Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[coachdb18]

Here's an idea.... we now have self driving cars, so for our next leap of faith, let's introduce the self driving gun. You step out of line, and the self driving gun shoots your ass, no questions, no jury, no second chances or judges to fuck with the system... it's over in the blink of an eye. Maybe we also need a self driving dust pan to pick up the trash afterward, but that should about cover the logistical needs. And we need the self driving gun EVERYWHERE there are people.. schools, churches, Churches Fried Chicken, the court house, outhouse, and the house next door.

And then, I guess we could actually feel safe?

 

[Hypoxia]

Maybe if you recognized that your rights exist from the moment of your conception, there'd be far less slaughter. The inalienable right to life exists not only of the born, but of ALL.

An embryo is part of the mother's body; it's not "a person born". Up to half of all embryos miscarry, self-abort, never approach personhood. And you don't get to own women's bodies, or make women sub-citizens, incubators for your pleasure and convenience. Grow a vagina and see how you feel, hey?

Or just go on sucking Kim's wee dickie; maybe he'll grant asylum.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I'm not comparing it to the gun control effort. I'm comparing it to Mass Shooting Incident Investigation, idjit.

Just a comparison. We need a Task Force with the same oversight and effectiveness that looks at all angles. In fact it's the least gun controlly thing I've suggested.

Stop panicking! Get a paper bag. BREATHE. No one's coming to take away your penis, I promise.

Carnal Flower is a complete and total fucking idiot... I'm sure he has no idea what it's like to actually work in aircraft accident investigation, but comparing the gun control effort to that of the NTSB is off the fucking charts.

First, consider that NTSB is involved in ACCIDENT investigation, and mass shootings are NOT accidents, they're intentional. The 911 event involved airplanes, but there is no investigation required to determine what went wrong with the airplanes, because they were perfectly well maintained, and only flew as commanded by those behind the controls. So an ACCIDENT investigation, just like a gun that only works as advertised, does nothing but waste paper, when the entire problem was with the operator.

Just like the terrorists took over the planes, the mass shooter takes over guns and uses them to kill. Airplanes and guns are both simply the TOOLS the terrorists choose to get the desired effect they want, which is simply mass casualties. Get the SHOOTER, not the guns.

The answer to 911 was not to ban airplanes.

So it is that the answer to guns is not to ban them, but to stop the shooter, and thus you need more conceal carry guns to bring down the rogue shooters in the fastest manner possible. TSA was also formed to stop those who wish to become pilots via utility knives. A cop has been proven to be on average 8 to 10 minutes away, and that's why we have mass casualties. Immediacy of response is the answer, and that requires having the defensive use of guns within the area in the shortest amount of time.



And another clueless ass... are you trying to say the plane kills children, so ban airplanes?

Fucking mental health needs to start with giving Progressives a fucking clue...

 

[coachdb18]

The government is not the answer to the problem. The government IS the problem....

 

[dan_c00000]

The inalienable right to life exists not only of the born, but of ALL.

Unless they're kids in school, then it's OK to slaughter than en mass. That's your argument right? Or the death penalty? Your "right to life" argument is suspect when it comes to kids and other members of society.

 

[phrodeau]

The government is not the answer to the problem. The government IS the problem....

And the government is mandated by the Constitution.

So let's change the Constitution. Problem solved.

 

[phrodeau]

Also, why 9/11 didn't result in planes being banned (because that would be patently ridiculous), it did result in the banning of the things that made it possible to take control of a plane. Terrorists can still actually fly on planes - they're just not allowed sharp things. No one is allowed sharp things.

9/11 did result in a ban on planes, but it was only for two days, as I recall.

 

[KimGordon67]

9/11 did result in a ban on planes, but it was only for two days, as I recall.

Can't have been long - I was in the air on a United flight over the US within less than a week.

 

[Hypoxia]

And the government is mandated by the Constitution.

So let's change the Constitution. Problem solved.

Reagan's anti-constitutional call for anarchy should have led to impeachment and removal. And let's notice the fucktard hypocrites denouncing gov't while fighting to suck at the public teat. I fart in their general direction.

Them who don't like gov't should go where there ain't any. Try Somalia.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

I await other taxonomists, botanical or otherwise, to submit y'all's own categorizations. But don't forget stuff that pokes or chops. And expect deadlier stuff to be regulated and restricted more than stuff you must really work at to do damage, like bludgeons, or rolling boulders down on your victims.

