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

That is too funny! Another person who thinks that a limitation is the same as "coming to get my guns"..............as in "completely remove them from my possession".

- - - Updated - - -

That is too funny! Another person who thinks that a limitation is the same as "coming to get my guns"..............as in "completely remove them from my possession".

 

Except the legislation as currently proposed (which doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing) includes a ban on transferring grandfathered weapons. So it's slow motion confiscation, for that means they can't be sold, can't be given away, and can't be left you your kids when you assume room temp.

 

Don't die and you'll be fine. But if that doesn't work out, you'll not be around to miss your soldier-wannabe gun, so there's that... if by chance the snowball joins you and fairs well in Hell.

It's all good.

 

So you're okay with taking away people's rights? Perhaps you live in the wrong country.

 

No. I advocate keeping every one of our Amendments.

 

In my opinion, anyone calling for an AWB while owning a handgun needs to smack the hell out of themselves. I cannot think of a more blatant example of sheer hypocrisy.

 

Good to know.

What's your favorite color?

 

Ridicule and diversion. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

Not why I'm ridiculing. I'm merely giving the ridiculous its due.

 

You think my views are GOP views? Now that's some ignorance on display right there.

And your attitude about Obama's murders says it all about your compassion and your lack of a sense of justice. You don't care about saving lives, you're just another control-freak tying to lord it over others. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

 

What, the idea that psych drugs might have something to do with mass-murder?

Or that the people killed by Obama have just as much right to their lives as the people killed by domestic mass-murderers? And there are far more of them, and he is still doing it? Is that what's ridiculous?

Or is it the idea that you gun banners might have some motivation other than the concern for innocent lives? Is that ridiculous? Prove it.

 

Wolverine.

I see that you're getting more and more vague. That indicates a careful strategy to make it seem as if you know that I'm wrong about the sales of those specifically banned models and magazines when in fact, you know that I'm right.

No sxxx that semi-automatic rifles were still sold. Why wouldn't they have been? They weren't banned unless they had the detachable magazines and more than two specific aesthetic features designed for combat. Even those models were allowed to sell until the existing retail stock ran out. The same goes for the extended capacity magazines. But that retail stock ran out within a matter of months once the ban went into effect. Those specific models and magazines weren't readily available again until 2004.

Forget what I think for a moment. How about another look at the facts?

In 1994, a ban on 'assault weapons' went into effect. This ban made the sale of specific models of 'assault weapons' illegal. It also placed a limit on the number of certain aesthetic features that manufacturers were allowed to integrate with any given model. Aesthetic features designed specifically for combat. Although the previous ban did not go far enough, it did place an absolute limit on the capacity of detachable magazines. The maximum capacity allowed was of 10 rounds. This limit on capacity was fundamental. No other feature ever allowed on any firearm sold legally to any private citizen has ever made more of a difference in lethality than the extended capacity magazine. They give those who possess the ability to carry more rounds, fire more shots, and achieve a higher body count with greater ease. Since the expiration of the 'assault weapons' ban in 2004, extended capacity magazines have been selling in record numbers. Some with capacities of 20, 30, or even 100 rounds have been sold by the thousands. As a result, several of the ten most deadly 'mass shootings' in US history have taken place. The 11th has as well.

The most deadly 'mass shooting' in US history took place at Virginia Tech University in 2007. 32 students were killed in two separate attacks spaced roughly two hours apart. The shooter was Seung Hui Cho. Two handguns and 19 magazines were used in the assault. Some with a previously banned capacity of 15 rounds.

The most deadly one-man gun attack in US history took place in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 18 children, and 8 adults, were killed by Adam Lanza, the son of a gun fanatic. Lanza killed his mother, took possession of her previously banned specific model of AR-15 'assault rifle' equipped with previously banned 30 round magazines, two handguns, and a shotgun and carried out his assault on Sandy Hook. The previously banned AR-15 model equipped with previously banned 30 round magazines was used to shoot and kill all or most of the victims. Lanza then killed himself with a handgun. The shotgun was left in the trunk.

The assault on the American Civic Association Immigration Center took place in 2009. The shooter, Jiverly Antares Wong, killed 13 people before taking his own life. Two hand guns were used in the assault along with several previously banned extended capacity magazines. At least one of which, had a previously banned capacity of 30 rounds. It was found empty at the scene.

The assault on the Century Movie Theater took place in 2012. The shooter, James Holmes killed 12 and injured 58. His primary weapons were a shotgun, a rifle, and a hand gun. At least two previously banned extended capacity magazines were used in the attack. One of which had a previously banned capacity of 100 rounds. Fortunately, that particular 'drum' magazine malfunctioned after firing somewhere between 20 and 30 rounds. Otherwise, the incident may have become the most deadly 'mass shooting' in US history.

That makes three of the top ten most deadly 'mass shootings' in US history carried out just within the last four years. All committed using previously banned models and/or previously banned extended capacity magazines. Plus the 11th. Again using a previously banned model and previously banned extended capacity magazines. Another took place on a military base. Mark my words: More body counts will enter record territory within the next two years. The trend will continue to grow as long as those 'assault weapons' and 'extended capacity' magazines are sold to private citizens.

Critics: I challenge you to discount the circumstances regarding the specific examples listed above. Go ahead and claim that all those 'assaults' would have made the top 11 most deadly in US history with or without the use of those extended capacity magazines. Go ahead and make fools of yourselves. In the meantime, I'll say it again.

The now expired ban on 'assault weapons' saved lives by reducing access to specific models and extended capacity magazines. It's expiration has already cost lives by making those specific models and extended capacity magazines readily available to private citizens. The sooner another ban goes into effect, the better.

