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

[Brain357]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

 

[2aguy]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Wrong.....guns have to fire only when the trigger is pulled and can't fire when dropped......

And in 34 years only 149 people were murdered with 'assault' style weapons....in 34 years.......

cars kill 35,000 people each and every year.......and you don't want to limit them to 10 miles an hour ..do you?

And of course guns are a Right....so when you and the other democrats back in the Jim Crow South used Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting....you saw that as a way to keep the poor from owning guns by implementing the equivalent of Poll Taxes and Literacy tests on the right to own guns....

you democrats never change...

 

[HappyJoy]

Hold it tight to your head.

How about if we just agree to keep people from the terrorist watch list from getting one?

Legally.

I think You forgot to add the word "legally" to the end of your sentence.

And even though I might agree (in a perfect world) that anyone on a terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy any guns "legally." I would love to read your explanation for how you intend to keep them from getting their hands on any guns Illegally.

Also. . . what is your plans for anyone who is on a terrorist list who ALREADY has guns and may not even know they are a terrorist watch list? Are they any less of a danger to the rest of us?

Yep, legally, why make it easy for them? What's the down side?

The down side is that the Government has no transparency in who is on the list and what the criteria is for them putting you on the list.

First off, we are talking about a million people, I would guess most belong on the list. However why is it not until gun control that you actually care about the civil rights of people on the lists? I don't remember wingnuts caring about people on the no fly list right to travel, how come? Anyway, there should be proper channels for people to appeal their designation on the list. I think the Democrats have that in their plan.

You have not answered my other questions. Why not? How are you going to keep anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun ILLEGALLY? And, what are you going to do about anyone who is on one of those lists who already HAVE guns?

I did answer your question. You can't keep people from ilegally buying weapons via gun control laws. What you can do is shut down gun show and private sale loop holes, have an effectual background check system and keep terrorists and others from easily buying legal weapons. I wouldn't expect that to solve everything.

Just like banning medication without a prescription to block all sales of illegal prescription medication. Doesn't mean we should open up psych medicine to the masses.

There is no gun show loophole.....and the Orlando shooter would have passed a universal background check...as would all the other mass shooters......and the ones who didn't murdered and stole the guns.....

France has a comprehensive system to keep terrorists from getting legal weapons....they don't sell them.....rifles are completely illegal in France, they have no gun shows, they have no gun stores, and you can't buy or own military style rifles...of any kind...AR-15s or fully automatic rifles....they even have terrorists watch lists, and fewer civil rights to block their cops...


And terrorists in France easily got fully automatic rifles even though they were actually on terrorist watch lists and they didn't murder 49 people...they murdered 140 people......

so...tell us how your magical list and magical background checks will stop terrorists again?

There is a gun show loophole in that it's based on the honor system.

I'd like to see the FBI flagged for people who were on the terrorist watch list within the past 5 years. Considering what happened in Orlando that makes sense.

Fuck France, this isn't France stop grasping at straws. The next thing you are going to do is parade around Switzerland until you're asked to endorse their gun policies and then you will duck and run off like you did last time.

 

[Brain357]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No.....

'assault' weapons murdered 149 people.....in 34 years. There are 8 million of them in the country right now.....vs about 2 a year that are used illegally...

8,000,000 to 2 ...... is it rational to ban standard magazines for 8 million rifles because criminals misuse one or two of them?

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

How old are your stats? I can think of over 60 killed just this year.

 

[2aguy]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

and there is no rational basis for it...... actual research, rather than pulling the number out of your ass, shows that magazine limits do not save lives...in fact the Virginia tech shooter changed magazines repeatedly and killed 32 people....as did the Sandy hook shooter.......

you are an idiot and a troll......does it hurt to keep pulling things out of your ass?

 

[defcon4]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Your premises are founded on falsehood. I did not see in the Constitution that people have the right to drive a car (it should be there) however I saw that the right of the people to keep and bear arms...etc.... is in there.

 

[HappyJoy]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Wrong.....guns have to fire only when the trigger is pulled and can't fire when dropped......

And in 34 years only 149 people were murdered with 'assault' style weapons....in 34 years.......

cars kill 35,000 people each and every year.......and you don't want to limit them to 10 miles an hour ..do you?

And of course guns are a Right....so when you and the other democrats back in the Jim Crow South used Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting....you saw that as a way to keep the poor from owning guns by implementing the equivalent of Poll Taxes and Literacy tests on the right to own guns....

you democrats never change...

No, it's easy to convert a semi-automatic into something that resembles a fully automatic weapon by swapping out the stock of assault style weapons.



I'd like to keep people on the terrorist watch list from getting one, I don't even want them to get a pea shooter.

