Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[Markle]

I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

That's good because civilians, trained or untrained do not have anywhere near the firepower as do soldiers on the battlefield.

 

[iceberg]

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

So given last night you said no to banning the AR, WHAT ARE YOU LIMITING?

 

[Slade3200]

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

Your ignorance of the facts is not surprising! It would be amusing if it were not so sad and characteristic of the far left.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Markle you make a great point!!!! Thank you.

Ok you just posted stats that showed the U.K. as a much more violent country than the US. Now let’s look at the murder rate. Well look at that the US blows away the U.K. Intersting huh? More violence yet less death..,, more guns vs less guns. I think you just helped me prove my point. Thank you!

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

 

[Slade3200]

I disagree... fighting fire with fire just causes more fire. I prefer water

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Do you need an AK with a 100 round mag to feel safe?

 

[Slade3200]

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

As you know, your odds of being killed by a vehicle, whether driven by you or not, is far, far greater than someone killing you with any sort of rifle.

So? That has nothing to do with this conversation

 

[Slade3200]

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

So given last night you said no to banning the AR, WHAT ARE YOU LIMITING?

I don’t understand the question

 

[DamnDude]

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

Actually, my queation was this;
Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?
I have not brought up anything about machine guns, except to say they are already so controlled as to be quasi banned.
The question remains. I look forward to to your response.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

How many guns do we have in this country? Why aren't we the safest country in the world, then?

Guns don't guarantee everybody will be safe. Nobody is safe in any country. But if you are attacked, having a gun may save your life just as it does hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US.

Do you need an AK with a 100 round mag to feel safe?

No, but it's none of my business if somebody else does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no water here. If there were, we would have used it a long time ago.

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

People who want to kill will kill with guns or not. Our two largest mass murders didn't involve one gun. They involved box cutters and fertilizer.

On Friday, some goof drove his SUV into a Sears store in Illinois trying to kill shoppers. He failed, but the point is he figured out a way to try and kill a bunch of people. Last year, London surpassed NYC murder rate, mostly with the use of knives. In France, some crazy drove a truck into a crowd killing 85 people.

So here is the problem: If you take a nice middle-class suburb, make a law that all citizens must have a firearm in their home, and do the reverse in a low income crime riddled area, the crime statistics won't change in either neighborhood. Because it's the people, not the weapon that kills other people.

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

Neither. But if I had to, I'd want to have my gun with me when I do.

 

[Slade3200]

Of course there is... water is everything other than arming up to fight the bad guys. I don’t think you understood the analogy

Nothing else has worked so I don't know where you get the water from. We can't stop the bad guys from getting guns, that much we know. We have hundreds of gun laws on the books already, and state laws add even more. There are certain people not legally allowed to buy guns, but they buy them anyway.

Now if your goal is to reduce casualties and deaths, then the only thing in the past that has done that is another person with a gun.

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

People who want to kill will kill with guns or not. Our two largest mass murders didn't involve one gun. They involved box cutters and fertilizer.

On Friday, some goof drove his SUV into a Sears store in Illinois trying to kill shoppers. He failed, but the point is he figured out a way to try and kill a bunch of people. Last year, London surpassed NYC murder rate, mostly with the use of knives. In France, some crazy drove a truck into a crowd killing 85 people.

So here is the problem: If you take a nice middle-class suburb, make a law that all citizens must have a firearm in their home, and do the reverse in a low income crime riddled area, the crime statistics won't change in either neighborhood. Because it's the people, not the weapon that kills other people.

I like my odds better vs a box cutter or vehicle vs a semi auto with 100 bullets in it. What would you rather go up against?

Neither. But if I had to, I'd want to have my gun with me when I do.

Darn, you got me with that one. You win... good job

 

[Dragonlady]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

I don't know how that all works, but I think Republicans should just walk out until they're done. Let them hold the floor until November for all I care.

But racist fools like you are in the minority Ray. That's why Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, because the majority of Americans are not in favour of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 to "give him a chance" decided in 2018, that the racism, misogyny and xenophobia were too much and voted Democrat in 2018. The numbers of people who are not prepared to give Trump leeway to screw up the country further, will add their numbers to those who voted Democrat in 2018, and dismiss this racist, misogynist and xenophobiic dotard in 2020.

The polls show that anybody with a D next to their name will defeat Trump. His Presidency is a total failure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

I don't know how that all works, but I think Republicans should just walk out until they're done. Let them hold the floor until November for all I care.

