Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[RoryN]

Mate, your argument was that a woman - thanks to the gun she’s armed with - neutralises all the advantages a potential male attacker holds.

It‘s fucking bullshit, just own it and don’t deflect.

His game is to "sea lion" people.

He doesn't have any real intelligence or coherent arguments; he's just following a MAGA troll script.

 

[TrailerHitch]

What smear campaign? Lol. A small group of people calling a dumbass a dumbass isn't a smear campaign, snowflake. And you don't have to be familiar with Russian to know that you're not very bright.

And your light is a beam of shit. So there you go. You never post anything but derogatory BS.

 

[phrodeau]

I suggest you reread my post. I was talking specifically about advantages afforded by a gun, strength and size.

By your logic, a potential rapists/killer can just surprise run her over with a vehicle. Therefore, any defensive measures that cannot combat that specific scenario are totally useless.

Like getting off the street? Climbing a tree, jumping in a lake, going upstairs, getting behind a rock, door, large animal, fence, fire hydrant, parked car or dumpster?

 

[TrailerHitch]

I want to ban private ownership of guns because of the carnage they cause. If cell phones caused the death of 50,000 Americans a year, you would have a point, but cell phone usage is largely innocuous.

I want to reduce car use in the United States for the same reason. Cars are more useful than guns, but they still kill far too many people. My desire is purely selfish. I don't want to be shot or run down when I'm going about my daily business. And I don't want my kids to be shot or run down either.

Then get the fuck out of the city. Yepper it's really that simple. I don't fear getting shot here, and as long as I am smart enough to stay out of the road, unless I'm driving, I don't fear getting run over either.

Cellphones are a major factor in distracted driving accidents. So much so that there are ads on tv, radio, computers, and billboards advising not to text and drive. Laws had to be passed to protect people from the evil of cellphone distracted driving.

 

[phrodeau]

Note to this person unable to read...I said Constitution AND Amendments. Please try to keep up.

Amendments don’t mention guns, either.

 

[ShandyLeer]

I suggest you reread my post. I was talking specifically about advantages afforded by a gun, strength and size.

By your logic, a potential rapists/killer can just surprise run her over with a vehicle. Therefore, any defensive measures that cannot combat that specific scenario is totally useless.

You’re a fucking liar. You said the gun meant the attacker “has no advantage” over the victim.

Now you’re back-peddling since you’ve realised our attacker isn’t going to give the woman warning of his intentions, thus he’ll surprise her - and her gun will be as much use as a pork pie at a bar mitzvah.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I suggest you reread my post. I was talking specifically about advantages afforded by a gun, strength and size.

By your logic, a potential rapists/killer can just surprise run her over with a vehicle. Therefore, any defensive measures that cannot combat that specific scenario is totally useless.

So any attempt for a woman to defend herself is pointless, because ambush and surprise is a thing?

I prefer to take precautions against actual dangers, not specious hypotheticals. Most rapists are known by their victims. Unless a woman keeps a loaded gun constantly pointed pointed at any man she's alone with, being armed offers no protection.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Then get the fuck out of the city. Yepper it's really that simple. I don't fear getting shot here, and as long as I am smart enough to stay out of the road, unless I'm driving, I don't fear getting run over either.

Cellphones are a major factor in distracted driving accidents. So much so that there are ads on tv, radio, computers, and billboards advising not to text and drive. Laws had to be passed to protect people from the evil of cellphone distracted driving.

Cellphones and cars are a bad mix. But the problem is the CAR, not the phone. I can text quite safely riding the train or the bus. I could safely text walking down the street if I didn't have to watch out for careless drivers.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You’re a fucking liar. You said the gun meant the attacker “has no advantage” over the victim.

And despite me specifically mentioning a gun, size and strength considerations, you think I meant absolutely anything in the world won't be able to defeat her self defense precautions?

Now you’re back-peddling since you’ve realised our attacker isn’t going to give the woman warning of his intentions, thus he’ll surprise her - and her gun will be as much use as a pork pie at a bar mitzvah.

You're just being deliberately obtuse and pretending that pointing out no defense is infallible is some sort of argument. You may as well be pointing out that if she's sleeping, her gun doesn't do her any good either.

 

[TrailerHitch]

It’s easy for rapists to get guns.

Proof of this claim.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Cellphones and cars are a bad mix. But the problem is the CAR, not the phone. I can text quite safely riding the train or the bus. I could safely text walking down the street if I didn't have to watch out for careless drivers.

