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

@farmerman,

Quote:

obviously you hadnt read any of the provisions of the 1994 assault weapons ban.

What you really mean is that I'm not living in the past like you are. Forty-three states aren't living in the past, either, but you choose to remain ignorant. AR-15s are legal, and they have both a detachable magazine and a pistol-grip. The cops are not worried about so-called assault rifles, either, but you and the other hysterical anti-gun nuts think you know better than everyone. That's why you come across as idiotic.

Quote:

My suggestion is that you both get at least one clue rather than wasting my time with your prattle.

We're not done with the simple-minded here who actually believe that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. We're still waiting for them to come up with something to support that unfounded belief so that they don't look like fools. Now if you don't care to be part of that discussion, then stop wasting time and space here with your irrelevant rambling.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, is this "school shooting" anyone's idea of school children being slaughtered en masse, and a reason to ban guns?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Im not living in the past, Im trying to get you moron gun nutz to unerstand how that law was a cluster **** by a bunch of toady congressmen who each wanted to appear like they were "doing something" to control gun lethality. It was totl bullshit and took both GOP and Dems to pass. They apparently fooled you.

Its like McConell today saying that the impeachment proceedings and trial needs to have the input testimony from special witnesses and is thus missing the entire boat ( These are the same witnesses that Plump is forbidding to testify).

Yet you clowns buy all that **** , just like good little budgies.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

No congressman who supported the Second Amendment had anything to do with that law.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im not living in the past

Yeah ya are. I'm trying to get you anti-gun nuts to admit that, despite your lack of support for your paranoia concerning pistol-grips, you nonetheless refuse to accept what even cops know--that so-called assault rifles are not a concern. You're blowing smoke up your own ass.

0 Replies

https://i1.wp.com/www.watcherofweasels.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Liberty-Arms-10.jpg?resize=678%2C381

http://www.watcherofweasels.org/words-of-wisdom-from-a-gun-stores-sign-board/

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

no it wasn't..

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

no it wasn't..

Write the owner of the gun shop and tell him.

0 Replies

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection
Act was a good first start in gun regulation legislation what with it's banning of the manufacture of assault weapons such as those whose only distinction from military issue weapons is the lack of selective fire. What's needed is more comprehensive legislation that would completely ban the possession of these weapons. Gun ownership is a right, it's not a free for all, e.g. the National Firearms Act.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

That is incorrect. Assault weapons by definition have selective fire.

That law only banned ordinary hunting rifles without any justification. And that is unconstitutional.

A more comprehensive ban of ordinary guns with even less justification would be even more unconstitutional.

The only reason why progressives try to ban weapons without any justification is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

lyndon johnson never supported the civil rights act. As he said"Ill fight it till the day I sign it"

SFW???

The Act wa a dumass compromise whose only "Support "on record is the sponsor . The wording was soo well crafted after it was introduced that qll the gun nutz believe like you.

Read it carefully and <oh yeh, I keep forgetting your elementary reading comp skills.
If youCOUL understand it youd see that the ACt requires one functional, and then two additional "cosmetic" features to be called an
"assault style" weapon.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I can understand it just fine. I'm a million times smarter than you are. I've been pointing out the fact that it deals with cosmetic features for years.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Assault weapons by definition have selective fire.

That's incorrect. Assault weapons as defined by the act include those whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

oralloy wrote:

That law only banned ordinary hunting rifles without any justification. And that is unconstitutional.

Yeah, it banned human-hunting rifles.

oralloy wrote:

A more comprehensive ban of ordinary guns with even less justification would be even more unconstitutional.

Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

The only reason why progressives try to ban weapons without any justification is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Nuh-uh.
[/quote]

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect. Assault weapons as defined by the act include those whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

That act concocted a fraudulent definition. Using the real definition, assault weapons have slective fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yeah, it banned human-hunting rifles.

That is incorrect. A human-hunting rifle would have a selective fire option.

That law only banned ordinary guns.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
A more comprehensive ban of ordinary guns with even less justification would be even more unconstitutional.

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Unjustifiable bans are unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The only reason why progressives try to ban weapons without any justification is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Nuh-uh.

You cannot provide any motivation for an unjustifiable ban other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

That's incorrect. Assault weapons as defined by the act include those whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Some anti-gun nuts decided to arbitrarily change the definition of assault weapon, and not surprisingly, all of the anti-gun nuts on this site latched onto that definition despite its inaccuracy. Forty-three states expressed their appreciation of that arbitrarily arrived at definition by basically saying: **** that. Your acquiescence to moronic authority would be somewhat touching if it weren't so pathetic.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm going to have a little fun at your expense here. When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher? And when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor? Furthermore, when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount? And finally, when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's incorrect. Assault weapons as defined by the act include those whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

That act concocted a fraudulent definition. Using the real definition, assault weapons have slective fire.

