Biden wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

[RF667799]

I hope you didn't hurt your brain coming up with that post.

Pretty weak sauce after what you posted. Do you have anything relevant or substantial to say? Or are you just going to hammer the **** out of your caps key again?

 

[Noodlegawd]

They should at the very least have a similar process to getting a driver's license.

Why?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Pretty weak sauce after what you posted. Do you have anything relevant or substantial to say? Or are you just going to hammer the **** out of your caps key again?

Compared to your post it's plenty strong. I believe I made my position perfectly CLEAR. DON'T LIKE CAPS? TOO ****ING BAD! SUE ME.

 

[RF667799]

The whole thing about the definition is nonsense.

Whatever the definition is in a final bill would have been negotiated and voted on. If that bill becomes law then the definition it contains becomes the legal definition.

What's the problem?

Suppose we define it as your dinnerware, then?

 

[Noodlegawd]

When assault style weapons were banned for a decade, crimes using assault style weapons went down.

So what? Do you think crimes committed with rifles without pistol grips (like the mass shooting in Norway) are somehow less criminal than ones committed with them?

 

[Peter]

Some neighborhoods are pretty close. That's another thing you might not understand from your distance. Vast, vast areas are as safe or safer than anywhere in Europe. Despite having a lot of guns available.

But some are as bad as active warzones?
That's hardly a fantastic advertisement for the US.

I'd desribe some places in the UK as shitholes but I wouldn't go as far as calling them as bad as active warzones.

We even have a series of books called Crap towns all about crap towns in the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crap_Towns

 

[RF667799]

Compared to your post it's plenty strong. I believe I made my position perfectly CLEAR. DON'T LIKE CAPS? TOO ****ING BAD! SUE ME.

Those arguments you're proposing are surely improved with the caps and all.

What was that argument again?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Suppose we define it as your dinnerware, then?

Your wasting my time.

 

[Chillfolks]

The whole thing about the definition is nonsense.

That’s a stupid thing to say defining what is and isn’t an assault weapon is ok e of the most basic first steps. I doubt many people who said they agree to banning assault weapons would have the same reaction when specifics are ironed out.

Whatever the definition is in a final bill would have been negotiated and voted on. If that bill becomes law then the definition it contains becomes the legal definition.

What's the problem?

The problem is using an undefined generic question as proof of anything is foolish

 

[NolanVoyd]

That’s a stupid thing to say defining what is and isn’t an assault weapon is ok e of the most basic first steps.

it would be.

like i said:

"Whatever the definition is in a final bill would have been negotiated and voted on. If that bill becomes law then the definition it contains becomes the legal definition.

What's the problem?"

 

[Integrityrespec]

Once again, the president is acting like a dictator, attempting to bypass Congress to implement rules and regulations that the American people don’t want.

Biden will likely issue executive orders which exceed his authority to restrict Second Amendment rights.

This is a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens.

Start with all the Politicians security details. Give em a revolver and call it done.

 

[RF667799]

But some are as bad as active warzones?
That's hardly a fantastic advertisement for the US.

I'd desribe some places in the UK as shitholes but I wouldn't go as far as calling them as bad as active warzones.

We even have a series of books called Crap towns all about crap towns in the UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crap_Towns

Active war zones vary in intensity. The point is that you Europeans might not have as much daily crime, but every couple generations you kill each other in wholesale lots.

I've worked in neighborhoods that were pretty bad. I recall seeing a local "the body was found here" news story, and recognizing a hole I had dug and backfilled the day before. One day, gunfire erupted in the alley directly behind the street where we were working. Our laborer was in the back yard by that alley though, and he came out at a run. A lady backing out of her driveway paused and told us, "The next time you hear that, you might want to get in that hole you're digging." We kind of chuckled, and she said, "I ain't kidding, but suit yourselves." The mailman walking by asked,"Where did that come from?" We told him, and he said, "****ing idiots. Well be careful. Just because it stopped now, doesn't mean it won't start up again."

The next day, we were again in that neighborhood, and a street or two over suddenly sounded like a firing range. Within about 10 minutes, fed, state and local law enforcement were flying up and down the streets at high speed. (One black sedan almost ran over our laborer who was standing out in the street trying to get a good look.) Our company pulled us out after that, and we didn't return to those neighborhoods until the next year.

 

[RF667799]

Your wasting my time.