 

[Chuz Life]

.......... *Goes to hide her Assault Pillow*

Hold it tight to your head.

How about if we just agree to keep people from the terrorist watch list from getting one?

Legally.

I think You forgot to add the word "legally" to the end of your sentence.

And even though I might agree (in a perfect world) that anyone on a terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy any guns "legally." I would love to read your explanation for how you intend to keep them from getting their hands on any guns Illegally.

Also. . . what is your plans for anyone who is on a terrorist list who ALREADY has guns and may not even know they are a terrorist watch list? Are they any less of a danger to the rest of us?

Yep, legally, why make it easy for them? What's the down side?

The down side is that the Government has no transparency in who is on the list and what the criteria is for them putting you on the list.

First off, we are talking about a million people, I would guess most belong on the list. However why is it not until gun control that you actually care about the civil rights of people on the lists? I don't remember wingnuts caring about people on the no fly list right to travel, how come? Anyway, there should be proper channels for people to appeal their designation on the list. I think the Democrats have that in their plan.

You have not answered my other questions. Why not? How are you going to keep anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun ILLEGALLY? And, what are you going to do about anyone who is on one of those lists who already HAVE guns?

I did answer your question. You can't keep people from ilegally buying weapons via gun control laws. What you can do is shut down gun show and private sale loop holes, have an effectual background check system and keep terrorists and others from easily buying legal weapons. I wouldn't expect that to solve everything.

Just like banning medication without a prescription to block all sales of illegal prescription medication. Doesn't mean we should open up psych medicine to the masses.

The right to travel does not include the right to fly on someone's private airplane. That said, I still think someone is innocent until proven guilty. So, if our government has evidence that someone is an immenent threat, then the government should arrest and detain them and not simply put them on a list.

As for all your other gun control pap. . . . the only people who would be affected by any of your "gun control" efforts will be the law abiding members of our society. That's it.

Terrorists do not give a flying fuck about gun control laws any more than our violent street gangs care about laws which prohibit violence theft or recreational drugs..

 

[2aguy]

Legally.

I think You forgot to add the word "legally" to the end of your sentence.

And even though I might agree (in a perfect world) that anyone on a terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy any guns "legally." I would love to read your explanation for how you intend to keep them from getting their hands on any guns Illegally.

Also. . . what is your plans for anyone who is on a terrorist list who ALREADY has guns and may not even know they are a terrorist watch list? Are they any less of a danger to the rest of us?

Yep, legally, why make it easy for them? What's the down side?

The down side is that the Government has no transparency in who is on the list and what the criteria is for them putting you on the list.

First off, we are talking about a million people, I would guess most belong on the list. However why is it not until gun control that you actually care about the civil rights of people on the lists? I don't remember wingnuts caring about people on the no fly list right to travel, how come? Anyway, there should be proper channels for people to appeal their designation on the list. I think the Democrats have that in their plan.

You have not answered my other questions. Why not? How are you going to keep anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun ILLEGALLY? And, what are you going to do about anyone who is on one of those lists who already HAVE guns?

I did answer your question. You can't keep people from ilegally buying weapons via gun control laws. What you can do is shut down gun show and private sale loop holes, have an effectual background check system and keep terrorists and others from easily buying legal weapons. I wouldn't expect that to solve everything.

Just like banning medication without a prescription to block all sales of illegal prescription medication. Doesn't mean we should open up psych medicine to the masses.

There is no gun show loophole.....and the Orlando shooter would have passed a universal background check...as would all the other mass shooters......and the ones who didn't murdered and stole the guns.....

France has a comprehensive system to keep terrorists from getting legal weapons....they don't sell them.....rifles are completely illegal in France, they have no gun shows, they have no gun stores, and you can't buy or own military style rifles...of any kind...AR-15s or fully automatic rifles....they even have terrorists watch lists, and fewer civil rights to block their cops...


And terrorists in France easily got fully automatic rifles even though they were actually on terrorist watch lists and they didn't murder 49 people...they murdered 140 people......

so...tell us how your magical list and magical background checks will stop terrorists again?

There is a gun show loophole in that it's based on the honor system.

I'd like to see the FBI flagged for people who were on the terrorist watch list within the past 5 years. Considering what happened in Orlando that makes sense.

Fuck France, this isn't France stop grasping at straws. The next thing you are going to do is parade around Switzerland until you're asked to endorse their gun policies and then you will duck and run off like you did last time.

Wrong.....all licensed gun stores have to use a background check even when they go to a gun show.


Yeah...France shows your gun control laws are stupid....so you don't want to talk aboutthem....

And the Swiss have fully automatic rifles in their homes by law....and only the military ammunition is kept track of...private ammo is not.....