Don't tell me how to use my filing system.

 

[KeithD]

The government is not the answer to the problem. The government IS the problem....

Well, you can hardly blame the government if they don't want a nut like you to have a gun, then.

 

[My I]

Banning fast fingers?

Using world champion shooter Jerry Miculek as an example, Senator Diane Feinstein stated that she would take the legislation even further: “What the American public does not realize is that these fast shooters have years of training, which will not go away. I’m not suggesting a lobotomy at this time, but these individuals should be given the option of having their tendons severed, and if found in violation a second time, amputation. Let me be clear, I am not for registration of fingers, only a ban.”

April Fool​

 

[Hypoxia]

Banning fast fingers?

[pathetic bullshit]

The pathetic, it is thick around here.

 

[dan_c00000]

Banning fast fingers?

Bro, you got fake news'd

Dave Weiner, a representative for Democrats for Reasonable Gun Ownership...Dr. Oscar Meyer of the American Society for the Surgery of the Hand (http://www.assh.org/) states that Weiner is full of baloney.

Also, you shouldn't put "April Fools" in your code.

 

[My I]

Bro, you got fake news'd

Dave Weiner, a representative for Democrats for Reasonable Gun Ownership...Dr. Oscar Meyer of the American Society for the Surgery of the Hand (http://www.assh.org/) states that Weiner is full of baloney.

Also, you shouldn't put "April Fools" in your code.

What was your first clue? When you got to the bottom of the article and it says April Fool? Or was it when you went to quote my post and it says in big letters at the bottom in white letters April Fool?

 

[dan_c00000]

What was your first clue?

No, it was much simpler than that: all your posts are jokes.

 

[Hypoxia]

In other news, ex-candidate and popular vote winner Hillary Rodham Clinton was spotted at the Healdsburg CA animal shelter bludgeoning abandoned pets with a sledge hammer. "Just my usual afternoon workout," she laughed, swinging again.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In other news, ex-candidate and popular vote winner Hillary Rodham Clinton was spotted at the Healdsburg CA animal shelter bludgeoning abandoned pets with a sledge hammer. "Just my usual afternoon workout," she laughed, swinging again.

Democrats would cheer!!!

 

[My I]

Democrats would cheer!!!

And Antifa would have the biggest party ever at Sturgis.

 

[sr71plt]

It says the right of the people, the exact same wording in several amendments, and yes you are wrong.

It very explicitly says it's to support a citizen militia, which we don't have (or permit) anymore. It also says nothing about the type of arms civilians are permitted to own, and civilians aren't, in fact, permitted to own just any weapon they desire. The only functional purpose of an AR-15 is to mow down a maximum number of people in a short time from a distance. Citizen militias, when we had them, were for defense from the beginning, and the AR-15 is an offensive weapon. And, yes, you are a disgusting asshole. No one's right to own an AR-15 supersedes anyone's right to live.

 

[My I]

It very explicitly says it's to support a citizen militia, which we don't have (or permit) anymore. It also says nothing about the type of arms civilians are permitted to own, and civilians aren't, in fact, permitted to own just any weapon they desire. The only functional purpose of an AR-15 is to mow down a maximum number of people in a short time from a distance. Citizen militias, when we had them, were for defense from the beginning, and the AR-15 is an offensive weapon. And, yes, you are a disgusting asshole. No one's right to own an AR-15 supersedes anyone's right to live.

Then you need to look up DC vs HELLER, Dumbass. This has already been covered several times. The Supreme Court HAS upheld that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and NOT meant for a militia or State. Furthermore it specified that ANY firearm in common, lawful use is protected under the 2nd Amendment. There are over 6 million AR15s legally owned in this country. That makes them common. They are used for home and personal defense, hunting, target shooting and competition. Those are all lawful uses. Therefore, the AR15 is in common, lawful use and thereby protected under the 2nd Amendment.

But maybe you have better credentials to interpret the constitution of the United States of America. DO you? Show them and I will defer to your superior qualifications to interpret it.

You are a fucking NOBODY. You know NOTHING. and unlike even Jon Snow, you don't even know where to put it.

 

[zotique]

Courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation). There is no constitutional objection to, say, universal background checks to obtain a gun. It’s crazy that 22 percent of guns are obtained without a check.

We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun. So the question isn’t whether firearms should all be sacrosanct but simply where we draw the line. When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million), maybe it’s worth rethinking where that line should be.

