Be a Supporter!

Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!!

  • 2,257 Views
  • 107 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 18:12:41 Reply

At 2/9/13 05:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Well, no. People make a choice to smoke/snort/inject Coke. No one forces one to buy /smoke/snort/inject Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a drug addiction.

A) I thought you meant the drink
B) Yes, it is absolutely someone's personal choice to participate in drug use. I support legalization of drugs.

Whats this oh it's a dam troll post ... hops back into bat mobile and gets the f... outa dodge ! see ya.

LOL Well, at least I got through to you and you realize your logic doesn't hold up

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 19:28:19 Reply

At 2/9/13 01:31 AM, Korriken wrote: proof?

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/sandy-h ook-hoax-is-falling-apart-2447988.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/272098/proof-the-sandy-hook-childre n-are-a-hoax-bardens-fake-pictures

Yah I don't see gun control people doing anything remotely like that.

there are retards on both sides, like some gun grabbers thinking that banning guns will stop gun crime.

My point is that the ones on the Gun rights side are delusional and more insane.

it doesn't take an NRA ad to know Obama is an elitist. that much is plain as day.

He's an elitist because people say he is apparently. He really isn't, it's just that whereas Obama is making gains in groups with higher incomes the Republicans are trying to crack into the people with low incomes and so painting him as an elitist helps them appeal to poorer people.

the AWB is 100% emotion. it turns a blind eye to the real problem, and seeks to ban scary looking weapons that are less dangerous than a hunting rifle or shotgun and has a few cosmetic features. 'assault weapons' are simply a boogeyman for the gun grabbers to use to scare people. If i was going to assault a place, I would use a shotgun before I even thought of grabbing an AK or M16... or any other semi automatic rifle with a bullet slightly larger than a .22.

That's a better argument. I just wish the NRA and gun rights people talked like that alot more often instead of just throwing unrelated insults and offensive conspiracy theories.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 19:34:18 Reply

At 2/9/13 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote: http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/sandy-h ook-hoax-is-falling-apart-2447988.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/272098/proof-the-sandy-hook-childre n-are-a-hoax-bardens-fake-pictures

Fringe does not define a side of an argument.

My point is that the ones on the Gun rights side are delusional and more insane.

Let's not start calling out which side is more "insane"

He's an elitist because people say he is apparently. He really isn't, it's just that whereas Obama is making gains in groups with higher incomes the Republicans are trying to crack into the people with low incomes and so painting him as an elitist helps them appeal to poorer people.

He's an elitist for the same reason Mitt Romney is. Out of touch with the real world. Gets everything handed to him on a golden platter. For shit's sake he owns the most advanced private jet on the planet. And uses it for shopping trips for fucks sake.

As for republicans cracking into people with low incomes...well, my taxes were lower under their plan, and I didn't have a mandatory insurance bill under their plan. So much for that theory.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 20:00:16 Reply

At 2/9/13 06:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/9/13 05:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Well, no. People make a choice to smoke/snort/inject Coke. No one forces one to buy /smoke/snort/inject Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a drug addiction.
A) I thought you meant the drink

I couldn't think you were for real LOL.

B) Yes, it is absolutely someone's personal choice to participate in drug use. I support legalization of drugs.

For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people. A middleman such as a drug dealer or gun dealer weather legalized, decriminalized or otherwise is an abuser of human rights and should be tried for crimes against humanity. That being said if any grown adult of legal age and ability to make a clear and lucid decision wants to learn how to make weapons and drugs for personalty use then by all means go for it but it's when the individuals actions adversely affect other peoples rights is when it becomes a problem. I live as a peaceful entity and I consider it an infringement on my rights to a peaceful life to have a gun dealer in my community and gun owners as my nabours. If I am peaceful enough and happy to be in control of my emotions and actions than so can everyone else have the same control so i give to you the reason for no arms necessary. The only reason for guns now is to keep the ones that still own them in line but I am trying to advocate a leveling of the playing field in a more peaceful manor which is no guns rather than leveling the playing field on the extreme which is to arm everyone. Furthermore if we need to arm everyone then the Government should be mandated to arm and train every of age citizen equally but we all know this will never happen as the root word of Government is "Govern" which means to hold back, retard, Subjugate and oppress the masses. Once again I rather live in peace and I do so no need for guns here.

Whats this oh it's a dam troll post ... hops back into bat mobile and gets the f... outa dodge ! see ya.
LOL Well, at least I got through to you and you realize your logic doesn't hold up

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 20:09:32 Reply

At 2/9/13 08:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people.

I didn't read past this because evidently you went off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my post, which was people should have rights over their own bodies and therefore the right to consume what they please.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 20:15:09 Reply

At 2/9/13 08:09 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/9/13 08:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people.
I didn't read past this because evidently you went off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my post, which was people should have rights over their own bodies and therefore the right to consume what they please.

Drug dealers are pushers or death and disparity just as a Gun dealer is a gun pusher and advocate of violence in a round about way which is an aggressive act against other people rights to a society free from violence, death, unease and general negativity.


BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 45
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 20:26:19 Reply

The Shooting at Newton was not done with an Assault Rifle but an Assault Rifle was planted there. They were done with Dual Semi Automatic Pistols.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 20:26:47 Reply

At 2/9/13 08:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Drug dealers are pushers or death and disparity just as a Gun dealer is a gun pusher and advocate of violence in a round about way which is an aggressive act against other people rights to a society free from violence, death, unease and general negativity.

