEES my RIGHT to own firearms, and all your whining won't change the FACT that you gun grabbers aren't going to win.

It's pansy-asses like you that would want to ban firearms and then send SOMEBODY ELSE to go TRY to round them up.

Chickenshit bitch.

Try to take 'em, it won't be EASY...

You are exactly the kind of high strung nut I wouldn't want having a weapon of any kind. Just read what you wrote and ask your self if you sound rational. You are already threatening violence if anyone tries to take your guns. Ya know fellow, your response here is clear evidence that you have a screw loose. I hope you don't kill a lot of innocent people someday....

 

[Noomi]

^How right you are. They threaten to kill if anyone tries to take their guns. They would be happy to become criminals.

 

[9thIDdoc]

^How right you are. They threaten to kill if anyone tries to take their guns. They would be happy to become criminals.

Attempted grand larceny is a serious crime as is violation of civil rights. No crime in defending yourself from scumbag gun thieves.

 

[Noomi]

How do you propose to get criminals to obey the law?

I won't be the criminals you will need to worry about. It will be the law abiding right wingers who decide to become criminals because they hate the fact that a black man is telling them what to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

well, if certain types of weapons are available only for military use, i'm pretty sure the average person can't get one.

and, just to point out reality, the last bunch of mass killings were carried out with legal weapons.

Which type of weapons are available only for military use? Really not much outside of crew served.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I have asked you more than once and you refuse to answer my question. So, that tells me your answer is: YOU vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check.

I'm sure he answered.
I vehemently oppose it. Happy now, scooter?

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Not at all surprising.

I have asked you more than once and you refuse to answer my question. So, that tells me your answer is: YOU vehemently oppose laws and regulations that prevent guns being legally sold to people who don't have to pass a background check.

I'm sure he answered.
I vehemently oppose it. Happy now, scooter?

No, he didn't answer it. But I'm not surprised that you believe any scum bag criminal should be able to buy a gun LEGALLY.

 

[KissMy]

The best security of all is to allow certain qualified teachers & administrators to carry a concealed weapon. Unlike with a uniformed cop with a gun, the shooter would have no idea who to target with the first shots. It would also not cost tax payers like the uniformed cop with a gun will.

Columbine High School cop says armed guards at schools coupled with assault weapons ban would keep students safe

The NRA has better solution than AWB to keep the children safe. The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had been in force 5 years before the Columbine Massacre. Again proving wacko liberal gun bans do not work. Connecticut has very strict gun control laws. Sandy Hook elementary had the "Gold Standard" in school security procedures. They had security cameras, door locks, video ID buzz-in security door, terrorist shooter drills, and other systems.

Tragedy Spotlights Connecticut's Previous Efforts At Gun Control

Connecticut's Previous Efforts At Gun Control - "Lawlor and his colleagues enacted a law based on the idea that there can be warning signs. Now, when someone reports to the police they believe a gun owner poses an imminent danger to themselves or to others, the police can get a warrant to seize the guns — even if no law has been broken. The guns can be kept for a year, and the law also allows for a mental health evaluation.

Bernard Krzynowek had his guns taken the first year the law went into effect. His sister, Christine, called the police when the two of them were having an argument. "I had a pistol on my hip and for some reason she got all uptight and called the police," says the 70-year-old Krzynowek. The police warrant says Christine told them her brother was in possession of guns and "was going to kill her and other relatives." The police seized 39 guns.

"Who's going to take the risk?" Baird says. "What law enforcement officer or what judge is ever going take the risk that they received information like this and then do nothing about it?" In the first ten years after it was enacted, more than 2,000 guns were seized. The majority of the complaints were made by spouses. Mike Lawlor isn't suggesting the law could have prevented the shootings in Newtown, but he believes it has prevented other crimes."

 

[Bfgrn]

The best security of all is to allow certain qualified teachers & administrators to carry a concealed weapon. Unlike with a uniformed cop with a gun, the shooter would have no idea who to target with the first shots. It would also not cost tax payers like the uniformed cop with a gun will.

