Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so are drug addictsBeing fat is a drain on public resources.
We need a fat tax. Let's let Congress decide the definition of "fat" and get to taxing all the fatties. Trust them. They will only tax the really orca fat people. You're safe. Never fear.
Just spread those butt cheeks and say ahhhh.
so being fat is healthy now?i bet if the reporter asked these girls how they felt about banning only cars that can drive past 65MPH, they would of agreed.so when asking for a ban, name the gun you want to ban. saying ban assault weapons is soooooo general, it implies much much more. And btw, there was a ban on rifles 1994 to 2004 and no statistics changed. so it did absolutely no good. So we have statistics on what a ban would do. And it doesn't solve a murder problem. Isn't that the objective to the rant?...and so can a semi-auto AR 15, as determined by the law.well why don't you post up a link with a quote to back your post. Because a knife is an assault weapon, a rock can be an assault weapon, a car can be an assault weapon.There is, in popular parlance, the term 'assault weapon'. In generic terms, an assault weapon is a weapon that includes a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high capacity ammunition magazine. There are distinct guns designed for sporting purposes. Among these are hunting rifles (bolt and lever action), pump action shot guns designed to hunt water fowl or shoot clay pigeons, and pistols and revolvers designed for target shooting and self defense.
Assault weapons, on the other hand, have design characteristics more akin to combat weapons. Characteristics that do not necessarily augment their use in sporting activities.
You wanted a definition, you got one.
Now, I know your reputation. You will no doubt respond with a smiley emoticon denoting you think this post is funny. If you want to discuss the merits and virtues of the weapons I described as 'assault weapons', fine. But if all you seek are posts you can ridicule as poorly framed, inarticulate or just plain silly, you might find that some opinions that differ from your own still have merit.
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
"Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.
Both sides in the gun debate are selectively citing from a series of studies that concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” That report was the final of three studies of the ban, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
- Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
- Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”"Being fat is a drain on public resources.
We need a fat tax. Let's let Congress decide the definition of "fat" and get to taxing all the fatties. Trust them. They will only tax the really orca fat people. You're safe. Never fear.
Just spread those butt cheeks and say ahhhh.
your ignorance is a drain on public resources
but men did decide on carrying a baby.Hey, don't bitch at me. I am on your side.how about you stay out of it until
a) you can have a child
b) everyone believes the same thing
until then, I've never met anyone wise enough to make those decisions for anyone else.
and only someone who will never have to make such a decision would laugh about it.
this is why no one takes radical religious zealots seriously... except other religious zealots.
NO man should EVER have the right to decide that issue. Until a dude is forced to carry and take care of a child, he can shut the fuck up.
But, you can't deny that the issues are the same in that one side wants to impose their will on the other. We're talking about authoritarianism verses freedom. Liberty.
I hope you can see the connection.
The point is consistency in principle.but men did decide on carrying a baby.
I just saw the footage on Fox News as I was coming home. A reporter was sent to some anti-gun March, must of been a very blue state. He is asking a few of the young female protesters if they knew what an assault weapon is. But as expected, they had no clue!
They may as well answered, the real hard question like this.
So like, uh, what is an assault weapon? Uh, like, isn't that like a gun that shoots a lot of bullets?
Or maybe answer it like this?,,,uh,,like,,uhm,,uh?,,,so like, what's an assault weapon? Uh, is that like a gun made from salt?
but men did decide on carrying a baby.Hey, don't bitch at me. I am on your side.how about you stay out of it until
a) you can have a child
b) everyone believes the same thing
until then, I've never met anyone wise enough to make those decisions for anyone else.
and only someone who will never have to make such a decision would laugh about it.
this is why no one takes radical religious zealots seriously... except other religious zealots.
NO man should EVER have the right to decide that issue. Until a dude is forced to carry and take care of a child, he can shut the fuck up.
But, you can't deny that the issues are the same in that one side wants to impose their will on the other. We're talking about authoritarianism verses freedom. Liberty.
I hope you can see the connection.
Who gets to decide whether 350 pounds is so grossly obese that it should be "banned"?why not ban people over 350 pounds? arent they pretty much killing themselves? i wonder how many obese people die every year in respect to how many students get shot.
well what i was getting at was more geared to banning fast food being people who are addicted to it all of their lives eventually die from it before they reach 70Who gets to decide whether 350 pounds is so grossly obese that it should be "banned"?why not ban people over 350 pounds? arent they pretty much killing themselves? i wonder how many obese people die every year in respect to how many students get shot.
What do we mean by "banned"?
(by the way, this is just an intellectual exercise offered to demonstrate a point. Courts have already held that status violations like being homeless or addicted to drugs, are unconstitutional).
You'll have to ask the snowflakes at the nRA who made their convention a gun-free zone for safety. From their own gullible followers.
The snow drifts in the hall were 8 feet deep.
By banning a single rifle, you have taken away My right to keep and bear arms. You and your ilk are punishing the innocent out of fear.You're standing on a position that the Bill of Rights is a limit on people and not the government. However, it is called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs, nor the Bill of practical purpose.Thank you.
If it's exactly the same, then who cares if it goes away.
If it's exactly the same as other rifles that will not be banned (and it is) why do you care if it stays ?
The functional capability of the weapon that makes it suitable for attacks will be banned.
Not just any particular platform.
What practical purpose is there for a thirty round magazine? Why is it necessary today more than in the past? What work requires a tool with a thirty round magazine rather than five or six rounds in an internal magazine?
The work of imaginary fears and fantasy.
