Assault weapon bans

[PrintMule]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

Could you stop spamming that answer, please?
aka

People in general can't handle responsibility of much simpler things.

[NewLiberty]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

People in general can't handle responsibility of much simpler things.

Is your position that only "government people" can handle the responsibility, but not "non-government people"?

I would agree that there are some few folks that are a danger to themselves and others and who probably ought not be around anything sharp, much less a weapon, but these are not who we are discussing when talking about a "ban".

[Spendulus]

Obviously illegal, high capacity, full auto fire, drum magazine assault weapon.  

Complete with skimpy clad assault girls.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/09/06/excitingevents-com-replies-and-they-are-actually-some-cool-people/

[zwanzig20]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

Uhm don't you read or watch the news? Don't you think those incidents are enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

[zwanzig20]

This is becoming a microsoft bashing thread . Anyway assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Speak for yourself.

M

Geeez people take that comment personally. I don't know you and maybe you are able to keep fire arms responsibly,hell maybe you are able to keep 1000KGS of TNT resposible, but that doesn't mean that there are a lot of people who can't handle it. These gun related incidents are not made up.

[zwanzig20]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

Could you stop spamming that answer, please?
aka

People in general can't handle responsibility of much simpler things.

This exactly...

[zwanzig20]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

People in general can't handle responsibility of much simpler things.

Is your position that only "government people" can handle the responsibility, but not "non-government people"?

I would agree that there are some few folks that are a danger to themselves and others and who probably ought not be around anything sharp, much less a weapon, but these are not who we are discussing when talking about a "ban".

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

[mdude77]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

[NewLiberty]

Many people type lies.
Some of those lies have very devastating effects.
Sometimes people die when some other people type things.
Sometimes a lot of innocent people die.
Isn't that horrible?  Isn't that enough?  Can we preemptively prevent anything like that from happening again?  Think of the children!

If a majority votes that you (personally or categorically) are not able to handle the responsibility of a keyboard, would you accept that authority and be banned from further typing?


A mind is a terrible thing.

[zwanzig20]

Many people type lies.
Some of those lies have very devastating effects.
Sometimes people die when some other people type things.
Sometimes a lot of innocent people die.
Isn't that horrible?  Isn't that enough?  Can we preemptively prevent anything like that from happening again?  Think of the children!

If a majority votes that you (personally or categorically) are not able to handle the responsibility of a keyboard, would you accept that authority and be banned from further typing?


A mind is a terrible thing.

Uhm I don't think the keyboard was created to kill people, and it is not very effective either.

[zwanzig20]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

but so are rocket launchers.. where do you draw the line?

[zwanzig20]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

I also actually wanted to know what the reason is you want them? Hunting/defense or something else?

[ronimacarroni]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

I also actually wanted to know what the reason is you want them? Hunting/defense or something else?

Its in case the government tries to overstep its authority granted by the people.
2nd amendment biatch.

[mdude77]

What exactly is the importance of an assault riflle for personal use?

The same reason the military uses.  They are effective.

M

but so are rocket launchers.. where do you draw the line?

There should be no government arbitrary line.  If they had their way we'd all be slaves with nothing to our name but a serial number.

I also actually wanted to know what the reason is you want them? Hunting/defense or something else?

For self defense.  

If you want to stop needless deaths, disarm the government(s) and their armed thugs.  They kill and maim far more than law abiding citizens do.  

BTW, "accidental deaths" occur all the time with cars too.  A lot more often than with guns, I might had.

M

[TheButterZone]

assault weapons/burst fireing arms should not given to the public. People cant handle the responsibility

Don't project.

Uhm don't you read or watch the news? Don't you think those incidents are enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

You linked to ignorance instead of "those incidents". Don't pretend to be ignorant that all massacres (>3 victims) occur in "gun free zones". Yes, 1 "gun free zone" massacre is one too many. Arm all innocent victims, fuck any criminal who constantly spams "victims can't handle the responsibility of defending themselves" and fuck "gun free zones" - the only perfect stages for mass murderers. You are now ignored.

[Spendulus]

I also actually wanted to know what the reason is you want them? Hunting/defense or something else?

If you want to be taken seriously, you probably need to be specific about what the hell you are talking about.  Because I think you are using a some what perjorative phrase which has no meaning except hot button emotional impact assigned to it by dumb ass idiots.

I have never heard people who are knowledgable about guns, and that includes police, soldiers, FBI, as well as guys that just like guns; use the phrase "assault rifle".

They usually refer to M4 or M16 or AR15, AK74, they may use a phrase like semi auto, or full auto.  Etc, etc, you get my point.

As for hunting I know lots of people who are good with the AR15 platform, possibly the best general purpose adaptable design ever created.  Yes that includes the shorter barrel M4 style.

[NewLiberty]

Many people type lies.
Some of those lies have very devastating effects.
Sometimes people die when some other people type things.
Sometimes a lot of innocent people die.
Isn't that horrible?  Isn't that enough?  Can we preemptively prevent anything like that from happening again?  Think of the children!

