The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[Uncensored2008]

[
I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars.

Nice attempt to dodge, but even that fails.

Remember that Obama redefined what "mass" means. Two killed for any reason is now a "mass killing" based on the redefinition of the flouncing fucktard.

There were 383 homicides in the USA using any type of rifle in the 2011.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

The same year saw over 11,000 traffic fatalities where alcohol was involved (homicide. )

MADD - Underage Drinking Statistics

I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

So, the reason you want to register guns is that you need to find out what party they belong to? You know, to outlaw those Republican guns.

Say, wasn't the Muslim terrorist who attacked in Orlando a registered democrat?

Suspected Orlando terrorist was a registered Democrat - The American Mirror

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

We both know that your source is your anus.

 

[Czernobog]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

 

[westwall]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

 

[Czernobog]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

No it isn't. I have stated, repeatedly, that the goal is to reduce the likelihood. I find it really interesting that when antiu-chjoice proponents are shown those exact same truths about abortion - that banning abortion will not stop abortions, only safe, legal, abortions - that this is simply brushed aside as an excuse "not to do the right thing". But, when it comes to gun violence, that is, apparently, the exact reason to do nothing - that it won't stop criminals from illegally getting what the law has restricted.

Interesting cognitive dissonance. I'm not even going to suggest that it's hypocrisy, because I don't believe that it is. Hypocrisy implies that one knows that the argument one is using in a current circumstance directly contradicts an argument made at an earlier time. I don't think this is the case. I think you guys truly do not perceive that the issue is exactly the same.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

On the other hand, there aren't a lot of loons out there using their cars to kill American citizens to make an ideological point. Tell you what, when you can stop that, I'll stop advocating restriction to assault weapons.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

 

[Czernobog]

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"

Makes as much sense as what you propose.

 

[Valerie]

This has been argued many times over. The Founders mistrusted a standing army due to well known history of it's abuses. We are seeing how the Military Industrial Complex is doing that same thing today. The Founders ensured that the PEOPLE would have the same weaponry as any standing army so that the PEOPLE would be able to fight a tyrannical government on an equal footing. This is well documented no matter how hard you try and parse its meaning.

EVERY publication the Founders issued is clear on the meaning, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Your interpretation is factually, historically, and philosophically WRONG.

no, yours is...

Cute, juvenile response. But the fact remains, if you were indeed correct the guns would have been confiscated decades ago. The fact that they haven't been shows your position to be the false one.

Thanks for playing....

my post was neither cute nor juvenile and i'm not "playing" so your perception is warped.

your "thanks for playing" sign-off actually IS a "cute juvenile response" however.

fact is, YOUR interpretation is "factually, historically, and philosophically wrong."




As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

The Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Never Passed If It Wasn't For Ronald Reagan

 

[Czernobog]

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"

Makes as much sense as what you propose.

Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Valerie]

The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.

While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.

Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.

If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.

We must not surrender the gains that we have made.

It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety

Our communities and the officers we lead expect this of us; our duty demands it.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

 

[westwall]

Wait Comrade, so you are making the claim that MORE homicides are committed each year by (bullshit leftist term) "assault rifles" then are by cars?

That's your claim?

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

According to them it just will. Don't question authority!

 

[westwall]

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"

Makes as much sense as what you propose.

Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?

 

[Czernobog]

I am stating that more mass killings are performed with assault weapons than cars. I am further claiming that more politically motivated homicides are committed with assault weapons than cars, in this country, than with cars.

Can't wait to see your source that says otherwise.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

According to them it just will. Don't question authority!

Same question to you. Is a law reasonable, and equitable if it is not employed universally?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"

Makes as much sense as what you propose.

Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?

Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[westwall]

The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.

While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.

Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.

If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.

We must not surrender the gains that we have made.

It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety

Our communities and the officers we lead expect this of us; our duty demands it.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

Big whoop, politicians want to ban weapons. That's what politicians do. The rank and file membership, you know the actual cops on the line fighting the bad guys are overwhelmingly AGAINST assault weapons bans.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

Is a law fair if it is not equally employed?

"Men rape women, that's a fact, I guess we better put you in jail so that other guy can't rape a woman"

Makes as much sense as what you propose.

Nice non sequitur. Answer the question. Is a law reasonable, and equitable, if it is not employed universally? Yes, or no.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Is it fair to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal actions of a few hundred?

Another non sequitur. Want to try and actually answer the question?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It certainly is not you fool, it is completely apropos.

You are effectively suggesting that millions of people should be deprived of a right because other people have abused theirs.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Valerie]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

On the same day Democratic lawmakers introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, one of the primary authors of the original 1994 ban said that reinstating it is about making the streets safer for law enforcement, who are currently “outgunned.”

Biden: 'Outgunned' Police Support Assault Weapons Ban - The National Memo

 

[westwall]

The same is true in France where the weapons you so hate are ALREADY ILLEGAL. So, according to your warped logic, those 150 people couldn't possibly have been killed by those murderous swine. Is that what you're claiming?

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

According to them it just will. Don't question authority!

Same question to you. Is a law reasonable, and equitable if it is not employed universally?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

A law that punishes millions for the misdeeds of a few is not a legitimate law. And, it is a law that will ignored.

 

[Valerie]

The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.

While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.

Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.

If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.

We must not surrender the gains that we have made.

It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety

Our communities and the officers we lead expect this of us; our duty demands it.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

Big whoop, politicians want to ban weapons. That's what politicians do. The rank and file membership, you know the actual cops on the line fighting the bad guys are overwhelmingly AGAINST assault weapons bans.

wrong.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Have I stated, anywhere, that these restrictions would eliminate crimes using assault weapons? If so, please cite the post where I said as much. If not, then this response is specious, condescending, and without substance.

But, you know what? Don't bother. I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion, as it is fruitless, and accomplishes noting but fruitless debate across the chasm. I have known this since the Sandy hook massacre. When the slaughter of children is not enough to convince us to work together to find ways to reduce the violence, then the argument is finished, and my side lost.

We, as a nation, have already decided that the frequent attacks with assault weapons is a price we are more than willing to pay for the unfettered access to whatever firearms we want. None of this bickering, back and forth, will actually accomplish anything. No laws are going to be even discussed, let alone passed. Nothing will change. So, I see no reason to bother on this topic.

That is certainly the implication. What I find astonishing is your complete lack of honesty when dealing with this issue. You have been shown chapter and verse that if a bad guy wants to use a assault weapon he will. Laws don't matter. Thus the only people your laws will affect are the law abiding. This is KNOWN. Feel free to run and hide, that's what dishonest people do when they are called out, but make no mistake, it is YOU who are condescending, and dishonest.

Only YOU.

I'm trying to figure out how taking MY weapon will stop someone else from killing people......

According to them it just will. Don't question authority!

Same question to you. Is a law reasonable, and equitable if it is not employed universally?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

A law that punishes millions for the misdeeds of a few is not a legitimate law. And, it is a law that will ignored.

No shit, they come around to my house and I'll be like "what assault weapons, I have a musket I guess you can confiscate" lol