But racist fools like you are in the minority Ray. That's why Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, because the majority of Americans are not in favour of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 to "give him a chance" decided in 2018, that the racism, misogyny and xenophobia were too much and voted Democrat in 2018. The numbers of people who are not prepared to give Trump leeway to screw up the country further, will add their numbers to those who voted Democrat in 2018, and dismiss this racist, misogynist and xenophobiic dotard in 2020.

The polls show that anybody with a D next to their name will defeat Trump. His Presidency is a total failure.

So let's define total failure:

The lowest unemployment in 50 years.
More jobs available than Americans to work them.
All time unemployment records set for minorities, veterans and women.
New record in median household income.
New record set for small business confidence.
Decrease in government dependency particularly the SNAP's program.
Removed Commie Care fines that stole money from people that needed it the most.
Instituted removing two business regulations for every one created.
Record in FDA approval of cheaper generic prescriptions.
Enacted veterans choice of choosing VA hospitals or private.
Removed us from the job killing Paris Accord.
Moved US embassy to Jerusalem.

Statistics show that both Democrat and Republicans and very increased turnout for the 2018 elections. But hate won over pragmatism, and Democrats got a slight gain in the House alone. So Republicans are standing behind Trump, and the new movement of Democrats leaving the party has begun.

Keep believing your polls. It will come as comfort to you in 2020.

 

[Dragonlady]

I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

That's good because civilians, trained or untrained do not have anywhere near the firepower as do soldiers on the battlefield.

There's also the reality that none of Hillary's classified emails fell into the wrong hands. None of them turned up on servers they shouldn't have, so in reality, regard of her "careless handling" of her emails, none of the ended up in the wrong hands. No harm, no foul.

So despite the fact the Republicans knew in 2008 that Hillary was using a private server for her governmnet emails, and despite Republicans having passed a law in 2013 to make doing governmentment work on a private server illegal, precisely because Hillary Clinton worked as Secretary of State on a private server, the Republican Party didn't call for an investigation into Hillary's emails until she was running for President in 2016. After the 7th Benghazi Investigation found no wrong-doing by the Obama Administration in General, and Hillary Clinton in particular.

 

[JGalt]

I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

That's good because civilians, trained or untrained do not have anywhere near the firepower as do soldiers on the battlefield.

There's also the reality that none of Hillary's classified emails fell into the wrong hands. None of them turned up on servers they shouldn't have, so in reality, regard of her "careless handling" of her emails, none of the ended up in the wrong hands. No harm, no foul.

So despite the fact the Republicans knew in 2008 that Hillary was using a private server for her governmnet emails, and despite Republicans having passed a law in 2013 to make doing governmentment work on a private server illegal, precisely because Hillary Clinton worked as Secretary of State on a private server, the Republican Party didn't call for an investigation into Hillary's emails until she was running for President in 2016. After the 7th Benghazi Investigation found no wrong-doing by the Obama Administration in General, and Hillary Clinton in particular.

Wiping a server clean and smashing cell phones are the acts of someone whose desperately trying to hide something. Especially since it was done after receiving a subpoena.

 

[iceberg]

"Super dangerous"
Is there any other kind?
Isn't it kind of the point?
The point of the spear has to actually be useful if it is going to be a deterrent. Otherwise it is nothing more than bully and bluster.
What's that gonna get you when someone comes at you with evil intent? If you don't have the right tools to defend yourself what are you gonna use? A "non super dangerous weapon?"
We can go down many rabbit holes with your hyperbole. However, I'd like to see you answer the question posed to you in a multitude of ways as straight forward as possible. Why do you want to punish the law abiding, the vast majority that are the law abiding, who have not in any way, shape, form, nor fashion broken any laws because some mental defective, who are a very, very, miniscule percentage, lost their shit and decided it was okay to break the law and kill people?

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

So given last night you said no to banning the AR, WHAT ARE YOU LIMITING?

I don’t understand the question

What do you consider "super dangerous"?

 

[iceberg]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

I don't know how that all works, but I think Republicans should just walk out until they're done. Let them hold the floor until November for all I care.

