Well there you have it: Assault weapons ban

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: palehorse
Everyone who supports the Assault Weapons Ban, please describe for me the functional differences between

1) a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47
2) a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15

Thanks ahead of time...

/crickets

There are no "functional" differences between any two weapons.

Both "function" to maim/kill. As do all guns. Unless you can show me a rifle of which it's function is to water the gardenias or flip hamburgers on the grill out back...

Is that the answer you were looking for? Perhaps you were looking to ask a different question?

Edit: let me rephrase my response. A guns "function" is to shoot a bullet. It is the owner who aims that bullet to whatever purpose he/she wishes...whether it be to maim/kill or shoot at coke bottles.

You have no idea how any of the weapons I listed actually function, do you?

Their purpose is to shoot a bullet... now, explain to me how each of the guns I listed does that.

I actually have a pretty good idea of a weapons "function." I said so above. Unless again I was wrong....but I haven't seen a gun of which it's "function" is to change the TV channel or flip burgers.

I do have an idea of how words "function." And you are using the wrong ones. I will help you. Try using the word "design"

The appropriate question you seek to ask is:

please describe for me the differences in "design" between bla bla bla bla bla....

and here is another question you can ask:

You have no idea how any of these weapons are actually "designed," do you?

At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

you are welcome.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I didn't read through this whole thing, I'm sure it's filled with typical liberal bullshit. The first few pages were enough.

When many people were out there buying guns because Obama was elected, the libs asked why are they so paranoid? There is no need to buy more guns. Those who believe in the right to bear arms said that Obama's track record speaks for itself. Now it looks like it's coming so the libs resort to the 'but why do you need that kind of gun?' tactic. Typical P&N...

I think maybe you should have read the rest of the thread. Or at the very least, read the part about how there will be no revivial of any weapons ban....per Dem congressional leaders.

I would say that your response is typical of <something negative and derrogatory> but I am being nice this morning.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
This bothers me, because Obama seems like such a smart guy.
Does he not realize the last time this happened crime actually went UP in America?

It doesnt work man! It only disarms law-abiding people, and the criminals now have an edge.

There is no evidence for this. There was that one study which was paraded around by the pro-gun folk but it had sketchy methodology. I think you would be hard pressed to find any study proving causation one way or the other.

One of the difficulties of evaluating gun control laws (or lack thereof) is the ease of getting around them by going to neighbouring areas where it is easier to obtain a gun.

You would think that the NRA would welcome a national standard for gun control. It would certainly make life easier for lawful gun owners.

S&M

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I didn't read through this whole thing, I'm sure it's filled with typical liberal bullshit. The first few pages were enough.

When many people were out there buying guns because Obama was elected, the libs asked why are they so paranoid? There is no need to buy more guns. Those who believe in the right to bear arms said that Obama's track record speaks for itself. Now it looks like it's coming so the libs resort to the 'but why do you need that kind of gun?' tactic. Typical P&N...

Lose/absent gun control is a liberal position.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: shortylickens
This bothers me, because Obama seems like such a smart guy.
Does he not realize the last time this happened crime actually went UP in America?

It doesnt work man! It only disarms law-abiding people, and the criminals now have an edge.

There is no evidence for this. There was that one study which was paraded around by the pro-gun folk but it had sketchy methodology. I think you would be hard pressed to find any study proving causation one way or the other.

One of the difficulties of evaluating gun control laws (or lack thereof) is the ease of getting around them by going to neighbouring areas where it is easier to obtain a gun.

You would think that the NRA would welcome a national standard for gun control. It would certainly make life easier for lawful gun owners.

S&M

There is, it's called the Brady bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...iolence_Prevention_Act

The five-day waiting period for handgun purchases expired on November 30, 1998 and was replaced by a computerized criminal background check prior to any firearm purchase from a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All dealers, manufacturers and importers must verify the identity of a non-FFL customer and receive authorization from the National Instant Check System (NICS) which often takes only minutes instead of the several-day waiting period.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

Semantics FTL...

The AWB, as it was imposed between 1994 and 2004, only banned two of the four weapons I listed. That said, you failed to address the mechanical differences between those models. Are there any? If so, what are they?

Which of the four listed models would you like to see banned? (If your answer is 'all four,' then I'll move on to someone else, as I was speaking to the AWB supporters specifically)

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

So you're for taking ALL guns away since they all "function" the same?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

Semantics FTL...

The AWB, as it was imposed between 1994 and 2004, only banned two of the four weapons I listed. That said, you failed to address the mechanical differences between those models. Are there any? If so, what are they?

Which of the four listed models would you like to see banned? (If your answer is 'all four,' then I'll move on to someone else, as I was speaking to the AWB supporters specifically)

Im not in support of any ban. I only support inserting common sense into the debate. Which I think both sides have lost.

