Cruz Correct About Gun Control Laws

[billyerock1991]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Based on the 2nd amendment, who are you to ask me if I "need" an assault weapon or not. The same applies to the government.
My issue is that since I live in NYC it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 or so to just get a home use handgun permit. If I can't even get that overturned, why would I support MORE laws restricting my rights even further?

You might be surprised to learn I agree with you on the handgun permit issue. Those shouldn't be nearly as regulated as they are. I'm generally in favor of at most a license requirement that shows some training so as not to actively hurt yourself. At most.

And you're right, the Second Amendment does say you can have that weapon. My point is that the Second Amendment should be revisited as it's pretty far out of date just as clauses relating to banning minorities and women from voting or clauses on slavery were revisited. Between the standing army removing the need for militias and the reality that military technology has made assault weapons near obsolete, I question if that amendment is more trouble than it is worth.

 

[paulitician]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama

What's the criteria? Do you know? Judging by Hussein's past history of IRS abuses, i'm very curious about who and why they're on his lists. And why weren't these latest Terrorists in California on any of his lists? That's a question the MSM still hasn't asked.

 

[billyerock1991]

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

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

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.

sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again

 

[martybegan]

Based on the 2nd amendment, who are you to ask me if I "need" an assault weapon or not. The same applies to the government.
My issue is that since I live in NYC it would take me 3-6 months and $1000 or so to just get a home use handgun permit. If I can't even get that overturned, why would I support MORE laws restricting my rights even further?

You might be surprised to learn I agree with you on the handgun permit issue. Those shouldn't be nearly as regulated as they are. I'm generally in favor of at most a license requirement that shows some training so as not to actively hurt yourself. At most.

And you're right, the Second Amendment does say you can have that weapon. My point is that the Second Amendment should be revisited as it's pretty far out of date just as clauses relating to banning minorities and women from voting or clauses on slavery were revisited. Between the standing army removing the need for militias and the reality that military technology has made assault weapons near obsolete, I question if that amendment is more trouble than it is worth.

The idea that a person has the right to be able to defend themselves with tools adequate for the task is not out of date. The idea that government does not have the sole right to use of force is not out of date. These are the ideas that the 2nd represents, the ability to own a semi-automatic rifle without government approval (as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not judged mentally a danger) is the end result of the 2nd amendment, not the be all end all reason for the 2nd amendment.

 

[martybegan]

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

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

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.

sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again

Your statement was that under the ban people could not get sem

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

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

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.

sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again

Your original statement was that under the ban people could not get semi-automatics, and then BOOM ban lifted people could get them again. People could ALWAYS get them, even under the ban, once the scary parts were removed. The ban did NOTHING to prevent people from getting the same weapons they could get before.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The idea that a person has the right to be able to defend themselves with tools adequate for the task is not out of date. The idea that government does not have the sole right to use of force is not out of date. These are the ideas that the 2nd represents, the ability to own a semi-automatic rifle without government approval (as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not judged mentally a danger) is the end result of the 2nd amendment, not the be all end all reason for the 2nd amendment.

The principle I agree with, the reality is different though. There is no realistic way that the States could afford to have a modern military force. The technology is just too advanced and too expensive. It comes down to the idea an assault weapon won't cut it if folks really have to rise up. So is it worth it to have those available to the general public when they can't fulfill their purpose?

 

[billyerock1991]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama

What's the criteria? Do you know? Judging by Hussein's past history of IRS abuses, i'm very curious about who and why they're on his lists. And why weren't these latest Terrorists in California on any of his lists? That's a question the MSM still hasn't asked.

obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???
P.S.
MSM has asked many time how were they allowed into this country... they got a answer... that answer was that home land didn't find anything on them that would have cause for them not to be allowed into the country... but after the fact when they started looking in to their email accounts, they found that they were supporting terrorist ... this wasn't a thing for home land to look up .... they followed all their procedures and found nothing... I suspect that they will now start looking at emails ... all of this was said on msm ... thats where I got it ... so it appears you didn't get that message ... or were you looking for them to say obama let them in without any checks because he's a muslim .... is that what you're looking for??? a lie to justify your hate

 

[Pete7469]

But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.

There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?

I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

No sane person believes the public at large would rise up with their AR's and AK's to take down the government.

However even in the most ridiculous hypothetical circumstance where obozo finally starts rounding up Christians and mass microwaving them, each individual in their home will tie up a whole lot of resources if they can deliver a long string of rifle rounds.

Now realistically, you have to know that there are thugs and other trash out there with actual assault weapons, not semi-auto copies. So IMO there is a good reason for regular citizens to have access to these semi autos.

 

[Defiant1]

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

I was correcting your blatantly false statement that the AWB "banned semi auto rifles". all it did again was ban certain scary attachments.

and of course your view of the ability of them to use another weapon as easily is "no", because it fits your narrative.