Um, no a drug dealer sells something people want. A drug user knows full well what the effects of drugs are and makes the choice and excepts consequence of drug use. No one buys cocaine and doesn't know it's dangerous. Same with fast cars, fatty food, or even guns.

Gun dealers do not advocate violence in any way shape or form. Ever met a gun dealer? I know several of them. My best friend is one. So is his wife. They are not violent, nor do they promote violence. Gun dealers don't promote violence. They sell a means for people to defend themselves from dangerous people.

The problem with your "no guns" utopia is that it is literally impossible. There will always, ALWAYS and always have been dangerous people, and those who wish to harm others. This is a fact of life, and always has been, and always will be. So, seeing that undeniable FACT, what am I supposed to do? What am I to do when an armed criminal enters my home? Just let him possibly kill me? Or steal everything I own? Do I not have the right to defend myself and family from those who wish to harm me? Why not?

Let's assume there are no such thing as guns. Tomorrow, every gun just magically disappears. Do you think violence will end? Do you think people will stop killing or hurting each other?

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 21:42:31 Reply

At 2/9/13 08:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/9/13 08:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Drug dealers are pushers or death and disparity just as a Gun dealer is a gun pusher and advocate of violence in a round about way which is an aggressive act against other people rights to a society free from violence, death, unease and general negativity.
Um, no a drug dealer sells something people want.

You want to get legal with me then here goes. No ! a Drug addict is out of their right mind and more than likely is intoxicated at time of drug purchase rendering the business transaction between drug dealer and customer illegitimate and that's even before the moral and criminal legal aspect of previously cited transaction comes into play. A drug addict is sick and weak and the drug dealer is a weak predator praying on the weakness.

Gun dealers do not advocate violence in any way shape or form. Ever met a gun dealer? I know several of them. My best friend is one. So is his wife. They are not violent, nor do they promote violence. Gun dealers don't promote violence. They sell a means for people to defend themselves from dangerous people.

See you are one dimensional thinker and you never stop to think that people actions no matter what create and shape reality. The pathway to hell is filled with ignorance.


The problem with your "no guns" utopia is that it is literally impossible.

A gun less society is far from as you say a utopia LOL. Once again you make a one dimensional and more or less ignorant statement.

So, seeing that undeniable FACT, what am I supposed to do?

So you think a gun less world is not possible LOL I am glad you have no means of mass production cause with an attitude like that nothing would ever be created. Anything is possible in this world so long as you don't beat up your mind before you even start.

What am I to do when an armed criminal enters my home?

Don't let him enter and it's as simple as that take. You mistake the un probable as an inevitable. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Do I not have the right to defend myself and family from those who wish to harm me?

Naturally and legally yes but having a loaded gun handy is tantamount to premeditated murder in my books and it still does not ensure you will even be able to pop off a shot before the other guy and lily you will not.

Let's assume there are no such thing as guns. Tomorrow, every gun just magically disappears. Do you think violence will end?

Nope but more ideally it will force people to train and in turn "earn" the right, liberty and ability to become more disciplined and realistic in their actions, words, feelings, emotions and abilities when dealing with their fellow human not just aggressors. Gun's lend a false sense of security when more often than not the less lethal means is a far more efficient means of proactive protection. IMO one should be trained in the arts of less lethal take downs and when they master that then they can have a gun and that is after they pass the Police officer training, testing and examinations of course.

Do you think people will stop killing or hurting each other?

You must consider and understand the source and rational behind 99.9% of problems on this planet as it stands today before you can honestly ask a question like that. Also what makes you think people are going to kill you do you live in the ghetto ? You have a paranoid delusion about life man if you think you absolutely need to be on the offensive to be defensive plus that's not to mention that the energy you put out is the energy that you will receive. Me I choose to be proactive about my safety and therefore I have no need to be offensive or defensive.


BBS Signature
RichardGrey
RichardGrey
  • Member since: Feb. 9, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 21:56:26 Reply

This is from Dorner's manifesto:

'If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don't give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses. That's bullshit because troops who carry the M-4/M-16 weapon system for combat ops outside the wire rarely utilize the select fire function when in contact with enemy combatants. The use of select fire probably isn't even 1% in combat. So in essence, the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle is the same as the M-4/M-16. These do not need to be purchased as easily as walking to your local Walmart or striking the enter key on your keyboard to "add to cart". All the firearms utilized in my activities are registered to me and were legally purchased at gun stores and private party transfers. All concealable weapons (pistols) were also legally register in my name at police stations or FFL's. Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR's, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I'm not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID. Shame on you, Lock n Load. NFA and ATF need new laws and policies that do not allow loopholes such as this. In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. "Gun control is no longer debatable, it's not a conversation, its a moral mandate."

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family. That has become cliche' and meaningless. Its time for action. Let this be your legacy that you bestow to America. Do not be swayed by obstacles, antagaonist, and naysayers. Remember the innocent children at Austin, Kent, Stockton, Fullerton, San Diego, Iowa City, Jonesboro, Columbine, Nickel Mines, Blacksburg, Springfield, Red Lake, Chardon, Aurora, and Newtown. Make sure this never happens again!!!'

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 22:25:47 Reply

At 2/9/13 07:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Fringe does not define a side of an argument.

That wasn't my point.