I also support wording one's argument correctly, which you failed and I tried to help. But in all seriousness you have a valid argument.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

So you're for taking ALL guns away since they all "function" the same?

nope I actually wouldn't mind learning how to use firearms...and eventually own some.

But both sides have alot of ground to make up in this debate....common sense is the real loser here.

I don't really want to go into this too much but here is my short and dirty version. "Military grade" arms should remain in the military and not be made available for public use. It should be up to experts in the military to determine what constitutes "military grade" weaponry. We should see a ban on those weapons for public use.

Now, I don't believe it should be left to public servants to define what weapons qualify for a ban. And I wholehearted expect there to be debate within arms professionals on what constitutes "military grade" as well. But like most everything else that our police and military uses....guns should fall under the same type of regulation.

And since there is no national standard of which weapons fall under the definition of 'Military grade" then there should be (and will always be) a debate on that as well. But I think determining which weapons fall into this type of catagory is a start.

Why not approach this debate with some common sense? I don't see much of that going on when it comes to the gun debate.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Im not in support of any ban. I only support inserting common sense into the debate. Which I think both sides have lost.

My sensible and reasonable questions were meant to gauge the technical knowledge of those who support the ban(s), and therefore bring some clarity to the issue.

You've done nothing but cloud the issue... so please refrain.

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 750 hunting rifle and a semi-automatic AK-47?

2) Which of the two models listed above should be banned, and why?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
Im not in support of any ban. I only support inserting common sense into the debate. Which I think both sides have lost.

My sensible and reasonable questions were meant to gauge the technical knowledge of those who support the ban(s), and therefore bring some clarity to the issue.

You've done nothing but cloud the issue... so please refrain.

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47?

2) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15?

3) Which of the four models listed above should be banned, and why?

Those are well worded questions. I'm sorry if I clouded the issue for you, but I would respond to that by saying your original questions....as to the "function" of the two guns...is what really brough along the bad weather. cheers!

 

[FerrelGeek]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

So you're for taking ALL guns away since they all "function" the same?

nope I actually wouldn't mind learning how to use firearms...and eventually own some.

But both sides have alot of ground to make up in this debate....common sense is the real loser here.

I don't really want to go into this too much but here is my short and dirty version. "Military grade" arms should remain in the military and not be made available for public use. It should be up to experts in the military to determine what constitutes "military grade" weaponry. We should see a ban on those weapons for public use.

Now, I don't believe it should be left to public servants to define what weapons qualify for a ban. And I wholehearted expect there to be debate within arms professionals on what constitutes "military grade" as well. But like most everything else that our police and military uses....guns should fall under the same type of regulation.

And since there is no national standard of which weapons fall under the definition of 'Military grade" then there should be (and will always be) a debate on that as well. But I think determining which weapons fall into this type of catagory is a start.

Why not approach this debate with some common sense? I don't see much of that going on when it comes to the gun debate.

To a very large extent, we are already doing what you're asking for. It is quite difficult to get the permits and buy M16s, etc. Similarly, there are certain types of ammo that a civilian can't legally acquire as well; just ask any afficianado of the FN Five seveN pistol. Beyond that, if you limit things, you might just as well say that civilians are only allowd to own single shot riffles / shotguns and .22 revolvers. If you really wanted to stretch it, just limit civilians to black powder muzzle loaders.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
Im not in support of any ban. I only support inserting common sense into the debate. Which I think both sides have lost.

My sensible and reasonable questions were meant to gauge the technical knowledge of those who support the ban(s), and therefore bring some clarity to the issue.

You've done nothing but cloud the issue... so please refrain.

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AK47?

2) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .223 Remington 700 varmint rifle and a semi-automatic AR15?

3) Which of the four models listed above should be banned, and why?

Isn't the Remington a bolt action? You should have picked a semi-auto hunting rifle if you wanted to make the point there's no real difference...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
At which point my response would be, "No, I don't have any idea of the design or any of the material and/or data used in the development and construction of a firearm...nor do I care to."

I'm not speaking to their "development or construction." I want you, or anyone else who supports the AWB, to explain how each of the guns I listed works.

IOW, how does each model fire a bullet? What are the differences between the models?

If you can't tell by now, the key word is "how"...

well, why didn't you just say so originally? Because originally you didn't use the word "how"

should I quote it for you again?

as far as how each model fires a bullet...well jeeze as I admitted as much before I don't know much about the "going ons" of guns but I think I might be able to answer your question!

Doesn't it have to do with each bullet being loaded with an explosive device of which the hammer from the gun contacts and ignites the explosives that send the bullet off on its merry way?

did I get it?

(I still think you should have used the word "design" But please don't get mad...I know many gun rights advocates have anger issues so I am trying to correct your argument as nicely as possible!)

you are still welcome!

