ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no way they could have wrote a term for a type of weapon that didn't exist.

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Saying that the government intended its citizens to own nuclear weapons when there is no way they would have known what those are is silly.

I agree. I also think that includes "assault style" weapons. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Saying that the government didn't intend its citizens to own newer model firearms that function similar to the firearms they had is just as silly.

Sure. See Jon Stewart's "Assault Musket" for that. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can ban all the semi-auto "assault" firearms you want, I'll just buy a pre 1986 fully automatic M16 for 10grand or so, as it's perfectly legal.

For now. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Kagatob]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree with that.



I agree. I also think that includes "assault style" weapons. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



Sure. See Jon Stewart's "Assault Musket" for that. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



For now. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing is, you're calling for a ban on cosmetics, hence the "style" aspect you keep talking about.

Ruger 10/22's wouldn't be banned with an assault weapon ban, however they function exactly the same as an AR15.

[Vellatri]

Regarding freedom of speech, if you use your speech to directly violate rights of another, that's illegal. Similar to misuse of guns. My right to all types of arms doesn't give me the right to take another's life with them. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is clearly an attempt to directly harm others by misusing speech.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How the fuck do I know that study from Vallerti came from an NRA analyst? Because I actually read the fucking thing.

Wait, what? I assume you meant "Vellatri?" What study from an NRA analyst? I don't read much material from the NRA (unless someone sends it to me) because I can't stand them. Of course, just because something is stated by the NRA that doesn't make it false. Or true.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So one day someone is going to say "let's revolt!" and everyone is gonna grab their AK-47's and such and go defend freedom.

Is that what you're telling me? Even the founding fathers knew better.

Not quite how it usually plays out, but to deny that revolutions and secessions happen, even in the modern world, is to deny reality. It usually happens when a government crosses a line that the people are no longer willing to tolerate. Usually, a government won't cross such a line until it feels the citizenry has been sufficiently disarmed. The founders knew from experience that arms can help prevent or dispose of tyranny.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Autotune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only thing is, you're calling for a ban on cosmetics, hence the "style" aspect you keep talking about.

Ruger 10/22's wouldn't be banned with an assault weapon ban, however they function exactly the same as an AR15.

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...pf_rd_i=507846

Personal Flame-Thrower...gotta love it.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

I'm guessing you mean, you want to ban every semi-automatic weapon?

[Goofier]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No...I'm calling for a ban on anything that fires more than a single shot without pulling a trigger or manually cocking a bolt.

What the idiots in government know about weapons you can cram in a gnat's ass...and I agree with the sentiments people have about them learning to know what they're banning.

And then banning.

You do understand that's not what was used in any of these recent 'tipping points', right?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Goofier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You do understand that's not what was used in any of these recent 'tipping points', right?

Pray tell...do go on.

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wait, what? I assume you meant "Vellatri?" What study from an NRA analyst? I don't read much material from the NRA (unless someone sends it to me) because I can't stand them. Of course, just because something is stated by the NRA that doesn't make it false. Or true.

You weren't referring to this, were you? That didn't come from the NRA, and there haven't been any refutations of its contents in that thread, either.