The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles

[irosie91]

No...there is no confusion...

The German government began registering guns in the 1920s.....the national socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies, who they then murdered, while allowing their supporters to own guns...

That is what happened...they armed their supporters...with guns, and took guns away from the 6 million Jews they murdered.

Give Suradie a CHANCE----she has determined that
the Nuremburg laws have been MISUNDERSTOOD---
I am fascinated-----over to you Suradie----how have the Nuremburg laws been MISUNDERSTOOD?

 

[westwall]

Firearms are just another subject the duopoly can use to divide and continue to conquer. No problem, from "guns" to "gender i.d." is being solved as root cures would also lead to ousting the powers that maintain them.
There are measures that could be taken, certainly, but reasonableness left the building long ago.

Quit calling them a duopoly. They aren't. They are the political class against all of us.

There is no difference between them.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy. Again, this is really simple so pay attention. The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes. It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency. It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis. Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership. Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle. Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools. The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.

Wrong on many levels. First off what the left is claiming to be an assault rifle is not. Actual assault rifles have the ability to fire full auto but they are pointing their fingers at simi-auto weapons. Most weapons in the world today are simi-auto. Shotguns are every bit as dangerous as what are claimed to be "assault rifles" not to mention explosives, fire bombs (which can be quickly made by anyone who wants one), or chemical and/or biological weapons. People who gather together in large groups are simply far more vulnerable. If you want to outlaw something why not outlaw large groups of people?

"The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide."

Bullspit! Who are you to decide how much benefit anyone else gets from something? Especially rights guaranteed by the US Constitution?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.

Everything your mouths spews about gun rights is a fucking lie. Shut your fucking communist hole.

 

[Vrenn]

Friend, the 1st Cavalry Division were issued M-16s in June and July 1965. We left for Vietnam Aug 13 with the M-16. We never had AR 15s. I know the history of both including the reduction of muzzle velocity and addition of a forward assist assembly.

All M-16s are AR-15s no matter what model. The Colt Model Numbers for the M-16 and the original 601 was AR-15 Model 601 through 604. If you were issued something that looked like the M-16 chances are it was the AR-15 Model 601. That was the model that was used in the tests for the Army but not what was adopted. If you had the 601 you had the best model of them all. No money was spared. The Model that the Army ended up with was the bargain basement Model 602.

The point being is, ALL M-16 are AR-15s in one model or another. You can't change history nor fact just by wishing it away.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I want stricter gun controls. I support the 2nd amendment,

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Laugh all you want. But my full comment was short and powerful, and reflects a sentiment most Americans can support.

Responding to “Daveman”:

You have fantasies of putting people in boxcars, don't you?

The man with two big pistols in the air as his avatar accuses others of having fantasies!

Not only that, he slanders them stupidly. He accuses fellow citizens who simply want more gun control as …. communists. This is over the edge, grotesque. Shameful.

I have a semi-automatic rifle, a pistol, a carry license, and I consider myself a responsible citizen. I don’t like having to carry when I go shopping. I want stricter gun controls. I support the 2nd amendment, and I think an “originalist” and proper interpretation of it allows much stricter gun regulations.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No one is arguing that point except for you. Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16? The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy. Nothing has changed. It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today. What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings. We need to break that cult.

I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.

The full auto capability is very rarely used on the M16. In the vast number of uses, they are effectively the same gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everything your mouths spews about gun rights is a fucking lie. Shut your fucking communist hole.

A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived and then that lie is attacked, with the person who contrived the lie declaring ‘victory’ in the ‘argument.’

In this case the lie is that Democrats have orchestrated some nefarious ‘conspiracy’ to ‘ban’ handguns.

It’s as idiotic as it is ridiculous and wrong – typical of the dishonest, lying right.

 

[Vrenn]

I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.

