Why does California want to ban rifles with detachable magazines and bullet buttons...anyone?

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Because those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, for one. The people who own them are not criminals....second, and because for practical reasons they are great for self defense and a lot of people enjoy competing with them....

Do you acknowledge that all of the current mass shootings could have been comitted with an 1800's lever action rifle.....with no detachable magazine......or a pump action shotgun...with no detachable magazine.....or revolvers, with no detachable magazine....

There is no reason to ban these weapons...they are not used in crimes, they are used by the super, duper majority of owners for legitimate, and Constitutionally protected reasons.

Also...at the very core of the issue......any weapon that the police and military have....all citizens need to have access to them as well.....that is what keeps mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing from ever forming in the little minds of evil politicians....

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

To look like they're doing something when they're not really doing anything is my guess. Window dressing.

Then there's nothing to be soiling oneself over.

Not much to worry about, no...but because these politicians in CA think gun control is a winner for them. Nothing wrong with opposing this stupidity and remaining vigilant.

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

And if he did (link) he was wrong.....but of course the black panthers were criminals...and if they had criminal records they should not have had the guns...if they were just dupes.....then there would be no reason for them not to have those guns.

 

[2aguy]

To look like they're doing something when they're not really doing anything is my guess. Window dressing.

Then there's nothing to be soiling oneself over.

Not much to worry about, no...but because these politicians in CA think gun control is a winner for them. Nothing wrong with opposing this stupidity and remaining vigilant.

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

Link?

And the black panthers were criminals...hiding behind a false face of political activism.

 

[2aguy]

To look like they're doing something when they're not really doing anything is my guess. Window dressing.

Then there's nothing to be soiling oneself over.

Not much to worry about, no...but because these politicians in CA think gun control is a winner for them. Nothing wrong with opposing this stupidity and remaining vigilant.

You should go back a revisit how Reagan got all about gun control as gov of CA when the Black Panthers decided they could open carry too.

I know he signed a ban of full automatic weapons, Fenton.

Yeah, he didn't much like black militants exercising their rights like that. That would give this entire gun biz a very different flavor if Mexicans and Blacks started carrying everywhere.

You do realize that Blacks make up the one of the biggest growth sectors gun sales area....right? And who is complaining about law abiding citizens owning and or carrying guns.......ask Colin Noir....or Alphonso Rachel....they can explain it to you.....

 

[Iceweasel]

Also...at the very core of the issue......any weapon that the police and military have....all citizens need to have access to them as well.....that is what keeps mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing from ever forming in the little minds of evil politicians....

Yep, and that's why libs don't want us to have them. Government needs to be held accountable to the people. Unarmed people aren't citizens, they are subjects.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As a conservative I'll leave it to Californians to decide the laws of their state.

Huh? When did they have a say?

Every election

The Supreme court disagreed on prop 8


.

And?

 

[OldLady]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

From your link...

Indeed, officers in Chicago recover more guns than their counterparts in New York and Los Angeles — two cities with larger populations — combined. In 2012, Los Angeles police seized 122 illegal guns for every 100,000 residents, while New York cops confiscated 39. In Chicago, the rate was 277.

Have you looked at a map lately? Is California near any gun friendly states? How about New York? Do their criminals get motion sickness, so they can't drive and get guns?

And what about Houston?

 

[OldLady]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Because those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, for one. The people who own them are not criminals....second, and because for practical reasons they are great for self defense and a lot of people enjoy competing with them....

Do you acknowledge that all of the current mass shootings could have been comitted with an 1800's lever action rifle.....with no detachable magazine......or a pump action shotgun...with no detachable magazine.....or revolvers, with no detachable magazine....

There is no reason to ban these weapons...they are not used in crimes, they are used by the super, duper majority of owners for legitimate, and Constitutionally protected reasons.

Also...at the very core of the issue......any weapon that the police and military have....all citizens need to have access to them as well.....that is what keeps mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing from ever forming in the little minds of evil politicians....

You have shared this last argument with me before, and excuse me but I find all you boys who think you can defend yourselves against the US military as utterly, pathetically laughable. You still haven't told me, actually, why nice, law abiding normal gun owners need military-style assault weapons. You've simply given me your standard argument for why guns shouldn't be taken away. If the current mass shootings were committed with an 1800's lever action rifle with no detachable magazine or a pump action shotgun or a revolver with no detachable magazine, less people would have been killed and injured. There might be more kids alive in Newtown. That is the grisly hill I am standing on. Less destruction.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And again.......the primary reason we have the Right to Bear arms is to keep the government from becoming like Mexico.....did you read up on the Autodefensas? The people who own the country, the citizens arm the police and soldiers....the police and soldiers do not dictate to us what guns we can own.....we dictate to them......

Any rifle or pistol the military or police use.....we get to have too.......as many as we want.....that is the power dynamic that keeps a country free.......