Any private sale at a gun show could happen across the street....so it is not a loophole....a loophole would allow licensed dealers to sell guns without a background check..that doesn't happen.

And anyone who uses a straw buyer can use one to buy from an individual seller, thus making universal background checks useless.....

The only reason for universal background checks.....to get universal gun registration...that is the only reason.

 

[HappyJoy]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Your premises are founded on falsehood. I did not see in the Constitution that people have the right to drive a car (it should be there) however I saw that the right of the people to keep and bear arms...etc.... is in there.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to bear arms cannot be defined by laws. It's already happened and it will continue to happen.

 

[2aguy]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Wrong.....guns have to fire only when the trigger is pulled and can't fire when dropped......

And in 34 years only 149 people were murdered with 'assault' style weapons....in 34 years.......

cars kill 35,000 people each and every year.......and you don't want to limit them to 10 miles an hour ..do you?

And of course guns are a Right....so when you and the other democrats back in the Jim Crow South used Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting....you saw that as a way to keep the poor from owning guns by implementing the equivalent of Poll Taxes and Literacy tests on the right to own guns....

you democrats never change...

No, it's easy to convert a semi-automatic into something that resembles a fully automatic weapon by swapping out the stock of assault style weapons.



I'd like to keep people on the terrorist watch list from getting one, I don't even want them to get a pea shooter.

The terrorists in France were on French terrorist watch lists in country where all rifles are completely illegal...and they got them easily...and murdered 140 people...

Please...tell us more about your magical, terrorist watch lists..........we like fairy tales...

 

[2aguy]

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

So, cars are required to have seat belts, you have to have a license, your car registered and you need to carry insurance. Also more Americans come into contact with cars (even if you don't drive) than guns.

Are you for all the legal requirements of guns as cars? Since you made the comparison I would have to assume you are.

PS some knives are illegal.

Your premises are founded on falsehood. I did not see in the Constitution that people have the right to drive a car (it should be there) however I saw that the right of the people to keep and bear arms...etc.... is in there.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to bear arms cannot be defined by laws. It's already happened and it will continue to happen.

yes...exactly, you cannot use a gun to commit a crime......that is defining the right with laws......when you do commit a crime with a gun...you are arrested.

 

[Jarlaxle]

These are BOTH Ruger 10/22s

The one on top is no faster nor more deadly than the one on the bottom. And a person CAN assault another person with either one.

Do they carry the same number of rounds? Is that a bump stock on the second one?

Do you know even what a bump stock is? fuck nut
You believe anything you hear from Hollywood and Washington don't you? Fucking bedwetter

Nope, I count on gun nuts to explain it.



I don't think a fixed stock rifle can accomplish this.

And now you're argument is gone.

The rifle in Dark Fury's post does not have a bump stock...and yeah, some fixed-stock rifles can CERTAINLY do that! Also note that a bump-stock is by no means EASY to use.

 

[2aguy]

Don't you think it makes sense to set a reasonable limit to fire rate and ammo capacity? Isn't that just common sense?

No.....

'assault' weapons murdered 149 people.....in 34 years. There are 8 million of them in the country right now.....vs about 2 a year that are used illegally...

8,000,000 to 2 ...... is it rational to ban standard magazines for 8 million rifles because criminals misuse one or two of them?

Cars kill about 35,000 people each and every year, accidentally.......no one is talking about limiting their ability to go over 10 miles an hour...are they?

And for more perspective....knives murdered 1,567 people in one year...and murder over a thousand people every single year......no one talks about making knives less lethal...except the british....

How old are your stats? I can think of over 60 killed just this year.

The stats, troll are from Mother Jones.......from 1982 to 2016 including the Orlando shooting....asswipe.

 

[HappyJoy]

Hold it tight to your head.

How about if we just agree to keep people from the terrorist watch list from getting one?

Legally.

I think You forgot to add the word "legally" to the end of your sentence.

And even though I might agree (in a perfect world) that anyone on a terrorist watch list should not be permitted to buy any guns "legally." I would love to read your explanation for how you intend to keep them from getting their hands on any guns Illegally.

Also. . . what is your plans for anyone who is on a terrorist list who ALREADY has guns and may not even know they are a terrorist watch list? Are they any less of a danger to the rest of us?

Yep, legally, why make it easy for them? What's the down side?

The down side is that the Government has no transparency in who is on the list and what the criteria is for them putting you on the list.

First off, we are talking about a million people, I would guess most belong on the list. However why is it not until gun control that you actually care about the civil rights of people on the lists? I don't remember wingnuts caring about people on the no fly list right to travel, how come? Anyway, there should be proper channels for people to appeal their designation on the list. I think the Democrats have that in their plan.

