Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And on who's hands is the blood on today? I'm saying we need to rid ourselves of these deadly weapons. You seem to think the answer to the problem posed by these weapons is to add more weapons. And you say blood will be on my hands.The blood that will be spilt will be on your and others like you hands.When Congress debated the Assault Weapons bill that was sunsetted by the wise and beneficent George W. Bush and his shot gun shooting Vice President Dick "I shot harry!" Cheney, the debate centered around detachable stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors and grips. Nothing that makes the weapons so deadly, but cosmetics. And that debate was framed by the NRA. Of course the legislation was ineffective, it was designed to be ineffective by the gun lobby.I am not being honest? The fracking law that defined assault weapons defined them as things that sorta look like assault rifles. Assault rifles exist, civilian versions of assault rifles exist, something that sorta looks like an assault rifle is only a valid class if you think looks matter more than function.
For the record, it is actually possible to build a paint gun that would meet the definition of assault weapon under that law.
Any new legislation must be comprehensive and inclusive and throughly rid ourselves of weapons more in tune with well regulated militias than civilians.
And on who's hands is the blood on today? I'm saying we need to rid ourselves of these deadly weapons. You seem to think the answer to the problem posed by these weapons is to add more weapons. And you say blood will be on my hands.
either you are incapable of intellectual honesty, you are unfathomably stupid, or you don't have any real solutions to offer. Pick two.
Guys, you have to get somewhere. Since the OKC bombing, look up the number of plots such as that that have been foiled. Your truck bomb comparison to firearms as the choice for mass weapons has been flimsy since 1996.
The "tool" argument used by extremists is simply not convincing.
I think you missed my point Jake. It was that there are viable options to a gun in a mass killing. If you make guns harder OR equally hard to obtain as say a bomb, it makes the using the more effective weapon more likely.
And on who's hands is the blood on today? I'm saying we need to rid ourselves of these deadly weapons. You seem to think the answer to the problem posed by these weapons is to add more weapons. And you say blood will be on my hands.The blood that will be spilt will be on your and others like you hands.When Congress debated the Assault Weapons bill that was sunsetted by the wise and beneficent George W. Bush and his shot gun shooting Vice President Dick "I shot harry!" Cheney, the debate centered around detachable stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors and grips. Nothing that makes the weapons so deadly, but cosmetics. And that debate was framed by the NRA. Of course the legislation was ineffective, it was designed to be ineffective by the gun lobby.
Any new legislation must be comprehensive and inclusive and throughly rid ourselves of weapons more in tune with well regulated militias than civilians.
either you are incapable of intellectual honesty, you are unfathomably stupid, or you don't have any real solutions to offer. Pick two.
I agree with you in some respects.
One, guns need to be for some people harder to get legally.
Two, guns and bombs can be regulated by law.
Three, LEO needs to be more involved.
Guys, you have to get somewhere. Since the OKC bombing, look up the number of plots such as that that have been foiled. Your truck bomb comparison to firearms as the choice for mass weapons has been flimsy since 1996.
The "tool" argument used by extremists is simply not convincing.
I think you missed my point Jake. It was that there are viable options to a gun in a mass killing. If you make guns harder OR equally hard to obtain as say a bomb, it makes the using the more effective weapon more likely.
When Congress debated the Assault Weapons bill that was sunsetted by the wise and beneficent George W. Bush and his shot gun shooting Vice President Dick "I shot harry!" Cheney, the debate centered around detachable stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors and grips. Nothing that makes the weapons so deadly, but cosmetics. And that debate was framed by the NRA. Of course the legislation was ineffective, it was designed to be ineffective by the gun lobby.You are not being honest.
I am not being honest? The fracking law that defined assault weapons defined them as things that sorta look like assault rifles. Assault rifles exist, civilian versions of assault rifles exist, something that sorta looks like an assault rifle is only a valid class if you think looks matter more than function.
For the record, it is actually possible to build a paint gun that would meet the definition of assault weapon under that law.
Any new legislation must be comprehensive and inclusive and throughly rid ourselves of weapons more in tune with well regulated militias than civilians.