 

Ever hear of the Second Amendment? It gives the people a right to keep and bear arms.

 

LOL!!! That's rich...

 

I read two lines.

The rifle had one feature, the pistol grip. Its lacked the folding stock and compensator that my GP WASR-10 has and was not covered by the ban. A week after the ban expired the WASR-10's were sold at discount prices and GP WASR's were popular. I sold my WASR-10 and purchased a GP WAR-10. I purchased the firearm during the ban. It was manufactured during the ban. Please, quite being one of the most ignorant posters in this thread and understand this very simple point. Reminds me of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing religion forum. Tell someone a fact and they think "ohhhhhh no by Goerge *wipes tobacco off lip* this is right cuz I sayz so".

Maybe read the law?

Or the gun control advocates reasons for saying the ban was ineffective and watered down?

The rifle pictured was produced during the ban. The rifle pictured was sold during the ban. There is no need to be aggressively stupid here and claim that there is some vast conspiracy to be had in my stating a fact.

The Colt AR-15 was banned by name. Bushmaster renamed the rifle an XM-15, removed the muzzle device and bayonet lug and it was sold legally. The AR-15 used by the DC "sniper"? Produced and purchased during the ban. The weapons at Columbine? Produced and purchased during the ban.

Your ban did nothing and you are too ignorant to understand why.

I am right. You are wrong.

 

We've been through this Wolverine. You're playing games again. I already told you that your rifle would not have been covered based on the aesthetic features alone. I noticed immediately that it had only one of the regulated aesthetic features, the 'pistol grip'. Of course, it would not have been banned for sale to private citizens on that feature alone. The same goes for any semi-automatic rifle with only one of the regulated aesthetic features. I understand all of that. But your 'extended capacity' magazines, if acquired 'new' WERE NOT LEGAL FOR SALE TO PRIVATE CITIZENS MID-BAN UNLESS THEY WERE ACQUIRED FROM EXISTING RETAIL STOCK.

Capiche? Good! Say that reminds me.

Again die-hard gun freaks. The now expired ban saved lives not only by banning the sale of specific models of 'assault rifle' but also by banning the sale of 'extended capacity' magazines. This effectively reduced access. Again, die-hard gun freaks. Four of the top ten most deadly mass shootings in US history have taken place since the expiration of that ban. Those four were carried out in part, using previously banned models and/or previously banned 'extended capacity' magazines. When 'extended capacity' magazines are used, they give the shooter the ability to carry more rounds, fire more shots, reload less often, and achieve a higher body count. The very presence of these 'assault weapons' in our society appears to have a negative influence on some. Lanza and Greigo were both raised by gun fanatics. Both had access to a parent's AR-15 which they used to commit mass murder. Mark my words: YOU MARK MY WORDS: More record-territory body counts will be achieved within the next two years by gun fanatics or their children who finally go over the edge. THERE IS A CONNECTION. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT OUR OBSESSIVE GUN CULTURE.

 

Well, when you say the same stupid things the GOP says....................should I think you are liberal? Now that's the ignorant logic I was expecting you to use and it solidifies my beliefs about you!

Oh, and thanks for pretending that a limitation is a complete removal of. Hey maybe you aren't pretending, which would just be more entertainment!

 

*shakes head* Yes, I know...

You can't make this stuff up, ya' know. It's like arguing with schizos.

 

Quit insisting and calling people names and provide *evidence*, as in a peer reviewed study that shows that lives were saved by the AWB. Get cracking.

 

So you want us to believe Wolverine bought a high capacity clip when they were banned? Isn't the ban evidence? LMAO!

The GOP will make up anything, even when it's crazy! LOL

 

I believe that he bought a high-capacity magazine during the "ban" since I was alive during that period and saw them being sold. I also understand what the AWB did and didn't do. You clearly don't even understand what the legislation actually contained. Go educate yourself.

 

Here is another interesting point.

"A pink cadillac with 22 in chrome rims just drove down my street."

Do I need to offer evidence of this before it is believable? No, because cadillacs exist, the color pink exists, and 22in rims exist.................and I live on a street that people drive down. I don't need to supply pictures, tread marks............EVIDENCE...........in order for you to believe this logical claim.

"A 50ft hairy bigfoot just crossed my property line"

Do I need to offer evidence of this before it is believable? YES!

In other words, logical claims don't need evidence in order for them to be believed................illogical claims REQUIRE evidence before they can be believed.

So unless you can show us where his claim is illogical.....................his logical claim requires no evidence to believe it, but it does require ignorance if you don't believe it. Its up to you on the perception we have of you. It can either be positive or negative. Its up to you!

- - - Updated - - -

And Free Thinker clearly said that he either:
1. Bought existing stock
or
2. Purchased from a private citizen.

 

Why are we having to repeat the same thing over and over to you? Not getting it the first time around, huh? LOL

Tomfoo: He bought a high capacity mag. during the ban.
FT: Sure, from existing stock or from a private citizen.
Tomfoo: But he bought a high capacity mag. during the ban.
FT: And it was from existing stock or from a private citizen.
Tomfoo: But you are not getting it. He bought a high capacity mag during the ban.
FT: And I have told you that he bought it from existing stock or a private citizen.
Tomfoo:. But he bought a high capacity mag. during the ban.

See a pattern of ignorance here? Just asking? WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Really!? The GOP opposes Obama's wars? They call for prosecuting him for his murders of innocent people? Really? You're gonna have to back that one up...

From what I've seen here, I'm far more liberal than you are. So liberal I'm positively Jeffersonian, a concept I doubt you can comprehend. That why I support the BoR, all of it.

 

So you admit that when you say the same things the GOP does.....................I shouldn't think you are liberal? Thought so!

- - - Updated - - -