So you're for taking ALL guns away since they all "function" the same?

nope I actually wouldn't mind learning how to use firearms...and eventually own some.

But both sides have alot of ground to make up in this debate....common sense is the real loser here.

I don't really want to go into this too much but here is my short and dirty version. "Military grade" arms should remain in the military and not be made available for public use. It should be up to experts in the military to determine what constitutes "military grade" weaponry. We should see a ban on those weapons for public use.

Now, I don't believe it should be left to public servants to define what weapons qualify for a ban. And I wholehearted expect there to be debate within arms professionals on what constitutes "military grade" as well. But like most everything else that our police and military uses....guns should fall under the same type of regulation.

And since there is no national standard of which weapons fall under the definition of 'Military grade" then there should be (and will always be) a debate on that as well. But I think determining which weapons fall into this type of catagory is a start.

Why not approach this debate with some common sense? I don't see much of that going on when it comes to the gun debate.

"Military grade"? LOL, quit claiming your for bringing "common sense" into the argument. In my mind, "Military grade" could be defined as anything that holds more then one bullet at a time.

 

[FerrelGeek]

This part of the discussion got lost. This was talked about earlier in the thread, re: what are we talking about in terms of 'assault' weapons.

Originally posted by: FerrelGeek

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Hey if I lived in a rural area I'd love to have an assault rifle because they are cool to shoot but for home defense, a pistol would more than suffice. The problem with allowing assault rifles is that it would flood the market with them allowing criminals easier access to them than if it was cost prohibitive like having to buy imported illegal Assault Rifles from some criminal org..

scary black guns are already expensive. that's why common criminals don't use them, even though they're legal.

Not if you steal them.

I guess I'm confused here, I thought Assault rifles were the same as what is used in War Zones like the M16, the Uzi and the afore mentioned Street Sweeper not some 22 caliber dressed up to look like it's straight from a Hollywood Production of Rambo.

I don't mean to be snide here, but yes, you are confused. The average American cannot buy the type of weapon that the Mexican .gov is whining about, i.e., fully automatic weapons, such as the M16 that you mentioned. One can buy them if one has the propper permit and pays for it, but it is by no means what the average 'gun luvin' ' American would do. You can, however, by semi-automatic weapons, such as an AR-15. The difference? - one shot per trigger pull - period. You can't hold down the trigger on an AR-15 and hose down the neighbors. The advantage of a semi- auto? - you don't have to manually cycle a bolt, pump, lever, etc. to chamber your next round. A fair number of semi-auto 'assault' weapons do look very much like their military full-auto counterparts which feeds the 'oooo, evil scary weapon' perception, but that's basicaly what it is - perception.

Here's an example; take a look at this picture -
http://www.keepshooting.com/pr...ger10_22carbinebig.jpg

Now, take a look at this one -
http://gunbucket.com/gunblog/w...2007/02/main_image.jpg

They are essentially the same weapon, the Ruger 10/22, a semi-auto .22 riffle.

Perception.

These creeps from Mexico are NOT buying full-auto weapons (and grenades) from border-town gunshops in the US. Full-auto weapons are already well regulated by existing US law. Mexico needs to deal with their own problems and/or ask us to help. Restricting the rights of law-abiding US citizens is not the answer.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: OrByte
Im not in support of any ban. I only support inserting common sense into the debate. Which I think both sides have lost.

My sensible and reasonable questions were meant to gauge the technical knowledge of those who support the ban(s), and therefore bring some clarity to the issue.

You've done nothing but cloud the issue... so please refrain.

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 750 hunting rifle and a semi-automatic AK47?

2) Which of the two models listed above should be banned, and why?

Isn't the Remington a bolt action? You should have picked a semi-auto hunting rifle if you wanted to make the point there's no real difference...

That point was partly to establish the lines of contention -- but maybe you're right. Fixed -- and now with 100% more linkage!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

"Military grade"? LOL, quit claiming your for bringing "common sense" into the argument. In my mind, "Military grade" could be defined as anything that holds more then one bullet at a time.

That could very well be true. In which case I think you are beginning to see why there is such a silly debate to begin with. But rather than leave it up to people like yourself to define those weapons that should be relegated to only military or police use, I'd rather trust the professionals to make that distinction and not any sort of congressional panel..and certainly not some braindead politican seeking voter approval. Are you beginning to see that I am not the anti-gun zealot many of you think I am?

