Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Carnal_Flower]

Seems pretty simple. Most people including the vast majority of NRA members say the same thing

The NRA is always claiming they want to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but they oppose background checks and any tiny little thing that could actually do that. The governor just put through a mere three-day waiting period in Florida and the NRA is suing.

They like portraying gun control people as extremists and fanatics but the fact is they are.

Now I'm just sitting back and watching because the tide is turning, and the more they dig in and refuse to be responsible and sensible the more they are making themselves totally irrelevant.

I support the second amendment and anyone wishing to express their right to own a firearm whether for self-defense or hunting, but the problem I have with this is a matter of responsibility. The situation as it is now, is completely irresponsible.

If you want to buy something serious like an assault rifle I am all for that if you want to do so responsibly. I want it to be kinda difficult. Something like an AR-15 was designed to kill quickly and efficiently. It's a weapon not for self-defense or hunting. That's a weapon of war. It's seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. So I want background checks for that. I want waiting periods. I want some thorough regulations on anyone getting their hands on them.

It's a matter of being responsible about gun ownership which I don't think NRA promotes at all.

 

[CNYCarol]

Seems pretty simple. Most people including the vast majority of NRA members say the same thing

The NRA is always claiming they want to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but they oppose background checks and any tiny little thing that could actually do that. The governor just put through a mere three-day waiting period in Florida and the NRA is suing.

They like portraying gun control people as extremists and fanatics but the fact is they are.

Now I'm just sitting back and watching because the tide is turning, and the more they dig in and refuse to be responsible and sensible the more they are making themselves totally irrelevant.

Actually, WRONG! The NRA is 100% for background checks, always have been, always will be! We have NO desire whatsoever of seeing another whacko grabbing ANY weapon and going nuts with it.

Simple fact, the situation in Florida could have ended YEARS ago, a lazy worthless sheriff had received plenty of clues indicating this kid was unhinged and yet ignored it.

 

[Veroe]

Actually, WRONG! The NRA is 100% for background checks, always have been, always will be! We have NO desire whatsoever of seeing another whacko grabbing ANY weapon and going nuts with it.

Simple fact, the situation in Florida could have ended YEARS ago, a lazy worthless sheriff had received plenty of clues indicating this kid was unhinged and yet ignored it.

If the NRA is 100% for background checks why was it that the parkland shooter was able to buy the AR-15 legally? You just said there were plenty of clues indicating he shouldn't have one. I'd imagine those plenty of clues were something that would pop up in a background check right? So if they are for it and we're for it why wasn't there a background check when he bought it? Why wasn't legislation instituting background checks made after Las Vegas or any of the previous mass shootings we've endured as a country before?

Because the NRA is NOT for background checks AT ALL! They've had plenty of chances to get behind it and would get little to no resistance from the left sooo if they are so gung ho about background checks where the HELL is the hold up?

 

[coachdb18]

If the NRA is 100% for background checks why was it that the parkland shooter was able to buy the AR-15 legally? You just said there were plenty of clues indicating he shouldn't have one. I'd imagine those plenty of clues were something that would pop up in a background check right? So if they are for it and we're for it why wasn't there a background check when he bought it? Why wasn't legislation instituting background checks made after Las Vegas or any of the previous mass shootings we've endured as a country before?

Because the NRA is NOT for background checks AT ALL! They've had plenty of chances to get behind it and would get little to no resistance from the left sooo if they are so gung ho about background checks where the HELL is the hold up?

He passed the background check, which is required, just that the government isn't the great protector you THINK it is. Like the government, get the government result. Evidently you've never heard the slogan 'close enough for government work'?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-20180215-story.html

The Democrat Sheriff of Broward county had gotten warnings that he failed to heed, because ... ?

 

[Veroe]

He passed the background check, which is required, just that the government isn't the great protector you THINK it is. Like the government, get the government result.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-20180215-story.html

The Democrat Sheriff of Broward county had gotten warnings that he failed to heed, because ... ?