But racist fools like you are in the minority Ray. That's why Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, because the majority of Americans are not in favour of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 to "give him a chance" decided in 2018, that the racism, misogyny and xenophobia were too much and voted Democrat in 2018. The numbers of people who are not prepared to give Trump leeway to screw up the country further, will add their numbers to those who voted Democrat in 2018, and dismiss this racist, misogynist and xenophobiic dotard in 2020.

The polls show that anybody with a D next to their name will defeat Trump. His Presidency is a total failure.

What the FUCK does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Slade3200]

Sure, every gun is dangerous. But put a musket next to a machine gun and you see there are many levels of dangerous. Some are made for combat and should be left in the hands of trained soldiers. Others for licensed citizens and law enforcement. Others for average citizens for self defense, sport and hunting

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

So given last night you said no to banning the AR, WHAT ARE YOU LIMITING?

I don’t understand the question

What do you consider "super dangerous"?

Things like C4, granaide launchers, machine guns, semi-autos with high capacity magazines, bump stocks and high velocity ammo. I’m open to debate regarding anything else. As I said I’m not an activist I’m just looking for open discussion and fair debate

 

[Markle]

But racist fools like you are in the minority Ray. That's why Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, because the majority of Americans are not in favour of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Those who voted for Trump in 2016 to "give him a chance" decided in 2018, that the racism, misogyny and xenophobia were too much and voted Democrat in 2018. The numbers of people who are not prepared to give Trump leeway to screw up the country further, will add their numbers to those who voted Democrat in 2018, and dismiss this racist, misogynist and xenophobiic dotard in 2020.

The polls show that anybody with a D next to their name will defeat Trump. His Presidency is a total failure.

 

[2aguy]

And we aren't talking 100 round magazines......that is dishonest of you......you know they want to ban anything over 10....which would make millions of legally owned pistols illegal.....without having to vote to ban or confiscate them....

I am talking about 100 round mags because that’s exactly what was used in Dayton. Nothing dishonest about that. And I’d be fine with a 10 round limit

While "I" cannot think of a reason for owning a 100 round drum personally, I am sure there are those out there that can.
While you think there is no reason I should have a 30 round magazine for my AR... It does not give you (generally speaking) the right to limit it. I have not broken any laws that would allow for my 2A rights to be forfeit...
The biggest issue I have with any further laws being generated is they will only affect the law abiding. There are so many other issues to be addressed, mental health, enforcement of current gun laws, restriction of 2nd chances for those that fall within 2A forfeiture of rights, ensuring NICS is updated(!!!) That one is my personal pet peeve...

I agree that all those other things are important and should be discussed more. I’m also not going to throw a hissy fit for more regulations. But I would vote yes to regulate dangerous weapons. You can get a license to own your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

 

[2aguy]

Come on Slade.... The musket in 1770 was the "super dangerous" weapon of choice at the time.
Times change, so does the item in question.
Hell's bells, just 100 years ago people were still getting around mainly by horse, horse and buggy (or other animal drawn cart)or steam locomotive.
I get it, you keep wanting to appeal to emotions and cannot see a "valid reason" for anyone to own what you deem acceptable. Problem is, I can.
You deal with your little slice of the world and I bet rarely ever venture out of it. I deal mainly in a rural setting and there are many and various animals to be wary of.. Least of them the 2 legged variety. I also have to deal with the business world in a city enviroment. I don't encounter every type of incident and I hope I never do. I just don't want the law abiding to be limited should they ever have a need. I have been blessed in my personal life as to not have a need... Yet. However, my previous life/upbringing/career/life experience leave me with an understanding. Just because I don't believe it to be so doesn't mean it isn't needed for someone else.
What you want doesn't negate what someone else needs.

You asked what I meant by “super dangerous” I used the musket-machine gun example to explain how weapons have different levels of danger. We determine what the threshold is for civilians and our legal market. I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

So given last night you said no to banning the AR, WHAT ARE YOU LIMITING?

I don’t understand the question

What do you consider "super dangerous"?

Things like C4, granaide launchers, machine guns, semi-autos with high capacity magazines, bump stocks and high velocity ammo. I’m open to debate regarding anything else. As I said I’m not an activist I’m just looking for open discussion and fair debate

Semi-autos....guns that have been around forever, and now you guys want to ban them......thanks for telling the truth, since the majority of our guns are semi-autos. You have been shown that semi-autos and magazines have nothing to do with the death rate in mass shootings, but you don't care...you want them banned because you have a phobia about them. Your desire to ban them is irrational. It is not based in truth, facts or reality.