Take control of your brain health with Staying Sharp! Try it today.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
213
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

213 Views
Message 11 of 28


@NOTHAPPENINGwrote:

@ChasKy53wrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@mandm84wrote:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those...

 

Finally some common sense realizing that Military Style Assault Weapons belong in the hands of our Military and Law Enforcement ONLY !!!

 

 


Can you describe what constitutes an assault weapon?  You conveniently left out the word "style", thus "Assault Style Weapons", not "Assault Weapons.  A bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

What steps would you recommend keeping the one or two young mentally ill kids from playing Rambo with them?  Yet not affecting the millions of responsible owners and sportspeople? Actually, "responsible owners and sportspeople" have no need for a weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than 7 to 9 rounds, and no need for a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds.

 

Do you feel that the minority should dictate to these majority of responsible owner? Do you think that the minority should dictate to the majority who supports banning such weapons?


 


Assault "style" weapons? I guess that would consist of the plastic toys that look truly menacing and make loud noises? If the left wants to ban certain weapons, then state clearly what you want to ban. If it's magazines that hold more than 8 rounds, say it that way. If you want to ban AR (style) weapons, you must be specific as to the number of rounds and muzzle energy. Just suggestions for those that want to ban assault "style" weapons. No one knows what an assault "style" weapon is except you. Is it the way the weapon looks?


As a matter of fact, a town, city, county or state could constitutionally ban plastic toys shaped a particular way or in imitation - if the majority so desired.

There were a couple of communities that banned Harry Potter Nimbus 2000 brooms when dim-witted adults finally figured out just why it was so popular with young witches...

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
213
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
222
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

222 Views
Message 12 of 28

@ChasKy53wrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@mandm84wrote:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those...

 

Finally some common sense realizing that Military Style Assault Weapons belong in the hands of our Military and Law Enforcement ONLY !!!

 

 


Can you describe what constitutes an assault weapon?  You conveniently left out the word "style", thus "Assault Style Weapons", not "Assault Weapons.  A bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

What steps would you recommend keeping the one or two young mentally ill kids from playing Rambo with them?  Yet not affecting the millions of responsible owners and sportspeople? Actually, "responsible owners and sportspeople" have no need for a weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than 7 to 9 rounds, and no need for a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds.

 

Do you feel that the minority should dictate to these majority of responsible owner? Do you think that the minority should dictate to the majority who supports banning such weapons?


 


Assault "style" weapons? I guess that would consist of the plastic toys that look truly menacing and make loud noises? If the left wants to ban certain weapons, then state clearly what you want to ban. If it's magazines that hold more than 8 rounds, say it that way. If you want to ban AR (style) weapons, you must be specific as to the number of rounds and muzzle energy. Just suggestions for those that want to ban assault "style" weapons. No one knows what an assault "style" weapon is except you. Is it the way the weapon looks?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
222
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
221
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

221 Views
Message 13 of 28

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@mandm84wrote:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those...

 

Finally some common sense realizing that Military Style Assault Weapons belong in the hands of our Military and Law Enforcement ONLY !!!

 

 


Can you describe what constitutes an assault weapon?  You conveniently left out the word "style", thus "Assault Style Weapons", not "Assault Weapons.  A bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

What steps would you recommend keeping the one or two young mentally ill kids from playing Rambo with them?  Yet not affecting the millions of responsible owners and sportspeople? Actually, "responsible owners and sportspeople" have no need for a weapon with a magazine capable of holding more than 7 to 9 rounds, and no need for a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds.

 

Do you feel that the minority should dictate to these majority of responsible owner? Do you think that the minority should dictate to the majority who supports banning such weapons?


 


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
221
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
220
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

220 Views
Message 14 of 28

California legislators COULD have saved themselves a boatload of time simply by banning all semi-automatic weapons that can fire more than SEVEN times without reloading (there's a clone of the old M-1 Garand that fires 8 times).

 

States cannot close their borders so State bans are ineffective. We need CONGRESS to ban all semi-automatic weapons that can fire more than 8 times. To do that we have to get rid of the NRAGOP, November is a great time to to it.

Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
220
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
223
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

223 Views
Message 15 of 28

@rk9152-In 2013, Highland Park, Illinois banned many semi-auto firearms, including the firearm used in to commit murder in Parkland.

The ban survived multiple court tests and appeals - and - SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal - thereby validating the Highland Park ban.

 

Local communities, counties and states do have the Constitutional right to ban whatever weapons they believe necessary to ban - an action that SCOTUS signalled was constitutionally allowed by not hearing an appeal.