Let's not start calling out which side is more "insane"

That is what the whole debate is about. Let's see, Obama tries to act nice and appeal to gun owners without insulting them, the NRA runs ads attacking Obama himself, does not come up with a good solution and bitches about it. On top of this the gun rights people attack everyone from Obama himself to the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Oh wait Obama is the elitist here, he's the douchebag because he said he likes guns the NRA takes that as an insult, Obama shows pictures of him shooting a gun and it only infuriates gun rights people even more when he tries to appeal to them. Meanwhile the NRA supposedly has the moral high ground because they use ad hominem logical fallacies as their argument as to why he's wrong. I think it's pretty clear which side is clearly the more unreasonable and insane.

He's an elitist for the same reason Mitt Romney is. Out of touch with the real world. Gets everything handed to him on a golden platter. For shit's sake he owns the most advanced private jet on the planet. And uses it for shopping trips for fucks sake.

Yawn, please stop repeating the same garbage over and over again.

As for republicans cracking into people with low incomes...well, my taxes were lower under their plan, and I didn't have a mandatory insurance bill under their plan. So much for that theory.

Nope complete horse shit. Under the Republican plan the taxes would be the same for lower incomes and the insurance mandate came from the Heritage foundation, a Conservative group which South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is about to become president of. So no it would be the same thing.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
BlowbackPrinciple
BlowbackPrinciple
  • Member since: Feb. 9, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Writer
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 22:26:28 Reply

It didn't really sound like that was feasible legislation anyway.


"The weak do not forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong."

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 23:23:51 Reply

At 2/9/13 10:25 PM, Warforger wrote: That is what the whole debate is about. Let's see, Obama tries to act nice and appeal to gun owners without insulting them, the NRA runs ads attacking Obama himself, does not come up with a good solution and bitches about it. On top of this the gun rights people attack everyone from Obama himself to the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Oh wait Obama is the elitist here, he's the douchebag because he said he likes guns the NRA takes that as an insult, Obama shows pictures of him shooting a gun and it only infuriates gun rights people even more when he tries to appeal to them. Meanwhile the NRA supposedly has the moral high ground because they use ad hominem logical fallacies as their argument as to why he's wrong. I think it's pretty clear which side is clearly the more unreasonable and insane.

It doesn't matter how "nice" he's trying to be, the LAW, which, btw, he swore to uphold, says I have the right to bear arms and defend myself, with guns if I so choose. If he can use guns to protect his family, then there is ZERO reason why I should not be able to protect mine.

Yawn, please stop repeating the same garbage over and over again.

You said he wasn't an elitist. I proved he was.

Nope complete horse shit. Under the Republican plan the taxes would be the same for lower incomes and the insurance mandate came from the Heritage foundation, a Conservative group which South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is about to become president of. So no it would be the same thing.

Hmm...well under Obama's plan I'm getting an extra ~$100 stolen from my paycheck a month. And a republican wrote the Obamacare law? A) Nice try ("blame everyone but me") and B) That doesn't justify it or make it right.

See, I'm not the type who says "oh it's okay" just because one party does it. You may be, I am not.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 23:32:07 Reply

At 2/9/13 09:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You want to get legal with me then here goes. No ! a Drug addict is out of their right mind and more than likely is intoxicated at time of drug purchase rendering the business transaction between drug dealer and customer illegitimate and that's even before the moral and criminal legal aspect of previously cited transaction comes into play. A drug addict is sick and weak and the drug dealer is a weak predator praying on the weakness.

We're not talking legal or illegal. We're talking about morality. And it is IMMORAL for a government official to tell me what I can and can't do with my money and/or what I can ingest into my body. Just as it is IMMORAL for them to steal from my paycheck. I own myself. Therefore, I decide what I will and will not consume.

A drug addict made a CHOICE to get high.

See you are one dimensional thinker and you never stop to think that people actions no matter what create and shape reality. The pathway to hell is filled with ignorance.

None of this backs up your (false) assertion of gun dealers being "violent" or promoting violence

A gun less society is far from as you say a utopia LOL. Once again you make a one dimensional and more or less ignorant statement.

Hey, it was you who said you wanted ZERO guns.

So, seeing that undeniable FACT, what am I supposed to do?
So you think a gun less world is not possible LOL I am glad you have no means of mass production cause with an attitude like that nothing would ever be created. Anything is possible in this world so long as you don't beat up your mind before you even start.

In practicality, how would you propose we get rid of every single gun on Earth?

Don't let him enter and it's as simple as that take. You mistake the un probable as an inevitable. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Ah, so all of the people in the nation who's homes are broken into LET the criminal in, right? Like they opened the door for them?

Naturally and legally yes but having a loaded gun handy is tantamount to premeditated murder in my books and it still does not ensure you will even be able to pop off a shot before the other guy and lily you will not.

No, it is not even close to premeditated murder. You know how difficult it is to kill someone with a gun, especially in a fast paced environment, like an ATM robbery?

Nope but more ideally it will force people to train and in turn "earn" the right

Rights and liberty are not earned. You (and all humans) are born with them.

You must consider and understand the source and rational behind 99.9% of problems on this planet as it stands today before you can honestly ask a question like that. Also what makes you think people are going to kill you do you live in the ghetto ? You have a paranoid delusion about life man if you think you absolutely need to be on the offensive to be defensive plus that's not to mention that the energy you put out is the energy that you will receive. Me I choose to be proactive about my safety and therefore I have no need to be offensive or defensive.

No one is talking about being on the offensive...

