McCain Shocker!

[barbelith]

Why not assault STYLE weapons?

Because there are concessions for living in a civilized society and one of those is weapons designed for assault (as opposed to hunting or defense) are unnecessary. Do you think I should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb?

Funny, she's only been in office since late 2006, but she's still done more than hillary and obama combined

That's actually demonstrably false just by looking at basic mathematics.

 

[Vader AL]

Because in my opinion there are concessions for living in a civilized society and one of those is weapons designed for assault (as opposed to hunting or defense) are unnecessary. Do you think I should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb?



That's actually demonstrably false just by looking at basic mathematics.

there i fixed it for you.

basic mathematics also tell us that a nuclear bomb and an assault rifle aren't in the same league, which dispells that analogy.

 

[hoodonit00]

Because there are concessions for living in a civilized society and one of those is weapons designed for assault (as opposed to hunting or defense) are unnecessary. Do you think I should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb?



That's actually demonstrably false just by looking at basic mathematics.

So because YOU don't like them they should be banned. I own an AR-15 which I like to target shoot with. I also have it for home defense. Being as you're such an expert on firearms, explain to me why it isn't a good home defense weapon? This civilized society you live in, where is it at? The one I live in has stories all the time about bad people raping, and killing innocent people. Has women, who once pregnant can decide to have their babies murdered while still in the womb. Is this civilized? My firearms are tools, until they are used in the way they are meant to be, then it is a weapon. Just like a hammer is used to drive a nail is a tool. It becomes a weapon when used to split someones skull. Do you understand the difference? Our 2nd Ammendment rights have NOTHING to do with hunting. It has to do with protecting yourself from your goverment. That is the intended purpose of it. You don understand that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic don't you? That I can't fire it full auto, correct? And as your other response to the other poster goes, what exactly has Obama done since he's been in office. You are such a fan of his, spell it out.

 

[hoodonit00]

there i fixed it for you.

basic mathematics also tell us that a nuclear bomb and an assault rifle aren't in the same league, which dispells that analogy.

Thank you.

 

[barbelith]

there i fixed it for you.

Of course it's my opinion. I was under the impression we all knew how to have a conversation.

basic mathematics also tell us that a nuclear bomb and an assault rifle aren't in the same league, which dispells that analogy.

Not at all - the analogy isn't based on the number of potential victims but rather the difference between hunting, defense and assault.

 

[LOTRFan]

And as your other response to the other poster goes, what exactly has Obama done since he's been in office. You are such a fan of his, spell it out.

He has inspired Oprah and Kanye?

 

[hoodonit00]

Of course it's my opinion. I was under the impression we all knew how to have a conversation.



Not at all - the analogy isn't based on the number of potential victims but rather the difference between hunting, defense and assault.

You're the worst kind of gun owner, the one that says my guns are ok but yours are scary looking and should be banned. Why should my firearm be banned, explain that to me.

 

[barbelith]

So because YOU don't like them they should be banned.

No. Their function is illegal. The second amendment grants us the right to bear arms but it does not give us the unrestricted right to own any type of weapon we desire, which is why the NRA usually doesn't advocate for private ownership of nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, live grenades, mines or fully automatic high caliber machine guns.

You are of course entitled to live in fear and arm yourself in your own home. I will assume you have done the research and are comfortable with the fact that statistically homes with guns are more dangerous than homes without guns.

I would actually support assault weapons being used in controlled conditions at licensed gun clubs provided the devices are not allowed to be removed from the premises for any reason. But obviously this isn't about sport shooting. It isn't even about home defense, or you'd be fine with one of the hundreds of guns most gun control advocates don't dispute.

So really it's about assault weapons themselves, and back we go to assault being illegal and you really having no moral imperative to own a device exclusively designed to kill another human being.

So you've seen where I am willing to compromise on this issue. I wonder what compromises you are willing to make?

And as your other response to the other poster goes, what exactly has Obama done since he's been in office.

I am going to credit you with the intelligence to actually read one of the many easily available voting record and bill sponsorship lists.

 

[Memnoch]

So in other news, Palins 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html?eref=rss_latest

 

[hoodonit00]

I gave up hope on trying to reach people like you about Obama. You buy into his lip service, that's your right. You touched off a nerve with me about your ignorance about firearms. You do realize that in certain states, assault style rifles are used for hunting, don't you? You never answered why an assault style weapon does not make a good home defense weapon, let me hear it. In a national emergency, say something like Hurrican Gustav you had a choice between a bolt action rifle or an AR to defend yourself from those wishing to do you and yours harm. What would you choose. The rifle that you had to cycle the bolt after each shot or the one that could fire 30 rounds with an individual pull of the trigger. How is it not a good home defense weapon again?

