How Does A Snowflake Answer The Question:"What Is An Assault Weapon" ??

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

You could buy back every fucking illegal handgun in every inner city shithole in the country. Within a couple of months there would be the same number of illegal handguns in every inner city shithole. The illegal guns arrive with the illegal drugs.

Interesting. Where do you imagine they come from?

Illegal guns are made in Eastern European manufacturing plants/back alley Chinese and Indian plants.
US arms manufacturers have been fighting in court for decades attempting to stop their gun designs/technology from being ripped off by the Europeans/China/India. These guns are traded for mostly heroin. The Mexican drug cartels purchase the heroin and guns from these countries and smuggle the heroin/guns into the US. And everyone is happy.
Anyone with a barrel of KFC can go into any inner city shithole and trade it for a very cheap, say Glock knockoff and one full clip. The knockoff may or may not work.
That's how ten year old budding gangbagers can get an illegal handgun for fifty bucks.

Oh, it's the dirty Messicans. Who'd have guessed you believed that?
More like shady loopholers and straw purchasers.


Perhaps you could give us a link. Something with ATF data.

 

[2aguy]

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'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.

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.

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.

Stop with the hysterical blubbering, Shirley.

The only thing lost is that particular type of firearm. Your rights are intact.

No...you are wrong....if you ban the AR-15 then you can't make an argument against banning all other semi auto weapons including pistols and even revolvers since they all fire the same way, one bullet for each pull of the trigger....they all operate that way.....so banning the AR-15 allows you and other anti gun extremists to come back later and say the other semi auto weapons have to go to, because they are no different from the AR-15...they are all semi auto weapons...

And they are already saying this.....they said it loud and clear at the CNN Town Hall and at that rally and now the former, pretend, Supreme Court justice is calling for the end of the 2nd Amendment..


Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

No, they don't. Most gun murders are with hand guns.

We seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.

Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.

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?

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

There are 600 million guns and over 17 million people now carry guns for self defense....

Americans use those guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminal attack.

Criminals, murdering other criminals killed 11,004 people in 2016....can you tell which number is bigger.....?

The problem is that democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail....and those repeat gun offenders who can't buy, own or carry guns go on to murder other criminals and some innocent people....

It isn't American gun culture....it is American, democrat crime policies......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be, as a fact of law.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambred in an intermediate round.

Thank you.
It has more to do with the functional capabilities rather than any particular platform or appearance.

Right. That's why the failed Clinton assault weapons ban limited guns with flash suppressors, pistol grips, heat shields and muzzle brakes. Liars all.

It can be defined in any way.

Thank for admitting that you sorry scum can define something to fit your gun banning movement however it suits you.

Too funny.
You actually thought that legal definitions or their scope can't change?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

The owner is responsible for it. If it's used in a crime, they've got some splainin' to do as they'd be liable for it's safety.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

...and so can a semi-auto AR 15, as determined by the law.

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?

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.

• 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.”

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.

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].”"

i bet if the reporter asked these girls how they felt about banning only cars that can drive past 65MPH, they would of agreed.

I would of agreed with your parents. You should have finished school.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.

Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.

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?

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

bullshit

.003143% of the population are murdered annually and since some people kill more than one person the number of actual murderers is even less than that

Sorry but that ain't much of an effect by the so called gun culture

The mass attacks happen because of the guns. I doubt any of them would have been attempted without access to them. Paddock was only able to pull off what he did in Vegas because it was all accessible.

I, like most people, are not willing to sacrifice our safety and peace of mind for your and others childish obsession with these guns.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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'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.

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.

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.

Stop with the hysterical blubbering, Shirley.

The only thing lost is that particular type of firearm. Your rights are intact.

No...you are wrong....if you ban the AR-15 then you can't make an argument against banning all other semi auto weapons including pistols and even revolvers since they all fire the same way, one bullet for each pull of the trigger....they all operate that way.....so banning the AR-15 allows you and other anti gun extremists to come back later and say the other semi auto weapons have to go to, because they are no different from the AR-15...they are all semi auto weapons...

And they are already saying this.....they said it loud and clear at the CNN Town Hall and at that rally and now the former, pretend, Supreme Court justice is calling for the end of the 2nd Amendment..


Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

Calm down, Shirley.
I'm not advocating for that at all. The second only guarantees your right to keep and bear arms. It in no way specifies what those arms must be. There are already many restrictions in place and you still have arms and a right to them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We seem to be focusing on mass murders right now. They are not mostly done with hand guns.

Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.

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?

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

There are 600 million guns and over 17 million people now carry guns for self defense....

Americans use those guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminal attack.

Criminals, murdering other criminals killed 11,004 people in 2016....can you tell which number is bigger.....?

The problem is that democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail....and those repeat gun offenders who can't buy, own or carry guns go on to murder other criminals and some innocent people....

It isn't American gun culture....it is American, democrat crime policies......