You have not answered my other questions. Why not? How are you going to keep anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun ILLEGALLY? And, what are you going to do about anyone who is on one of those lists who already HAVE guns?

I did answer your question. You can't keep people from ilegally buying weapons via gun control laws. What you can do is shut down gun show and private sale loop holes, have an effectual background check system and keep terrorists and others from easily buying legal weapons. I wouldn't expect that to solve everything.

Just like banning medication without a prescription to block all sales of illegal prescription medication. Doesn't mean we should open up psych medicine to the masses.

The right to travel does not include the right to fly on someone's private airplane. That said, I still think someone is innocent until proven guilty. So, if our government has evidence that someone is an immenent threat, then the government should arrest and detain them and not simply put them on a list.

As for all your other gun control pap. . . . the only people who would be affected by any of your "gun control" efforts will be the law abiding members of our society. That's it.

Terrorists do not give a flying fuck about gun control laws any more than our violent street gangs care about laws which prohibit violence theft or recreational drugs..

It's the government stopping you from traveling, not the airline, duffuss.

There are obvious reasons why the government doesn't pick up terrorists because they think they are guilty. They are going to want to collect data, who are they in contact with and what are those people up to. At the same time, you don't want the ones you suspect to buy weapons.

 

[HappyJoy]

These are BOTH Ruger 10/22s

The one on top is no faster nor more deadly than the one on the bottom. And a person CAN assault another person with either one.

Do they carry the same number of rounds? Is that a bump stock on the second one?

Do you know even what a bump stock is? fuck nut
You believe anything you hear from Hollywood and Washington don't you? Fucking bedwetter

Nope, I count on gun nuts to explain it.



I don't think a fixed stock rifle can accomplish this.

And now you're argument is gone.

The rifle in Dark Fury's post does not have a bump stock...and yeah, some fixed-stock rifles can CERTAINLY do that! Also note that a bump-stock is by no means EASY to use.

Whether the one in 214's pic has a bump stock or not is irrelevant.

If a gun can fire as though it's fully auto then perhaps it should be banned.

You're welcome to present a semi-auto unmodified fixed stock rifle that behaves like a fully automatic at any time.

 

[Brain357]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

If limited to 10, no. I support magazine limits. Only mass killers need high capacity magazines. Our police should not have to have shootouts with mass killing weapons.

and there is no rational basis for it...... actual research, rather than pulling the number out of your ass, shows that magazine limits do not save lives...in fact the Virginia tech shooter changed magazines repeatedly and killed 32 people....as did the Sandy hook shooter.......

you are an idiot and a troll......does it hurt to keep pulling things out of your ass?

Physics proves you wrong moron. As does the giffords and other shootings when shooter was stopped at reload. 49 dead and over 50 injured with high capacity magazines. That is proof enough.

 

[Alystyr]

Honest question. Today on Fox morning a liberal anti gun activist wouldn't define "assault weapon". I'm open to the gun debate but we must have parameters. Of course.

So....libs....would an AR-15 pistol with a 10 round magazine still be an "Assault Weapon"? Here's an example. This is the "pistol" version of an AR15. .223 bullet. Let's say they were limited to a 10 or 15 round mag.

Is it still an Assault Weapon? Why or why not?

View attachment 78603

Isn't that a Title II weapon? (legally, a "short-barreled rifle")

It isn't. There's no shoulder stock, nor is there a provision for attaching one.

 

[defcon4]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to bear arms cannot be defined by laws. It's already happened and it will continue to happen.

...shall not be infringed.... Look it up what it means...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These are BOTH Ruger 10/22s

The one on top is no faster nor more deadly than the one on the bottom. And a person CAN assault another person with either one.

Do they carry the same number of rounds? Is that a bump stock on the second one?

Do you know even what a bump stock is? fuck nut
You believe anything you hear from Hollywood and Washington don't you? Fucking bedwetter

Nope, I count on gun nuts to explain it.



I don't think a fixed stock rifle can accomplish this.

And now you're argument is gone.

The rifle in Dark Fury's post does not have a bump stock...and yeah, some fixed-stock rifles can CERTAINLY do that! Also note that a bump-stock is by no means EASY to use.

You don't need a bump stock to use the bump method. The Bump Stock just makes it easier. Yes, it takes practice but it can be done. For instance, one person in Orlando was shot 3 times in the leg. The Pattern is that of an automatic weapon. While he used an AR type without the bump stock and it wasn't an automatic, it WAS fired using the Trace Method causing it to empty out a 30 round mag in about a second. or a second and a half.I would imagine that he carried about 3 30 round clips and used all three. Of course, the .556 can kill up to 3 people if you line them up and you are close enough. Even so, it would take either the Trace Method or the Bump Method to hit over 100 people, killing 49.