 

[barbelith]

So in other news, Palins 17 year old daughter is pregnant.

In her defense, this is no more relevant than what Bill Clinton got up to with Monica Lewinsky. It's unfair to criticize Palin on this issue.

 

[hoodonit00]

So in other news, Palins 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Yea, so what. Guess their daughter is the only one of the millions of teens in this country that has had sex.

 

[hoodonit00]

In her defense, this is no more relevant than what Bill Clinton got up to with Monica Lewinsky. It's unfair to criticize Palin on this issue.

Well I thank you for at least agreeing on that

 

[barbelith]

You buy into his lip service, that's your right.

You are aware I've been critical of Obama on these boards, right?

You do realize that in certain states, assault style rifles are used for hunting, don't you?

I could use a nuclear bomb for hunting. Should I be allowed to?

 

[Memnoch]

Yea, so what. Guess their daughter is the only one of the millions of teens in this country that has had sex.

...Wow just linking to a news story about a VP candidate same as I'd link to one about Obama or Biden, don't try and drag me into this ^^^^-fest.

 

[sirrobert]

Why not assault STYLE weapons?

If the police weren't for Bush's lifting of the assault weapon ban that oughta tell ya something.

 

[barbelith]

The rifle that you had to cycle the bolt after each shot or the one that could fire 30 rounds with an individual pull of the trigger. How is it not a good home defense weapon again?

Wouldn't a fully automatic machine gun be even better than that?
What about a rail gun?
A bazooka?
Grenades?
A cannon?
A missile?

Where do you draw the line? That's not a rhetorical question. Where do you, specifically you, draw the line. What weapons should I not be allowed to privately own? Or should it be a free for all?

 

[hoodonit00]

No. Their function is illegal. The second amendment grants us the right to bear arms but it does not give us the unrestricted right to own any type of weapon we desire, which is why the NRA usually doesn't advocate for private ownership of nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, live grenades, mines or fully automatic high caliber machine guns.

You are of course entitled to live in fear and arm yourself in your own home. I will assume you have done the research and are comfortable with the fact that statistically homes with guns are more dangerous than homes without guns.

I would actually support assault weapons being used in controlled conditions at licensed gun clubs provided the devices are not allowed to be removed from the premises for any reason. But obviously this isn't about sport shooting. It isn't even about home defense, or you'd be fine with one of the hundreds of guns most gun control advocates don't dispute.

So really it's about assault weapons themselves, and back we go to assault being illegal and you really having no moral imperative to own a device exclusively designed to kill another human being.

So you've seen where I am willing to compromise on this issue. I wonder what compromises you are willing to make?



I am going to credit you with the intelligence to actually read one of the many easily available voting record and bill sponsorship lists.

What the hell do you mean their function is illegal. The 2nd Ammendment grants us rights to own hand held firearms that are being used at the time. I don't live in fear in my household because my firearms that are not being used are secure and my carry piece is on ME at all time. You call it living in fear, I call it being prepared. So if my choice in firearms isn't about sport, or about home defense (which I clearly responded in affirmative for both)than what is it. Are you accusing me of being a mass murderer? Is that what I have it for? You're willing to compromise? How, by me surrendering my firearms. I'll tell you what, I won't compromise, because I don't have to. Show me the stats about how many people are killed each year with assault style weapons. I think you will be surprised to find out that there are more people killed in household accidents each year. You will find out that there are more people stabbed each year. Methinks you've been getting all of your misinformation from the Brady campaign. I don't understand your last sentence at all. Why don't you decipher it for me.

 

[barbelith]

What the hell do you mean their function is illegal.

You are not legally allowed to assault people. Weapons designed for assault have no legal function. There are literally hundreds of weapons designed for defense and sport.

The 2nd Ammendment grants us rights to own hand held firearms that are being used at the time.

It does not grant us the right to unrestricted ownership and it says nothing about firearms.

You're willing to compromise? How, by me surrendering my firearms.

Of course I never said that. It's very tedious having a conversation with someone who blatantly lies and distorts. I have been very open about my support for the second amendment and private gun ownership.

 

[hoodonit00]

Wouldn't a fully automatic machine gun be even better than that?
What about a rail gun?
A bazooka?
Grenades?
A cannon?
A missile?

Where do you draw the line? That's not a rhetorical question. Where do you, specifically you, draw the line. What weapons should I not be allowed to privately own? Or should it be a free for all?

You do realize that if I had the money and wanted one, I could legally own a fully automatic weapon. The line is drawn on weapons that are hand fired or shoulder fired that are ones that are in common usage. Any handguns, shotguns, or shoulder fired rifles. Grenades and the like, no.