It's already that way. If even one restriction is allowed, then any is. It is not unlimited. Your individual right to keep and bear arms is not and would not be taken away.
You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.Yet three of the worst in our history have happened in the past six months. They are gaining. In the decade after the assault weapons ban expired, mass shootings and the number of people killed tripled. How much worse does it have to become before it becomes significant to you?Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.We seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.No, they don't. Most gun murders are with hand guns.Not to be rude, but I think everyone but you knows what they mean by "assault weapon."
It is NOT the guns. It is the people.
Yes we know you think it is anything that goes BANGNot to be rude, but I think everyone but you knows what they mean by "assault weapon."How did they ask the question about assault weapons? Did they explain that an AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon?The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT rightThat is like saying the ACLU is to blame for getting in the way of legislation reinstating slavery.I'm not saying it is ALL the big old bad NRA's fault. That's a stupid argument. They are to blame, however, for getting in the way of legislation that might have helped.No they do not.
There are laws already on the books that could have prevented the shooting in Florida, so the failure to protect those kids fall on LEO and the FBI and not the NRA!
If the government fails to do it job do you believe more laws will get them to do it!?!
The NRA is exercising the exact same rights as all of the other National Advocacy groups.
You are essentially saying that I want to take away a right from a segment of the population and the NRA is stopping me from doing that so they are responsible for the deaths because I am right.
The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT right.
BTW....That does NOT make them right.
So you are advocating confiscationView attachment 184956No.
The difference between a tool and a weapon is the intent of the person wielding the tool
More people are killed knives than rifles so which is deadlier?
Intent can change. Everyone is a good guy with a gun until they aren't.
Vegas wasn't done with a car, a truck, a knife, an axe, or a brick. Stupid argument. It was only possible with the availability of the capable weaponry.
So then we should take everything away from you that can be used to kill because you are just a murderer in waiting right?
Why don't we start by amputating your hands and feet because hands and feet are used to kill more than rifles
I've said nothing about taking anything away from anyone. I've suggested it shouldn't be available.
So the millions of rifles that are already out there just what happens to them exactly?
A well maintained firearm has a lifespan of many many decades
Thank you.Then WHY do mass shooters choose it over and over as the weapon of choice, and WHY are people so upset about this one insignificant model of gun coming off the shelves?Great. ARs are advertised as "sporting rifles" as well. Anything that can accept a thirty round magazine is not simply a ranch tool.
Any practical purpose for a rifle can be accomplished with an internal magazine.
An AR is the exact same rifle as my ranch rifle except that it has plastic components
And it matters not if a rifle has a detachable magazine
If it's exactly the same, then who cares if it goes away.
If it's exactly the same as other rifles that will not be banned (and it is) why do you care if it stays ?
The functional capability of the weapon that makes it suitable for attacks will be banned.
Not just any particular platform.
What practical purpose is there for a thirty round magazine? Why is it necessary today more than in the past? What work requires a tool with a thirty round magazine rather than five or six rounds in an internal magazine?
The work of imaginary fears and fantasy.
You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.Yet three of the worst in our history have happened in the past six months. They are gaining. In the decade after the assault weapons ban expired, mass shootings and the number of people killed tripled. How much worse does it have to become before it becomes significant to you?Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.We seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.No, they don't. Most gun murders are with hand guns.
It is NOT the guns. It is the people.
It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.
and mass murders are the least of our murder problems since only 1% of all murders occur in mass shootingsWe seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.No, they don't. Most gun murders are with hand guns.Not to be rude, but I think everyone but you knows what they mean by "assault weapon."How did they ask the question about assault weapons? Did they explain that an AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon?The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT rightThat is like saying the ACLU is to blame for getting in the way of legislation reinstating slavery.
The NRA is exercising the exact same rights as all of the other National Advocacy groups.
You are essentially saying that I want to take away a right from a segment of the population and the NRA is stopping me from doing that so they are responsible for the deaths because I am right.
The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT right.
BTW....That does NOT make them right.
No.
The difference between a tool and a weapon is the intent of the person wielding the tool
More people are killed knives than rifles so which is deadlier?
Intent can change. Everyone is a good guy with a gun until they aren't.
Vegas wasn't done with a car, a truck, a knife, an axe, or a brick. Stupid argument. It was only possible with the availability of the capable weaponry.
So then we should take everything away from you that can be used to kill because you are just a murderer in waiting right?
Why don't we start by amputating your hands and feet because hands and feet are used to kill more than rifles
I've said nothing about taking anything away from anyone. I've suggested it shouldn't be available.
So the millions of rifles that are already out there just what happens to them exactly?
A well maintained firearm has a lifespan of many many decades
Buy back. As an example, there are just under 2 million ARs. Pay above retail for turn in. Let's say $2k. That would be the best $4b ever spent. Do the same w/handguns. Even illegal ones. Maybe those kids on the street would find it more lucrative to turn them in rather than use them or sell them on. It would also kill the black market trade.
and yet you compare rifles to handgunsWe seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.No, they don't. Most gun murders are with hand guns.Not to be rude, but I think everyone but you knows what they mean by "assault weapon."How did they ask the question about assault weapons? Did they explain that an AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon?The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT rightThat is like saying the ACLU is to blame for getting in the way of legislation reinstating slavery.
The NRA is exercising the exact same rights as all of the other National Advocacy groups.
You are essentially saying that I want to take away a right from a segment of the population and the NRA is stopping me from doing that so they are responsible for the deaths because I am right.
The problem is, you, and those who are for restricting guns, are NOT right.
BTW....That does NOT make them right.