The only thing that would have prevented this was some magical 100% ban on firearm ownership by civilians. Magical because even if we banned all gun ownership, someone can rob the cops for their weapons.

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

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

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.

sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again

This post proves you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[martybegan]

The idea that a person has the right to be able to defend themselves with tools adequate for the task is not out of date. The idea that government does not have the sole right to use of force is not out of date. These are the ideas that the 2nd represents, the ability to own a semi-automatic rifle without government approval (as long as I am a law abiding citizen and not judged mentally a danger) is the end result of the 2nd amendment, not the be all end all reason for the 2nd amendment.

The principle I agree with, the reality is different though. There is no realistic way that the States could afford to have a modern military force. The technology is just too advanced and too expensive. It comes down to the idea an assault weapon won't cut it if folks really have to rise up. So is it worth it to have those available to the general public when they can't fulfill their purpose?

What about a general breakdown of society? I know its a long shot, but would you want to be the only armed with a bolt action rifle when the criminals kept their AK's and AR-15? after say a pandemic or a power grid breakdown due to a solar flare?

And considering how docile our population has become recently, do you really see it as far fetched some level of government deciding to force the issue?


The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee success by civilians against a hostile government, what it does is gives a hostile government another thing to think about if it decides to squash some freedom or another.

If we have to use the 2nd amendment in that way the founders intended it, it has already failed.

 

[billyerock1991]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama

What's the criteria? Do you know? Judging by Hussein's past history of IRS abuses, i'm very curious about who and why they're on his lists. And why weren't these latest Terrorists in California on any of his lists? That's a question the MSM still hasn't asked.

obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

You do realize there were several shootings with so called Assault rifles after the ban…right?

And by the way…were you paying attention to the news from France about 2 weeks ago….you know…France…where fully automatic rifles are completely banned, they cannot be grandfathered in, they can't be sold in stores, gun shows or by individuals and they cannot be owned, bought or carried by anyone in France…..

And 12 or more terrorists in a very short period of time, many on terrorist watch lists got them easily….

Do you remember that at all……

And there are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands according to Slate.com….and how many have been used to commit crimes or mass shootings each year….Under 5?

AR-15s are not a problem…..

Knives kill more people each year than AR-15s.

Blunt objects kill more people each year than AR-15s.

Bare Hands kill more people each year than AR-15s.


The actual problem….gun free zones…..almost every single mass shooting took place in a gun free zone.

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

Do you realize that these death tolls could have been done with several revolvers…….that the only reason they are using AR-15s is that the media has been glamorizing them for the killers…and that they could use a shotgun or some other rifle with a 10 round magazine to do the same killing…but those guns haven't been highlighted by the media….?

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

Again….over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands…less than a handful ever used in crime or terrorism….and anything done with an AR-15 can be done with a shot gun or similar rifle….or several revolvers….which are more mechanically reliable and can shoot a bigger bullet……

The trick to saving lives…..armed citizens…who save lives when they are in an area of a mass shoote


Gun Free Zones kill……..

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

under bill clinton they had it where simi-automatic rifles could not be sold ... when the law came up to be renewed it was dropped ... from there the mass shootings started ... I'm saying if they had made it where nobody could buy simi-automatic rifles, maybe just maybe there wouldn't have been so many shootings ... after all the one thing in common, was the simi-automatic rifle .... that all these killers relied on it... my question to you is would there be these high number killing and injuries if they had only pistols, 9 MM to shoot and a rifle ... so when Marco rubio says they couldn't have prevented it, that's a half truth ... they all had one thing in common that was that simi-automatic weapon

The AWB from the 90's didn't ban semi-automatic firearms, it banned scary looking accessories for semi-automatic firearms.

and you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun, or a lever action rifle?

I think you are in error he is the band
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

so if the didn't have these weapons and large capacity magazines it would make it harder to do, but that's if nobody tired to stop them when they are changing a clip .. so the answer to you question "you think the shooters couldn't have killed just as many people with a handgun ??? my answer is yes I do think there would be less killed ..

Nope…..the reason they choose AR-15s is because of media hype…the worst mass shootings in Britain…with a shotgun…..

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.

There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?

I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

Self defense, hunting, competition, collecting, tinkering……again…3,700,000 in private hands that means last week there were 3,699,998 That were not used to shoot anyone…

Can you tell which numbers are bigger?

 

[2aguy]

He said none of the mass shootings could have been stopped by stricter gun laws. The WaPo says he's correct! Full assessment @ Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws

Stopped? No. They'd have come at people with knives, shotguns, handguns, etc. The trick is that fewer people would have been killed. Active shooter incidents end quickly in most scenarios. The more bullets the shooter can shoot in that incident, the more people get hurt.