 

[phrodeau]

Courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation). There is no constitutional objection to, say, universal background checks to obtain a gun. It’s crazy that 22 percent of guns are obtained without a check.

We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun. So the question isn’t whether firearms should all be sacrosanct but simply where we draw the line. When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million), maybe it’s worth rethinking where that line should be.

BotanyBoy claims that these are the current standard:

(edited)

...the current standard for classifying weapons is based upon their action, that is to say their mode of function.

Muzzle loaders- these you load from the muzzle, 1776 style....flint locks, muskets.

Single action - this means you gotta do some shit and then you get one shot, then you gotta do that shit again and you get one shot. Bolt actions, falling block action, break action, lever action, pump action, single action revolver (cowboy guns).

Semi-automatic - this means you load up a tube/drum/magazine and every time you squeeze the trigger the gun automatically loads up the next round, you get one shot per trigger squeeze until your ammo pool is empty. This includes guns like Pee-Pawz Huntin' rifle, "assault weapons" including the dreaded AR15 and double action revolvers. The overwhelming majority of modern guns fall into this category.

Select fire- This means you can select mode of operation from semi-auto mode to burst and/or full auto. Actual military/LE gear falls into this category....M16's, M4's, AK-47's and MP5's are all select fire rifles.

Fully Automatic- This means it operates in full auto only....these are usually (but not always) belt fed "machine" guns.

And that about covers it.

So where should we start?

Can the semi-automatic category, the "overwhelming majority of modern guns" be divided further? Yes, according to lawmakers with their assault rifle definitions. No, according to gun nuts, who say that those definitions are only cosmetic.

Should the line be drawn at certain bullet types or designs? There are already lots of regulations about hunting ammunition, particularly in those places where they want to keep lead out of the environment.

Should there be minimum ages for handling weapons? Minimum knowledge levels, with testing and licenses? A mental health standard? Should anyone from a family with a violence-related death be denied access to weapons for revenge purposes?

 

[My I]

Courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation). There is no constitutional objection to, say, universal background checks to obtain a gun. It’s crazy that 22 percent of guns are obtained without a check.

We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun. So the question isn’t whether firearms should all be sacrosanct but simply where we draw the line. When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million), maybe it’s worth rethinking where that line should be.

22%? Through LEGAL gun dealers? I highly doubt that. Quickest way to lose your FFL and your business is to sell a gun without a NICS check.

Draw that line at the criminals and focus on THAT. NOT law abiding gun owners. I went through a background check for every single one of my firearms. Went through an even more stringent background check for my CCW permit. and have been through even MORE stringent background checks for my work. So have 8 million other Americans.

Criminals don't go through background checks they know they can't pass. They don't buy their guns from the local gun shop. They steal them or get them from illegal gun dealers.

80% of gun violence in America is drug or gang related, and most often both. Don't waste tax dollars persecuting me and my fellow NRA members who have NEVER committed a violent crime. Spend it on tracking down the people responsible for the crime.

Apparently, I cannot say this enough to get through:

Stop blaming inanimate objects and the innocent and prosecute the CRIMINALS.

 

[Blue]

BotanyBoy claims that these are the current standard:


So where should we start?

Can the semi-automatic category, the "overwhelming majority of modern guns" be divided further? Yes, according to lawmakers with their assault rifle definitions. No, according to gun nuts, who say that those definitions are only cosmetic.

Should the line be drawn at certain bullet types or designs? There are already lots of regulations about hunting ammunition, particularly in those places where they want to keep lead out of the environment.

Should there be minimum ages for handling weapons? Minimum knowledge levels, with testing and licenses? A mental health standard? Should anyone from a family with a violence-related death be denied access to weapons for revenge purposes?

It's amazing to me, and everybody else I tell this to over here, that the US doesn't ban the commercial sale of armour piercing bullets. Literally the only reason an armour piercing bullet exists is to kill cops.

There's no legitimate excuse to own one; any target practice you want to try out can be achieved with the same bullets that aren't modified to puncture armour, bucks and rabbits don't wear kevlar vests, and even if you intend to shoot a bunch of people with them the vast majority of people aren't walking around wearing body armour. The only reason they are manufactured and sold in the first place is with the specific and sole intention of being used to kill cops! It's a weapon that is quite literally designed to kill a specific kind of person; the police themselves, and your country won't even ban that!