How Did 15-18 Year Old Kids Organize A Nationwide Movement In Less Than A Week?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Wow! You are just super-ignorant when it comes to guns, huh?

Someone that ignorant should not be talking about things of which he clearly does not know.

What does the AR in "AR-15" stand for?

Also, how old are you? Holy crap!

Your argument is ridiculous. Gun lovers would love nothing more than to bog down reform with semantics. A primrose path leading to the inevitable continuation of mass shootings. It's as if you could legitimately argue that because someone does not know the proper timing sequence of a 351 Cleveland engine, they should have no voice in discussing automobile safety.

The engine doesn't matter, just like arguments you have been making.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Does the name make it less unnecessarily lethal? Is that your argument?

Only naïve little snowflakes call them assault weapons... lol

The debate is joined. Semantics do not apply.

Let me define "assault weapons" for you. Any weapon with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a magazine containing greater than ten rounds. Weapons of this sort that have been modified, as with a 'bump stock' to increase the rate of fire. Weapons whose rounds are meant intentionally to tumble rather than fly in a straight trajectory, rendering them not only in violation of the Geneva Accords, but useless for target shooting.

Well, That does not describe an AR. An AR is just a sporting rifle for varmints and such it was not designed for anything else... period

Really? Then why did they call it a semi automatic version of the military's M16?

Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia

The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.

A Lexus is a Toyota with all the bells and whistles. Is a Lexus a Toyota?

An M-16 is an archaic weapon that has been replaced by the M-4. The AR-15 is the knock-off version with no bells and no whistles.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Agreed. I mean, how many rounds do you REALLY need to throw downrange before you reload?

I hunted when I was a kid, and we had lots of guns in the house. However, they were bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, or 6 shooters. I think my Uncle had 1 9mm weapon that held 10 rounds for home defense.

And, when we went hunting, we were only allowed 3 bullets. If you fired those 3 bullets before killing a deer, you had to hike back to the truck (usually a mile or two), get 3 more rounds, and then go back to where the rest of us were.

You were hunting deer. They are not the most elusive target in the world.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bump stocks?

You can have those.....for National Concealed carry reciprocity......that is if you want to meet in the middle like you claim...

Concealed carry reciprocity makes the most lax laws the law of the land. People in California or New York don't dictate to Mississippi how to run their gun laws, what laws there are. Why should Mississippi then call the shots (no pun intended) for California and New York?

So...you don't want to meet half way?

The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right.....states can't deny it to citizens of other states.......we don't want Nurses who cross state lines with their legal gun to face a felony and 14 years in prison.....

Bump stocks for Nations nail Comcealed carry is not a fair quid pro quo.

And why are we bargaining?

Americans have been laying the corpses of their loved ones on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of St. LaPierre of the NRA for decades! If any side needs to make a concession, it's the side that is complicit in the mass shootings by their inaction and refusal to recognize their responsibility in them.

Lying is not conducive to negotiations......I am not some left wing hitler youth drone....I know the issues, and I know what you want.....You can have bump stocks for reciprocity...I don't want innocent people in jail because they carried their legal guns across state lines.....

A stiff fine for first offenders would not be unreasonable. Get the word out. Your gun is not welcome outside your state.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

Well, you are a dumbass, so....

Only slightly more sophisticated than 'neener neener neener'. Well said!

Unfortunately for you, it is 100% accurate. You believe lies and could not figure your way out of a large department store without directions.

 

[Nosmo King]

Nothing to bargain with? Americans have been laying the bullet ridden corpses of their loved ones on the High Altar of Intransigence in the Cathedral of LaPierre for decades! Why do you need a concession? You are either admitting culpability in mass shootings or you cannot recognize mass shootings for the unnecessary tragedies they are!

Balls the size of tombstones on this guy! Demanding a bargaining chip to stem the tide of shootings and the flow of victims they produce!

Is your never ending empty rhetoric what you intend to replace Constitutionally protected rights with ...

.

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Your definition of assault weapons is wrong! End of discussion on that point. Educate yourself..