Alright then let's strengthen those background checks. They are clearly inadequate.

Why is it that you guys want me to focus on blaming the sheriff rather than getting at a solution to the problem?

The problem being these mass shootings keep happening. We need to cutoff the access to the weapons for these nutjobs or at the very least make it very difficult for them to get one.

 

[coachdb18]

Alright then let's strengthen those background checks. They are clearly inadequate.

Why is it that you guys want me to focus on blaming the sheriff rather than getting at a solution to the problem?

The problem being these mass shootings keep happening. We need to cutoff the access to the weapons for these nutjobs or at the very least make it very difficult for them to get one.

Have you ever undergone a REAL background check? In my military days, I was screened for and received a TS, which took over a year of investigating me to receive(they even interviewed my kindergarten teacher, if you can imagine that level of scrutiny, I had to account for EVERY time I'd EVER been outside the US, which were MANY). There are over 16 million conceal carry permits nationwide. There simply aren't enough resources, nor the will to pay the costs of such a plan, no matter how many mass shootings there are.

 

[Veroe]

Have you ever undergone a REAL background check? In my military days, I was screened for and received a TS, which took over a year of investigating me to receive(they even interviewed my kindergarten teacher, if you can imagine that level of scrutiny, I had to account for EVERY time I'd EVER been outside the US, which were MANY). There are over 16 million conceal carry permits nationwide. There simply aren't enough resources, nor the will to pay the costs of such a plan, no matter how many mass shootings there are.

So it's just too hard and complicated a problem? We can't do anything to fix this? We just sit and wait for the next mass shooting and pray its not us or anyone we know?

That is not acceptable to me.

 

[coachdb18]

So it's just too hard and complicated a problem? We can't do anything to fix this? We just sit and wait for the next mass shooting and pray its not us or anyone we know?

That is not acceptable to me.

If someone (and it only takes one) wants to kill people, there's not much you can do to prevent them from trying. the ONLY thing you can do is be prepared (like the Boy Scout motto), and if they decide to pull some shit, have enough stopping power to prevent their intentions form being fulfilled. Laws and cops can only pick up the pieces AFTER THE FACT (they bring a camera, crime scene tape, and some chalk for the outlines of the bodies, they can't PREVENT it). A good response time for a 911 call is about 8 minutes, that's enough time to kill dozens and make an exit, and these shooters know this better than anyone. Conceal carry is the ONLY thing that's going to work. You can either accept that, or accept the casualties that result form NOT having it, it's a clear choice.

 

[CNYCarol]

So it's just too hard and complicated a problem? We can't do anything to fix this? We just sit and wait for the next mass shooting and pray its not us or anyone we know?

That is not acceptable to me.

Wrong again, IF this asswipe of a Sheriff had done his job, he would have sent someone out to talk with the kid, his parents and neighbors. It would have been obvious this kid was a whack job.

At that point reports would have been made, his name would have been entered into a "Watch List" which would have put in a position where the heaviest weapon he could have purchased was a slingshot.

AGAIN, let's realize the Sheriff could have nipped this in the bud YEARS AGO!

I have a "Concealed Carry Permit", to get it I had to submit to a thorough County, State and FBI background checks.

 

[coachdb18]

Wrong again, IF this asswipe of a Sheriff had done his job, he would have sent someone out to talk with the kid, his parents and neighbors. It would have been obvious this kid was a whack job.

At that point reports would have been made, his name would have been entered into a "Watch List" which would have put in a position where the heaviest weapon he could have purchased was a slingshot.

AGAIN, let's realize the Sheriff could have nipped this in the bud YEARS AGO!

This Sheriff let the kid's background slide, he was well known to locals who told this Sheriff MANY times he was a nut case, and he did nothing. And then there's the Sheriff's Captain (Jan Jordan) who decided to 'form a perimeter' in violation of established active shooter policies, instead of gaining access as quickly as possible to come to the aid of those in the line of fire.

