Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
A claim that ultimately means nothing. Politicians seeking to further restrict firearms ownership claim to own firearms as well, in an effort to suggest that they are not the enemy.



First and foremost, the AR-15 is in no way a so-called assault rifle. It is nothing more than a semi-automatic firearm, largely no different from any other semi-automatic that has been freely available for the last one hundred years. Semi-automatic rifles were marketed towards hunters and sportsmen first, long before any military regarded them as a viable option.



In the city of Nice, in the nation of France, one person operating a motor vehicle managed to kill eighty six individuals, and injure another four hundred and thirty four individuals in a span of less than five minutes. No firearms were involved, only one motor vehicle. That is a significantly higher number of victims than any mass shooting in the united states, where firearms are indeed involved. This would suggest motor vehicles are far more dangerous than any firearm ever could be, since it would name multiple mass shootings to equal the same number of dead and injured.

- - - Updated - - -



At the time of the ratification of the second amendment, the mentally disturbed were locked up in asylums, never to be released into society again, or otherwise outright killed.
So what are you suggesting, to let them out of the asylum and hand them a gun?
I don’t think that the law that is under discussion doesn’t include the inmates of mental asylums.

Oh and spare us that old NRA mantra, i.e. cars can kill so why don’t we ban cars?
Because cars are essential to civilian life and guns are most decidedly not.