adam lanza used an assault rifle

The argument was about assault rifle vs handgun, so your comment is out of place.

But what I found interesting in this debate is the Pro NRA (everyone should have any type of weapon they want) group refuse to have discussion on the purpose of assault rifles rather than limiting their argument to semi automatic or fully automatic drivel.

 

You can buy 30 round magazines for the Glock 9mm.

 

Which is why I said most handguns in a previous post.

 

Touche.

 

Oh, you mean like you talking about "assault" guns? If I attack you with a knife, a rifle, or a wooden spoon, am I not "assaulting" you? What is an "assault" weapon, jac? You really don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you...?

You have lots of company. And that's why, for decades, we continue to have tragedies like Connecticut, no matter how many gun laws the hyperlibs cram down our throats. What we need to do, jac, is separate the criminally insane, and dangerously unstable from society! Oh, but then you hyperlibs would start screaming bloody murder that we're all turning into a bunch of Nazis, and your heroes, the ACLU, would file hundreds of lawsuits and get restraining orders from all the liberal judges you've contaminated the whole judicial system with.

Get this, if you get nothing else: through thick and thin, through periods of hyperliberal insanity and hysteria, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution STANDS, and it will outlast all the hyperlib, freedom-hating bastards who would turn our entire nation into a vast population of victims. So, until you anti-American socialists find a way to change it, the Law of the Land is this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"!

During our lives, a lot of us took oaths to defend the U. S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and those oaths never expired..... Which kind are you?!

 

"...limiting their argument to semi automatic or fully automatic drivel."

Taxcutter says:
Semi-automatic only vs selective automatic vs full automatic all the time is the parameter used to differentiate a rifle vs an assault rifle vs a real machine gun. The "furniture" (to use a gunsmith's term) is irrelevant.

 

Conn. didnt consider the Bushmaster to be an assault weapon. Must be one of those "military style" guns you want banned. A pistol grip on a rifle doesnt make them any more dangerous.

 

notice how nothing i said was against the second amendment

no, it just shows that you don't know a joke when you see one

here's an 'a' rated nra member talking sense:

[video=youtube;IUpK1dQh8Eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUpK1dQh8Eg[/video]

 

So what is the difference between a rifle and an assault rifle?

 

It seems that for most people a pistol grip turns a rifle into an assault weapon

 

Eight Ways for the NRA to Give Meaning to Its Words


Sanjay Sanghoee - 12/19/2012

After a bewildering silence, the National Rifle Association finally issued a statement saying that it is prepared to help make sure that this never happens again, referring to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Surprising words from an organization not exactly known for its sympathy for gun violence victims and certainly not for efforts to help curb the spread of guns in America.

At first blush, the NRA's statement seems like crocodile tears, but at a sensitive and critical juncture like this, I believe it is better to put cynicism on hold and give the organization the benefit of the doubt in the interests of the country. The most important thing right now is not blame but fixing the problem of gun violence. In this spirit, I have compiled some steps that the NRA could take if it sincerely wants to help this cause.

Tone Down The Rhetoric

Rhetoric, even more than money, is a powerful weapon that the NRA has routinely used to whip up pro-gun frenzy in this nation. That should stop, and the NRA should restrain itself from attacking gun control advocates, stop creating paranoia about the government "taking people's guns away," and avoid drawing lines in the sand over gun ownership or the Second Amendment. It would be much more responsible, and the organization would be taken a lot more seriously, if it adopted a more moderate approach to debate and actually considered opposing viewpoints from their detractors. The NRA and gun rights supporters are not wrong on everything, but they are so combative that it is impossible to engage in meaningful conversation with them about gun control.

Stop Glamorizing Guns

I understand that the NRA represents gun owners but that does not mean that it needs to glamorize the product. Firearms are dangerous weapons, first and foremost, and their carriage or use is not a matter of glory or fashion. Some citizens might like to hunt or even shoot for recreation, and that may well be part of their lifestyle, but the NRA does not have to promote that. The NRA is a political organization, not a gun company, and as such its stance on guns should be matter-of-fact, not gung-ho. The celebration of guns is not a badge of honor or even patriotic (the Second Amendment did not come with a picture of Rambo next to it); it is simply irresponsible and possibly a contributing factor to our trigger-happy culture.

Encourage Gun Manufacturers to Stop Their Cowboy Marketing

The NRA exerts tremendous influence over gun manufacturers due to its political connections, which means that it has the opportunity to use that influence for the common good. The marketing of guns as part of a cowboy lifestyle is highly destructive for our society since it ties guns to "coolness" and machismo -- much as the tobacco industry did for cigarettes with the Marlboro Man. Such marketing practices spur gun sales for all the wrong reasons -- especially to younger Americans and, much more disturbingly, to those who feel disenfranchised and are looking for something to give them a sense of control.

Contribute Money to Mental Health Treatment and Research

This is so obviously in the NRA's own interest that it should not even have to be said. After all, if the organization truly believes that people kill people, not guns, then they should put their money where their big mouth is and help to ensure that mentally ill people receive better treatment and preventative care, and do not wind up shooting up malls and schools, which then forces our society to institute tougher gun laws.