And again......how is it that 2-4 people illegally using a gun means 357,449,998 million guns have to be banned?

How does that even make sense to you?

By that number.....cars should no longer exist in this country....

 

[OldLady]

Yup. I'm back to banning all of 'em. And If you are so dense that you cannot even acknowledge I have a point (I'm not alone in this, you know) there is no sense in discussing it with you anymore. You are like talking to a wall. You never actually answer my questions. I'm done, at least for now.

 

[2aguy]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

Because those rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment, for one. The people who own them are not criminals....second, and because for practical reasons they are great for self defense and a lot of people enjoy competing with them....

Do you acknowledge that all of the current mass shootings could have been comitted with an 1800's lever action rifle.....with no detachable magazine......or a pump action shotgun...with no detachable magazine.....or revolvers, with no detachable magazine....

There is no reason to ban these weapons...they are not used in crimes, they are used by the super, duper majority of owners for legitimate, and Constitutionally protected reasons.

Also...at the very core of the issue......any weapon that the police and military have....all citizens need to have access to them as well.....that is what keeps mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing from ever forming in the little minds of evil politicians....

You have shared this last argument with me before, and excuse me but I find all you boys who think you can defend yourselves against the US military as utterly, pathetically laughable. You still haven't told me, actually, why nice, law abiding normal gun owners need military-style assault weapons. You've simply given me your standard argument for why guns shouldn't be taken away. If the current mass shootings were committed with an 1800's lever action rifle with no detachable magazine or a pump action shotgun or a revolver with no detachable magazine, less people would have been killed and injured. There might be more kids alive in Newtown. That is the grisly hill I am standing on. Less destruction.

Again...you are wrong.......I posted this research about mass shootings just this week.......there hasn't been one mass shooting that could not have been done with a lever action rifle....or several revovlers......

Americans need those guns first, as a bulwark against the government....ask the Mexicans on the border, they will tell you from their mass graves.

Then, as free, normal, law abiding people, we use those guns for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting.....and since it is a Right we have no reason to justify their existence in our hands.........

Do you read history...? Do you realize that the greatest murderers of all time are governments?

 

[2aguy]

Yup. I'm back to banning all of 'em. And If you are so dense that you cannot even acknowledge I have a point (I'm not alone in this, you know) there is no sense in discussing it with you anymore. You are like talking to a wall. You never actually answer my questions. I'm done, at least for now.

You have no point...you have no facts....you have no statistics........you don't like guns and because you don't like them no one can have them....great policy making process.........tell your opinions to the Jews in Germany, the Rwandans, the Mexicans the Armenians, the Russians, the Cambodians.........they lived under your gun beliefs...and were murdered in the millions under your gun beliefs.

 

[2aguy]

Yup. I'm back to banning all of 'em. And If you are so dense that you cannot even acknowledge I have a point (I'm not alone in this, you know) there is no sense in discussing it with you anymore. You are like talking to a wall. You never actually answer my questions. I'm done, at least for now.

I actually have answered your question...unlike the gun grabbers with my questions.........

 

[Iceweasel]

You have shared this last argument with me before, and excuse me but I find all you boys who think you can defend yourselves against the US military as utterly, pathetically laughable. You still haven't told me, actually, why nice, law abiding normal gun owners need military-style assault weapons. You've simply given me your standard argument for why guns shouldn't be taken away. If the current mass shootings were committed with an 1800's lever action rifle with no detachable magazine or a pump action shotgun or a revolver with no detachable magazine, less people would have been killed and injured. There might be more kids alive in Newtown. That is the grisly hill I am standing on. Less destruction.

There might be more people alive if you turned in your car keys because you might get drunk some night and crash. That's your argument in a nutshell. No, we don't need to defend ourselves against the military, they are one of us.

I have no idea who or what I may need to defend myself, or country, from. Neither do you. I don't need an AR right now but rights aren't based on needs or other people's opinions.

 

[2aguy]

Yup. I'm back to banning all of 'em. And If you are so dense that you cannot even acknowledge I have a point (I'm not alone in this, you know) there is no sense in discussing it with you anymore. You are like talking to a wall. You never actually answer my questions. I'm done, at least for now.

Here you go.....you can watch this...by David Kopel........he will inform you about the truth of the AR-15......

 

[Fenton Lum]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

So 2 incidents a year isn't an issue for you, got it. How many would be?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I have listed mass shooting tracker from Mother Jones several times....they list the weapon in the description of the event.....

The year of Sandy Hook and Aurora, 2 were used......Sand Bernadino......the muslim terrorists each used one AR-15....

So....that is about 2 each year....now you tell me why that means that the other 3,749,998 million guns in private hands need to be confiscated.....

And in each mass shooting you mentioned, a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun could have done the same killing.....

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....chicago criminals kill more than in many other cities...why is it that New York and L.A. have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Both places have just as strict gun control as Chicago....and in both places they live next to states with normal gun laws....like Arizona, and Vermont.......