But I understand, no one from the pro-gun side of the debate would like this idea of a natioal standard to limit the use of weapons...because it would take away the right to own some of the precious guns you all like to say you have the right to own. Which is I THINK where we find ourselves today. AND I am willing to concede that maybe we have all the regulation that I think we need in place for satisfactory gun control....hey...didn't Pelosi say almost the same thing the other day?!? :shocked:

shrug. But you all continue to fight over a ban that is not in existance, has no chance of making onto the congressional floor (at least today) and has little to no mainstream support where there are a bunch of other issues to debate in this day. Yes I think I am inserting common sense into this debate. Unless you think what I am saying is outlandish?

 

[GeezerMan]

I watched the 60 minutes interview last night with Anderson Cooper and a Mexican official complaining about the weapons coming from the USA into Mexico. He listed rocket launchers, grenades, missile launchers. How can it be that a professional like Cooper does not understand that you can't buy these items at a retail store? He of course, asks Janet Napolitano about the assault weapons ban (which has no affect on these military weapons). There is no way to legally buy or get a license to buy grenades, rockets, missiles, etc.
There is an agenda here, IMO

watch it here:

Link

 

[FerrelGeek]

This whole mess started because of that moron of an AG that we now have. Trying to use the canard of Mexicans drug runners buying full military gear from border town gunshops and using them to kill federales to push a stupid, totally unrelated weapons ban here in the US. Even Pelosi and Reid are steering clear of this one - for now. To all of you on the left who just don't get this, I humbly request that you go hang out at some of the gun-related forums out on the net. You'll find (by and large) a bunch of very friendly folk who would be very happy to educate you on this subject and why they think it's rediculous. And just to ease your mind, there's a surprising number of liberals on those sites as well, so you won't feel totally alone.

 

[palehorse]

Questions reworded and re-posted... again:

Once I can get a ban supporter to answer the following questions, we can move on with this debate:

1) What are the mechanical differences, if any, between a .308 Remington 750 hunting rifle and a semi-automatic AK-47?

2) Which of the two models listed above should be banned, and why?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
I watched the 60 minutes interview last night with Anderson Cooper and a Mexican official complaining about the weapons coming from the USA into Mexico. He listed rocket launchers, grenades, missile launchers. How can it be that a professional like Cooper does not understand that you can't buy these items at a retail store? He of course, asks Janet Napolitano about the assault weapons ban (which has no affect on these military weapons). There is no way to legally buy or get a license to buy grenades, rockets, missiles, etc.
There is an agenda here, IMO

watch it here:

Link

Thank for the video. There IS an agenda here. Obama has stated his policy on his web page, in speeches, in his voting record, etc. It's all out there - "assault weapons" should be banned for sale and ownership.

I don't know if this will ever make it anywhere in the house regarding a bil because it would be political suicide. But when you have the freaking AG even suggesting it in lock step with Obama's stance as well damn straight gun owners are going to be concerned.

 

[ayabe]

The ban isn't happening now or anytime soon.

Pelosi and Reid have both stated it's off the table.

So how about throttling back the fear machine to idle for a little bit, it's been backfiring quite a bit lately.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

"Military grade"? LOL, quit claiming your for bringing "common sense" into the argument. In my mind, "Military grade" could be defined as anything that holds more then one bullet at a time.

That could very well be true. In which case I think you are beginning to see why there is such a silly debate to begin with. But rather than leave it up to people like yourself to define those weapons that should be relegated to only military or police use, I'd rather trust the professionals to make that distinction and not any sort of congressional panel..and certainly not some braindead politican seeking voter approval. Are you beginning to see that I am not the anti-gun zealot many of you think I am?

But I understand, no one from the pro-gun side of the debate would like this idea of a natioal standard to limit the use of weapons...because it would take away the right to own some of the precious guns you all like to say you have the right to own. Which is I THINK where we find ourselves today. AND I am willing to concede that maybe we have all the regulation that I think we need in place for satisfactory gun control....hey...didn't Pelosi say almost the same thing the other day?!? :shocked:

shrug. But you all continue to fight over a ban that is not in existance, has no chance of making onto the congressional floor (at least today) and has little to no mainstream support where there are a bunch of other issues to debate in this day. Yes I think I am inserting common sense into this debate. Unless you think what I am saying is outlandish?

You can talk out of both sides of your mouth all you like, but don't expect me not to call it what it is. The USAG (the who called for the ban to be reinstated) is a professional politician so obviously they can't be trusted to decide what we need. Only because people like me called and wrote their congressional represenatives was this shoot down.

I guess voter appeal is OK with people when it fits their agenda but not when it doesn't?? LOL@U for trying to pass that off as common sense. The Dems saw which way the political wind was blowing and backed down, that's the only common sense that has been applied here. So, yes, your being outlandish to suggest that the military and the police should be the ones deciding what a private citizen can own. Try to find another back door because you don't put the people who would be in charge of putting down an uprising in charge of deciding what weapons the people can have.... unless you're a Nazi that is.

There is no maybe about it. All the laws needed are in place.