Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The term Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle") is not suitable for clearly defining a category of small arms from a technical point of view.

I find it perfectly suitable.

Assault rifles are rifles that are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire, and which have their ammunition supplied from a detachable magazine.

There are other characteristics as well. But these are the two characteristics that are most relevant to this discussion.

Any semi-auto-only gun is not an assault rifle.

Any gun with a fixed magazine is not an assault rifle.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I disagree on all counts.

According to you, any restriction to the 2nd Amendment is opposed and violates civil liberties. Except you've never been shot at. So, the definition of whose civil liberties are violated first, becomes relevant. The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness versus your right to to own unlimited stockpiles of guns and ammunition, with the HOPE you don't use them for nefarious purposes. With all things created equal, this isn't equal.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

So, your lack of reading comprehension made you mistake which poster you were talking to and therefore, somehow it's my fault? A simple, "Yeah, you're right, Neptune" would suffice...

It has nothing to do with reading comprehension and everything to do with the same anti-gun rhetoric and lies about guns.

Quote:

I also not only qualify but have expert status with four military weapons. So, it's Ms. Wilimena Badass to you.

If that's true, then you should know better than to call an AR15 an assault weapon or even a weapon of war. The AR15 is nothing like the M16 or the M4 or any other "military weapons" you have qualified with.

Quote:

How many administrators does a school district need? It depends on the size of the district. Got a problem with a larger school district? Move to BFE Michigan.

Most schools have more administrators than they really need, and that effects how much money they need for the schools. Less administrators means more money for the teachers.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2019/01/09/denver-has-1-administrator-for-every-7-5-instructional-staff-far-above-state-average/

Quote:

No, I've never stated to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Just loud-mouthed idiots. If you fall into that category, well, the shoe fits.

There are plenty of loud mouth idiots on your side of the anti-gun aisle.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/video-il-politician-tells-gun-owner-forget-the-fines-we-will-confiscate-your-guns/

Quote:

Weisman asked her, “You want me to turn them over to the state police unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them. So, if I get to keep it — if I pay a fine and register it — then, how dangerous is it in the first place and why do you need to ban it all? Why do you need to try to ban my semi-automatic firearm?”

The crowd applauded, but once there was silence, Morrison jeered, “Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”

See another left-wing idiot wanting to take the guns away.

Quote:

And I've asked multiple times for solutions. It's time to take action, not rhetoric.

Differing solutions have been offered, you don't like the solutions, so you say there are no other solutions offered. All your side offers is rhetoric and the only solutions you offer, violate the 2nd Amendment. It's been asked how a universal background check would have prevented any of the more recent mass shootings, there is never an answer to the question. You don't want your "solutions" questioned because the solutions don't hold up to simple questions.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

I don't give a crap whose description it is, I am telling you its bull shyt that that describes only one kind of assault weapon.

That's what a majority of the anti-gun measures are using to ban "assault weapons" though.

Quote:

My description is just as accurate as yours or new York's. If a weapon is capable of throwing 20 lead slugs in 20 seconds it should be banned and all your wordy b s is just that, b s.

The problem is that a majority of modern weapons can shoot that fast, so you would be banning 80-90% of all guns. That isn't an answer either, as it infringes on the 2nd Amendment.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

It has nothing to do with reading comprehension and everything to do with the same anti-gun rhetoric and lies about guns.

No, it's pretty much your lack of reading comprehension.

Baldimo wrote:

If that's true, then you should know better than to call an AR15 an assault weapon or even a weapon of war. The AR15 is nothing like the M16 or the M4 or any other "military weapons" you have qualified with.

Again, got me confused with someone else. I've not said anything remotely to that affect. Do you need an eye exam for cheater glasses? It's time, pal.

Baldimo wrote:

Most schools have more administrators than they really need, and that effects how much money they need for the schools. Less administrators means more money for the teachers.

Go volunteer at your neighborhood school. Until then just shut up.

Baldimo wrote:

See another left-wing idiot wanting to take the guns away.

OO! Cherry picking bad examples! Wow, good on ya! I could do the same, but the list is too many.

Baldimo wrote:

Differing solutions have been offered, you don't like the solutions, so you say there are no other solutions offered. All your side offers is rhetoric and the only solutions you offer, violate the 2nd Amendment. It's been asked how a universal background check would have prevented any of the more recent mass shootings, there is never an answer to the question. You don't want your "solutions" questioned because the solutions don't hold up to simple questions.

