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

[KGB]

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Should this gun be legal in your opinion?
How many rounds does a semi-automatic rifle fire per minute? - Quora

Absolutely, it should remain legal.

There are a few weapons that may be even better for defending the security of one's State but the AR-15 is definitely in the top 10.

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand....

Sorry.. I didn't see an answer to my questions.

-Why do you not believe the 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"?

-Do you plan to forcibly confiscate 20- and 30- rd magazines?

-Why are you under the false impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Please address these questions so that we can move forward.

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

 

[Slade3200]

Should this gun be legal in your opinion?
How many rounds does a semi-automatic rifle fire per minute? - Quora

Absolutely, it should remain legal.

There are a few weapons that may be even better for defending the security of one's State but the AR-15 is definitely in the top 10.

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand....

Sorry.. I didn't see an answer to my questions.

-Why do you not believe the 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"?

-Do you plan to forcibly confiscate 20- and 30- rd magazines?

-Why are you under the false impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Please address these questions so that we can move forward.

I'm not repeating myself anymore. Nobody is saying it would stop anything... Read this slowly... LIMIT AND REDUCE DAMAGE DURING SHOOTINGS.

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand....

Sorry.. I didn't see an answer to my questions.

-Why do you not believe the 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"?

-Do you plan to forcibly confiscate 20- and 30- rd magazines?

-Why are you under the false impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Please address these questions so that we can move forward.

I'm not answering g your questions cause you keep failing to understand my one point so I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible until you get it... But I'm really over it now, you're hopeless

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Should this gun be legal in your opinion?
How many rounds does a semi-automatic rifle fire per minute? - Quora

"That" gun is an AR15.
It has an attachment to the stock that allows the shooter to pull the trigger faster.Iit is still semi-auto like every other AR15.

But, to answer your question (see what I did there?)....

This gun is legal:


This gun is legal:


This gun is legal:

Oh look! Video!

10rds/second?

Thus, there's no reason the gun you referenced should not be legal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not answering g your questions...

.... because you know you have no honest answer that allows you to keep your position intact.
I understand.
Since you're an honest, thoughtful guy, maybe you ought to reconsider re-examining your position.

 

[KGB]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

 

[KGB]

Absolutely, it should remain legal.

There are a few weapons that may be even better for defending the security of one's State but the AR-15 is definitely in the top 10.

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

Easy, that's a Secret Service rule, not a GOP rule. And why don't you like the idea of carrying all the time when you have the option to do so or not? You may not trust someone else (probably wise), but your right to defend yourself is assured. Here's another question for you....why don't thugs go into police precincts & start stuff? Could it be because everyone there is armed....

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Should this gun be legal in your opinion?
How many rounds does a semi-automatic rifle fire per minute? - Quora

"That" gun is an AR15.
It has an attachment to the stock that allows the shooter to pull the trigger faster.Iit is still semi-auto like every other AR15.

But, to answer your question (see what I did there?)....

This gun is legal:


This gun is legal:


This gun is legal:

Oh look! Video!

10rds/second?

Thus, there's no reason the gun you referenced should not be legal.

They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not answering g your questions...

.... because you know you have no honest answer that allows you to keep your position intact.
I understand.
Since you're an honest, thoughtful guy, maybe you ought to reconsider re-examining your position.

I'm constantly examining my position, I was against banning any guns and was open to high capacity mag bans before this discussion. Now I'm leaning more on the side of banning. Weapons like the ones you posted shooting 10 rounds a second are completely rediculous and unnecessary.

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

I understand the argument but here is a flip side and I don't think that is a culture or society that most people would feel safe in. How many bar fights would turn into shootings if everybody was armed? You think everybody would be tame and well mannered because they sit in a state of fear that if they give somebody the wrong look they could be shot? No thank you, that's not an environment I want to live in nor I want my kids to live in.

 

[Slade3200]

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

Easy, that's a Secret Service rule, not a GOP rule. And why don't you like the idea of carrying all the time when you have the option to do so or not? You may not trust someone else (probably wise), but your right to defend yourself is assured. Here's another question for you....why don't thugs go into police precincts & start stuff? Could it be because everyone there is armed....

Dig a little deeper... Why is it a secret service rule?

 

[KGB]

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

I understand the argument but here is a flip side and I don't think that is a culture or society that most people would feel safe in. How many bar fights would turn into shootings if everybody was armed? You think everybody would be tame and well mannered because they sit in a state of fear that if they give somebody the wrong look they could be shot? No thank you, that's not an environment I want to live in nor I want my kids to live in.