Your numbers are wildly inflated. Perhaps a link?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

In Britain, Germany, Canada and Australia, they are also examples of countries with much much lower gun homicide rates than ours.
And people can own guns in all of those countries.

 

[miketx]

Mass murders (a sketchy term) is the tiniest of a fraction of a percent of the deaths caused by guns in general.

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?

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

There are 600 million guns and over 17 million people now carry guns for self defense....

Americans use those guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminal attack.

Criminals, murdering other criminals killed 11,004 people in 2016....can you tell which number is bigger.....?

The problem is that democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail....and those repeat gun offenders who can't buy, own or carry guns go on to murder other criminals and some innocent people....

It isn't American gun culture....it is American, democrat crime policies......

Your numbers are wildly inflated. Perhaps a link?

Asks for proof he will only deny. Classic. You will accept no proof, and you make up crap as you go. An assault weapon is stupid dimtard made up word used to scare soft headed media fed types.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

Too bad. There is no need to register a rifle.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Yeah, is that "buy back" mandatory?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

In Britain, Germany, Canada and Australia, they are also examples of countries with much much lower gun homicide rates than ours.
And people can own guns in all of those countries.

When will you stop with these ridiculous comparisons?

The murder rate in the UK has always been lower than the US as far back as I can look.

And you always seem to ignore the fact that the murder rate in the UK went UP after their strictest gun laws were passed not down and in fact their murder rate has never dropped below what it was before their gun laws that included bans and confiscations were passed

I've told you people over and over again that if you want to lower the murder rate ( you don't really but let's pretend you do) then you would be concentrating your effort in the 5% of counties in the US where 70% of all murders occur

But you don't do that. You think that telling people like me and the millions of other people like me who own guns that if we can't own firearms that magically the murder rate will drop to zero

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The owner is responsible for it. If it's used in a crime, they've got some splainin' to do as they'd be liable for it's safety.

Don't we already have this?


Every time I have purchased a gun, I had to fill out a bunch of forms that are kept by big brother. Registration?

I would have lots of splainin' to do if I sold it to another and it was used in a crime, right?

Just what the fuck is it that you guys want?

 

[2aguy]

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.

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

Another word for confiscation.

What if I don't want to "sell" my gun to the fucking governemnt?

It's not another word for confiscation at all.
Obviously you keep it then. I think it should have to be registered though.

And what does registration do? I have actual news pieces on registration where law enforcement states it does not stop crime, it does not help solve crime.......it wastes time, money and resources that the police can actually use to stop actual criminals...

The only thing registration is good for is eventual confiscation....Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, New York, California, Chicago, and now Oregon.......all examples of registration leading to confiscation.....

In Britain, Germany, Canada and Australia, they are also examples of countries with much much lower gun homicide rates than ours.
And people can own guns in all of those countries.

If criminals have more guns than they had before they banned and confiscated guns, then their gun ban and gun confiscation is not working....that their criminals are not using those guns for murder does not support your argument that their gun control laws are working...

You have been shown over and over the links to actual news articles on the growing gun crime in all of those countries....you pretend that growing gun crime still means their gun control laws are working...

Britain...gun crime up just last year 23% across England and Wales, up 42% in London, up 30% in Yorkshire

You guys have to hide behind gun murder, because you can't show that gun control laws keep the people safe...as the violence rates in all of those countries is growing, not going down....

While in the U.S....our gun crime rates are going down, not up, as more Americans own and carry guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Calm down, Shirley.
I'm not advocating for that at all. The second only guarantees your right to keep and bear arms. It in no way specifies what those arms must be. There are already many restrictions in place and you still have arms and a right to them.

And adding on to those restrictions has what practical effect? It will accomplish nothing but deprive MILLIONS of Americans the right.

Let's restrict the fuck out of free speech, shall we? You okay with that? It doesn't say we have to allow ALL speech. You are only guaranteed the right to some speech. Can we arbitrarily restrict that speech? Who gets to decide? Can I decide? Do you trust me?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

You, and the rest of the radical grabbers, have yet to correlate gun ownership to and out of control mass shooting spree.

It is NOT the guns. It is the people.

It's the culture around guns and it's effect on people.

There are 600 million guns and over 17 million people now carry guns for self defense....

Americans use those guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop criminal attack.

Criminals, murdering other criminals killed 11,004 people in 2016....can you tell which number is bigger.....?

The problem is that democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail....and those repeat gun offenders who can't buy, own or carry guns go on to murder other criminals and some innocent people....

It isn't American gun culture....it is American, democrat crime policies......

Your numbers are wildly inflated. Perhaps a link?

Asks for proof he will only deny. Classic. You will accept no proof, and you make up crap as you go. An assault weapon is stupid dimtard made up word used to scare soft headed media fed types.

The numbers are wrong. There aren't 600 million guns. I simply want clarification.