‘What stands between us and what happened in London? Guns, guns, guns’

Nah; "assault", "weapon" and "rifle" are far too emotive and the association with nasty, painful death is too obvious. I think 'advanced euthanasia tools' is more benign-sounding, and should fool any government that decides to get uppity with its citizenry.
I love how the right try to wriggle out of any criticism of their holy guns; it's almost as if they're actually frightened of not being armed to the teeth, and terrified that their safety is going to be compromised if they don't own a gun. What a sad way to live.
Then they tell Europeans that they're weaklings because we've been "disarmed". Well, seeing as most of us were never 'armed' in the first place this seems disingenuous at best. They simply cannot understand how a society can function without being knee-deep in guns, an obsessive gun culture and fetishism-freedom from guns is like a foreign language to them.

 

This is typical of the gun control crowd, complete ignorance of the subject. Talk about brainwashing.

The first AR was an Assault Rifle which was sold to the military, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle for civilian use. They are two different weapons. Assault Rifle is a military designation for an intermediate select fire (auto/semi-auto) rifle. That is an easy definition because it has an easily identifiable purpose.

Assault Weapon was a political definition for semi-auto rifle with certain features that make it look scary. They had to find a way to define those scary features and how many scary features were allowed on a rifle. That is why there were hundreds of exceptions because there is nothing easily identifiable between one semi-auto rifle and another.

Of course now you will notice that politicians are not even using Assault Rifle but Assault Style Rifle, because it is all about cosmetics and not the actual gun.

You would know this if you knew what you were talking about.

When government cannot enforce current law and decide to create new law to make themselves feel good then those will be bad laws. When government makes laws that will in no way affect criminal activity but end up making criminals out of law abiding citizens then those will be bad laws.

You are of the same ilk, making new laws make you feel like you are doing something positive when all you are doing is oppressing law abiding citizens. Your kind of tyranny I can do without.

 

You can tell Weiner is still upset that he's banned from Britain as a rabble-rousing undesirable.

 

I spent several years in Europe , the UK and other places around the globe. There's never polizei, Flic, or Blue Bottles around when you need them most. It's the same here although at least we have the opportunity to protect ourselves in most parts of the U.S.