VIABLE solutions. Viable means feasible and practical. Universal background checks doesn't do squat when the loopholes are plentiful, too easy to work around and too quick to catch someone who shouldn't have a weapon.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

According to you, any restriction to the 2nd Amendment is opposed and violates civil liberties.

That is incorrect. I fully agree with the principles of Strict Scrutiny. Most restrictions that comply with Strict Scrutiny are perfectly acceptable to me.

neptuneblue wrote:

So, the definition of whose civil liberties are violated first, becomes relevant. The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness versus your right to to own unlimited stockpiles of guns and ammunition, with the HOPE you don't use them for nefarious purposes.

Since I support Strict Scrutiny, I am not advocating an unlimited right.

And with Strict Scrutiny, there is no conflict between the Second Amendment and the right to life/liberty/happiness. Any law that would actually be useful in saving lives would almost certainly pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

The only laws that won't pass muster with Strict Scrutiny are the ones that are not designed to save lives, and are merely designed to violate people's civil liberties for the pleasure of progressives.

Unfortunately the gun control movement is infested with nasty progressives. Progressives aren't trying to save lives. They only want to violate people's civil liberties. And they hijack the gun control movement for their own nefarious purposes.

As is usually the case with the ills of the world, fixing the problem begins with getting rid of all the nasty progressives.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I don't agree with your Strict Scrutiny valuation but it's not the point. Therefore, please expound on what you would be willing to place gun reform restrictions as law.

Progressives, even though you call them nasty, is what founded this nation. So, show some respect for our Founding Fathers.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Be sure to stack all the bodies in a neat pile so I can piss on them.

Please refrain from this kind of response.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I don't think I can do that when I am responding to a progressive who is gloating over all the people's whose civil liberties they've had fun violating.

I am not intending to give offense to you when I make these posts.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Yes, you can.

Yes, you did.

Feel better now?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I don't think I can do it when I'm responding to a nasty progressive who is gloating over all of the civil liberties that he's just had fun violating.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Therefore, please expound on what you would be willing to place gun reform restrictions as law.

I'd be willing to extend background checks to all gun sales.

I'd be willing to have red flag laws (so long as due process is protected).

I'd be willing to have detachable rifle magazines larger than 5 round capacity (and all other weapons/magazines/devices with more than 10 round capacity) placed under the National Firearms Act.

If the courts were clearly robustly enforcing the Second Amendment and there was no longer any danger of unconstitutional gun laws, I'd be willing to have centralized gun registration.

I want pro-gun legislation to be passed alongside every new gun control law. Something for something.

And I will only support any of this after we do away with all of the unconstitutional gun laws, and compensate the people who have had their civil liberties violated.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quick triggered finger. I saw that.

Well, enumeration is out of the question. You know that. It's not feasible or appropriate. It's a talking point to delay and to anger.

Next?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I like my reply to be directly below what I am replying to if possible. That often spares the necessity of quoting what I am replying to and makes for a more direct and concise reply.

If, after I post something, I see that there is a fresh message that I want to place a reply directly below, I will delete my first message and quickly reply to the new message.

Then I re-post my original message.

I probably didn't explain that very clearly.

I wanted my reply to your message here:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-294#post-6890465

To be directly below your message, like this:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-294#post-6890479

This message of mine was in the way of that goal:
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-294#post-6890480

So I deleted my message and then re-posted it.

I'm not sure what you are referring to by enumeration.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I'm not immune to typos.

*remuneration

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Compensation for the malicious violation of people's civil liberties is entirely appropriate.

I don't see why it is infeasible. Place a special tax on progressives to pay for it.

If anyone wants my support for any new gun laws, they'd better find a way to make it feasible.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Oh come on Oralloy, quit being a dick. It's stupid and juvenile.

Who in the **** is going to raise their hand and say, "Yep, that's me, the Progressive, and I''ll pay for the gun nuts in the NRA that won't accept their culpability to pass reasonable & safe gun reform!!"

SMDH.

Next.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Why make paying voluntary?

Aren't there IRS agents with guns who can go force these progressives to pay their taxes?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The sad part is, you truly believe that.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The gun laws are going to happen, whether you support them or not. And like the assault weapons bans, the courts will not declare them unconstitutional. The 2020 Democratic winner, whoever it is, will see to that and the scandal-ravaged NRA will be powerless to stop it. Better start laying in the staples for yur bunker now, because it
ll be at least 20 years before there's any chance for you to come out for a GOP return to power. Vote blue, no matter who.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know