Cory Booker: “If I Had The Power” To Ban Guns “I Would”

[M14 Shooter]

Who cares what it looks like? What it could do was what counted.

And yet, the sale and manufacture of one rifle was banned 1994-2004; the sale and manufacture of the other was not.
How could the ban any any effect on mass shootings?

Tell me what the two guns are and what their capabilities are, and then we'll have this discussion. I am not interested in your card tricks.

The two rifles are identical, save for the visual differences you see - one has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, the other does not.
In all other ways they are exactly the same - they are both AR15 based rifles, chambered in 5.45x45, with 30-rd magazines.

Now then:
I asked you a question.
Give the facts demonstrated here, how could the 1994 'assault weapon' ban have any effect on mass shootings?
Can you answer the question, or not?

You haven't answered my question. What are the two rifles in your pic?

I did.
The two rifles are identical, save for the visual differences you see - one has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, the other does not.
In all other ways they are exactly the same - they are both AR15 based rifles, chambered in 5.45x45, with 30-rd magazines.

Give the facts demonstrated here, how could the 1994 'assault weapon' ban have any effect on mass shootings?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just waiting for a straight answer. Maybe you don't know the answer.

More likely, you just want to avoid the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

These were banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Wiki notes:
Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Thus:

Still waiting for you to answer my question

 

[OldLady]

These were banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Wiki notes:
Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Thus:

View attachment 260835

Still waiting for you to answer my question

I already told you my answer. During the 10 year ban, mass shootings did not increase, but as soon as it was lifted and people were again stocking up on semiautomatic "play war" rifles, mass shootings shot up. The ban only applied to guns manufactured after the date the ban took effect, so it beats me how it worked, but it did.

You can call this coincidence; to me a ten year period makes it a little hard to call it coincidence. I also believe the "loopholes" of the past will be taken into consideration this time, since those loopholes for cosmetic reasons are part of the discussion on both sides now.

You have been trying hard to make it seem as if I don't know what I'm talking about. I had to look up the elements that banned a gun since you had no intention of actually telling me anything helpful. So if you want to keep playing your games, do it with someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already told you my answer. During the 10 year ban, mass shootings did not increase, but as soon as it was lifted and people were again stocking up on semiautomatic "play war" rifles, mass shootings shot up.

This is reiteration of your fallacious claim that correlation proves causation, not a explanation of how the ban could have an effect.
If the "ban" allowed for the manufacture an purchase of the rifles pictured, and therefore said rifles were freely and legally available on the open market, how could the ban possibly reduce the number of mass shootings?

You have been trying hard to make it seem as if I don't know what I'm talking about.

On the contrary - I put virtually no effort into it at all. You did all the work.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Who cares what it looks like? What it could do was what counted.

And yet, the sale and manufacture of one rifle was banned 1994-2004; the sale and manufacture of the other was not.
How could the ban any any effect on mass shootings?

Tell me what the two guns are and what their capabilities are, and then we'll have this discussion. I am not interested in your card tricks.

The two rifles are identical, save for the visual differences you see - one has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, the other does not.
In all other ways they are exactly the same - they are both AR15 based rifles, chambered in 5.45x45, with 30-rd magazines.

Now then:
I asked you a question.
Give the facts demonstrated here, how could the 1994 'assault weapon' ban have any effect on mass shootings?
Can you answer the question, or not?

You haven't answered my question. What are the two rifles in your pic?

Two AR-15s, identical other than one having a flash suppressor and one not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who cares what it looks like? What it could do was what counted.

And yet, the sale and manufacture of one rifle was banned 1994-2004; the sale and manufacture of the other was not.
How could the ban any any effect on mass shootings?

Tell me what the two guns are and what their capabilities are, and then we'll have this discussion. I am not interested in your card tricks.

The two rifles are identical, save for the visual differences you see - one has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, the other does not.
In all other ways they are exactly the same - they are both AR15 based rifles, chambered in 5.45x45, with 30-rd magazines.

Now then:
I asked you a question.
Give the facts demonstrated here, how could the 1994 'assault weapon' ban have any effect on mass shootings?
Can you answer the question, or not?

You haven't answered my question. What are the two rifles in your pic?

Two AR-15s, identical other than one having a flash suppressor and one not.

That's more information than she knows what to do with.
The anti-gun loons argue from ignorance.