 

[coachdb18]

Active shooter to-be, answering a background check question:

Interviewer: 'Are you planning to kill anyone?'

Active shooter to-be? 'No'

Active shooter to-be, answering a REALLY REALLY THOROUGH background check question:


Interviewer: 'Are you planning to kill anyone?'

Active shooter to-be? 'No'

Interviewer: 'Are you REALLY REALLY SURE you're not planning to kill anyone?'

Active shooter to-be? 'No'

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Wrong.

The last time a bill to enact universal background checks came up in Congress after Newtown it was aggressively challenged by the NRA, and the bill went down. Not a thing has changed since, except when Trump rescinded an Obama law making it harder for certain people with mental illnesses to get guns.

NRA to push back on universal background checks

The powerful National Rifle Association will urge lawmakers to vote against mandating universal background checks for gun buyers, NRA President David Keene told USA TODAY on Wednesday. That raises questions about the enactment of many gun-control measures in the wake of last month's shootings in Newtown, Conn.

The gun-show loophole allows some sales at gun shows to go forward without checking the buyer's name against a federal database of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Closing it has emerged as one of the most widely supported proposals among Democrats and some Republicans. In a Pew Research Center poll, 85% of Americans backed the idea.

But Keene, in an interview, and NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, appearing earlier before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the background checks would do little to stop criminals from getting guns and would burden law-aiding citizens.

Asked if the NRA would encourage members of Congress to vote against universal background checks, Keene said, "If it came up today, yes." He assessed the odds the proposal would pass Congress at less than 50-50.

Why the NRA fights background checks

Just last week Dana Loesch was asked point blank on Fox and Friends, "BUt you support background checks, right?"

After an awkward pause, Loesch replied “like the one’s the failed in California?”
She then pivoted to talk about how background checks have failed in the past

They do not support background checks.

Actually, WRONG! The NRA is 100% for background checks, always have been, always will be! We have NO desire whatsoever of seeing another whacko grabbing ANY weapon and going nuts with it.

Simple fact, the situation in Florida could have ended YEARS ago, a lazy worthless sheriff had received plenty of clues indicating this kid was unhinged and yet ignored it.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

They had no law then to take his guns away or do a damn thing.

The Florida legislature JUST changed that last week, which is now being fought buy the NRA.

Now, there can be a temporary removal of firearms of a serious or credible threat is there. The NRA does not want this to happen. They're fighting it.

He passed the background check, which is required, just that the government isn't the great protector you THINK it is. Like the government, get the government result. Evidently you've never heard the slogan 'close enough for government work'?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-guns-20180215-story.html

The Democrat Sheriff of Broward county had gotten warnings that he failed to heed, because ... ?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

What exactly could he have done? The kid had the gun legally, and he had not been "adjudicated" mentally ill. They had no basis to arrest him or do anything.

This Sheriff let the kid's background slide, he was well known to locals who told this Sheriff MANY times he was a nut case, and he did nothing. And then there's the Sheriff's Captain (Jan Jordan) who decided to 'form a perimeter' in violation of established active shooter policies, instead of gaining access as quickly as possible to come to the aid of those in the line of fire.

 

[coachdb18]

They had no law then to take his guns away or do a damn thing.

The Florida legislature JUST changed that last week, which is now being fought buy the NRA.

Now, there can be a temporary removal of firearms of a serious or credible threat is there. The NRA does not want this to happen. They're fighting it.

Democrats have wet dreams about a 'no-fly' list for guns that they can put EVERYBODY on for NO PARTICULAR REASON, any time they feel like it. It's not as if they're serious about 'a serious or credible threat', because to them, just having a second amendment is 'a serious or credible threat'.

 

[My I]

You really need to learn something about guns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/

You got a hell of a LOT to learn about guns.