And furthermore...crime doesn't just happen in ghettos. It happens worldwide, and always has. Even before "ghettos" even existed.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 23:46:50 Reply

At 2/9/13 11:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It doesn't matter how "nice" he's trying to be, the LAW, which, btw, he swore to uphold, says I have the right to bear arms and defend myself, with guns if I so choose. If he can use guns to protect his family, then there is ZERO reason why I should not be able to protect mine.

That's stupid. That's like saying that because someone is rich enough to get a body guard you should get one too. I think it's rather an unspoken rule that the Presidents life has alot more consequences than yours.

You said he wasn't an elitist. I proved he was.

No you didn't. "Prove" is a strong word, don't use it, it makes you sound like an elitist (here we go again). You didn't cite any sources, you didn't explain why he is you didn't even make any specific claims you just said "oh I don't like him he's an asshole fuck him".

Hmm...well under Obama's plan I'm getting an extra ~$100 stolen from my paycheck a month.

You don't know what happened. When this particular tax break was about to expire no one wanted to debate it in Congress so they pretty much just sat back and did nothing and let it die. The Republicans didn't do anything at all nor did Obama.

And a republican wrote the Obamacare law? A) Nice try ("blame everyone but me") and B) That doesn't justify it or make it right.

It was essentially based of off Republican proposals (see Romneycare) and no I wouldn't stand so tall on that pedestal because half your arguments tend to be logical fallacies anyway. Although it's more accurate to call half your arguments straight up denial.

See, I'm not the type who says "oh it's okay" just because one party does it. You may be, I am not.

Wow you're so full of shit. We weren't talking about policies we were talking about what each party was doing, you said the Democrats were shit and the Republicans were great, I pointed out the Republicans did not do what you said they did. Stay on topic, don't go off topic as soon as you start to see your argument is weak.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-09 23:59:05 Reply

At 2/9/13 11:46 PM, Warforger wrote: That's stupid. That's like saying that because someone is rich enough to get a body guard you should get one too. I think it's rather an unspoken rule that the Presidents life has alot more consequences than yours.

Last I checked, there are not, nor have their ever been a law on the table trying to restrict one's ability to hire a bodyguard.

No you didn't. "Prove" is a strong word, don't use it, it makes you sound like an elitist (here we go again). You didn't cite any sources, you didn't explain why he is you didn't even make any specific claims you just said "oh I don't like him he's an asshole fuck him".

Why don't you tell me what you think an elitist is? In my experience it's when someone acts above someone else. As if they're more elite than others. If you're going off of a different definition, please, enlighten me

You don't know what happened. When this particular tax break was about to expire no one wanted to debate it in Congress so they pretty much just sat back and did nothing and let it die. The Republicans didn't do anything at all nor did Obama.

I don't know what happened? Are you fucking serious. Obama, Mr. "I'm for the poor" did nothing. That's my point.

And a republican wrote the Obamacare law? A) Nice try ("blame everyone but me") and B) That doesn't justify it or make it right.
It was essentially based of off Republican proposals (see Romneycare) and no I wouldn't stand so tall on that pedestal because half your arguments tend to be logical fallacies anyway. Although it's more accurate to call half your arguments straight up denial.

So, every time someone says something you have no response to, or can't comprehend, it's a "logical fallacy". I think you should stop using "logical fallacy". My arguments are not logical fallacies, you just don't want to deal with them because you can't dispute it.

Wow you're so full of shit. We weren't talking about policies we were talking about what each party was doing, you said the Democrats were shit and the Republicans were great, I pointed out the Republicans did not do what you said they did. Stay on topic, don't go off topic as soon as you start to see your argument is weak.

I said republicans were great huh? Are you 100% sure about that? You gonna stick by that?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 00:08:11 Reply

At 2/9/13 11:59 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, every time someone says something you have no response to, or can't comprehend, it's a "logical fallacy". I think you should stop using "logical fallacy". My arguments are not logical fallacies, you just don't want to deal with them because you can't dispute it.

No I constantly disprove your stupid bullshit, you then just deny and switch the topic.

I said republicans were great huh? Are you 100% sure about that? You gonna stick by that?
At 2/9/13 07:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: As for republicans cracking into people with low incomes...well, my taxes were lower under their plan, and I didn't have a mandatory insurance bill under their plan. So much for that theory.

That sounds like exactly what we were talking about.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 00:22:33 Reply

At 2/9/13 11:32 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
A drug addict made a CHOICE to get high.

A bar keep will stop serving individuals incapable to make a clear choice when under the influence whereas a street drug dealer does not care and will sell to you until your funds run dry. That's the morality of the situation here. You stated "Um, no a drug dealer sells something people want." selling a product is ok but the fact is it is not ok to fuel peoples ignorance and addictions to further enable them to be rude, belligerent shellfish wastes on society.

None of this backs up your (false) assertion of gun dealers being "violent" or promoting violence

They are ignorant and so are you therefore I don't think you posses the capability to grasp the gravity beyond your own ignorance and prejudices and are here just to indulge in argument not debate.

Hey, it was you who said you wanted ZERO guns.

A gun less society is far from a utopia I know as I live in a gun less society.

In practicality, how would you propose we get rid of every single gun on Earth?

That's the simple part all you have to do is motivate guns owners to get rid of the guns.

Don't let him enter and it's as simple as that take. You mistake the un probable as an inevitable. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Ah, so all of the people in the nation who's homes are broken into LET the criminal in, right? Like they opened the door for them?