 

Here are pictures of firearms that are illegal to bring into California.

Firearms already in the state before the law was passed are, of course, required to be allowed to remain - but they cannot ever be sold within the state - they would have to be sold outside the state, and would have to remain outside California thereafter.

See the guns that are illegal in California (55 Photos)

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
223
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
219
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

219 Views
Message 16 of 28

@Olderscout66wrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@Olderscout66wrote:

 

Ban semi-auto weapons that can fire more than 8 rounds before reloading.

Stop the NRAGOP from killing our school kids

 

Except for the childish and partisan second sentence, there is value to the above - except - it accepts the killing of 8-10 instead of 20-23. Not that that is a bad idea, but it isn't "the solution". Rather is is a bandaide that allows the pols to say, "We're done, next question?". Not a band-aid, a tourniquet. The people who are using the semi-auto weapons to turn schools and neighborhoods into slaughterhouses would not do so if they had to use a bolt, lever or pump action gun. They are TERRORISTS, and bang.....bang....bang does not provoke terror. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat DOES. Without the military firepower ego-boost, most of the shootings would not happen, and the bystanders would not be among the victims when it did. Since you only are only willing to address the tools not the killers, how many dead kids is acceptable to you in Parkland? 

 

I agree that armour piercing rounds are not a good idea. In fact, I thought there had been banned years ago.Funny thing - the FMJ's make a clean hole in the victim, so Geneva Convention bans the "standard" hunting round that mushrooms on impact. Unless you're shooting cops with body armor, the stuff hunters use is more deadly so there is no earthly reason for the FMJs to be available, but the NRAGOP fights to keep them on the shelves, so there they are. It appears you do not want armour piercing or non-armour piercing. Is there a third option? Or is it all about getting rid of that nasty ol' GOP and establishing your one Party system?

 

Finally, nit-picking over the vast majority of gun owners vs the vast majority of citizens only encourages fighting, not solutions - the same applies to the second sentence in the subject post. No nitpicking. NOBODY needs a semi-auto weapon that can fire more than 8 rounds before reloading UNLESS they are planning to kill lots of people quickly. Making the gun available to the perp makes you an accomplice, so the second sentence stands. A poster was nit-picking the gun ownership stats.

STOP THE NRAGOP FROM KILLING OUR KIDS

Again - using the death of children to push for your one Party system.


 


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
219
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
209
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

209 Views
Message 17 of 28

@umbarch64wrote:

The term "assault weapon" badly needs definition within the context of any law proposed to control either access to or use of such a thing.  Without that, debate about specifics will forever go nowhere.  Proof of intent to use legally should most certainly be 1 criteria to obtain permission to purchase a lethal weapon.  No one should obtain a lethal weapon without one.  

 

True, but using "assault weapon" is how the NRAGOP transformed the Brady Bill into the Ugly gun Law. The lethality of the weapon is primarily its RATE OF FIRE. The semi-automatic weapons with 30-round clips can fire 120 times each minute and keep it up almost indefinately. That's why every Army on Earth uses them to arm their infantry. The gas-operated weapons can easily be modified to eliminate the semi-automatic feature and clips and magazines can be more easily changed to accept no more than 8 rounds.
No seizing guns, just a requirement no more onerous than the one we passed to require seatbelts in passenger vehicles.
BAN SEMI-AUTO WEAPONS THAT CAN FIRE MORE THAN 8 ROUNDS BEFORE RELOADING.
As to our homicidal nature as Homo Sapiens, the first thing to go when Reagan ended Revenue Sharing were the trained psychologists serving as school counselors. When the NRAGOP agrees to repeal the Reagan taxscam so we'll have the funding for that "mental heaith" aspect they claim is the solution, we can do that as well. But I rather doubt a majority will buy the way mental health becomes a solution to gun violence - locking up those who fit a profile of a serial killer or "test psychopathic" with a history of violence toward others. See folks, THAT is the only way "improved mental health services" will keep the mass murder off the streets BEFORE they commit mass murder. And if THEY are on the streets and the Semi-auto 30-round clip weapons are out there, the two will connect and the mass murder will occur.
SAVE OUR KIDS. STOP THE NRAGOP.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
209
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
202
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

202 Views
Message 18 of 28

@rk9152wrote:

@Olderscout66wrote:

 

Ban semi-auto weapons that can fire more than 8 rounds before reloading.