Don't like the idea, eh? We could define it as your shotgun. Since it's arbitrary and nobody cares until after it becomes law. Who gives a shit about your shotgun anyway?

 

[Noodlegawd]

The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

• May 24, 2022: The Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting at Robb Elementary School that killed 19 students and two teachers.
• May 14, 2022: The Buffalo, N.Y., Tops supermarket shooting that left 10 people dead.
• Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Fla., leaves 17 people dead.
• Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
• Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people. Two others died later from their injuries.
• June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
• Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
• Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.

That's 222 deaths over 10 years. Why should we do anything that restricts our freedom in any meaningful way over 222 deaths in 10 years, especially when those restrictions wouldn't have stopped any of these deaths?

Here's a partial list of mass murders that didn't involve the use of any legally-owned AR15 or any other "assault weapon," with greater death tolls than ones you listed.

1995: Oklahoma City bombing, 168 killed
1995: Tokyo subway sarin attack, 14 killed
2001: 9/11 attacks, ~3000 killed
2003: Daegu subway arson attack, 192 killed
2007: VA Tech shooting, 32 killed
2009: Chengdu bus fire, 27 killed
2011: Norway Massacre, 77 killed
2013: Xiamen bus fire, 46 killed
2015: Charlie Hebdo shooting, 12 killed
2015: November Paris Attacks, 130 killed
2017: Manchester arena bombing, 22 killed

What steps are the Republicans in Congress taking to address these unnecessary killings of their constituents and their children? Don't answer, we know who butters their bread.

What kind of hypocrite would blame Republicans for not wanting to do that, when the same number of people die EVERY 8 days because of people driving too fast, with Democrats doing exactly nothing to stop that?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Don't like the idea, eh? We could define it as your shotgun. Since it's arbitrary and nobody cares until after it becomes law. Who gives a shit about your shotgun anyway?

Wow.

There is a process. The defintion would be worked out in committee, eventually debated on the floor, finalized and voted on.

If the bill passes the definition it contains would become the legal definition.

This is the process designed by our constitution.

Seems like what you are really saying, in an unserious way, is that you might not agree with whatever definition is settled on.

Well tough luck.

This is America. The process is great, but you won't always get what you want.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't care if anyone cares what I think. I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I'm content refuting your bullshit, and pointing out your trolling.

Strangely enough, neither do I.

 

[RF667799]

Wow.

There is a process. The defintion would be worked out in committee, eventually debated on the floor, finalized and voted on.

If the bill passes the definition it contains would become the legal definition.

This is the process designed by our constitution.

Seems like what you are really saying, in an unserious way, is that you might not agree with whatever definition is settled on.

Well tough luck.

This is America. The process is great, but you won't always get what you want.

What I'm saying- in a serious way- is that if your overlords settled on your shotgun as needing banned, you probably wouldn't like it either.

 

[NolanVoyd]

What I'm saying- in a serious way- is that if your overlords settled on your shotgun as needing banned, you probably wouldn't like it either.

My "overlords"??????

Nope you aren't capable of serious discussion.

So don't bother.

 

[RF667799]

My "overlords"??????

Nope you aren't capable of serious discussion.

So don't bother.

You always act like you want to discuss something, and then you always run away from the things you say. I don't get it.

 

[Deuce]

lol Biden expresses an opinion about how we should move forward as a nation, literally part of his job as president, and OP is whining like a little baby about DICTATORSHIP RAAARRRR!!!

Right wingers never fail to amuse with their weakness.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The whole thing about the definition is nonsense.

Whatever the definition is in a final bill would have been negotiated and voted on. If that bill becomes law then the definition it contains becomes the legal definition.

What's the problem?

Begging the question. If it hasn't been defined yet, how can someone express a meaningful opinion in response to a poll?

 

[RF667799]

Gun control zealots seem to like to come in threads doing the internet equivalent of a primal scream. Waaa! You Poopyheads!!

I don't think volume substitutes for substance.

 

[rahl]

Strangely enough, neither do I.

the difference is, your "arguments' get absolutely curb stomped lol.

 

[Deuce]

What I'm saying- in a serious way- is that if your overlords settled on your shotgun as needing banned, you probably wouldn't like it either.

Pathetic.

 

[RF667799]

Pathetic.

You have nothing that you would take exception to having it banned? Do you own a car?