Funny. Both the AR-10 and the AR-15 were produced by Armalite up until 1961. The AR-10 was a nato 7.62 but lost the military bid to the M-14 in 1957 so they redid it and turned out the AR-15 model 601 which they sold to the Maylasian Army in 1959. Colt bought the rights in 1961. And they saw a goldmine. In 1962 they offered a nearly identacle rifle sharing almost all parts with a semi auto called the AR-15 Model 750. When the AR-15 was adopted by the US Army, it had to be rename and stamped by an M number hence the M-16. That's why the USAF AR-15 Model 601 had a stamp of (M-16) added just after the original model number. The AR-15 Model 601 was in service until 1991.

Again, you can't change history just by typing a different ending.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

When I lived in NYC some three decades ago, when city & national violent crime statistics peaked, it was extremely difficult to get a handgun carry license unless you had very good reason (my brother carried cash daily from his business to a bank and got one). Even a non-carry handgun home license renewal became very expensive, but handguns were never outlawed. As a city boy who earlier drove a cab, then worked in public transportation, I traveled the city every day — feeling vulnerable.

I myself fought for looser laws to allow vetted city workers in unions to carry. Crime really seemed out of control. But soon violent crime started falling back as laws toughened, more police were hired, and — possibly most important — the effect of legal, available and socially accepted abortion began to manifest itself with fewer unwanted and abused young men reaching the age of (criminal) “manhood.” Some of the drug epidemics also just naturally “burned themselves out.” Perhaps there were other economic reasons as well.

Big city life is very different than rural life. Has been so since early town martials and police forces brought a little peace and order by restricting cowboys from getting drunk and shooting off guns in town. But the basic need for self protection and the craving for “law & order” expresses itself in many ways.

Take for example the “law & order” demand for “locking up” (and throwing away the key) for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. Sounds reasonable, but It too can backfire. In the toughest and poorest neighborhoods of NYC I know for a fact that many hardworking minorities back then would carry (illegally) — just so they could survive. Some would end up attacked and face serious time for defending themselves, as they couldn’t afford expensive lawyers, and cops assumed they were themselves ipso facto criminals.

Not that “free carry” can ever work in cities — my point is that reasonable laws and reasonable law enforcement … and reasonable discussion of social issues like gun control … is essential.

 

[daveman]

You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The absurdity of analogies made between Nazi policies and the policies of today’s American liberals who support representative democracy (and more gun regulations) should imo be … self evident.

I'll ask you the same question I asked surada:

What percentage of the population must be involved before it's bad to remove their God-given rights? This piece of crap Wiki article says it's okay if it's 1%.

What's your upper limit? 5%? 20%? 50%?

 

[daveman]

Wrong.

No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent

www.politifact.com

Politifact is bullshit. But it's bullshit you like the taste of, so you believe it without question.

Run along now.

 

[daveman]

You think somebody is planning to murder you? You have been paranoid for a long time, haven't you. I guess that's why you are such a coward.

He's damn sure not afraid of you murdering him.

 

[Hollie]

A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived and then that lie is attacked, with the person who contrived the lie declaring ‘victory’ in the ‘argument.’

In this case the lie is that Democrats have orchestrated some nefarious ‘conspiracy’ to ‘ban’ handguns.

It’s as idiotic as it is ridiculous and wrong – typical of the dishonest, lying right.

"typical of the dishonest, lying right."

Doesn't this fall as a hasty generalization fallacy?

 

[daveman]

Like I said. You are an idiot coward.

Why do you want women to be defenseless against their attackers?

 

[daveman]

Laugh all you want. But my full comment was short and powerful, and reflects a sentiment most Americans can support.

Responding to “Daveman”:

Repetition of bullshit doesn't make it smell any better.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I'll ask you the same question I asked surada:
What percentage of the population must be involved before it's bad to remove their God-given rights? This piece of crap Wiki article says it's okay if it's 1%.
What's your upper limit? 5%? 20%? 50%?

Put your guns away, cowboy, stop drinking the cool aid, ask a sensible and respectful question, then maybe I will take you seriously.

 

[daveman]

"typical of the dishonest, lying right."

Doesn't this fall as a hasty generalization fallacy?

Yes, but it's okay when he does it. Just ask him.