No the problem is NOT the car or the phone, the problem is idiot drivers being distracted by texts. The car is no more to blame for what happens than the gun is. It takes either stupid or evil intervention by humans for cars or guns to be used badly.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Amendments don’t mention guns, either.

It says arms and the meaning is crystal clear. But if the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention guns then why does the anti-gun crowd want the 2nd Amendment abolished?

 

[phrodeau]

why does the anti-gun crowd want the 2nd Amendment abolished?

Proof of this claim?

 

[TrailerHitch]

Proof of this claim?

Because it comes up every election cycle, or following any shooting incident.

 

[RoryN]

Because it comes up every election cycle, or following any shooting incident.

The "anti-gun" crowd" does not bring up "abolishing the 2nd Amendment...every election cycle".

That is a lie.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The "anti-gun" crowd" does not bring up "abolishing the 2nd Amendment...every election cycle".

That is a lie.

If you say so...As if.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No the problem is NOT the car or the phone, the problem is idiot drivers being distracted by texts. The car is no more to blame for what happens than the gun is. It takes either stupid or evil intervention by humans for cars or guns to be used badly.

If the problem isn’t the phone, why do you want to ban cell phones? I’m trying to understand your position, but it doesn’t make any sense.

 

[LeeKee]

I said nothing of the sort. This is blood libel ascription. You bring shame to your father.

The fact that the only profession open to you requires a firearm does not give you any special insight or moral high ground.

Your mind was made up before I made my post. I seem to pose an existential threat to you. Imho, your position essentially results in self-gratification at the expense of mounds of bodies of dead children. Sadly, a small but vocal percentage of Americans agree with you that their firearms are more important than your childrens' lives. It's a sad petty existence.

Your reckless and narrow view of this issue is the only threat to individual rights of non criminal behaviour or tendencies. Not the criminal here. As for past experience, it does provide insight- good guy with guy. That’s a hell of lot more insight than your position as the 911 dialer. The man with experience is not subject to to man with a theory. As for the quote referencing the dehumanising comment, it was another poster who said it, my bad. As for child’s lives-again, long career as the good guy who has a gun who stops the bad guy. Look at the vast majority of crime and who commits it. Mostly prior felons who can’t have a firearm anyways. This always get lost on this argument. Shame on my father? Lame line.

 

[HisArpy]

You are correct. We should ban private ownership of all firearms.

The moment you repeal the 2nd Amendment you can go ahead and do so.

Until then you need to remember what happened when the same kind of idea was used against alcohol.

 

[HisArpy]

Not the worst idea. Provided she can pass a comprehensive background check, and can show her proficiency with the weapon. Gun ownership ought to be a challenge, a right you earn, not just demand.

Obviously it shouldn’t be an assault weapon, that’s just fucking stupid.

Not that being stupid is much impediment for the whack jobs who are only too happy for a 16 year mental case to arm himself like Rambo down at the supermarket.

What other Rights should be a challenge? A right the people can earn?

Voting?
Free Speech?
Privacy?
Torture?
Freedom from self incrimination?

Obviously all of those things get in the way of law enforcement when they need to catch bad guys. Should we take those rights away because people shouldn't be able to demand them as a matter of course?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

By the way the driver's name was Alvarez...Draw your own conclusions.

This guy's birth name is Estevez....draw your own conclusions.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11F97/production/_86732637_sheen_reuters.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

What other Rights should be a challenge? A right the people can earn?

Voting?
Free Speech?
Privacy?
Torture?
Freedom from self incrimination?

Obviously all of those things get in the way of law enforcement when they need to catch bad guys. Should we take those rights away because people shouldn't be able to demand them as a matter of course?

The right to torture is important to you?

 

[Beth_Anne90]

Assault rifles are great for clearing the barn of sparrows. You don't even have to hit them cause the blast scares them to death!! Only problem is all the holes left in the roof of the barn.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The right to torture is important to you?

Well, Matlock never shuts up if he feels he can get the last word in...and that is its own unique kind of torture, so it sort of tracks.

 

[TrailerHitch]

If the problem isn’t the phone, why do you want to ban cell phones? I’m trying to understand your position, but it doesn’t make any sense.

I don't want to ban anything. The point made many times by anti-gunners is that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined today's firearms so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply. Well in that case the Founding Fathers also could not have imagined today's electronic communications, including cell phones, so freedom of speech does not apply to them. If technological advances do not apply to one then they shouldn't apply to the other.