They can't define what an assult weapon is, but they will ban them...

[Skull Pilot]

70% of all murders take place in very small areas of just 5 counties in the entire country but since those murders are predominantly young minorities killing other young minorities you don't give a shit

Reducing the firearms in circulation will reduce the firearm homicide rate. This is shown by the experience of other developed nations, whatever point you were trying to make, unsuccessfully, in your rant.

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Who cares about suicides?

I do. I also care about accidental gun deaths. Especially among little kids.

Weird, huh?

Kids die in far greater numbers from other accidents than gun accidents

But you don't care about those

Did you know more kids were killed by their parents than were accidentally killed with firearms?

Children Are Dying Because Of Americans' Denial About Guns


An average 1,297 children die (two children per 100,000)
Six percent of these deaths were accidental

or 1297*.06 = 78 children

Now how many children are killed by their parents every year?
When parents kill: FBI data reveal disturbing patterns

Annually about 450 children are intentionally murdered by a parent.

So you see a child has a far greater chance of being killed by a parent than being killed accidentally with a firearm

 

[Skull Pilot]

70% of all murders take place in very small areas of just 5 counties in the entire country but since those murders are predominantly young minorities killing other young minorities you don't give a shit

Reducing the firearms in circulation will reduce the firearm homicide rate. This is shown by the experience of other developed nations, whatever point you were trying to make, unsuccessfully, in your rant.

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Why is a homicide or a suicide with a gun somehow worse than a homicide or suicide without a gun?

It isn’t worse. It’s easier.

Next.

If it's easier then why are knives and bare hands used to kill more people than rifles every year?

And Suicide is a choice but we all know how you hate it when people have choices

 

[LoneLaugher]

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

It’s a good start

I would make it simpler.......anything capable of being fired at a rate above 100 rpm is an assault rifle

That just shows how much of an idiot you are.

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

Classify an assault weapon based on the capabilities of the gun, not the shooter.

Makes it easier than playing alphabet soup with different models and makes

Again, how do you define the capability. An automatic has a cyclical rate of fire, a semi auto is 100% dependent on the ability of the shooter.

You can still measure the rate at which a semi auto is capable of being fired at.

Take the human out of it. Rate each gun by it’s capability, if its above 100 rpm it gets classified as an assault weapon

you can't take the human out of the equation because it will always be a human pulling the trigger

 

[LoneLaugher]

Reducing the firearms in circulation will reduce the firearm homicide rate. This is shown by the experience of other developed nations, whatever point you were trying to make, unsuccessfully, in your rant.

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Who cares about suicides?

I do. I also care about accidental gun deaths. Especially among little kids.

Weird, huh?

Kids die in far greater numbers from other accidents than gun accidents

But you don't care about those

Did you know more kids were killed by their parents than were accidentally killed with firearms?

Children Are Dying Because Of Americans' Denial About Guns


An average 1,297 children die (two children per 100,000)
Six percent of these deaths were accidental

or 1297*.06 = 78 children

Now how many children are killed by their parents every year?
When parents kill: FBI data reveal disturbing patterns

Annually about 450 children are intentionally murdered by a parent.

So you see a child has a far greater chance of being killed by a parent than being killed accidentally with a firearm

That’s an original argument! Thanks so much.

All those other kinds of accidents are at the hands of things which have purposes other than killing.

Next.

 

[Ame®icano]

Imagine that... Some snowflake in Illinois wants to Ban the following...

The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.

Shit is getting deep boys and girls...

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day

Since they can't definition of "assault rifle" doesn't match their real goal, they're changing the definition.

When nothing else works, change the definition

 

[LoneLaugher]

Reducing the firearms in circulation will reduce the firearm homicide rate. This is shown by the experience of other developed nations, whatever point you were trying to make, unsuccessfully, in your rant.

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Why is a homicide or a suicide with a gun somehow worse than a homicide or suicide without a gun?

It isn’t worse. It’s easier.

Next.

If it's easier then why are knives and bare hands used to kill more people than rifles every year?

And Suicide is a choice but we all know how you hate it when people have choices

Yeah. It easier to kill with a knife than a gun. That’s perfect logic. Thanks for playing.

 

[martybegan]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Who cares about suicides?

I do. I also care about accidental gun deaths. Especially among little kids.

Weird, huh?

Kids die in far greater numbers from other accidents than gun accidents

But you don't care about those

Did you know more kids were killed by their parents than were accidentally killed with firearms?

Children Are Dying Because Of Americans' Denial About Guns


An average 1,297 children die (two children per 100,000)
Six percent of these deaths were accidental

or 1297*.06 = 78 children

Now how many children are killed by their parents every year?
When parents kill: FBI data reveal disturbing patterns

Annually about 450 children are intentionally murdered by a parent.

So you see a child has a far greater chance of being killed by a parent than being killed accidentally with a firearm

That’s an original argument! Thanks so much.

All those other kinds of accidents are at the hands of things which have purposes other than killing.

Next.

But parents still kill more kids on purpose than guns kill kids accidentally

Seems to me you should be doing something about parents

But it's better that a parent kill a kid than a gun accident right?

 

[BULLDOG]

I do.

Well sorry but someone offing themselves with a gun is no reason to restrict MY access to one. Why not prevent all traffic from crossing the golden gate bridge because jumpers seem to have a soft spot for it?

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

 

[martybegan]

Well sorry but someone offing themselves with a gun is no reason to restrict MY access to one. Why not prevent all traffic from crossing the golden gate bridge because jumpers seem to have a soft spot for it?

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

 

[Ame®icano]

Are criminals going to be covered by this ban?

 

[martybegan]

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

 

[martybegan]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

We aren't talking about TV or radio. You said the 2nd was intended to protect the use of semi autos. I'm just asking for documentation.

 

[martybegan]

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[martybegan]

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

We aren't talking about TV or radio. You said the 2nd was intended to protect the use of semi autos. I'm just asking for documentation.

And I am asking for documentation that TV and Radio are covered by the 1st amendment.

You aren't really that bright are you? I am making an exact comparison of the extension of another right due to increases in technology.