Columbine High School cop says armed guards at schools coupled with assault weapons ban would keep students safe

The NRA has better solution than AWB to keep the children safe. The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had been in force 5 years before the Columbine Massacre. Again proving wacko liberal gun bans do not work. Connecticut has very strict gun control laws. Sandy Hook elementary had the "Gold Standard" in school security procedures. They had security cameras, door locks, video ID buzz-in security door, terrorist shooter drills, and other systems.

Tragedy Spotlights Connecticut's Previous Efforts At Gun Control

Connecticut's Previous Efforts At Gun Control - "Lawlor and his colleagues enacted a law based on the idea that there can be warning signs. Now, when someone reports to the police they believe a gun owner poses an imminent danger to themselves or to others, the police can get a warrant to seize the guns — even if no law has been broken. The guns can be kept for a year, and the law also allows for a mental health evaluation.

Bernard Krzynowek had his guns taken the first year the law went into effect. His sister, Christine, called the police when the two of them were having an argument. "I had a pistol on my hip and for some reason she got all uptight and called the police," says the 70-year-old Krzynowek. The police warrant says Christine told them her brother was in possession of guns and "was going to kill her and other relatives." The police seized 39 guns.

"Who's going to take the risk?" Baird says. "What law enforcement officer or what judge is ever going take the risk that they received information like this and then do nothing about it?" In the first ten years after it was enacted, more than 2,000 guns were seized. The majority of the complaints were made by spouses. Mike Lawlor isn't suggesting the law could have prevented the shootings in Newtown, but he believes it has prevented other crimes."

Holy fuck! Now conservatives want to arm Marxist union thugs!!!

KissMy: "Unlike with a uniformed cop with a gun, the shooter would have no idea who to target with the first shots."

And NEITHER will the police units and swat teams who answer the 911 call!

Brilliant, just fucking BRILLIANT!

Hey KissMy, if the school's security is being entrusted to teachers & administrators, the least the killers can do is call ahead and schedule their attack, that way those teachers & administrators won't be TEACHING & ADMINISTRATING when the killers show up on school property!

 

[JoeB131]

[
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?

If there are no guns available, criminals won't be able to get them.

That's kind of the point.

 

[Freewill]

[
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?

If there are no guns available, criminals won't be able to get them.

That's kind of the point.

A known criminal didn't commit the latest tragedy.

 

[JoeB131]

[
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?

If there are no guns available, criminals won't be able to get them.

That's kind of the point.

A known criminal didn't commit the latest tragedy.

Exactly. And most gun deaths are not at the hands of "known criminals".

Most guns deaths are suicides, accidents or domestic violence gone horribly wrong.

Which is exactly why our guns laws kind of suck. because anyone can get a gun or have access to a gun.

True Story. My next door neighbor killed himself with a gun two years ago. Before that, though, he fired his gun through the patio window into the common area of our condo complex. The police responded, and he tried to claim that someone had shot in at him, but the cops figured out that was a lie right off the bat. (The glass was scattered OUTSIDE the apartment.)

Well, after he fessed up he shot out his own window, the cops, being 2nd Amendment purists, didn't take his gun. A few weeks later he shucked off the mortal coil.

Sorry, this guy didn't need to have a gun. Neither do most of you. If you are going to have private gun ownership, they should be very hard to get or keep.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dammit we are talking about privately owned machines that are designed to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. To be specific, why don't we authenticate this debate by focusing on weapons similar to or like the one used in the elementary school massacre.

Any semi-automatic pistol or rifle can be converted to full automatic with a little expertise, a kit and hard work, Older model rifles like the M1 or M14 are easier to convert than modern weapons. Pistols are not the weapon of choice for conversion to full automatic.

All of this talk about cars, baseball bats and knives as assault weapons is nonsense since none of those items was specifically designed as a Weapon of Mass Destruction like a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon is. A semi automatic weapon in the hands of an experienced gamer who decides to practice on real people or a disgruntled marksman tea bagger could be fired as fast as he/she could pull the trigger; and with a great deal more accuracy than someone trying to use a fully automatic weapon.

All your whining doesn't change the FACT that the Constitution GUARANTEES my RIGHT to own firearms, and all your whining won't change the FACT that you gun grabbers aren't going to win.

