Times when you hate to be right...

We do ban cars that are deemed unsafe to be on the road, don't cha know. Stands to reason we ban weapons that maximize body counts and are essentially unnecessary in the civilian population, given the plethora of other choices that are more than adequate for home defense.

 

You're about the 3rd gunner who displays myopia when reading about guns. From the link the following class weapon is on the ban list

Colt AR-15

No one is denying that gun sellers tweaked the weapon to avoid the requirements for the ban. Then when the sunset occur, they just sold the straight out version. And we've seen how well that's worked out for members of the general population in the last 20-30 years. The OP stands.

 

Really? Because the iron pipeline exists with what's out there now. The OP would put a crimp in that. To deny such is folly.

 

It was not banned. Pre ban models were available. You are wrong. You have insinuated I am a liar. My link shows I am not. Your emotional reaction is irrelevant.

 

Notice, dear reader, that Molon has NO logical, rational or factual refute of what I previously put forth. He's done.

 

Clik the little arrows next to the names....go back and read carefully and comprehensively. Your stall tactics are pathetic.

 

reality check:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

http://club888.net/2019/07/santino-william-legan-used-wasr-10-rifle-banned-in-california-report.html

Like the victims give a damn.

 

You're wrong, so stop lying.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

 

I'll pick this up later.

 

What cars do we ban? You mean like cars that have a taillight out? We don't ban them; we require them to be fixed.

A human body is designed to survive falls or impacts at about the speed we can run. Without modern medicine, we cannot survive falls or impacts at a much greater speed than that. Therefore, all cars are inherently dangerous to human life. If you want to compare cars to guns, then to be consistent, you should be calling for all automobiles to be speed limited to about 20 MPH.

But that aside, when you call for all guns to be licensed and registered, you are asking for something that doesn't address the root problems.

Murder is a "people" problem. That's what needs to be addressed.

For example, the murder rate in East St Louis, IL, is 21 times the national average. This is not a problem with guns; this is a problem with people.

 

Please read your link. Everything I’ve said is substantiated in the link YOU provided. As I’ve explained already, it doesn’t even matter what was banned because pre ban weapons were grandfathered. Allowing their possession and transfer. That means the weapons you claimed were not available during the ban were in fact available. I’ve never reported anyone to mods and never will, but if you keep up with the lying bit they will see it eventually on their own. So the ball is in your court.

 

No, it would not put a crimp in it.

 

I've already refuted you stupid nonsense many times. But you just don't want to accept it.

 

What did I say that was proven wrong?

 

Neither of those links have anything to do with the 1994 Federal AWB.

You don't know what the heck you are talking about. You need to stop now before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

I find most of the anti-gun threads come from the least informed. This thread being a picture perfect example.

 

Sadly, repetition is sometimes necessary for those unable to grasp the simple concept that criminals do not obey laws.... any laws including gun laws.

"kungfuliberal" was careful to evade this and other realities I raised in my previous Post such as a determined killer will manage to kill a large number of people with or without an AR15 as the examples I cited prove.

Rather than attempting to refute my arguments, he chose to distort my statements as if I and other 2nd Amendment supporters were indifferent to the tragedies wrought by determined criminal killers.

I said nothing about surviving family members and stand by my assertions that lame appeals to emotion are not the basis on which effective policies are made just as attempting to control inanimate objects has no effect on changing human behavior.

If gun banners were truly concerned about surviving family members, they would focus on measures that address the root cause of mass killings, the killers themselves, rather than exploiting human suffering as a means to disarm American citizens.
Pathetic indeed.

 

Nothing is reasonable that infringes on 2A. Besides how long do you think mass shooting will continue when people finally realize the capability of drones? I guess we should set about banning them right now.

 

For the love of God, use your head....ever hear of an auto industry recall? Go from there.
As for the "root problems", here's what your leadership did when pressed: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/what-republicans-did-on-mental-health-guns/

And yeah, people with guns kill people. We can't take away all the guns, but we should be able to at least limit those already proven to be highly effective in attacking a mass of people..

 

You can guess on BS all you want...the reality is that REGULATION of weapons in the civilian population has been going on since colonial times....look it up if you don't believe me, for I tire of doing homework for others. That's why you can't have a full auto rifle or your neighbor can't have an RPG.

And given the wealth of rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc., available to the general public even when the 1994 AWB was in effect, one could hardly call the banning a few select type of weapons "infringement". Just because you want it doesn't mean you should have it. Adults teach kids that at an early age.

 

Another left wing radical who does not understand the 2A

 

Please read the link carefully and comprehensively. And your previous statements alluded to the AR-15 NOT being on the list. That is not the case, and all your moot point parroting and myopic renderings won't change that...and the subject is not about pre-enactment possession, but of banning further sales/purchases. Here's what you deny: With limited exceptions, it is illegal to give anyone an assault weapon; transport, distribute, or import assault weapons; or sell, keep, or offer them for sale. Those exceptions do not translate into selling to anyone you please. If you can find where it says so, please copy and paste.

 

translation: another right wing wonk blowing smoke when they can't factually or logically refute or dispute what has been put to them.

 

OK tell me what was the governments purpose in placing the 2A in the Constitution.......

 

hey grau, you do realize that the whole point of the OP is to LIMIT the number of criminals disobeying the law. See, you haven't been reading the exchanges, so I'll give you the bottom line: Criminals get guns they can't get through normal channels by theft, straw purchases and sometimes legitimate sales. License and registration would mean that you can't sell a gun unless the buyer fills out those forms, and the same goes for the buyer. Criminals often avoid paper trails as much as possible, which results in "iron pipelines" from states with lesser gun laws to those with stricter ones (hence strawman purchases). Now this won't stop the nut case with no criminal/mental health record from purchasing a gun....but if you have the 1994 AWB back in play, you limit his choice of effective mass killing weapons. Also, license and registration would cut down on gun show purchases and private sales for the criminal element. As I said before, not perfect but a reduction in the type of crimes we are currently seeing on masse.

And you need to stop lying, as when I suggested that the surviving family members of the victims of recent mass shootings would disagree with you, you did indeed posted in your rebuttal "lame appeals to emotion" . The chronology of the posts backs me on this.

It's like this Grau....the historical matter of fact regarding previously banned assault weapons used in mass killings in the last 20-30 years is the reality...not some lame "might be, can be" blathering about bad guys finding a way to kill people anyway.

And spare us all the tired NRA mantra about disarming American citizens...as even when the 1994 AWB was in play you had a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. to choose from. States regulate how those weapons can be used in public. My proposal in no way limits those choices or denies state regulation of CCW or OCW laws. So unless you've got something else besides tired Lapierre rhetoric, I'd say we're done here.