The more the gun nuts fight the assualt weapons ban, the more attention it gets

Did you get that information from a fortune cookie or a Zoltar machine?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_automatic_weapon.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun

 

We'll see.

 

Here's my original quote.

It's called reading comprehension, try it sometime.

 

*eyeroll*

 

Ya, I'd be embarrassed if I where you too.

 

I admit,I missed it...

 

I'm with you on this Johnny C. You are doing a remarkable job holding up your end of the argument in this thread.
My solution to the gun control issue is,let the gun mongers own as many guns as they want,just charge them up the gozoo for the bullets? Or stop making the bullets for the semi-automatics completely.
After all,some of our forum members have said "guns don't kill people" OK,then "bullets" kill people. If these people's interest is in only "owning guns" what difference does it make if there isn't any bullets to put in them? Problem solved,"right"? The only reason for opposition would be " Unless" some are the exact people who would consider mass killings.
Some on this forum are giving us stats saying violence is down,well then if that is the case,there should be no reason for anything but hunting ammunition,"right"?

 

The nation will change, from those of us that value freedom, self reliance, and family to a nation of panty waist weeklings that think bureaucrats will take better care of them than they can themselves by making decisions for them.

 

In my opinion.it is not the law abiding ,sensible gun owners we are arguing against,it is the loony fringe that "thinks everyone is after them",the shoot first phychos,the drug addicts that don't know what planet they are on,the gang members that think they own a section of the streets,the people that have mental health issues.
And just for the record,I am not anti-Government. I feel the Government has it's place,you are free to think what you want & are also free to leave the United States if you feel the Government here isn't working for you.
I have to say,you argue for a "part "of "our" Government "the 2nd" Amendment" of The Constitution, & will fight for it's protection that suits your purposes,but then argue against "our" government that doesn't suit your purposes.
In my opinion,we the people vote for what we want our Government to be,the majority of the country "Right now" is tired of the senseless killings & are trying to come up with sensible solutions.
If you are one of the sensible,responsible gun owners,help come up with a solution to the phychos out there.

 

One man's sensible is another's tyranny. Words like sensible and responsible are being used to mask the underlying goal of banning guns. You may not think that is the case but now that legislation has been entered in some States with confiscation as a main goal and powerful politicians like Diane Feinstein having said that her goal is complete disarmament, the cat is out of the bag. It is not sensible to pass alleged "crime" legislation that has been proven not to diminish crime.

 

Ok,your talking "States"! If you live in a "State" that is talking "total "confiscation,(which I find hard to believe",)" (as Diane Feinstein,for example: had the exact same law on the books that she is advocating now, until it was not renewed,did not hurt any gun owners & their 2nd Amendment rights! )then "you" have a right to stand up to defend the Constitution. Diane Feinstein has been in Washington for 20 years,she knows the Constitution,she has no intention of "TOTAL" confiscation. But that being said,powerful politicians are only as powerful as the voters let them be,again,we the people are the Government,if the majority of voters agree with a sensible bill that Diane Feinstein or any other legislator is proposing,it will become law. It is our will,not the NRA'S,not powerful lobbyists,not money.
I really wish,people like Lepierre would be on the side of sensible proposals,instead of only thinking of the gun manufacturers' bottom line & fear mongering. And again,he (Lepierre) is only as powerful as the people let him be.

 

Let's talk about "tyranny" for a minute here. My definition of tyranny is what Governor Rick Synder of Michigan is doing, he has completely ignored the will of the voters of his State & named a "City Manager" to go take over several cities in his state,Detroit being the latest,completely ignoring the Constitution & over-riding elected officials. Now,I don't see any gun legislation doing what Gov Snyder is doing!
Also,what has been proven in the past,does not mean it won't work today,but by that same token,there is a poster here on the forum that persists in showing statistics that crime is lower now,so if that being the case,what difference does it make if there is a ban on semi-automatics & 30 round gun clips?