It's pansy-asses like you that would want to ban firearms and then send SOMEBODY ELSE to go TRY to round them up.

Chickenshit bitch.

Try to take 'em, it won't be EASY...

You are exactly the kind of high strung nut I wouldn't want having a weapon of any kind. Just read what you wrote and ask your self if you sound rational. You are already threatening violence if anyone tries to take your guns. Ya know fellow, your response here is clear evidence that you have a screw loose. I hope you don't kill a lot of innocent people someday....

Fair is fair it's idiots like you that should have their first amendment right strip from them, No firearms owner will allow their rights or firearms to be taken away from them.
That was what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Fair is fair it's idiots like you that should have their first amendment right strip from them, No firearms owner will allow their rights or firearms to be taken away from them.
That was what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment.

The Founding fathers also intended to have the ability for their descendents to continue to rape their slaves just like Tommy Jefferson did to Sally Hemmings...

They also thought bleeding people to death was a totally valid sort of medical treatment, which is how they treated Geo. Washington's strep throat (and killed him.)

So instead of wanting to respect the wishes of 200 year old dead slave-rapists, maybe we should look at the rational of why private citizens should own guns today?

To Hunt- Well, kind of a sadistic hobby, but some people still do it.

To protect their homes? A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

To overthrow the mean old government because they want to raise the taxes to pay for services you demanded? sorry, the government has tanks, fighter planes and nukes. That's not going to end well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fair is fair it's idiots like you that should have their first amendment right strip from them, No firearms owner will allow their rights or firearms to be taken away from them.
That was what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment.

The Founding fathers also intended to have the ability for their descendents to continue to rape their slaves just like Tommy Jefferson did to Sally Hemmings...

They also thought bleeding people to death was a totally valid sort of medical treatment, which is how they treated Geo. Washington's strep throat (and killed him.)

So instead of wanting to respect the wishes of 200 year old dead slave-rapists, maybe we should look at the rational of why private citizens should own guns today?

To Hunt- Well, kind of a sadistic hobby, but some people still do it.

To protect their homes? A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

To overthrow the mean old government because they want to raise the taxes to pay for services you demanded? sorry, the government has tanks, fighter planes and nukes. That's not going to end well.

gun grabbers always equate guns with dicks or some kind of sexual deviant behavior what is up with these sick minded people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
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?

If there are no guns available, criminals won't be able to get them.

That's kind of the point.

However here the point that should end all gun control discussions. the two part amendment.
The first part giving the states the right to a militia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

The second part gives private citizens the right to be armed by themselves in order to maintain that Militia.

the right of the PEOPLE to keep and Bear arms SHALL NOT be INFRINGED

The founders did not say in the second amendment

A militia well regulated by congress, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They said

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And the purpose for doing this was to insure the government would remain in check if it ever tried to go against the Constitution. And become a tyrannical government. That's why they did not want a full time army.

 

[JoeB131]

Fair is fair it's idiots like you that should have their first amendment right strip from them, No firearms owner will allow their rights or firearms to be taken away from them.
That was what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment.

The Founding fathers also intended to have the ability for their descendents to continue to rape their slaves just like Tommy Jefferson did to Sally Hemmings...

They also thought bleeding people to death was a totally valid sort of medical treatment, which is how they treated Geo. Washington's strep throat (and killed him.)

So instead of wanting to respect the wishes of 200 year old dead slave-rapists, maybe we should look at the rational of why private citizens should own guns today?

To Hunt- Well, kind of a sadistic hobby, but some people still do it.

To protect their homes? A gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

To overthrow the mean old government because they want to raise the taxes to pay for services you demanded? sorry, the government has tanks, fighter planes and nukes. That's not going to end well.

gun grabbers always equate guns with dicks or some kind of sexual deviant behavior what is up with these sick minded people.

Now, why did you avoid the point? These guys were not moral paragons. They were flawed 18th barbarians who built a country on slavery and genocide.

Yet you want to treat the bad syntax of the 2nd Amendment as the end of the discussion, even though the courts for most of history have held it allows limits on private gun ownership.