Well, the fact is, you already live in that reality. There is no utopia out there & the simple truth is, we already live in a dangerous world. Tell me, why do big cities such as Chicago, Washington DC & LA have gang problems & crime but have incredibly strict gun control? If everyone were armed, bar fights would be pretty non-existent because who would be stupid enough to start one? It's not about living in a climate of fear, but a climate of respect. If I am carrying & see someone else is, I am not necessarily afraid of that individual. Why would I be? I have the means to protect myself. But I do respect the fact they are armed as well. When I see a police officer, I am usually more courteous. Partially because it is right to be respectful of law enforcement, but also because I know they are armed. It would be beyond stupid to start something with someone so armed.

Personally, I don't care if people wish to be armed or not. That's called freedom. I just don't want someone telling me what I need or don't need to protect myself & my family, especially when it comes to a Constitutional right.

 

[KGB]

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

Easy, that's a Secret Service rule, not a GOP rule. And why don't you like the idea of carrying all the time when you have the option to do so or not? You may not trust someone else (probably wise), but your right to defend yourself is assured. Here's another question for you....why don't thugs go into police precincts & start stuff? Could it be because everyone there is armed....

Dig a little deeper... Why is it a secret service rule?

Because you have a Presidential candidate present, no mystery there....

 

[Slade3200]

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

I understand the argument but here is a flip side and I don't think that is a culture or society that most people would feel safe in. How many bar fights would turn into shootings if everybody was armed? You think everybody would be tame and well mannered because they sit in a state of fear that if they give somebody the wrong look they could be shot? No thank you, that's not an environment I want to live in nor I want my kids to live in.

Well, the fact is, you already live in that reality. There is no utopia out there & the simple truth is, we already live in a dangerous world. Tell me, why do big cities such as Chicago, Washington DC & LA have gang problems & crime but have incredibly strict gun control? If everyone were armed, bar fights would be pretty non-existent because who would be stupid enough to start one? It's not about living in a climate of fear, but a climate of respect. If I am carrying & see someone else is, I am not necessarily afraid of that individual. Why would I be? I have the means to protect myself. But I do respect the fact they are armed as well. When I see a police officer, I am usually more courteous. Partially because it is right to be respectful of law enforcement, but also because I know they are armed. It would be beyond stupid to start something with someone so armed.

Personally, I don't care if people wish to be armed or not. That's called freedom. I just don't want someone telling me what I need or don't need to protect myself & my family, especially when it comes to a Constitutional right.

I get it and respect that you feel that way. I just see so many jerk offs out there who can't even handle driving to the supermarket with out freaking out. The thought of these kind of guys carrying all the time around scares the daylight out of me. While guys like you might be fine pulling your gun in moments of conflict the untrained man, woman, or child would feel very incomfortable with armed confrontation. I can't even think of my son or daughter in that kind of situation. While I understand your points that people would behave more around other armed people, it could also cause more escalated situations. Carry law is a different conversation though. We are talking about whether it makes sense to put control measures on various types of weapons depending on their destructive capacity.

The crime centers you mention are that way because of poverty, desperation and culture. They have high gun control because they are more dangerous environments. I dont think gun law is causing more crime but I'd bet if you put more Uzis out in the streets of Chicago you'd see more bodies.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

Easy, that's a Secret Service rule, not a GOP rule. And why don't you like the idea of carrying all the time when you have the option to do so or not? You may not trust someone else (probably wise), but your right to defend yourself is assured. Here's another question for you....why don't thugs go into police precincts & start stuff? Could it be because everyone there is armed....

Dig a little deeper... Why is it a secret service rule?

Because you have a Presidential candidate present, no mystery there....

I think what you are trying to not say is that even with secret service protection if the crowd was all carrying it would create a dangerous environment that would be near impossible to contain if something got out of hand. I don't think that is a mystery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

You cannot present an argument for making these guns illegal that is not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not answering g your questions...

.... because you know you have no honest answer that allows you to keep your position intact.
I understand.
Since you're an honest, thoughtful guy, maybe you ought to reconsider re-examining your position.

I'm constantly examining my position, I was against banning any guns and was open to high capacity mag bans before this discussion. Now I'm leaning more on the side of banning. Weapons like the ones you posted shooting 10 rounds a second are completely rediculous and unnecessary.

As you have been shown any number of times in any number of ways, banning these guns does not limit access to them.
Similarly, unless you forcibly confiscate those already in circulation, banning 20- and 30-rd magazines does not limit access to them.
Thus, there's no argument for a ban on said items that does not stem from a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.