For all you know they did right.

Naturally and legally yes but having a loaded gun handy is tantamount to premeditated murder in my books and it still does not ensure you will even be able to pop off a shot before the other guy and lily you will not.
No, it is not even close to premeditated murder. You know how difficult it is to kill someone with a gun,

Then there is no use for a gun since as you state they are ineffective means of protection and I agree. Still is premeditated homicide if you are willing and pre armed to kill in self defense.

Rights and liberty are not earned. You (and all humans) are born with them.

Natural rights are inherent but the rights you advocate are synthetically enforced and given to you by the powers that be and as well enforced illegitimately by way of the use of force. Guns are not a natural right and therefore they are a privilege and grave responsibility that must be earned and the benefit of this to a legit gun owner that has passed they training is that means more legit gun owners will have guns and the wannabes and criminals that did not display the discipline to command a firearm will not have access to one.

And furthermore...crime doesn't just happen in ghettos. It happens worldwide, and always has. Even before "ghettos" even existed.

Oh really because I am under the impression that you get to choose where you live I mean I thought America was a free country but guess I am wrong LOL. Your safety is your responsibility not the guns. Remember guns are as you say ineffective so don't trust it when you need it instead be proactive and then you won't need it i promise you that. Cops need guns because it's their job to go looking for the trouble. Trouble will come find you if you invite it by living in a shitty community so being proactive and choosing the right place to live and just being smart is the key to being safe not a gun LOL.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 00:34:11 Reply

At 2/10/13 12:22 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: A bar keep will stop serving individuals incapable to make a clear choice when under the influence whereas a street drug dealer does not care and will sell to you until your funds run dry. That's the morality of the situation here. You stated "Um, no a drug dealer sells something people want." selling a product is ok but the fact is it is not ok to fuel peoples ignorance and addictions to further enable them to be rude, belligerent shellfish wastes on society.

Right. A BAR KEEP makes the decision. Not the government. He decides the risk of a beligerant drunk is not worth it, so stops serving.

I for one, think people are smart enough to make decisions, and prefer not to dismiss them as "ignorant".

They are ignorant and so are you therefore I don't think you posses the capability to grasp the gravity beyond your own ignorance and prejudices and are here just to indulge in argument not debate.

Who's ignorant, and why?

A gun less society is far from a utopia I know as I live in a gun less society.

So why do you want zero guns then? If you admit it doesn't make anything safer, than what is the point?

That's the simple part all you have to do is motivate guns owners to get rid of the guns.

You can never convince or motivate people to say "eh, fuck my safety. Take my means of self defense"

For all you know they did right.

Well, no they didn't. That's why it's called a CRIME

Then there is no use for a gun since as you state they are ineffective means of protection and I agree. Still is premeditated homicide if you are willing and pre armed to kill in self defense.

They are extremely effective as a means of protection. I never said otherwise.

Natural rights are inherent but the rights you advocate are synthetically enforced and given to you by the powers that be

No, the right to safety and defend oneself was given to me at birth, not by government

Oh really because I am under the impression that you get to choose where you live I mean I thought America was a free country but guess I am wrong LOL. Your safety is your responsibility not the guns. Remember guns are as you say ineffective so don't trust it when you need it instead be proactive and then you won't need it i promise you that. Cops need guns because it's their job to go looking for the trouble. Trouble will come find you if you invite it by living in a shitty community so being proactive and choosing the right place to live and just being smart is the key to being safe not a gun LOL.

Of course you can choose where you live. How is that relevant?

And where did I say guns are ineffective?

And robberies and crime do not discriminate based on financial standing or what neighborhood you live in.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 00:35:13 Reply

At 2/10/13 12:08 AM, Warforger wrote: No I constantly disprove your stupid bullshit, you then just deny and switch the topic.

LOL. Yeah. Fucking. Right.

That sounds like exactly what we were talking about.

Doesn't sound like I said they were great. Sounds like I said when it comes to taxation, they're not as bad as Obama.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 00:54:48 Reply

At 2/10/13 12:35 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 2/10/13 12:08 AM, Warforger wrote: No I constantly disprove your stupid bullshit, you then just deny and switch the topic.
LOL. Yeah. Fucking. Right.

Actually the Warforger was talking some good solid logic and you could actually be considered a troll right now.


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 01:21:19 Reply

At 2/9/13 09:56 PM, RichardGrey wrote:
Mia Farrow said it best. "Gun control is no longer debatable, it's not a conversation, its a moral mandate."

phrases like "Moral Mandate" is what people use when they want the opposition to just shut the hell up, bend over, and apply lube. There is are several reason why politicians clamor for an assault weapons ban.

they look menacing, which is course makes them easier to fear.
they're not as abundant as pistols hunting rifles and shotguns, because of their price tag making them easier to control.
there is no way in hell a comprehensive gun ban can happen all at once. the politicians have to gradually ease it in, I'll leave the obvious reference out.

first you start with assault weapons because they're big and scary, then claim that "criminals changed tactics, now we gotta go after this kind of gun to get it out of their hands!" then next thing you know they're banning big scary handguns because you don't need a hand cannon to defend your home. then they go down the line until they can just ban handguns completely, telling you to use pepper spray to defend your home. then of course, it's a "moral mandate" to "protect the population from criminals" by disarming the law abiding citizens while criminals, naturally, still have guns.

