I'm sure he doesn't. Heck, he doesn't even know that the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill are two different laws. He's an ignorant fool--the kind who can easily be manipulated, because he actually thinks he's intelligent, despite the fact that he knows almost nothing.
I'm perplexed by those wanting to disarm Americans when the Constitution clearly spells out the reason why Americans SHOULD own firearms
no. One person is responsible. I own and I was never there. I doubt that Texan was there either......
How dare you speak from a position of genuine authority? I guess I need to clarify here. Not too long ago, there was the instructor at "Burgers and Bullets", in Arizona who was killed by an Uzi when he failed miserably in coaching a kid in how to shoot it. The Uzi is a 9mm sub machinegun; NOT an assault rifle.
so, accidents happen all the time. Where do you get off declaring an accidental shooting as murder. Speaking from a false position of authority? You change a couple of words and declare yourself victor.............roflmmfao typical lib............... "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
You guys are funny. Yes, words have meanings, and that is exactly why I said I had to clarify. The accident at Burgers and Bullets was the only death in recent history that involved a gun that the *******s would call an "assault rifle". That's why I clarified that it was not an "assault rifle", but a 9mm sub machinegun. That's why I clarified that it was an accident.
true but that was not murder. being a retired federal attorney, I choose my legal terms very carefully
That's why I joke and clarify. Too few people recognize genuine authority on any subject regarding the "gun culture". Legal terms are like any of the other nomenclature. I used to work on nuclear submarines. You used to be a Fed. attorney. We both became utterly familiar with the importance of terminology. Now, think of our favorite graboids on this board, and consider how quickly they would throw the burgers and bullets accident out there as an "assault rifle murder", unless we had gone through this little drill beforehand.
Now it is I who dare speak from a position of authority. These are technical terms, dearie. I haven't changed anything at all. A sub machinegun is by no means an assault weapon, any more than an AR-15 or civilian version of the AK-47 are "assault weapons". Post all of the filth you want to from MoJo. I'll stick with the truth.
the anti gun left grabbed the term assault figuring they could convince the Sheeple that the term assault used by the military (soldiers attacking a fixed position to destroy it) was not relevant-rather it means an illegal attack on a citizen. the use of semi auto rifles for military assaults" is limited given that concentrated fully automatic fire was designed to suppress movement or defensive actions by the defenders of the fixed positions while engineers using satchel charges, grenades or flame throwers to eliminate the fixed position semi auto weapons are not generally chosen for such tasks and graboids use the terms to inflame the Sheeple
BB you seem like an intelligent person that understands every post. Why do you play games with semantics instead of just straight up debating the issues? It really derails the topics.
Inform yourself, troll. If you intend to partake in an intelligent and informed discussion, catch up on your nomenclature and technical terms. It is not for me to educate you.
The use of the word horrific is a term that not even the women used to the press. Your spin is extreme.
I would support banning all assault weapons, giving people a tax credit when turning then in to law enforcement. Those turned in could be used by local, state and federal law enforcement or recycled/destroyed. There after any found would simply be confiscated without issuing a credit. No one needs an assault weapon to hunt or protect their homes and family. After X date anyone found with an assault weapon could also be fined $1000.00 per weapon. And face jail if the weapon wasn't registered.
They may not be more dangerous, per shot. But since automatic weapons have the potential of killing many in a short time, they are more dangerous. I consider assault weapons and automatic weapons to be in the same basic category. They are both not necessary when hunting or protecting ones self from the average perp. They are over kill. When the Government fails to protect our borders and protect us from terrorists, we have every right to protect ourselves with guns as using a knife isn't going to work.......
