Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says

Interesting when you consider that gunners just love flappin' their gums about "soft on crime" Dems.

 

well he also claimed no civilian should have a firearm that can kill at 100 yards. That is so incredibly ignorant of how guns work that I think I am going to use that for years!

 

what we talk about is the FACT that democrats are soft on crime and they adopted harassing lawful gun ownership as a pretense and facade to cover for their failures to actually deal with CRIMINALS

 

I said nothing about Dems.

 

Thanks for sharing! Lol, that was a

 

BINGO!

 

The problem is after today’s definition of assault weapon is banned, that definition will be expanded to include lever and bolt action mag fed weapons. We already expanded the definition to include virtually all semiautomatics when it originally only referred to select fire weapons when the term was coined.

It’s not a compromise. It’s banning everything that fits today’s definition put forth by the banners. Then changing the definition (again) to ban more firearms of different actions.

Would you be willing to compromise and reinstate the 1994 assault weapons ban?

 

Here's what we'll do. We'll let the Aussies solve all of the US's problems. Are you game? If not, stop asking me inane questions.

 

gun banners are clueless about the term

 

Any death is a tragedy for someone

This is a fundamental Christian principle

 

Yep. How could this civilian do his killing he isn’t willing to do himself with firearms limited to 100 yards?

 

An observation. There are Aussies here and we largely make the same point about guns. I just occurred to me....we have no interest in the issue other then to make some attempt to prevent the next poor innocent bugger being mown down by a gun.

Those who oppose 'us' don't seem to share the same interest. It seems that those who oppose us prefer self interest in that for reasons inexplicable to me, they believe the sky would somehow fall in if there was very strict gun control in the USA, like there is in other Countrys where kids are able to go to school and have some high level of confidence they will not be slaughtered there, unlike in the USA where there are 60,000 killers known statistically to exist, anyone of whom might turn up randomly at some random US school with his mass killing machine.

Bizarro.

 

Sure, I am game. I'm up for it. Let's start to put in place some very serious very strict controls on who can have guns there (the Australian model is a good one one which has proven itself workable) and ultimately, if that is ineffective...then the 2nd has to go.

You with me?

 

How about you start by proving your hypothetical that 2% of people that own guns will use them to kill others?

I'll go ahead and save you the time... you won't be able to do so

 

I cannot think of a firearm suitable for hunting even rabbits or squirrels that won't kill at 100 yards. Now say #10 birdshot out of a 410 might not, but a 410 loaded with a slug will kill at 200 yards. every rifle and pistol that is powerful enough to kill a rabbit will kill at 100 yards. This is why I have so little use for the anti gun movement and why my signature says what it does

 

Yeh, I think it’s Golem that says an assault weapon is whatever politicians say they are. Today. Can change tomorrow.

The clown ATF nominee won’t define assault weapon but wants to lead an organization that just re-defined SBRs and pistol braces WITHOUT any input from lawmakers. What a bunch of disingenuous liars.

 

I have a better idea-if those laws don't work, the people who imposed them are jailed for the rest of their lives for raping the constitutional rights of millions

 

anyone who listens to that POS ought to be out buying at least three more "assault weapons" and a few thousand rounds of ammo

 

Who wrote that it wasn't?

 

So he wants to make a law but he has no idea what it is he wants to ban. What a moron

 

at what point does a firearm meet your silly definition of "mass killing machine"

 

Yeh. He would have no qualms about broadening the definition of assault weapon within the ATF and without congressional input once he’s in. He just can’t say that in hearings.

 

Would that include the AR-15 & its look-alikes? If so, then why would I not agree? If it would not include any gun, not on the market at that time, I can make a much better case than you can-- that any ban would necessarily lead to ever more inclusive bans-- that to ban only specific weapons that are currently on the market would be meaningless, if that would allow any manufacturer, by only making the slightest change, & giving it a new name, to come out with essentially the same weapon, but which would be immune from bans.

Obviously, the sensible approach-- if one on your side of the issue was sincere in his willingness to compromise (which I tend to doubt is the situation, in most cases)-- would be to negotiate the specific characteristics, which would define "assault weapon," in completely unambiguous, OBJECTIVE terms.

 

So...you reckon what you have now.....is......umm......working?

 

I wrote a lengthy post awhile back on what I would do. It's location is in the gun control forum. My solutions are not a quickie Aussie band aid solution which is a temporary fix for a growing violent culture. My solutions are practical and actually tackle the perpetrators, and address their culture, and do not remove Constitutionally protected second amendment rights for the law abiding. You probably wouldn't like it.