OK LIb s, let's think this "assault weapons" ban through with math and logic...

Here's one.

http://www.kmvt.com/news/regional/184150991.html

 

Your failure to understand math is not my problem.

 

A few points: the first two numbers you pulled out of your ass. Therefore, your equation is (*)(*)(*)(*). There is nothing correct about your "math". You have offered made-up nonsense.

Furthermore, the Newton shooter used 4 pistols, not an "assault weapon", to kill all those people. I suggest you get up to speed on the issue before you continue babbling and embarrassing yourself even further.

Now that your desperate diversion was shot down in flames, look at the REAL numbers and get back on topic.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a school security guard. Wooooooooooooooooosh!!! Nothing but air again!

ROFLMAO@desperatetrolls

- - - Updated - - -

He's got nothing but made up numbers and a bogus mathematical equation.

 

Seriously, the babbling we've gotten in this thread from anti-gun zealots is the best you people can do????

Wow.

 

Personally, I don't think anyone on either side cares about lowering crime rates. If they did, they would legalize recreational drugs, which, studies show, would cause crime rates to lower by taking the money from illegal drug sales away from street gangs and drug cartels, and take away their main source of income.

I think it's more about letting them look good by showing that they are "trying to make a difference" after the shootings of the last few months. They are trying to get political points, nothing more.

 

So dumb...*shakes head*

Let's take a look at your "logic", shall we? There are 3.7 million elementary and secondary school teachers in the US, and your reasoning states that as many of them will be undiagnosed psychopaths as will the general population and that half of those would be screened out. That would mean that there are 185,000 psychopaths teaching children in America.

Now, let me ask you, do psychopaths care whether or not they are allowed to bring a gun somewhere? No, of course they don't. If they did, they wouldn't be psychopaths.

However, you have brought up an interesting problem, what should we do with these 185,000 pscho school marms?

 

Both sides have a lot to learn when it comes to social issues and not restricting the rights of others based upon their own moralities.

 

Given that firearms are used for defense is absurd on its face given that people defend their homes and their live with firearms over 1 million times a year it is all but certain mathematically that an Assault rifle is used at least once. And again you aren't outlawing assault rifles, you are outlawing semi auto rifles that look scary. Were I so inclined I could chamber almost any semi auto rifle to accept that same round. And it would fire just as fast and could hold just as large a capacity clip. Weapons illiteracy is apparently as much a part of the background of gun grabbers as illogic is a part of the leftist make up.

 

There is no assault weapons ban. There is a ban on fully automatic weapons. I call that common sense. We have proven ourselves too irresponsible to have them.

 

Are you saying that nobody is trying to pass an "assault weapons ban" that has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons but has a lot to do with semi-automatic weapons? Have we imagined all of this?

 

Address my statements first. I have asked you a couple of times how removal of every gun on the planet is a complete removal of your right to bear arms. Instead of addressing this and either admitting I am right or proving me wrong, you just jump to more of your crazy questions.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's not evidence to prove us wrong. WOW, what GOP members think actually adds substance to a discussion? Its amazing these days!

 

nope, but it sounds like you are willing to send unarmed staff and unprotected children into war zones created by the Libs............good job, hero

 

Again, again, again! How is restricting the guns you can buy attacking or removing your right to bear arms. EVEN IF they did, you would still have the right to bear arms; to protect yourself from tyranny. The left is not trying to take away your right to protect yourself....................as the GOP and NRA claims.

I wonder why they lie so much. The GOP to get elected and the NRA to make money??????

 

Ask yourself, what would gun registration really do? It would let the government find every law-abing Citizen's firearm, not the criminal's. And just how would gun registration benefit the 2nd Amendment other than reduce it to a privilege?
Do you have a short list of other Rights you think we should give up? Are you willing to let the 4th and 5th Amendments get tossed out just so they could kick you doors in just to verify that you have no guns that are illegal? If you're caught with a firearm, you've already testified against yourself.

 

So you can't address my comment either? You still think that limiting the types of guns you can own is a complete removal of your right to protect yourself?????

So I guess limiting your free speech, where you can't yell fire in a crowded building...............actually completely removed your right to free speech?

 

If the Justice department couldn't keep track of a very small number of weapons under fast and furous what the hell makes you think they can keep up with 300 million. None of this crap is going to stop crime. None of it will make school kids less likely to be murdered. All it will do is spend a crapload of money and make a few leftist think they've mde us safer when the reality is exactly the opposite.

[

 

And yet another one that can't address my comments! LOL This is getting entertaining!

Tell me how limiting the types of weapons you can buy is actually a complete removal of your right to protect yourself and property???? I know you CANT, and that's why this is getting funny! Avoidance of what I said to keep from admitting it.

 

Genius! That's exactly what we say. In other words, that's not the reason we want to ban assault rifles, so it doesn't discredit nor give us a reason NOT to ban assault rifles.

It would be like you wanting a glass of water TO DRINK, but yet I made the comment, "well, you can't take a bath in a glass of water." Notice how taking a bath doesn't address your reason for wanting water? No matter if you can take a bath in a glass of water or not, that's not the reason you want it. Saying you cant take a bath doesn't discredit nor give you a reason NOT to want it.

Think man, think!!!!!

 

the answer is simple..once the thief is in the house, you gonna tell 'em what they can steal?
And I'll askyou the same questionI asked another....where do you draw the line for government intrusion and how do you enforce that??

Let's try an experiment, put a sign up in your yard or hang on the door Gun Free Zone
...let's wait......

 

I was asked about the assault weapons ban. There is not one at this time.

But if one does come up you can blame the gun lobby for refusing to work with others to eliminate unnecessary dangers like large capacity magazines.
If those who actually know something about guns refuse to join in the effort to increase safety the legislation will be dictated by people like Feinstine who don't know anything.

So dig in your heels and refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation and lose more than you have to.

 

why loose anything at all? A regulated Right becomes nothing more tha a government controlled privilege.
Why do you draw the line?

 

No it doesn't! Regulation of the freedom of speech did not demote it to a government controlled privilege. These LIES need to stop, if your party wants to come back from oblivion.

 

Actually I believe you made a remark that nobody was calling for a ban on any weapons. Someone then replied asking what the proposed "assault weapons ban" was then. The fact that it isn't law yet doesn't mean that people aren't in fact calling for, proposing it, introducing bills, or whatever you want to call it. That is actually happening. That's real.

I'm actually in the position of maintaining the status quo on this one, which is quite rare for me, yet you are trying to dictate terms as if people who hold my position actually need to give ANY ground. I'm not planning on losing anything quite frankly. You greatly overestimate the political capital available to support your position. You seem to be buying the bluster from politicians who have to put appearances.

 

Ayuh,.... Actually, That was also another knee-jerk reaction to a government induced, perceived issue...

If not for Prohibition, there wouldn't have been the Crime wave that followed, 'n the Gun Ban of 1934 wouldn't have been needed...