 

[OldLady]

And yet, the sale and manufacture of one rifle was banned 1994-2004; the sale and manufacture of the other was not.
How could the ban any any effect on mass shootings?

Tell me what the two guns are and what their capabilities are, and then we'll have this discussion. I am not interested in your card tricks.

The two rifles are identical, save for the visual differences you see - one has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug, the other does not.
In all other ways they are exactly the same - they are both AR15 based rifles, chambered in 5.45x45, with 30-rd magazines.

Now then:
I asked you a question.
Give the facts demonstrated here, how could the 1994 'assault weapon' ban have any effect on mass shootings?
Can you answer the question, or not?

You haven't answered my question. What are the two rifles in your pic?

Two AR-15s, identical other than one having a flash suppressor and one not.

That's more information than she knows what to do with.
The anti-gun loons argue from ignorance.

The ban also included a ban on high capacity magazines (over 10 rounds). You can have the fanciest looking gun in the world, but without bullets, all you can do is clobber someone over the head with it. Maybe the high capacity magazine ban is what was most effective.

 

[SeaGal]

Tim McVeigh did not have a gun... Boston Bombers did not have a gun when they blew up the Boston Marathon...

So you fail again...

Also will you demand all governments to eliminate their usage of firearms or will you say it is alright for them to mass murder in the name of your version of tyranny?

Well put!

...and who can forget the loss of life and treasure a few boxcutters caused.

 

[OldLady]

Tim McVeigh did not have a gun... Boston Bombers did not have a gun when they blew up the Boston Marathon...

So you fail again...

Also will you demand all governments to eliminate their usage of firearms or will you say it is alright for them to mass murder in the name of your version of tyranny?

Well put!

...and who can forget the loss of life and treasure a few boxcutters caused.

The Boston Bombers went to the Middle East for extended periods of time to learn how to build those bombs. Most of the run of the mill lunatics that commit mass shootings in this country are nowhere near that organized or goal directed.

 

[SeaGal]

The Boston Bombers went to the Middle East for extended periods of time to learn how to build those bombs. Most of the run of the mill lunatics that commit mass shootings in this country are nowhere near that organized or goal directed.

I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of those killed in Oklahoma City or on 9/11.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are 195 nations in the world.
194 do not have a 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to hop on a plane.

Cory Booker: ‘If I Had the Power’ to Ban Guns ‘I Would’

I applaud him, just like I applaud Beto for his honesty about open borders.

Democrats are always telling us how they don't want to take away our guns, or have open borders when the reality is, they do, but just don't want to say it.

So say it loud and proud Corky. You have my full support.

 

[OldLady]

The Boston Bombers went to the Middle East for extended periods of time to learn how to build those bombs. Most of the run of the mill lunatics that commit mass shootings in this country are nowhere near that organized or goal directed.

I'm sure that's great comfort to the families of those killed in Oklahoma City or on 9/11.

Those atrocities were committed by terrorists. I was talking about run of the mill lunatics like the Colorado Movie Shooter, the Las Vegas Concert shooter. Them kind.

 

[mikegriffith1]

That puts Booker in august company: Mao Tsetung, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, among others. Recall that the War of Independence began when the British tried to confiscate the colonists' guns.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That moonbat will never have that power

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Third Party]

Even as president, doubt that you could do it.

 

[LeftofLeft]

If Booker could ban guns he accomplish these things:

1) the law abiding citizens would be stripped of their guns and the ability to legally purchase guns
2) the gun-haters would be happy
3) criminals would be the only non law enforcement with guns.
4) create a mass underground international market for guns in the US.

If the Left gun haters could press a button and take guns, shut down US gun manufacturers and distribution, the drug cartels and international crime syndicates alone would step up to fill the void.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ban also included a ban on high capacity magazines (over 10 rounds).

Ah. You -again- speak from ignorance.
The "ban" did not affect the legality of the ownership and sale of the literally tens of millions of magazine already on the market.
That being the case, how could the "hi-cap" magazine "ban" have any effect on anything?

 

[SeaGal]

Those atrocities were committed by terrorists. I was talking about run of the mill lunatics like the Colorado Movie Shooter, the Las Vegas Concert shooter. Them kind.

I understand, but to me that is a distinction without a difference. They're all terrorists. Those who want to commit mass murder will find a way - with or without a gun. I agree, buying a gun is easier - but by no means unregulated.

The common thread is lunacy - how do we go about regulating that?