The AR, as well as many other semi auto rifles AND bolt action rifles, is chamber for .223 Remington (aka 5.56 NATO) As high powered rifles go, it is at the bottom end of the power spectrum. It fires a .22 caliber bullet at around 3000 fps. Yes, at close range it will do more damage than most handguns. But regardless what it is fired from it does the same damage. AR, Steyer, Remington 700 bold action, Thompson Center contender single shot.

The rifle it is fired from does not make it any deadlier than any other.

And the hospital intern gives some interesting insight into the damage but offers no valuable data. Yeah, it will tear you up inside. That comes from the bullets velocity, not because it was fired from any particular rifle.

 

[My I]

Seems pretty simple. Most people including the vast majority of NRA members say the same thing

The NRA is always claiming they want to keep guns out of crazy people's hands, but they oppose background checks and any tiny little thing that could actually do that. The governor just put through a mere three-day waiting period in Florida and the NRA is suing.

They like portraying gun control people as extremists and fanatics but the fact is they are.

Now I'm just sitting back and watching because the tide is turning, and the more they dig in and refuse to be responsible and sensible the more they are making themselves totally irrelevant.

Wow. What kind of stupid pills are you taking??? There ARE mandatory background checks in EVERY STATE. Federal Law. And it's not just a one time thing. Every time you purchase a gun you have to go through it again.

The problem here was not the laws. It was the failure to report dangerous psychopath to the national database. It was a failure of the Sheriff's department to take appropriate action even after receiving DOZENS of report and even seeing his threatening YouTube posts. I won't even go into four deputies standing outside the school while shooter was still active.

The NRA has fought for a long time for laws and controls on mentally disturbed individuals. Not just about guns. It is the NRA that has been pointing out for years that mentally ill, violent people need to be institutionalized. These are violent people who do not belong on the streets.

The NRA has long been the rational, reasonable, and responsible voice in these matters facing the emotionally outraged, irrational, unreasonable left who don't want to hear truth. They want what they think to BE the truth, whether it is or not. After Columbine, the hysterical left demanded the schools be "Gun Free Zones". The NRA tried to point out that it would not and could not work. No one wanted to listen. How did Parkland being a gun free zone work out? Sure as fuck didn't stop Nikolas Cruz. Didn't any of the other school shootings since columbine either. But that is what the left wants to stand on, more get rid of the guns and no one will die. Brain dead stupid.

What the NRA opposes is psychological examinations being mandated to own a gun. And While I don't fully agree with them I do see their point. There is no Due Process. You are deemed crazy until proven sane. There is not another right or freedom that is without due process. It is unconstitutional.

There is a hell of a lot you don't know about the NRA because the only information you get is from CNN who will gladly LIE to your face, if it furthers their agenda. Laws need to based on truth, facts and evidence. Not on lies and "what if"s. And CERTAINLY should not be based on breaking the Constitution.

 

[phrodeau]

You got a hell of a LOT to learn about guns.

The AR, as well as many other semi auto rifles AND bolt action rifles, is chamber for .223 Remington (aka 5.56 NATO) As high powered rifles go, it is at the bottom end of the power spectrum. It fires a .22 caliber bullet at around 3000 fps. Yes, at close range it will do more damage than most handguns. But regardless what it is fired from it does the same damage. AR, Steyer, Remington 700 bold action, Thompson Center contender single shot.

The rifle it is fired from does not make it any deadlier than any other.

And the hospital intern gives some interesting insight into the damage but offers no valuable data. Yeah, it will tear you up inside. That comes from the bullets velocity, not because it was fired from any particular rifle.

Power spectrum? So some rifles are more dangerous. You should tell BotanyBoy. He said they're all the same.

 

[My I]

When I hear 'assault rifle', I automatically tune out the individual or 'news agency' ie CNN because they obviously have no knowledge of guns, and nothing to offer the conversation

https://i.imgur.com/Q0rNadc.jpg

And if you compare mass murders by gun to mass murder by bomb, guns pale in comparison.