Where did you get this bullshit about tumbling rounds? Have you ever seen a round for an AR-15? They don't tumble you moron! They would have zero accuracy. That is point of why it is a rifle! The bullet spins like a football spirals.

Once that round hits its target, it tumbles, not spirals.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is your never ending empty rhetoric what you intend to replace Constitutionally protected rights with ...

.

No rights are absolute. If fully automatic firing systems can be restricted, semi-automatic firing systems can be too.

Do you think restricting weapons that are semi-auto would pass SCOTUS review? Semi-auto is very much common use; I would guess that half or more of the guns in the US are semi-auto. According to this, about 40% of pistols and rifles in the US were semi-auto in 1997: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....ttpsredir=1&article=1679&context=urban_facpub

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept much restriction on semi-automatic firearms as a whole.

At one point most of the patent medicines contained opium. At one point most of the insecticides sprayed on crops contained DDT.

Justice Scalia in his opinion on the Heller case cited no rights are absolute.

Not confiscation but banning the further sale, import, manufacture and distribution of semi-automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines. No one's right to self defense would be infringed.

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

Your definition of assault weapons is wrong! End of discussion on that point. Educate yourself..

Where did you get this bullshit about tumbling rounds? Have you ever seen a round for an AR-15? They don't tumble you moron! They would have zero accuracy. That is point of why it is a rifle! The bullet spins like a football spirals.

Once that round hits its target, it tumbles, not spirals.

So? You were wrong. You said "tumbling trajectory". I just might not know everything, but I do know what that means and you were wrong, just like about everything else that flows from your addled mind.

 

[Montrovant]

Are opium or DDT Constitutionally protected rights? There is a higher bar involved here.

No, no rights are absolute. However, that does not mean that rights can be changed on a whim, ignoring all previous rulings or precedent.

Semi-automatic is a very low bar to try to set. I don't think it would work without a new amendment.

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Let's see how many Righties condemn the kids. The argument the Right proffers is; sit down and shut up, man up and arm yourselves and your teachers, buy a bullet-proof backpack, you're just kids and don't understand that your deaths in schools is just the cost of doing business, our personal arsenals are much cooler than you, the problem is one of mental health (that's why last year true Americans in congress and on the NRA payroll passed a bill allowing the mentally frazzled to have easy access to guns because their 2nd amendment rights are more valuable than your petty little lives).

The kids will march. They will protest. They will demand a ban on the unnecessary assault weapons. And then they will be disparaged, mocked, ridiculed and dismiss by the Right.

I would ask you to provide a link to that stupid ass claim, but since it doesn't exist, I'll save you the time looking.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

Consider the source and how they left out the fact that they were taking away the 2nd Amendment rights for people who needed assistance handing their financial affairs. They are not crazy!

Notice that part is missing from the Nothing But Communism network news?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

An "assault rifle" is a rapid firing, magazine fed automatic rifle designed for military use. An AR-15 is a semi automatic which is really good for target practice and plinking cans.

You forgot to add among its many uses it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Due to its rapid rate of fire and high capacity magazine, it can kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Andy Griffith isn't shooting it with Opie. Maniacs are shooting it into crowds of innocents.

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

 

[Nosmo King]

I contend that the semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity magazine is not a constitutionally protected right. And citing that position is not taken on a whim. It is cited on the bullet riddled corpses of innocent Americans. If other weapons can be banned due to their unnecessary lethality, assault weapons can be too.

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

 

[Nosmo King]

You forgot to add among its many uses it is also the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Due to its rapid rate of fire and high capacity magazine, it can kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

Andy Griffith isn't shooting it with Opie. Maniacs are shooting it into crowds of innocents.

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

 

[Rustic]

Is your definition of assault weapons semi-automatic weapons? That's......ridiculous, really. There are all sorts of semi-automatic weapons. Also, assault weapons is often a pretty vague term.

Magazine capacity is a somewhat different issue.

