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

[Brain357]

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...

What a hero, don't care about all the innocent death one bit do you?

 

[HappyJoy]

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...

It's already infringed. The lengths you have to go through to get a fully automatic. Some weapons and ammunition you cannot legally own, background checks. We've already crossed that line.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.....

Background check my ass...didn't he have a SECURITY CLEARANCE?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.....

Background check my ass...didn't he have a SECURITY CLEARANCE?

I would assume a security clearance would fall in line with a background check.

 

[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.

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.

Easy to do.

 

[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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Easy to do.

I look forward to you showing us.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Oh my gawd. . . . you're right!

We do need to ban those extended clips!

Oh the humanity!

 

[Brain357]

 

[Rustic]

New sporting rifle...

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Easy to do.

I look forward to you showing us.

No, you don't...you will just drag that goal post a little further when I do.

 

[Brain357]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Read it again. The operative part of the sentence is A Well Regulated Militia. This has nothing to do with hunting or home defense, it is about weapons to be used if a Federal Government becomes tirynacle or excessively oppressive. The Government has the right to remove certain classes of weapons from the unlicensed public. Remember the Thompson Machine Gun? That puppy sold in guns shows, gun shops and even street corners. They regulated it so that you needed a Firearms License to buy, own and store it. It was the original Assault Rifle. And it was the original civilian mass murder weapon of choice in the 1920s. It wasn't until the 1960s that it was under question. Before that, it was understood that military grade weapons were allowed by State Sponsored Militias but if a private citizen wanted one, they need the lowest for of Firearms License. The Founding Fathers really knew what they were doing when they wrote the 2 amendment. It's one thought, not two.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

You are entitled to your ignorance.

 

[Brain357]

All these are in a nice calm and controlled situation.

 

[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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

How many takes he need for that? This is what happens in the real world:

You are entitled to your ignorance.

You are ignorant if you think there aren't reload fails constantly. Need more proof?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Aside from the fact that there are untold MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in the hands of the people. . . let's say you went ahead and rounded them all up - prevented everyone from making them and selling them on the black market. . . and the world was left with only say 10 round mags for their guns.

What difference do you seriously think that would make to anyone who can reload even half as fast as this guy?

In the middle of chaos? Quite a bit, it's what stopped the shooter in Tuscon after he emptied his extended clip.

Oh my gawd. . . . you're right!

We do need to ban those extended clips!

Oh the humanity!

Come back when you have a point.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does this guy need to be banned?