Problem is, people are falling for it. they claim how dangerous these guns are, how they somehow, magically do more damage than a normal gun, with ammo designed to penetrate and cause minimal internal damage, Irony is, a shotgun is miles ahead of an m16 when it comes to lethality. a shotgun can either fire one big slug or fire a bunch of smaller pellets, both are more lethal than a ball shot that's slightly bigger than a .22 rifle round.

i'd rather be shot by an "assault weapon" than be shot by a standard pistol or shotgun round and most CERTAINLY would rather be shot by an "assault weapon" than be shot by a hunting rifle. my odds of surviving the shot is far better.

but of course, gun grabbers love to lie, trying to frame assault rifles as these insanely powerful weapons that can obliterate whatever it hits. Then again, the truth would simply remove the pro gun control groups' reason to exist and the executives would have to find real jobs, so they crusade on, raking in the money.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 01:28:42 Reply

At 2/10/13 12:54 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Actually the Warforger was talking some good solid logic and you could actually be considered a troll right now.

LOL. You didn't even read his post, and you don't know what a troll is.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 02:06:23 Reply

Anybody who can spell IQ knew this wasn't going to pass. Not with Dems and Repubs (including, and especially, Gabby Gifford making pleas for guns) going out of their way to push "I love guns!" It's obvious this wasn't going to work, and thus we'll probably get some newer softball legislation that does nothing, and has no teeth, that WILL pass to try and placate the critics (which it won't) while not offending the hardcore gun lobbies (which it probably will, since their whole argument seems to be "duh, gun laws don't work...so don't have them" while ignoring that criminals are only criminals because they break laws, and if the argument is don't outlaw things because criminals don't care, then the logical end point conclusion for that argument is to simply abolish government, have no laws, and let anybody do whatever so they have no more criminals or crime).


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 02:24:40 Reply

At 2/10/13 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote: phrases like "Moral Mandate" is what people use when they want the opposition to just shut the hell up, bend over, and apply lube. There is are several reason why politicians clamor for an assault weapons ban.

It is indeed a great phrase to use when one wants to pass a law. However since laws at their core are an attempt to codify morals of a culture, it's not ridiculous to phrase the belief in the need for a particular law as having to do with morals, or to perhaps even be a "moral mandate".

they look menacing, which is course makes them easier to fear.

They can also do a lot better job of killing people because they have the bigger clip capacity, and better firing rates and such. Seriously, I'm so sick of the ridiculous argument that acts like assault weapons aren't somehow in a different class then say a handgun or a rifle. It's a demonstrably different weapon. It's like saying a sword is the same as a butterfly knife to me.

they're not as abundant as pistols hunting rifles and shotguns, because of their price tag making them easier to control.

It's also their best bet to try and find enough ground to get a bit of liberal applause for doing something, and keeping the moderate gun owners from screaming their head off and voting out those that support it in droves. It's the typical political motive of finding a middle road on an inflaming issue.

there is no way in hell a comprehensive gun ban can happen all at once. the politicians have to gradually ease it in, I'll leave the obvious reference out.

I don't think their interested in even doing that. If they were, we wouldn't have needed to wait for an elementary school shooting for them to start trying to do something like it.

first you start with assault weapons because they're big and scary, then claim that "criminals changed tactics, now we gotta go after this kind of gun to get it out of their hands!" then next thing you know they're banning big scary handguns because you don't need a hand cannon to defend your home. then they go down the line until they can just ban handguns completely, telling you to use pepper spray to defend your home. then of course, it's a "moral mandate" to "protect the population from criminals" by disarming the law abiding citizens while criminals, naturally, still have guns.

Slippery slope conspiracy theory fallacy that has no basis in reality. How about going and looking at voting records, or the records of all the politicians currently holding elected office when it comes to gun control before leaping to these conclusions? If you did I think you'd be less likely to think there's some slow moving, massive conspiracy to disarm the country.

but of course, gun grabbers love to lie, trying to frame assault rifles as these insanely powerful weapons that can obliterate whatever it hits. Then again, the truth would simply remove the pro gun control groups' reason to exist and the executives would have to find real jobs, so they crusade on, raking in the money.

The gun lobby loves to lie too! Like saying this president is coming for their guns, they've pushed that since his initial election and yet the record shows this President is one of the best friends gun owners have ever had in the White House. But the truth won't sell more guns will it? No no, the idea that the Democratic Crazy Leftist Communist Black straw man that they've created is much more conducive to driving up those sales then the truth ever will be. That's the other half of your statement that you either were unaware of, so omitted it, or worse, knew about, and decided to be blatantly deceptive with.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 03:11:16 Reply

At 2/9/13 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote:
Yah I don't see gun control people doing anything remotely like that.

ooh wow you found, what 2 people and try to paint everyone with the same brush. hang on.

My point is that the ones on the Gun rights side are delusional and more insane.

I can only laugh at this. you find one or two conspiracy theorists and try to say everyone on the gun rights side is like that. Hate to break it to you, but you're very, very wrong. One thing the gun rights side can do that the gun control side can't. argue with cold, unemotional logic and win. about all I've heard from those wanting to ban 'assault weapons' is emotional arguments, mostly fear mongering, about why these guns are 'so dangerous' when the very bullets designed to go in these weapons are designed to not be lethal. BY DESIGN!