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please....explain how any of your gun control laws actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals....you haven't shown one law you support that does that.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

And another point....what about the cities in Arizona, and Texas....and other places...that have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? From what you just posted...their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get guns...yet their gun murder rates are lower than Chicago........how does that support your post?

And Chicago is lying.....guns from other states are not the issue.....

It would be helpful if you had some data to present or study to cite?

So the idea that chicago is more violent because of Indiana is crap........

Please see the above, your pronouncements alone are rather thin.

You need to do more research, faster....that lie about Chicago guns is very old.......and think about New York and L.A........do they live next to states that sell guns.....

We'd love to see your research, thanks in advance.

If anyone has these types of guns for alleged self defense and your argument is these weapons are very rarely used for ill intent, then the whole thing's rather silly. Furthermore, the concept that you're going to fend off the overreach of an intrusive govt with your guns is fantasy. You got distracted and sat on your arse while corporate power and concentrated wealth took over your democracy, your economic and political systems, militarized police departments to snatch you up if you ever begin to resist, and privatized your prison system so that the pwoer structure can squeeze $40-50K out of your carcass in a post industrial society.

But praise Jesus, you still got your gun. Sheesh pard.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Just wondering what the lack of a thought process was involved in this attack on the 2nd Amendment.....

What exactly is the reason for this new law? What will it allegedly do? What was the problem it is meant to solve?

And please...back this up with real statistics....

You know exactly why the law was proposed--it is to stop Joe Citizen from mowing down other citizens with military style weapons that can spew many bullets very fast, like the San Bernardino shooters used.

From The Gun Nut, Field and Stream "Why I Hate Detachable Magazines"
Petzal: Why I Hate Detachable Magazines
Say amen. There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
The guy above loves guns. But he calls detachable magazines what they are and what they are for. Your law abiding citizen does not need military style weapons and neither do the crooks who can also buy them.

From The Daily Caller, by NRA ILA contributor:
Anti-Gun Activist: Ban All Detachable-Magazine Semi-Automatics
Obviously, a ban on firearms that can use detachable magazines would prohibit the manufacture of all modern semi-automatic pistols and general-purpose semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15. These firearms together account for a majority of new firearms sold in the United States. Of course, that is precisely why banning guns based upon their ability to use detachable magazines appeals to Sugarmann.

Bullet buttons are used in California to get around the law banning assault weapons.
Bullet button - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After certain rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features were classified as assault weapons under California State law, gun owners and manufacturers sought various ways to obtain certain styles of rifles similar to those determined to be assault weapons. One of the most common modifications is the use of a part known as a bullet button, which modifies a rifle so that the magazine is not removable without the use of a tool

You have spewn your numbers at me many times, 2AGuy, but I don't ever recall you answering my question, Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly? For self-defense, a hand gun or another type of rifle would work equally well. That's the only answer I want from you, not an argument about outlawing guns generally.

I missed this, there are 357,449,998 million guns of this typs in circulation in the US?


And is this a problem?

there are over 3,750,000 million AR-15 rifles alone in the country, this does not add in the Ruger Mini-14s, AKs and all the other rifles with a detachable magazine.......how many are used in a crime each year...

between 2 - 4?

Cars accidentally kill 35,000 people a year...just for some perspective....

How is this a real problem again, considering how many Americans have these weapons for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting and never use them for crime....

Please......tell me why they are a problem.

I just did. As a gun lover pointed out, There’s only one rational reason to design a rifle with a detachable magazine, and that is for military use, where you have to stuff as many rounds in the gun as quickly as you can.
Why do those nice, law abiding gun owners in America need military-style assault weapons designed solely to kill more people more quickly?

Where did you get 2 - 4? If so, please enlighten us about those incidents and how many people were injured and killed during the crimes. The Aurora shooter, the San Bernardino shooters and others have used those military style weapons to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Exactly what they were designed for. You are right, though, that my focus on rifles was a bit off base. Apparently handguns are the biggest problem, at least in Chicago: Graphic: The Most Popular Crime Guns in Chicago, Ranked

So once again, I've argued my way out of a moderate position. The guns in Chicago, according to the cops, are being purchased in neighboring states with loopholes in their gun control laws. The Gun control laws you oppose. I don't see how you can argue for law and order when you reflexively oppose the laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And again.......the primary reason we have the Right to Bear arms is to keep the government from becoming like Mexico.....did you read up on the Autodefensas? The people who own the country, the citizens arm the police and soldiers....the police and soldiers do not dictate to us what guns we can own.....we dictate to them......

Any rifle or pistol the military or police use.....we get to have too.......as many as we want.....that is the power dynamic that keeps a country free.......

And again......how is it that 2-4 people illegally using a gun means 357,449,998 million guns have to be banned?

How does that even make sense to you?

By that number.....cars should no longer exist in this country....

Are there 357,449,998 million guns of this type in circulation in the US?