The act defined the term as required by the act. There was nothing fraudulent about it.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yeah, it banned human-hunting rifles.

That is incorrect. A human-hunting rifle would have a selective fire option.

No it wouldn't.

oralloy wrote:

That law only banned ordinary guns.

The law banned assault weapons among other things.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
A more comprehensive ban of ordinary guns with even less justification would be even more unconstitutional.

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Unjustifiable bans are unconstitutional.

The ban would be justifiable.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The only reason why progressives try to ban weapons without any justification is because progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

Nuh-uh.

You cannot provide any motivation for an unjustifiable ban other than the fact that progressives enjoy violating people's civil liberties.

The motivation is to ban human-hunting weapons.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
That's incorrect. Assault weapons as defined by the act include those whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Some anti-gun nuts decided to arbitrarily change the definition of assault weapon, and not surprisingly, all of the anti-gun nuts on this site latched onto that definition despite its inaccuracy. Forty-three states expressed their appreciation of that arbitrarily arrived at definition by basically saying: **** that. Your acquiescence to moronic authority would be somewhat touching if it weren't so pathetic.

It wasn't arbitrary. The ban specified those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire. The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you." Your gun psychopathy isn't touching nor pathetic, it's disturbing.

Glennn wrote:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm going to have a little fun at your expense here. When was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher? And when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor? Furthermore, when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount? And finally, when was the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?

What's funny in an unsettling way is that you can't see the forest for the trees because of your myopic gun psychopathy.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The act defined the term as required by the act. There was nothing fraudulent about it.

That is incorrect. A definition that deliberately misleads people by claiming that a word means the opposite of what it really means is a fraudulent definition.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:
That is incorrect. A human-hunting rifle would have a selective fire option.

No it wouldn't.

That is incorrect. Human-hunting rifles are capable of full-auto or burst-fire.

InfraBlue wrote:

The law banned assault weapons among other things.

That is incorrect. That law did not address assault weapons. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

InfraBlue wrote:

The ban would be justifiable.

That is incorrect. There is no justification for banning such weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

The motivation is to ban human-hunting weapons.

That is incorrect. The law in question does not address human-hunting weapons in any way. It only addressed ordinary weapons that are no more dangerous than a common hunting rifle.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The ban specified those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire.

Selective fire is the only feature of a military rifle that is dangerous enough to justify regulating.

InfraBlue wrote:

The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

No it isn't. The Constitution overrules the will of the nation. And the NRA enforces the Constitution.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your gun psychopathy isn't touching nor pathetic, it's disturbing.

InfraBlue wrote:

What's funny in an unsettling way is that you can't see the forest for the trees because of your myopic gun psychopathy.

All he is doing is pointing out that you are factually wrong. That is not psychopathy.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The motivation is to ban human-hunting weapons.

Don't tell me you also believe that animal-hunting rifles have some built-in safety mechanism that prevents them from being used as a human-hunting rifle.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

It wasn't arbitrary. The ban specified those weapons whose only difference from military issue weapons is selective fire. The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

You don't even know when you're contradicting yourself. The fact is that a select-fire weapon is what distinguishes an assault weapon from a non assault weapon. But your child-like reverence of authority figures blinds you to the fact that the change in definition was indeed arbitrary, and was an attempt to falsely classify every semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapon.

Quote:

The nation is going to tell your forty-three states, "**** you."

Yet another demonstration of how your obsession with pistol-grips has blinded you to reality. The forty-three states is the nation! In your mind, though, the seven states that chose to incorrectly define assault weapon represents the country. Interesting reasoning there . . .

Quote:

What's funny in an unsettling way is that you can't see the forest for the trees because of your myopic gun psychopathy.

No. What's funny is that in order to avoid having your obsession with pistol-grips exposed and put on parade here, you are declining my request to tell me the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a grenade launcher, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a flash suppressor, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a bayonet mount, and the last time someone fell victim to a rifle because it had a pistol-grip?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two women were shot outside a South Carolina State University residential building, according to university officials. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Witnesses told investigators some kind of argument or fight happened off-campus between multiple people. Those people then came onto the SCSU campus, he said. Police are working to identify the gunman and determine whether they have any connection to the university, Clark said. A student who says she was wounded said it began as an argument between two males that led to shots being fired.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, is this "school shooting" your idea of school children being slaughtered en masse, and a reason to ban guns?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know