You have a reasonable expectation that I'm asking about assault rifles and handguns. Why not just give an honest answer instead of the ham handed picking fly shit out of ground pepper? Does the truth about assault rifles and handguns awash on our streets give you pause, or is that a point of pride? Have the massive numbers of specifically designed assault weapons provided a benefit to society, or has it made our world a more dangerous place. Is there a legitimate use for civilians armed with assault weapons, or are those weapons best kept safely in the hands of a well regulated militia? Are the lives of innocents merely to be tallied as the price of freedom, or should we stop killing each other with these weapons and man up and eliminate them from our midst?The key word is 'specifically'. Should I define 'specifically' for you?
You could define assault weapon. I can assault with many different weapons from a rock to a missile...
I'm using saveliberty's very good definition of assault weapons:Oh I see what you're doing. You're redefining assault weapons.
Like you guys redefined babies and marriage. Got it. If you can't make the facts work, you change the definitions. Typical left wing lunacy.
An assault weapon's PRIMARY purpose is to supress an enemy. By delivering a large number of rounds down range, the enemy is forced to take defensive positions. This allows other troops to engage the enemy with sniper fire, grenades and other weapons to wound, kill or force a retreat of the enemy.
Unless saveliberty has suddenly become part of this "left wing lunacy", you are not being honest in what was expected to be an honest debate.
I agree with you in some respects.
One, guns need to be for some people harder to get legally.
Two, guns and bombs can be regulated by law.
Three, LEO needs to be more involved.
I think you missed my point Jake. It was that there are viable options to a gun in a mass killing. If you make guns harder OR equally hard to obtain as say a bomb, it makes the using the more effective weapon more likely.
I like your style of finding some common ground, instead of just pounding away at the opposing view Jake. The reduction in bombings since 1996 has not been the result of more secure bomb making materials though. I can walk on to 90% of farms in America and walk out with enough for at least a small bomb.
What has changed is law enforcement had paid more attention to those types of thefts, run sting operations to identitfy suspects and the public has been more aware, so they report.
This issue is quite polarizing and I appreciate you reaching across the divide.
You have a reasonable expectation that I'm asking about assault rifles and handguns. Why not just give an honest answer instead of the ham handed picking fly shit out of ground pepper? Does the truth about assault rifles and handguns awash on our streets give you pause, or is that a point of pride? Have the massive numbers of specifically designed assault weapons provided a benefit to society, or has it made our world a more dangerous place. Is there a legitimate use for civilians armed with assault weapons, or are those weapons best kept safely in the hands of a well regulated militia? Are the lives of innocents merely to be tallied as the price of freedom, or should we stop killing each other with these weapons and man up and eliminate them from our midst?The key word is 'specifically'. Should I define 'specifically' for you?
You could define assault weapon. I can assault with many different weapons from a rock to a missile...
Those who do the shootings and those who create those gun free zones.And on who's hands is the blood on today? I'm saying we need to rid ourselves of these deadly weapons. You seem to think the answer to the problem posed by these weapons is to add more weapons. And you say blood will be on my hands.The blood that will be spilt will be on your and others like you hands.When Congress debated the Assault Weapons bill that was sunsetted by the wise and beneficent George W. Bush and his shot gun shooting Vice President Dick "I shot harry!" Cheney, the debate centered around detachable stocks and bayonet mounts and flash suppressors and grips. Nothing that makes the weapons so deadly, but cosmetics. And that debate was framed by the NRA. Of course the legislation was ineffective, it was designed to be ineffective by the gun lobby.
Any new legislation must be comprehensive and inclusive and throughly rid ourselves of weapons more in tune with well regulated militias than civilians.
either you are incapable of intellectual honesty, you are unfathomably stupid, or you don't have any real solutions to offer. Pick two.
There is nothing good about arming teachers.
Teachers should not be armed. Armed and trained security personnel should be in every district in America, and the financing will come from a federal use tax on firearms, ammunition, and the technology that supports both industries.
JimBowie continues to drizzle down his own leg.
There will be armed security, can't stop it. It will be paid for. The correct right of center answer is a use tax on those who use firearms and their supporting companies.