If a majority votes that you (personally or categorically) are not able to handle the responsibility of a keyboard, would you accept that authority and be banned from further typing?


A mind is a terrible thing.

Uhm I don't think the keyboard was created to kill people, and it is not very effective either.

Thanks, I am hoping to figure out how you came to your conclusions.  I haven't concluded the same as you, so it is helpful to figure out how to get there from here.  You didn't answer, but you tossed out another clue instead, which though it is arguably incorrect as many have argued that the pen is mightier than the sword even though we have advanced beyond both, we can set that answer aside for now to follow your clue, so...

Objects created to kill people are: ______

1) OK if a majority says so.
2) OK if in the control of a government.
3) Should all be destroyed.
4) OK if in the control of a government for which you approve.
5) OK only if it is sufficiently ineffective at killing people
6) something else or some other nuance?

...

I overheard some US Senators today claiming that negotiations and cutting some deal (particularly effective human action requiring keyboards) would be more effective at deterring future gas attacks than missiles (particularly effective human action requiring weapons).  Frankly I think those Senators may have something there as it (surprisingly enough) seems do also most US voters.

The opposite position appears to be that a type of weapon control be implemented and Syrian folks ought be forcibly disarmed from using that type of weapon due to their consent to a higher authority that permits such enforcement of disarmament (UN).  This position looks likely to prevail.
Do you favor the forcible disarmament in this instance as well with these more lethal weapons?

[mdude77]

The opposite position appears to be that a type of weapon control be implemented and Syrian folks ought be forcibly disarmed from using that type of weapon due to their consent to a higher authority that permits such enforcement of disarmament (UN).  This position looks likely to prevail.
Do you favor the forcible disarmament in this instance as well with these more lethal weapons?

I do not favor forcible disarmament.  No one should have the power to assume the position of the world's bully to force their desires on another nation.  You seem to consider the reported events in Syria to be the truth.  Considering it comes from the controlled/manipulated media, and it favors the US military industrial complex, I tend to think just the opposite - it's a fabrication, a so called false flag event to goad the people into allowing yet another war.

Remember the WMDs in Iraq proved to be a fabrication. 

M

[Spendulus]

The opposite position appears to be that a type of weapon control be implemented and Syrian folks ought be forcibly disarmed from using that type of weapon due to their consent to a higher authority that permits such enforcement of disarmament (UN).  This position looks likely to prevail.
Do you favor the forcible disarmament in this instance as well with these more lethal weapons?

I do not favor forcible disarmament.  No one should have the power to assume the position of the world's bully to force their desires on another nation.  You seem to consider the reported events in Syria to be the truth.  Considering it comes from the controlled/manipulated media, and it favors the US military industrial complex, I tend to think just the opposite - it's a fabrication, a so called false flag event to goad the people into allowing yet another war.

Remember the WMDs in Iraq proved to be a fabrication. 

M

It would seem that there is no such thing as just 'taking our assault rifles away', there is only 'taking the assault rifles away from those who will not or who choose not to shoot them when and where the government and politicians order them to.'

This casts the problem in a different light.

Me thinks...

[zwanzig20]

Many people type lies.
Some of those lies have very devastating effects.
Sometimes people die when some other people type things.
Sometimes a lot of innocent people die.
Isn't that horrible?  Isn't that enough?  Can we preemptively prevent anything like that from happening again?  Think of the children!

If a majority votes that you (personally or categorically) are not able to handle the responsibility of a keyboard, would you accept that authority and be banned from further typing?


A mind is a terrible thing.

Uhm I don't think the keyboard was created to kill people, and it is not very effective either.

Thanks, I am hoping to figure out how you came to your conclusions.  I haven't concluded the same as you, so it is helpful to figure out how to get there from here.  You didn't answer, but you tossed out another clue instead, which though it is arguably incorrect as many have argued that the pen is mightier than the sword even though we have advanced beyond both, we can set that answer aside for now to follow your clue, so...

Objects created to kill people are: ______

1) OK if a majority says so.
2) OK if in the control of a government.
3) Should all be destroyed.
4) OK if in the control of a government for which you approve.
5) OK only if it is sufficiently ineffective at killing people
6) something else or some other nuance?

...

I overheard some US Senators today claiming that negotiations and cutting some deal (particularly effective human action requiring keyboards) would be more effective at deterring future gas attacks than missiles (particularly effective human action requiring weapons).  Frankly I think those Senators may have something there as it (surprisingly enough) seems do also most US voters.

The opposite position appears to be that a type of weapon control be implemented and Syrian folks ought be forcibly disarmed from using that type of weapon due to their consent to a higher authority that permits such enforcement of disarmament (UN).  This position looks likely to prevail.
Do you favor the forcible disarmament in this instance as well with these more lethal weapons?

I would choose 3 but I realize that is not possible