I'm actually surprised that we're having this debate at all though. One idiot tries to blow up his shoe and I have to carry liquids in small containers on planes. Two terrorists shoot up California and we're kicking around a complete immigration ban. Why aren't we talking about the fact that there are radicalized folks here, in the States, now, that can legally buy assault weapons with very little in the way of restrictions or oversight. How more attacks like those at the Planned Parenthood or in California aren't occurring now is a mystery.

because most of your fellow citizens aren't either crazy or indoctrinated extremist assholes. contrary to the belief of most progressives, who see anyone besides a member of government who is armed as a "threat".

But there is a segment of the population that are motivated either by hysteria (the Planned Parenthood shooter), mental illness (Sandy Hook), anarchy (the folks taking potshots at the police), or radicalization (The San Bernadino Shooters). Those folks will always find a way to hurt people. I'd just like it not to be as efficient to do so.

There's another thing I don't get here: Why do you need an assault weapon? Honestly?

I can defend my home from an intruder just fine with a shotgun or handgun. I can do just as well with a baseball bat given I know the layout and angles to ambush an intruder, armed or not). Most folks don't carry assault weapons to hunt either. If I have fear for my personal safety I can get a concealed carry permit for a handgun as a pretty practical solution.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

So what's the assault weapon for? Rising up against the government? Because if you did try to rise up with just an assault rifle you'd be drone struck before you even knew the drone was there. Any successful uprising won't turn on assault weapons. It'll succeed through convincing portions of the Military to come over the side of the rebels and bring their armored units, bombers, or drone strike units.

The jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't' seem to read your post..you know..the countries we have pulled out of because we were tired of fighting guys with rifles and improvised explosives…since our Drones, SEALS and tanks and jets didn't make them give up…..

 

[paulitician]

I'm not even sure what Hussein's criteria is for placing someone on a 'No-Fly List' or 'Terror Watch List.' I just don't trust the man. He's been using the IRS to attack Conservatives/Republicans for years.

So i'm very skeptical of who and why they're on Hussein's lists. If the names were released to the Public, i'm willing to bet there's a whole lotta folks on there for merely being critical of him. There's probably a few journalists on them. That's my feeling anyway.

actually hussein doesn't make the criteria ... home land does ... as for people not liking him, you can get on a plane can't ya??? case closed .... it amazes me how infantile you republicans can be to justify your hate for Obama

What's the criteria? Do you know? Judging by Hussein's past history of IRS abuses, i'm very curious about who and why they're on his lists. And why weren't these latest Terrorists in California on any of his lists? That's a question the MSM still hasn't asked.

obama had nothing to do with the Irs abuses and you can't show us here where he did... you're just ranting about something that you thought he did ... as for the latest list, its obvious you don't know how it works... home land didn't do their due diligence ... from my understanding Home land doesn't look into every person Emails to find out if they are terrorist ... they take the information that they can find on that person ...again hussein had nothing to do with that home land did ... home land goes by the criteria that is given to them by the congress ... when home land was set up it was set up by the bush administration ... so you should show your anger at them not Hussein who had noting to do with how one is allowed to be admitted to this country... why is it always hussein fault when things go wrong with you???
P.S.
MSM has asked many time how were they allowed into this country... they got a answer... that answer was that home land didn't find anything on them that would have cause for them not to be allowed into the country... but after the fact when they started looking in to their email accounts, they found that they were supporting terrorist ... this wasn't a thing for home land to look up .... they followed all their procedures and found nothing... I suspect that they will now start looking at emails ... all of this was said on msm ... thats where I got it ... so it appears you didn't get that message ... or were you looking for them to say obama let them in without any checks because he's a muslim .... is that what you're looking for??? a lie to justify your hate

Hussein's the President. It's his show. It's all on him. And aren't you even a little bit curious about who and why they're on his 'Terror-Watch' and 'No-Fly' lists? And why weren't these Terrorists in California on any of his lists? Aren't you just a bit curious?

 

[billyerock1991]

theres this function on the web its called "google" ... have ya heard of it ??? use it ...it can be helpful in making you not look so stupid I googled The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) thats what it said ... now if you want to deny its existanse, thats fine ... I can't help ya there.... if you choose to be ignorant of the facts that too I can't help you their either... so Im sticking to my statement here unless you can prove it different, you are wrong about what the law says

From wikipedia:

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

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

So all you had to do was remove the following features and its' not an assault weapon anymore, it's legal, and it can do the EXACT SAME THING it could do before you removed the scary parts.

you know you took from two sources here how to make it simi-automatic ...but you didn't take the whole thing from the actual law... the law said that no manufacture is allowed to make them for the public... nice try, but try again ...why do you on the right have to lie so much ... you took two articles then twisted them to justify your post

CERTAIN semi-automatics. What happened was the gunmakers removed the scary parts and BOOM the guns were legal again with the exact same functionality as before.

sooooooooo my statement wasn't blatantly false statement about that the AWB "banned.. are you say the made the simi-automatic or did the have to make it simi-automatic by the person buying it??? or are you just blowing smoke up our asses again

This post proves you don't know what you are talking about.

ok got it ...
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
other gun totting idiot with out a clue