Stop Equating Guns to Freedom

Guns and freedom are miles apart and yet this has been one of the NRA's favorite ploys to argue against gun control. By equating guns to freedom, the organization conveniently shuts down any discussion about firearms, but this tactic is dishonest. I will say it again -- guns have nothing to do with freedom, and if anything, the recent spate of mass killings demonstrates that the proliferation of guns is actually eroding our freedom to feel safe in our own homes and on our own streets. Also, by adopting this philosophy, the NRA dumbs down the debate about the Second Amendment and the complex intentions of our Constitution, which belies their purported patriotism.

Educate Americans on the Dangers of Guns

This is a winner for everyone. If, instead of spending most of its energy and resources glorifying guns, the NRA used its vast platform to educate Americans about the very real dangers of guns, including accidental firings, malfunctions, and other safety-related issues, as well as conducted a frank discussion about gun violence, it would earn the trust of the nation. It would be a simple, but crucial, demonstration of the organization's good faith in wanting to protect the safety of Americans.

Push for Higher Safety Standards for Guns

The NRA should encourage the gun industry to innovate on safety. These past two weeks alone, two children, one of them three years old, died when a gun discharged accidentally. This state of affairs is atrocious and the NRA should push for higher safety standards on all weapons to reduce accidents. I am not implying that gun manufacturers themselves are not innovating but clearly there is room for improvement. Safety, unfortunately, is not as sexy a selling point for weapons as firepower, fingerprint resistance, and a host of other features that gun enthusiasts respond more favorably to, making it less likely that the industry will force itself to do the right thing without an external influence. That influence could very easily be the NRA.

Cooperate With Political Leaders to Institute Meaningful Gun Reform

The NRA may hate doing this but given that the political climate and public opinion have now swung decisively towards gun control, the organization would be much better served working cooperatively with lawmakers rather than trying to sabotage them. The NRA's voluntary participation in the process of lawmaking will enable the organization to bring its knowledge, experience, and ideas to bear on the gun control debate and perhaps help the nation reach solid policies that will serve the interests of both society and gun owners. In any event, if the NRA chooses to fight change, it is more likely to become a victim of it rather than an architect, and that should give it plenty of motivation to take a conciliatory approach on gun control.

These measures, of course, are just some of the things that the NRA can do to validate the sincerity of its words, but they are a good start.

The NRA has given us the tagline, now let's see the fine print.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/nra-sandy-hook-shooting-response_b_2325740.html

 

Quoting the hiperlib trash rag who excels at sprewing BS Huffpo? And you claim to not be a lib...

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with your OP. Your posts are full of circle logic and one liners, the only time you post a complete paragraph or even a semi-rational sentence it's when you cut and paste from some liberal BS website whilst claiming to not be a lib yourself.

 

those eight things make sense, despite your ridiculous bs

 

Senator Scott Brown reverses position on federal assault weapons ban after Newtown massacre

By Michael Levenson and Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff

Senator Scott Brown has reversed his position after the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school and now says he supports a federal assault weapons ban.

“What happened in Newtown where those children were subject to that level of violence is beyond my comprehension,” Brown said in an interview today with the Springfield Republican newspaper. “As a state legislator in Massachusetts I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately, they have not and innocent people are being killed. As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts.”

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/12/19/senator-elect-elizabeth-warren-backs-assault-weapon-ban/Qj3ZdGwBRUlecaFMo6C4UP/story.html

 

I wish the next mass killer would use the classic assault weapon = a donkey's jawbone. Samson killed 1,000 men with his. Now that's an effective weapon.

 

The NRA decides to fight Statism. Tough.

 

Many pistols have larger magazines. Offhand, some Glocks hold 20. Note: with even a little practice, a mag swap takes less than one second.

 

I think the NRA will lose this one.. with members resigning in droves.

This Sandy Hook massacre won't go away.. and I fear there will be another shortly.

Adam Lanza was effed up as a soup sandwich.. and there are many others out their like him.. Loughner, Holmes and so on...

 

Thank you for asking the question. The answer is that there IS NO SUCH THING as an "assault" rifle. That is just a buzz-phrase invented by some hyperlib half-wit to promote the idea of SCARY guns. Like I said earlier, nearly any object can be an "assault weapon" (ask any lawyer). You can make an "assault weapon" out of anything that will inflict injury of any kind on a human body. Your FISTS can be "assault weapons"... did you know that...?

The SCARY thing isn't the fact that these ignorant, vindictive hyperlibs know NOTHING about firearms... no, the SCARY thing is that these idiots are going to force even more draconian laws, fees, and taxes on citizens who are trying to DEFEND themselves!

Oh, and one other SCARY thing: when our endless American supply of criminals and mentally ****ed-up bastards decide to make >YOU< their next victim, they will be using the most powerful, destructive weaponry they can get their hands on! But what will YOU have in YOUR hands to protect YOU and YOUR loved ones with...?

 

Not surprised you resort to cartoons. Still doesn't make the Constitution irrelevant.

 

Here is a "hunting rifle" not covered under the last AWB.



Here is the same gun in a different stock.



Care to explain the difference?

 

The one on top scares me more, no huge magazine, which means if you are aiming for me, you are confident you can hit with fewer rounds... The big magazine on isn't so fearful, just means the shooter is unsure. I only mean that stateside and as a civilian. I fully would understand the need and want of more rounds if in the military, which I was, and overseas facing opposition that required killing...

 

it shows how delusional gun nut's claims are

 

Care to explain how that makes the Constitution irrelevant?