He's an elitist because people say he is apparently. He really isn't, it's just that whereas Obama is making gains in groups with higher incomes the Republicans are trying to crack into the people with low incomes and so painting him as an elitist helps them appeal to poorer people.
That's a better argument. I just wish the NRA and gun rights people talked like that alot more often instead of just throwing unrelated insults and offensive conspiracy theories.

they do, that information doesn't get much attention. this is a good article though I doubt it ever wound up on the front page of their website, nor did it ever end up in print. it's also a 4 part series of articles. be sure to read them all.

Also, let's examine the speech in which Feinstein announces her AWB bill.

let's look at the outright lies.
0:31 weapons designed by the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat.
utter and complete bull shit. military guns are not designed to kill, but to injure.

0:58 ... at gun shows with no questions asked.
those selling guns at gunshows are licensed dealers who have to perform background checks, same as those who sell guns in stores.

1:15 .. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek. the common thread in these shootings is each gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or a high capacity magazine.
bull shit again. #1, what regulatory body set the standard for what a 'high capacity magazine' is? oh that's right. the gun grabbers when they did their first assault weapons ban. I can't find anything on any ACTUAL regulatory body setting a standard, only politicians using scare tactics. you would figure, i dunno, the ATF having a say on it.

Columbine shooting. the only rifle was a Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle. it's not an assault weapon.

the Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of pistols. some of his clips were 15 rounds. however, it is to be noted he carried 19 clips in total. the number of bullets in each clip is kind of moot when you have that many clips on you. no assault weapons here.

Aurora: 1 point for Feinstein.

Oak creek: Springfield XD(M) 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol. not an assault weapon.

out of all the examples she gave, ONE had an 'assault weapon' 2 if you count sandy hook. the aurora shooter used a 100 round drum with his rifle (dumbass) which makes the gun VERY heavy and unwieldly. a gun with a 100 round drum is about 10-11 pounds. hold something that weighs 10 pounds for a short time, and unless you're actively working out it's going to get heavy on you, quickly. there is a reason why the military doesn't use such large drums. they kill accuracy, tire out of the shooter, and they jam. often. It's also the reason why machine guns use belt fed guns. so yeah, Holmes was a dumbass and that probably saved more lives than the gun took.

1:33 military style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view it's a military purpose, to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire, to be able to kill large numbers.
again. bull shit. no competent shooter is going to hip fire, even with a shotgun you don't hip fire, or spray. you only see that in movies and video games. I guess she watched a few war movies and think she's an expert on guns. Also, keeping control of any gun on full auto is damn near impossible if you just hold the trigger.

2:15 ... powerful military style weapons
a standard hunting rifle is more deadly, as is a shotgun.

2:57 these news models (of assault weapons) are more powerful, more lethal, and more technologically advanced.
a gun is only as powerful as the bullet it shoots. so.. yeah. bull shit.

this woman is popping off 2 full on lies a minute with a half truth tossed in. the rest of it is emotional drivel tossed in. 350 people died to 'assault' weapons in 10 years? more people die of the flu every year. more people die texting and driving every year. more people die from alcohol related deaths (wrecks, alcohol poisoning, etc) every year. more people die from alcohol related crashes every DAY. I would wager more people die to bow hunting accidents each year.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 03:43:14 Reply

At 2/10/13 02:24 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
They can also do a lot better job of killing people because they have the bigger clip capacity,

so? I can carry 3 10 round clips and do the same job as 1 30 round.

and better firing rates and such.

bull shit. any semiauto gun is going to fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger (unless you have some crazy fast fingers). also, there's this thing called kick. when you fire a gun, the expulsion of the bullet causes the gun to move. depending on the size of bullet, this makes firing rate kind of moot. you might be able to unload 500 bullets a minute, but you're not going to hit a thing after the first couple of shots.

Seriously, I'm so sick of the ridiculous argument that acts like assault weapons aren't somehow in a different class then say a handgun or a rifle.

they're not.

It's a demonstrably different weapon. It's like saying a sword is the same as a butterfly knife to me.

i suppose that just shows your almost total lack of weapon knowledge.

It's also their best bet to try and find enough ground to get a bit of liberal applause for doing something, and keeping the moderate gun owners from screaming their head off and voting out those that support it in droves. It's the typical political motive of finding a middle road on an inflaming issue.

its a grab for attention

I don't think their interested in even doing that. If they were, we wouldn't have needed to wait for an elementary school shooting for them to start trying to do something like it.

it won't work.

Slippery slope conspiracy theory fallacy that has no basis in reality.

It's easy to cast it off as slippery slope, but politicians know that gradually working your way in is the best approach. it's like trying to pet a strange dog. if you run up to it, you're either going to get bit, or it's going to run away. you gotta approach slowly, make it feel comfortable, let it lick your hand a time or two, maybe toss it a treat. before you know it, you're scratching his ears.

How about going and looking at voting records, or the records of all the politicians currently holding elected office when it comes to gun control before leaping to these conclusions? If you did I think you'd be less likely to think there's some slow moving, massive conspiracy to disarm the country.

what do you think all the gun grabber groups are working on? they're not about gun safety, or any kind of safety. they're all about stripping guns away. Naturally, skipping to the final step "comprehensive gun ban" would be impossible in the current American political climate. so you go for the next best thing. taking it 1 step at a time.

The gun lobby loves to lie too! Like saying this president is coming for their guns, they've pushed that since his initial election and yet the record shows this President is one of the best friends gun owners have ever had in the White House.