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

 

[Rustic]

The vast majority of people who own an AR-15 are NOT maniacs and are NOT shooting or killing anyone. Now, your gun control laws have not worked at ALL. You just want to keep adding on more and more laws that do not work. You are not going to control crazy people with gun control laws. That is the bottom line here.

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

Appeasement is in your blood it seems, fucking pussy

 

[Nosmo King]

Let us then define "assault weapon".

My definition would include, but not be limited by these attributes; a weapon using a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fed by a magazine containing ten or more rounds. A weapon whose rounds are fired in a tumbling trajectory rather than a smooth spiral trajectory.

It's the rate of fire that puts the 'mass' in 'mass shooting'. Revolvers containing six or fewer rounds, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds would be acceptable as these weapons are designed for self defense or sport.

My great fear is that the debate will be bogged down by cosmetics as the previous assault weapon ban debate was. Grips, stocks, flash suppressors have nothing to do with the essential problem of rate of fire.

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

 

[Rustic]

I think that you would be including half or more of the firearms in the US, including rifles and pistols. I question whether a law banning all such weapons would pass USSC review.

Limiting magazine capacity, on the other hand, seems more likely to be considered acceptable.

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

 

[Nosmo King]

A crazy person doesn't kill 17 people with a knife.

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

Appeasement is in your blood it seems, fucking pussy

No one says one must negotiate with a knife wielding maniac Mr. Fucking Pussy.

You should come up with a better moniker! 'Fucking Pussy' isn't something I'd call myself, but you go with whatever feels right for you. Signing off at the end of your posts isn't really necessary by the way. But I will with this one. I'm more clever than you.

 

[Rustic]

Anyone want to give her the links about the knife attacks in China? I am too tired right now.

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

Appeasement is in your blood it seems, fucking pussy

No one says one must negotiate with a knife wielding maniac Mr. Fucking Pussy.

You should come up with a better moniker! 'Fucking Pussy' isn't something I'd call myself, but you go with whatever feels right for you. Signing off at the end of your posts isn't really necessary by the way. But I will with this one. I'm more clever than you.

Getting along is way overrated

 

[Nosmo King]

I outlined which weapons would be protected and not banned. Revolvers holding six rounds or fewer, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns containing eight or fewer rounds. These guns are designed and used for sport or self defense.

I am aware. I was saying that you would be banning at least half of all firearms in the US, and it wouldn't just be the rifles normally described as "assault weapons," but also a great many types of pistol, as well. Deciding to ban what would work out to 150,000,000+ weapons seems unlikely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, based on what I've read about previous rulings.

You also seem to be indicating that semi-automatic firearms cannot have been designed for self defense.

I hope you're not equating a ban with confiscation. Banning the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution, marketing of such weapons will, eventually, slow the flow of such weapons onto our streets and into the hands of those incapable of owning them responsibly.

I might add a buy back program offering 150% of market value for such weapons in the first two years, 100% in the following year and 75% for the next year and a half. Anything to make these 'swords' into 'ploughshares'. I'd melt them down and cast manhole covers to be used to improve our infrastructure.

Self defense means stopping an attacker and creating a means of escape for the victim. It doesn't mean assuming the role of hero gunslinger.

Sounds like Communist Russia to me

Then I suggest a rudimentary Political Science course offered by a community college near you.

Why would you want to take everybody’s firearms away other than being a control freak? LOL

Not everyone's firearms. Just the firearms that pose a clear and present danger to public health.

 

[Nosmo King]

When 17 people are killed by one guy with a knife it means there were 14 people killed who basically watched the attack.

WTF does that mean?

Has this thread been too stressful for you? Maybe you should take a break. All of this lying is wearing you out!

It means stopping a knife is easier than stopping a shooter.

Appeasement is in your blood it seems, fucking pussy

No one says one must negotiate with a knife wielding maniac Mr. Fucking Pussy.

You should come up with a better moniker! 'Fucking Pussy' isn't something I'd call myself, but you go with whatever feels right for you. Signing off at the end of your posts isn't really necessary by the way. But I will with this one. I'm more clever than you.

Getting along is way overrated

Because fear, tension and animosity work so well?