Stop the NRAGOP from killing our school kids

 

Except for the childish and partisan second sentence, there is value to the above - except - it accepts the killing of 8-10 instead of 20-23. Not that that is a bad idea, but it isn't "the solution". Rather is is a bandaide that allows the pols to say, "We're done, next question?". Not a band-aid, a tourniquet. The people who are using the semi-auto weapons to turn schools and neighborhoods into slaughterhouses would not do so if they had to use a bolt, lever or pump action gun. They are TERRORISTS, and bang.....bang....bang does not provoke terror. Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat DOES. Without the military firepower ego-boost, most of the shootings would not happen, and the bystanders would not be among the victims when it did.

 

I agree that armour piercing rounds are not a good idea. In fact, I thought there had been banned years ago.Funny thing - the FMJ's make a clean hole in the victim, so Geneva Convention bans the "standard" hunting round that mushrooms on impact. Unless you're shooting cops with body armor, the stuff hunters use is more deadly so there is no earthly reason for the FMJs to be available, but the NRAGOP fights to keep them on the shelves, so there they are.

 

Finally, nit-picking over the vast majority of gun owners vs the vast majority of citizens only encourages fighting, not solutions - the same applies to the second sentence in the subject post. No nitpicking. NOBODY needs a semi-auto weapon that can fire more than 8 rounds before reloading UNLESS they are planning to kill lots of people quickly. Making the gun available to the perp makes you an accomplice, so the second sentence stands.

STOP THE NRAGOP FROM KILLING OUR KIDS


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
202
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
207
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

207 Views
Message 19 of 28

@Olderscout66wrote:

 

Ban semi-auto weapons that can fire more than 8 rounds before reloading.

Stop the NRAGOP from killing our school kids

 

Except for the childish and partisan second sentence, there is value to the above - except - it accepts the killing of 8-10 instead of 20-23. Not that that is a bad idea, but it isn't "the solution". Rather is is a bandaide that allows the pols to say, "We're done, next question?".

 

I agree that armour piercing rounds are not a good idea. In fact, I thought there had been banned years ago.

 

Finally, nit-picking over the vast majority of gun owners vs the vast majority of citizens only encourages fighting, not solutions - the same applies to the second sentence in the subject post.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
207
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
229
Views

Re: NEW BAN ON MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS

229 Views
Message 20 of 28

The term "assault weapon" badly needs definition within the context of any law proposed to control either access to or use of such a thing.  Without that, debate about specifics will forever go nowhere.  Proof of intent to use legally should most certainly be 1 criteria to obtain permission to purchase a lethal weapon.  No one should obtain a lethal weapon without one.  

 

Those declaring they should have unrestricted use of lethal weapons really do equivocate with clear intent to avoid any productive discussion.  Disingenuous.  The 'slippery slope' kids, alive and sticking firecrackers in bullfrogs just see the mess.  Not candid, so it is.

The very thing the RRRR contingent tag McCabe with they do with no compunction whatsoever.  Dishonorable too.  Stuff that ought to get you kicked out of the military IF you did it while a member.  Stuff that ought to keep you forever out of any Veterans Orgainization worthy of being called one.

 

While we're here.....

 

Shooting to wound or kill for sport is ethically corrupt.  It needlessly deprives another being of life.  Such 'sport' is indefensible.  So-called 'sportsmen' are cowards that employ a weapon that kills from afar to avoid one-on-one combat.  Worse....they glorify success.

 

Trophy 'getting' is ethically corrupt.  It needlessly deprives another being of life.

 

Killing to obtain food you need AND intend to eat is different....we are carnivores.  We are cannibals as well.  Why would that be?  Well, we ALL have a common ancestor back there at the very beginning of Life.  Need I say more?  Self restraint does come into consideration.

 

Killing in self-defense is different.  Self defense, by definition, is something forced upon you.  Other killing is not something 'forced upon you'.  I leave it to you to mull over where a soldier fits into this equation. 

 

Killing under an agreed upon set of rules is  hypocritical and no better than sport hunting.  Setting rules for that sort of thing is ethically corrupt.  Such a practice allows for continuation of the activity as if it were a game.  It's not.

 

Killing to eliminate threats to yourself or beings under your care for which you have assumed responsibilty by domesticating them is different.  I'm sure you can understand why that is.  Well......maybe I shouldn't be so sure.

 

You will please note that I do not condemn killing out of necessity.  You will also note that I previously defined 'assault' and included ANY weapon used for that purpose.  

 

So....lots of words....what do they all mean?  'Homo Sapiens' has a meaning.  In English it translates to Man the Sage......man the wise.  The only surviving genus of all that came before.  I don't think it's too much to ask that you, as a representative, live up to the name you've inherited.  All the words mean you should think and think carefully IF you can.  It is obvious some considerable part of our society can't. Witness what we see here.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
229
Views