Worldwide, BOMBS are the weapon of choice for mass killings. All over the middle east, Serbia, Czech Republic, Ireland. In some of those countries bombings are almost a daily occurrence.

Interestingly, there was a small band of West Bank terrorist who decided to use guns on a downtown Jerusalem cafe back in the late 80s. Didn't work out for the three of them. Before they could bring their FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLES to bear, they were gunned down by armed citizens in the cafe. The lone survivor cried that it was not fair because they were expecting to kill everyone inside with no one to stop them.

Not fair? So sad for them.

 

[phrodeau]

When I hear 'assault rifle', I automatically tune out the individual or 'news agency' ie CNN because they obviously have no knowledge of guns, and nothing to offer the conversation

https://i.imgur.com/Q0rNadc.jpg

John Lott makes up stuff.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You really need to learn something about guns.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/

Nothing in there conflicts with anything I've said.

Though it does make some "HURRR NO SHIT!!" statements in there I'm sure the ignorant are super impressed with.

You need to learn to read.

Power spectrum? So some rifles are more dangerous. You should tell BotanyBoy. He said they're all the same.

No I didn't, you don't have to lie to hang phro.

That's why people say assault rifle STYLE, OTHER GUNS LIKE IT, MILITARY GRADE, ETC.

No they don't...they call them "assault" weapons and "Weapons of WAR!!!" like a bunch of hyped up morons trying to ID themselves as ignorant fucks who know nothing about small arms.

Because when was the last mass shooting with a hand gun?

Probably in the last few months.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

If you want to buy something serious like an assault rifle I am all for that if you want to do so responsibly.

Why is an "assault" rifle so much more serious??

Do you really think the looks/accessories of semi-automatic rifles somehow give them special firepower?

Do you also think big wings on Honda Civic's make them have 1 billion horsepowers??

Something like an AR-15 was designed to kill quickly and efficiently.

So was Pee-Paws "Hunting" (part time/older weapon of war) rifle that can put a 1000lb beast down like a sack of taters from half a mile out.

a weapon not for self-defense or hunting.

LOL it's only one of the best self defense and varmint hunting platforms ever built.

That's a weapon of war.

So is a rock and a bow and arrow and a pointy stick....

It's a matter of being responsible about gun ownership which I don't think NRA promotes at all.

It's like you've never been to their website or read anything from the NRA.

 

[My I]

John Lott makes up stuff.

Dude, you get more ignorant with every post. I was going to ask you how much dope you smoke on an average day, but quite frankly, I don't care.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[coachdb18]

No they don't...they call them "assault" weapons and "Weapons of WAR!!!" like a bunch of hyped up morons trying to ID themselves as ignorant fucks who know nothing about small arms.

'News' stations will do or say anything that embellishes a story... give you an example, a local story of a small plane that made an emergency landing in a cotton field tonight was broadcast on our local news station as a 'plane crash' (he ended up with a broken propeller, and a bent landing gear) after having fuel pressure problems.

And so it is that every gun is an 'assault rifle', because the news 'boogey man' that scares people could never be simply a semi-automatic... not gonna get the people running yelling 'man with a gun', now is it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

'News' stations will do or say anything that embellishes a story... give you an example, a local story of a small plane that made an emergency landing in a cotton field tonight was broadcast on our local news station as a 'plane crash' (he ended up with a broken propeller, and a bent landing gear) after having fuel pressure problems.

And so it is that every gun is an 'assault rifle', because the news 'boogey man' that scares people could never be simply a semi-automatic... not gonna get the people running yelling 'man with a gun', now is it?

It's funny because it's true.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/de/7c/95/de7c950b755337963df5e55801e5ec3b.jpg

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Five Goals for the #neveragain movement (from Parkland students)

--allowing the federal government to research gun violence

--digitizing records of gun sales,

--establishing universal background checks on all gun purchases,

--banning high-capacity magazines

--banning assault-style weapons.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article204022684.html#storylink=cpy