RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 10:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 So then why did Adam Lanza's mother have an AR15 rifle? She was hardly a collector. Different states have different laws behind different guns. California has strict gun laws, I get it. But the AR15 is supposed to be one of the most purchased assault weapons in america, sold to MILLIONS and there are MILLIONS in circulation in the USA. You are wrong about this. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/not-quite-all-the-facts-about-the-ar-15.aspx If most Regular people don't have access to them, then why are there millions of them out there right now and thousands still being made? Why the sheer volume if the demand is low as you say? The reason is because so called "regular people" do have them. But there is no reason WHY these weapons should be available to the public in the first place if a hunting rifle, shotgun or hand gun can do the trick. Because contrary to what you have been told an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is just a semiautomatic rifle that looks like am M-16 which is an assault rifle .

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 11:07:46 PM)
FR Just in case you've joined us since the last time I was blunt about it, Tkman, I mostly don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what Canadians might think about the domestic affairs, policies, and fundamental principles of my country. At least not until after the annexation. Then we'll have the NSA watching all of you very closely. Sweet dreams!

Tkman117 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 5:20:41 AM)
Way to derail the argument and go for a personal attack heretic, always helps to bolster you talking points ;) Lol, you clearly do care otherwise we wouldn't be having this talk XD America is no longer the land of the free heretic, it may have the biggest military but it by far isn't the best country on earth. Get your shit together, grow up, and start acting like a first world country.

Tkman117 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 5:26:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 So then why did Adam Lanza's mother have an AR15 rifle? She was hardly a collector. Different states have different laws behind different guns. California has strict gun laws, I get it. But the AR15 is supposed to be one of the most purchased assault weapons in america, sold to MILLIONS and there are MILLIONS in circulation in the USA. You are wrong about this. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/not-quite-all-the-facts-about-the-ar-15.aspx If most Regular people don't have access to them, then why are there millions of them out there right now and thousands still being made? Why the sheer volume if the demand is low as you say? The reason is because so called "regular people" do have them. But there is no reason WHY these weapons should be available to the public in the first place if a hunting rifle, shotgun or hand gun can do the trick. Because contrary to what you have been told an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is just a semiautomatic rifle that looks like am M-16 which is an assault rifle . Wrong http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle It's still classified as an assault rifle even when it's semi automatic, plus let's not leave LMG and SMGs out will we? Still waiting for a rationale on that...

lovmuffin -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 6:16:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 So then why did Adam Lanza's mother have an AR15 rifle? She was hardly a collector. Different states have different laws behind different guns. California has strict gun laws, I get it. But the AR15 is supposed to be one of the most purchased assault weapons in america, sold to MILLIONS and there are MILLIONS in circulation in the USA. You are wrong about this. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/not-quite-all-the-facts-about-the-ar-15.aspx If most Regular people don't have access to them, then why are there millions of them out there right now and thousands still being made? Why the sheer volume if the demand is low as you say? The reason is because so called "regular people" do have them. But there is no reason WHY these weapons should be available to the public in the first place if a hunting rifle, shotgun or hand gun can do the trick. Because contrary to what you have been told an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is just a semiautomatic rifle that looks like am M-16 which is an assault rifle . Wrong http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle It's still classified as an assault rifle even when it's semi automatic, plus let's not leave LMG and SMGs out will we? Still waiting for a rationale on that... I think you need to go back and review your own link: The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[5][6][7] It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 metres (980 feet) Also from your link: The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges. In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. Except for political purposes there isn't a technical classification for the term assault weapon. That term is used by anti gun politicians and those who dont know what they're talking about. Assault rifles, LMG's (light machine guns) and Smg's (submachine guns) as you keep referring to are fully automatic, highly restricted and are not the guns at issue targeted by the gun grabbers. And just so you know, there are other classes of firearms outside the semi automatic class, capable of creating the same carnage or worse than what Lanza did.

thishereboi -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 7:00:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 I'm not going back to skulk around for your earlier posts. Either link to it or answer again. Also, I sympathize and understand the whole coyote thing, so we'll move on from that. Why do you need an assault rifle, smg, and other similar weapons? Why do you need such excessive weaponry at your disposal? If you're afraid of the government "taking your rights away" I'd like to see how well you'd do against tanks, cruise missiles and bombers. Well can't blame you for that. After all we are already on page 2 and who wants to go through 30 some odd posts just to find out you are wrong. But one explanation is in the post right above the one you replied to. Such a shame you missed it. It might have given you a clue to what people use guns for. But keep your eyes closed and keep claiming the only reason to have a gun is to shoot another person. Perhaps someone just like yourself will come along and believe you.

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 7:44:58 AM)
"It might have given you a clue to what people use guns for." Well, one thing they are "used for" is killing over three thousand children a year..... [8\|]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 3:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 If you think you've been keeping your government in line this whole time then you're more deaf and blind than Helen Keller XD (no offence intended). Then why don't you run for President and try taking everyone's guns from them? See what happens.

Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 4:21:46 PM)
Figures given by SLate.com from Newtown(dec-2012) to dec 31st to show AT LEAST Adults 10,988 Teen 573 Child 213 Thats killed by gun.... not injured, not suicide. http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/weekend-gun-report-january-3-5-2013/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 On December 31, Slate announced it was retiring the feature. Citing the difficulty of tracking each death, Dan Kois, who has written for the Times, explained that “the overwhelming likelihood is that our interactive missed more than half of the gun deaths in the past 12 months.” The site reported some 12,000 fatalities, but according to the Centers for Disease Control, about 32,000 people are killed by guns in America each year. Slate’s tally, updated hourly, was more timely than the C.D.C.’s statistics, “but as the gulf grew between our tally and the likely actual totals,” Kois wrote, “I began to feel uneasy about our calculator. How could we solve the problem of missing people?” Suicides, Kois concluded, were the project’s gaping blind spot. Homicides and accidental shootings make the local papers, but suicides, which account for 60 percent of gun deaths, are rarely reported. But the project isn’t being abandoned entirely: The Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation created and funded by Michael Klein, will be taking over Slate’s gun-deaths count later this year. Klein plans to track not only gun deaths but also injuries incurred in robberies, assaults, accidents and self-defense. Where Slate depended on news reports, the Gun Violence Archive will use information from police departments, mayors’ offices and coroners. Check out below that snip for a weeks worth of death by gun or not

Tkman117 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 4:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 If you think you've been keeping your government in line this whole time then you're more deaf and blind than Helen Keller XD (no offence intended). Then why don't you run for President and try taking everyone's guns from them? See what happens. 1) I'm canadian so I can't 2) It would likely result in a right wing rebellion, which would provide the americans with the opportunity to cull the stupidity and ignorance of the right out of their population for a period of time, something your country sorely needs considering how extreme and unhinged the conservative politicians and constituents are as a whole seem to be lately.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 6:25:18 PM)
Careful on that, Lovmuffin. I haven't heard back yet on the waiver we'd need to level out the playing field with it. The precise terminology might need adjustment.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 6:32:18 PM)
Sure thing, Lucy, because Slate is such a straight down the center outlet for real, unbiased news... Pull the inner city gang violence that is more related to a depraved culture of poverty maintenance and the complete breakdown of any sort of family cohesion, out of those numbers and you wind up with a very different picture. Unfortunately, most of the people who are so proud to be ignorant in their opinions wouldn't want anything to do with that.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 6:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny Then why don't you run for President and try taking everyone's guns from them? See what happens. No need for that. The process to do it is very clear. Pass a repeal of the 2nd Amendment with a 2/3 majority in the US Senate, have it ratified by 2/3 of the states, and then ban guns to your heart's content.

Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 6:36:25 PM)
you obviously havent looked at the reports, and news info... but then again... you have no intention of actually proving your assertion. They are dead kids. Fuck your changing the goalposts for race, creed, social status. or do you think only white rich kids should be counted?

BamaD -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/26/2014 7:52:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 So then why did Adam Lanza's mother have an AR15 rifle? She was hardly a collector. Different states have different laws behind different guns. California has strict gun laws, I get it. But the AR15 is supposed to be one of the most purchased assault weapons in america, sold to MILLIONS and there are MILLIONS in circulation in the USA. You are wrong about this. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/11/not-quite-all-the-facts-about-the-ar-15.aspx If most Regular people don't have access to them, then why are there millions of them out there right now and thousands still being made? Why the sheer volume if the demand is low as you say? The reason is because so called "regular people" do have them. But there is no reason WHY these weapons should be available to the public in the first place if a hunting rifle, shotgun or hand gun can do the trick. Because contrary to what you have been told an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is just a semiautomatic rifle that looks like am M-16 which is an assault rifle . Wrong http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle It's still classified as an assault rifle even when it's semi automatic, plus let's not leave LMG and SMGs out will we? Still waiting for a rationale on that... No politicians pretend it is an assault weapon so people will get on the band wagon. I own three long guns which dwarf that ar 15 and none of them count as an assault weapons.

lovmuffin -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/27/2014 2:42:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Careful on that, Lovmuffin. I haven't heard back yet on the waiver we'd need to level out the playing field with it. The precise terminology might need adjustment. Sure nuff, I got busted. I can't think of a good adjustment though. I really liked that word. Gunards maybe ?

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/27/2014 6:14:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I really liked that word. It had a nice ring. Something will be needed, because the behavior is offensive, and widespread, and people who are proud of being ignorant need their own name. I'm sure we'll find something that will work.

Tkman117 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/27/2014 6:15:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It had a nice ring. Something will be needed, because the behavior is offensive, and widespread, and people who are proud of being ignorant need their own name. I'm sure we'll find something that will work. Ya, it's called "Conservative" Sorry for the jab, couldn't resist [:D]

thishereboi -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/27/2014 6:16:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "It might have given you a clue to what people use guns for." Well, one thing they are "used for" is killing over three thousand children a year..... [8\|] Do try and keep up 59, he already knows they can be used to kill people. It's the other uses he can't seem to wrap his head around.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875