 

Actually, it's not the exact same law. First, it's much broader in scope, and defines "assault weapon" as anything that has ONE "military (cosmetic) characteristic" when the past law required TWO. Perhaps more importantly, what she is proposing now IS a confiscation, albeit in slow motion. You see, it allows existing owners to keep their weapons, but makes it illegal to transfer ownership. So they can't be sold, they can't be given away, and they can't be left to the kids when the owner dies. It doesn't address what is to happen then, but the only option should that come to pass is that they'll have to be surrendered (presumably with no remuneration) to the government.

You're either lying or ignorant of the actual facts.

 

You have your head in the sand.

Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it."

 

So, quit with the name calling already,my point being,is that there was a ban on assault weapons that Diane Feinstein put into law before & the world did not come to an end then & it won't now.
What Diane Feinstein says & what she puts in a proposal are 2 different things. She knows what the Constitution states,if the majority of voters don't like her proposals,they will let it be known. I personally think,the proposal doesn't go far enough,so call me all the names in the universe,I still hate GUNS & everything that goes with them....

- - - Updated - - -

So, quit with the name calling already,my point being,is that there was a ban on assault weapons that Diane Feinstein put into law before & the world did not come to an end then & it won't now.
What Diane Feinstein says & what she puts in a proposal are 2 different things. She knows what the Constitution states,if the majority of voters don't like her proposals,they will let it be known. I personally think,the proposal doesn't go far enough,so call me all the names in the universe,I still hate GUNS & everything that goes with them....

 

You also,quit with the name calling,condescending attitude.
So,what about what Gov Synder is doing in Michigan? Oh, I get it,it is ok for Gov to take away a persons rights,it is ok for other GOP Govs to take away peoples rights,but because it doesn't have to do with guns,it is ok with you! The Constitution is for everyone,not just you.

 

It wasn't name calling, you either knew what I posted was true, and said what you said anyway, which means you were lying, or you were ignorant of the facts. Regardless, her proposal won't pass, and if by some miracle it does, it'll get smacked down so fast by the courts it'll make your head spin, because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Heller says firearms "commonly in use for lawful purposes" cannot be banned, as the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country and has been for some time now, and for every 1,000,000 of them own by citizens only 1 is used in a crime, I'd say it meets the definition of "commonly in use for lawful purposes".

 

I assume that the "charge them up the gozoo for the bullets" was just a joke, so I'll let that go, but...

What is "hunting ammunition", and why would it be beneficial to limit people to that one type?

 

LOL, telling you the truth then showing you the truth seems to be condescension. Oh well, I guess if you can't read, it would seem condescending.

As far as Gov. Snyder is concerned, you may have a political point. But you have no legal argument. There is no constitutional right to local self-government in the United States.

 

There is to date no evidence one way or the other that the prior assault weapons ban had an impact on criminal ativity at all.

 

Wrong.

The "majority" is NOT against "assault weapons" - the gun owner demographic has changed in the last 20 years. Your gun grabbing attitude hasn't. MANY gun owners are now educated professionals, not just hunters. And where do you get "giving everything to the rich"? Seriously? Your socialist core is showing through! The only thing "doomed to fail" is Obama and another four years of an EXTREME socialist agenda.

The sequester will help raise awareness that president Obama is a LIAR. The sequester is a GOOD THING because Obama and socialist democrats cannot stop spending money they don't have. They are completely irresponsible. Obama said everything would crash if the sequester happened - no such thing, lies lies, lies.

 

It happens.

 

No, you're wrong about them wanting to ban guns with a capacity of more than 10 cartidges. They want to ban magazines that can hold more than 10.

No, you're wrong about bolt actions and shotguns being more powerful than any semi-automatic.

And if in your convoluted way you are saying that females can't handle shotguns then you're wrong about that too.

I was just thinking about going back and finding one of your posts at random to see what you have been getting away with. I wasn't disappointed.

Oh, and you're wrong about pitbulls too. The breed was bred for violence and it often comes out in even the best handled ones. It's well proven that even the best handler can have a bad dog that chews the face off a child. Your idea is like saying a person can have a bloody African lion on a leash.

 

So finding a bunch of stupid comments at random is now stalking? Would you set the rules for yourself so I don't violate your rules because I'm going to have a look back on what you've said in the interest of understanding you better. Nothing else of course!