This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Not quite, but Newtster seems to think it is logical reasoning to say "if baseball bats kill people, then assault weapons should be legal"....  

I just don't understand some of these conservatives.

 

NO ONE.

 

I repeat.....

 

Wait for it.....

 

 

NO ONE is saying that banning assault weapons will fix everything.

NO ONE is saying that banning assault weapons is the only thing we should do to fight mass shootings.

Sure, look into whether privacy surrouding mental illness can be tweaked in any meaningful way to make detection more likely. How is that mutually exclusive with banning assault weapons? Did Jesus appear and say that we are allowed only one approach so we better pick well?

 

 

ALL we are saying is that a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines:

- Will probably result in fewer deaths per incident.

(and why would anyone have a problem with less dead children, to use Newtster's other favorite argument)?

- May even deter a shooter who is concerned about not being able to fend off the police until he can shoot himself, thereby evading capture

- Will probably reduce the number of police deaths taking on people armed with high powered assault weapons.

 

 

 

Despite this, some conservatives position seems to require them to adopt the following principle: If solution X does not entirely do away with problem A, solution X should be ignored.

 

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Guns are designed to defend in the same way cars are designed to provide transportation.  That each can be used inappropriately is clearly the operator's fault.  Agreed?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Pretty much sums up their taxation stance too.  If raising taxes on the top 1% doesn't completely eliminate the deficit, then taxes should remain where they are.

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Guns are designed to defend in the same way cars are designed to provide transportation.  That each can be used inappropriately is clearly the operator's fault.  Agreed?

[/QUOTE]


Since you argue that guns are like cars, perhaps its time to:

Annually register each and every gun.

Require gun owners to get a licence which requires tests both written and practical with different tests for different kinds of guns.

Require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

Subject gun owners to a myriad of rules as to how they may operate the guns.

Annually inspect each and every gun.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Except, of course, that the M16 was designed to kill large numbers of human beings.

An AR-15 is an M16 set to semi-automatic. Semi-automatic, of course, is the way soldiers use the M16 except when laying down suppressing fire.

An AR-15 is a weapon designed to kill large numbers of human beings.

 

 

It's also impractical to lug around for self-defense. Unlike a handgun, which can be comfortably worn at side or in a concealed holster.

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

The sheer bulk of the thing seems to escape the notice of many of these assault weapon defenders.

It's not as heavy as an AK-47, sure, but it's still big.

Ok maybe if you're Tony Montana you might keep one in the house for self-defense there, but otherwise they are extremely impractical for self-defense.

 

 

 

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to UserName99's comment:

Quite.

Even Charley Sheen would agree that it isn't a winning strategy.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Because millions of Americans use them lawfully for entertainment and sporting events and they do not deserve to be punished because someone else used them unlawfully and to commit murder.

Just like a law abiding citizen shouldn't lose their car because some one else used one to commit murder!!

Your lame argument and corrolation between assault RIFLES and RPG's, tanks etc is just assinine!

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

What is refferred to as an Assault weapon" is nothing more than a 223 deer rifle with modified stock and barrel top make it look more lethal and be more light weight.

A 1911 45 acp is much more lethal in the 0-40 yard range (classrom or hallway) stock clips hold 9 rounds and be changed in about 1-2 seconds. clip belts can hold 4 to 16 clips!

All the standard mods such as a two piece guide rod, group gripper link, beavertail safety, target sights, Commander hammer, extended slide release and Hogue grips was not really essential, but it looked cool and reduced recoil by about 20%.  The gun was a tack driver. When the other guys on the range would shoot water filled milk jugs on the 50 yard range, I would shoot the coat hangers they were attached to!

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

The Leftnutz are so excited about taking guns away they dont even realize that when they start blaming guns; Guns sellers inventories are depleted!

You can't even find assualt weapons in many big name stores and outlets since the dems started this nonsense because sales skyrocketed!!

There are tens of thousands more in the public now than 2 weeks ago!

You can forget govt confiscation or buy back programs handling just those numbers!!

Good job idiots!!!

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

The AR-15 is a slightly modified M16!

 

This post has been removed.

In response to tvoter's comment:

Dn't exaggerate.  The only issue on the table is that some guns designed for military prposes should be denied to civilians.  They have no real benefit to civilians (entertainment...)and there is a rather obvious drawback as they are eing used to kill people.  Two incidents have taken place now whre people got ahold of these weaons an killed a bunch of people.  Your inability to see the obvious logic behind restrcting these weapons is sad.  Your overall pssivity to this issue is sadder still.  Now go run off and play with your RPG and the fake ammunition and see how the police and courts address your logic...

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

The AR-15/M-16 fire a .223 caliber round. The remington 223 is also a semi-automatic deer rifle FIRES THE SAME EXACT ROUND. The reason most deer hunters do not use the Remington 223 is because it does not have the knock down power.

Standard calibers for deer rifles range from .243 Winchester to .280 Remington, and suitable magnum calibers range from .24 to .270. The 7mm and larger bore magnum calibers while they will certainly kill deer, they are more appropriate for larger game.

No look at a 45 caliber semi automatic!

The round is about as big around as you thumb and you can get hollow points that increase destruction subdtantially.

The whole point is to pick any weapon just because it has "assault" in front of it and think that if, we take it out people are safer is just lunacy or ignorance!

Limiting magazine size is equally riduculous! It just cosmetics in fight against mass killings!!

China largely prohibits private ownership of guns

--------------------------------------

And this is a good thing???

Thats illegal here, BTW

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Yes, greg.

But fortunately NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS.

Reading is fundamental, or so you told me recently.

In response to tvoter's comment:

Reloading doesn't slow a shooter down? I wasn't aware.

 

 

Look, Reuben summarized it very well in the other thread:

Do we really have to think this out?  The benefit of these guns is entertainment. The detriment is mass killings.  Apparently some conservatives can't get see this basic dichotomy.  Fun or First graders...

I blame the OP for intentionally trying to lower his IQ.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Explain how restricting the sale of smaller magazines helps the fight against mass killings.

A clip can be changed in about 2.1 seconds. Clips can be banded together and cut that time in half!

It' IS cosmetics and NOT a serious solution for anything excpept restricting honest law abiding people from having them!