Same Obama that supported the Illinois handgun ban? that President Obama? the same Obama that said americans 'bitterly' cling to their guns? the same Obama that voted against (Illinois) Senate Bill 2165, among others? Big friend right there. when Obama was a Senator he was so VERY anti gun. He changed his stance on gun control for the exact same reason he changed his stance on gay marriage. because it was hurting him politically once he got into the white house. What do you think the odds of Obama being reelected would be if he went out and said, "I want to take your guns and I don't want gays to marry!"
that would have made him run foul of BOTH sides. Politicians walk a fine line and it's amusing how often things from their past are forgotten, until someone finds out you bullied a kid when you were a child and the media decides that's worthy of national news.

But the truth won't sell more guns will it? No no, the idea that the Democratic Crazy Leftist Communist Black straw man that they've created is much more conducive to driving up those sales then the truth ever will be.

I'm not sure if this line is funny, sad, or just pathetic. I doubt any pro gun right group gives a damn if Obama is black, but you decided to throw that in anyway. Also, since when has it been about gun sales?

That's the other half of your statement that you either were unaware of, so omitted it, or worse, knew about, and decided to be blatantly deceptive with.

Or decided I'd let someone else bring it up so I could stomp it when they did. Obama is not pro gun. he's anti gun. VERY anti gun. Now that he's no longer facing reelection, we'll be seeing more of that.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 03:44:35 Reply

oh, i almost forgot about this.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 11:16:14 Reply

At 2/10/13 03:44 AM, Korriken wrote: oh, i almost forgot about this.

I think the sheer number of dislikes make this speak for itself.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die!! 2013-02-10 12:28:12 Reply

At 2/10/13 03:11 AM, Korriken wrote: I can only laugh at this. you find one or two conspiracy theorists and try to say everyone on the gun rights side is like that. Hate to break it to you, but you're very, very wrong. One thing the gun rights side can do that the gun control side can't. argue with cold, unemotional logic and win. about all I've heard from those wanting to ban 'assault weapons' is emotional arguments, mostly fear mongering, about why these guns are 'so dangerous' when the very bullets designed to go in these weapons are designed to not be lethal. BY DESIGN!

No I didn't. That was not the point I was making. The part I was arguing were the people who said the gun rights people are on the high ground in terms of the argument, my point was that there doesn't seem to be any fringe elements of the gun ban crowd that do anything remotely as insane as saying Sandy Hook is a conspiracy. That was one part of the overarching point I was making, nevermind the anti-Obama ad which the NRA just put up despite the fact that it had fuck all to do with the argument. Hell Obama even tries to calm down tensions and communicate that he respects gun ownership and the NRA takes it as an insult. All the Gun ban people seem to be guilty of is being for a gun ban, this apparently makes them retarded, elitist and the assholes in the argument, meanwhile the Gun rights people do things from ignoring the argument altogether and insulting the arguer (ad hominem) to outright denying the Sandy Hook shooting even happened. If you can find a Gun Control person who believes in the equivalent of denying Sandy Hook happened then I'll admit I was wrong, but as it stands the Gun Rights people are unreasonable and are determined to have nothing get done to solve the problem.

they do, that information doesn't get much attention. this is a good article though I doubt it ever wound up on the front page of their website, nor did it ever end up in print. it's also a 4 part series of articles. be sure to read them all.

And who's fault is that? The NRA's of course. They're responsible for how they market themselves and they chose to market themselves as people who throw insults instead of arguments at people they don't agree with.

Also, let's examine the speech in which Feinstein announces her AWB bill.

let's look at the outright lies.
0:31 weapons designed by the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat.
utter and complete bull shit. military guns are not designed to kill, but to injure.

? Then they've been doing a pretty bad job at that seeing as they tend to kill alot of people.

0:58 ... at gun shows with no questions asked.
those selling guns at gunshows are licensed dealers who have to perform background checks, same as those who sell guns in stores.

1:15 .. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek. the common thread in these shootings is each gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or a high capacity magazine.
bull shit again. #1, what regulatory body set the standard for what a 'high capacity magazine' is? oh that's right. the gun grabbers when they did their first assault weapons ban. I can't find anything on any ACTUAL regulatory body setting a standard, only politicians using scare tactics. you would figure, i dunno, the ATF having a say on it.

I don't think that was the point she was trying to make. The point she was making was that the weapons were designed to kill, for example in Columbine even the NRA would be behind the ban for the TEC-9 (for one it was designed so it didn't leave behind any fingerprints), no one commits a school shooting with a hunting rifle since I'd assume it'd be incredibly difficult.

the Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of pistols. some of his clips were 15 rounds. however, it is to be noted he carried 19 clips in total. the number of bullets in each clip is kind of moot when you have that many clips on you. no assault weapons here.

I don't think that matters as much as it matters how they were obtained (and they were obtained legally). Any pistol can be used to commit a massacre as long as it isn't so dated that it's single shot.

this woman is popping off 2 full on lies a minute with a half truth tossed in. the rest of it is emotional drivel tossed in. 350 people died to 'assault' weapons in 10 years? more people die of the flu every year. more people die texting and driving every year. more people die from alcohol related deaths (wrecks, alcohol poisoning, etc) every year. more people die from alcohol related crashes every DAY. I would wager more people die to bow hunting accidents each year.

Yah I'd assume any argument when people die is going to be emotional, that's pretty normal. But this again is using logical fallacies, it doesn't matter if those kill more people guns still kill people. Which again doesn't explain why countries with far less guns report far less gun violence.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature