Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[hunarcy]

Agree or not, it is the law.

I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etc
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.

Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?

As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.

What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?

Wouldn't mustard gas, nuclear weapons, grenade launchers and anti-aircraft guns be considered ordinance, not arms?

What defines what is an ordinance or an arm?

Ordinance is cannon or artillery.

Arms are personal weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.

 

[Brain357]

Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.

define a "hi cap semi auto"

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good so after this exhausting merry go round we have agreed that certain weapons can and should be banned or regulated by our lawmakers if deemed so under the construct of the legal framework that you presented... Is that correct?

I don't recall ever saying anything different.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.

define a "hi cap semi auto"

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

 

[Brain357]

Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?

As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.

What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?

Wouldn't mustard gas, nuclear weapons, grenade launchers and anti-aircraft guns be considered ordinance, not arms?

What defines what is an ordinance or an arm?

Ordinance is cannon or artillery.

Arms are personal weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.

Arms are any weapon. Remember the nuclear arms race?

 

[hunarcy]

define a "hi cap semi auto"

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

 

[Chuz Life]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

 

[Brain357]

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

 

[hunarcy]

define a "hi cap semi auto"

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

 

[Slade3200]

Good so after this exhausting merry go round we have agreed that certain weapons can and should be banned or regulated by our lawmakers if deemed so under the construct of the legal framework that you presented... Is that correct?

I don't recall ever saying anything different.

You referred to the government banning or regulating guns as taking away our 2nd amendment rights. That does not fall in line with what we just agreed upon. If the lawmakers deem a weapon dangerous or unusual then it can legal be made illegal. As long as that process if followed than we should be all good. And the discussion about Auto's and Semi-Autos is valid.

 

[Brain357]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

 

[hunarcy]

As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.

What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?

Wouldn't mustard gas, nuclear weapons, grenade launchers and anti-aircraft guns be considered ordinance, not arms?

What defines what is an ordinance or an arm?

Ordinance is cannon or artillery.

Arms are personal weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.

Arms are any weapon. Remember the nuclear arms race?

I gave you the definitions from Webster's. You may argue with them.

 

[Slade3200]

Magazine holds over 10 rds.

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

 

[Chuz Life]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

 

[hunarcy]

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

 

[hunarcy]

Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

 

[Slade3200]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

His "mays" are just common sense. Point a gun at a crowd and pull the trigger once per bullet, reload after 6 shots, is going to produce a much different outcome than holding the trigger and spraying 50 bullets. Does that really need to be explained to you?

 

[Brain357]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Have you asked a cop?

Or this guy?



Or this guy?



Or this 15 year old kid?

Which one fired more than 10 times?

Which one would you limit to 10 rounds if it had taken 10 or more to defend themself or to defend those around them?

I've never heard of anyone needing more than 10. Many have been gunned down by murderers using them however. Including young children.

 

[Slade3200]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

You sound like Trump.. I'm curious about that argument as he as stated it many time about Paris and Orlando... How many people do you think are strapped at his rallies?

I have no idea. I know there's more than one armed policeman at the rallies.

The answer is zero, guns are banned... Isn't that a little hypocritical given the argument you and he make? Guns are also banned at the Rep convention as well... I don't understand why, do you?

I believe that the venue prohibits them.

Half of trumps events are at his own properties. Are you really missing the point here?

 

[Brain357]

We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?

Yes, we banned them before and it made no difference in the crime rate. And, since the weapons can be reloaded in an instant, I don't think that the number of magazines was the issue. It was that NO ONE was able to defend themselves because he and the policeman outside were the only ones armed.

He fired over a hundred times, reloading often would have slowed him, it is physics. And reloads often fail and take many seconds. The armed security had a shootout inside but was outgunned and fell back. Had the shooter had to reload more often security may have killed him early on.

LMAO!

Saving lives is funny? You say they should be legal. 49 dead and over 50 injured says you are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

Saving lives isn't funny, it's the object of the debate. I'm laughing at all of your "may" statements. You're just speculating. You might as well say that if Superman had arrived in time, everyone would have lived.

Reloads taking time is just physics, not speculation. It is simply a fact. And when people are running to safety anything that slows then shooting saves lives obviously.