i'll call it now: "death penalty"
Gun Control
trick question! living in florida IS the death penalty
Hey you brought it up. Huntin' rifles is fine but they (all) should be registered. The self defense mentality in this country isn't really on solid self defense logic most of the time. That's not solely gun laws, that a fvcked up culture perpetuated by the NRA and the ilk.
That clause doesn't actually mean what you think it means. There are all kinds of things I use for work that you can't buy (and maybe vice versa) just because you're a citizen. I can use them because the people that sell them know exactly who I am, who I work for and any misuse is traceable. That applies to a whole host of potentially dangerous raw materials and equipment that firearms aren't subject to in far too many states.
Did he get popcorn with that?
imagine the mayhem if someone on bath salts rented that car after her
SO how many shootings are we up to in the past week or so?
*This message brought to you by the NRA
Sort of glanced over this thread and all I have to say, wow......I thought gun control was staying on target not working one self up in to a frenzy, wtf
Btw…assault weapon/rifle is a political description of rifles the anti-gun movement would like banned. In the real world of firearms there’s no such thing as an assault rifle.
Btw…assault weapon/rifle is a political description of rifles the anti-gun movement would like banned. In the real world of firearms there’s no such thing as an assault rifle.
There's a new idea no one has ever said ever.
Tell me again why that matters?
Tell me again why that matters?
Actually there is, the German StG 44 is regarded as the world's first "assault rifle", and it's name, Sturmgewehr, literally means "assault rifle". It was the first to combine a shortened rifle round with full auto-capability in a shortened carbine rifle-sized package with a pistol grip. Previously, weapons like the "grease gun", thompson, and russian PPSh-41 did not combine all of these features into one. The StG-44 was also very direct inspiration for the AK47, the world's most successful assault rifle. The idea of an "assault rifle" is a shorter and less powerful round than used in weapons like the M1 and M14, so you can carry more rounds and be more mobile. The german weapon was originally intended for paratroopers, but the concept eventually filtered down to all infantryman, because you simply didn't need the accuracy and range of the M1 most of the time. With a scope, the M1 is super deadly, but it's just not efficient to train all soldiers to that level of proficiency, not to mention what a terrible close-combat weapon it is.
In more modern times, we've seen all sorts of assault rifles, most commonly calibered in 5.45 up to 7.62, but general concept is still the same. All you have to do is look at a hunting rifle to see the difference.
I would equate any weapon that is designed to hurt or kill humans an "assault" weapon, meaning that your .22 and some hunting weapons would not be classified as such, but most pistols and and "assault rifles"? Heck yeah.
So a weapon designed to harm people, and it happens to be a rifle, hence, "assault rifle". Not a stretch.
Last edited:
Yeah butcha can't believe the media therefore everything said there about gunzors in this country must be invalid.
......
*This message brought to you by the NRA
* We are also ignoring Chicago/Detroit/Baltimore
Technically...sturm means storm...but the intent is the same. (My German is pretty good 
...) Just saying...but spot on with your other comments Jm...
...) Just saying...but spot on with your other comments Jm...
Oh nevermind. Everything is fine
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/us/weeklong-u-s-gun-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/18/us/weeklong-u-s-gun-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
these are the people making your laws
How many rounds in a magazine if 30 of them fit in a clip? Damn, that is a lot of rounds.
moar then any of us need of course
All my clips are 32 mags anyway, 30 mag clips are for pussies.
Therefore no gun laws!
Brilliant deduction as usual since a guy no has ever heard of who sucks at english is obviously 100% of our representation.
Thank you for saving us!
so because youve never heard of CA's next leader of their Senate makes his idiotic comments less dumberer? the morons who support him and people like him dont know any better. all they see is scary guns and scary terms.
did i say he represented everyone? nope.
Last edited:
So maybe he's not up on technical terms, so what? I'm guessing he represents the majority opinion in his district. You know, like it's his job or something. Obviously, that means he's Hitler, hates Freedom®, and everyone should have the right to open carry an assault rifle to the yearly kindergarten picnic.
those soda cans won't shoot themselves open
Funny enough, his wikipedia page is very short, and contains practically zero information about his political stances on any subject except one:
But according to gun-tards, he might as well have raped a baby with a statue of the virgin Mary on the alter while peeing on the Constitution. The horror!
what's that? a career politician isn't a SME?! i for one am SHOCKED and APPALLED.so because youve never heard of CA's next leader of their Senate makes his idiotic comments less dumberer? the morons who support him and people like him dont know any better. all they see is scary guns and scary terms.
did i say he represented everyone? nope.
I'm not the one missing the point. In fact most of what you have in this thread is along this line of thinking and you STILL don't get mine.
So which is worse, a guy with poor understanding of specific terminology who (worst case scenario) gets one tiny little segment of a non essential device regulated. Or a multimillion dollar lobby firm who gets gun regulations further lifted following a mass murder of kids, gets guns in bars, and gets a law forbidding the Dept of Health and Human Services from collecting firearm accident statistics?
No one dies from mr. public speaking panic attack over there getting a bill passed. And your constant deflecting of any kind of meaningful argument by going "har har, him not know magazine!" just shows that you really still just don't get it.
ALEC and the NRA are a much bigger threat to reason and logic in legislation than that dude. But you think that guy's terminology ignorance is just such a big deal, you won't even start a conversation. It's a dumb distraction, not any kind of reasoned position.
It's the same thing as fixating on whether or not "the gun community" uses the term assault rifle. No one cares what "the gun community" thinks any more. It's thanks to the illogical fervency of "the gun community" that so many people get shot in this third world redneck fantasy masquerading as a civilized nation. "The gun community" fights for the rights of psychos to get guns, not those of kids to not get shot.
So Imma go fill up a few rounds with my magazine packed clips and shoot a few assault rifles out ma P.ersonal E.mpowerment N.ecessity for I.ndividual S.ecurity (just my little nickname ya see)
Last edited:
So The Gun Community gets to use inaccurate terminology as a reason to discard an entire line of thinking, yet when the right wing (who has a lot of overlap with The Gun Community) abuses and mangles peer-reviewed science to fit its agenda regarding topics like abortion and climate change, that's okay?
I bet he hates apple pie and baseball too. Clearly a fag.
Stop making sense, it wont get you anywhere!
Apparently another shooting at Purdue.....
Sounds like a guy who really loves Freedom®. You some kind of commie?
There there, son, I won't let the scary negro take away your Freedom Launchers.
Right or Left issue, I don’t think so......more likely a matter of mental health care and pandering career politicians. The erosion of personal rights is never a good thing and both political camps are guilty.
Listening to today’s political rhetoric while looking back at history is a bit disconcerting. Last year I think I heard a CA politician call opponents of more Federal expansion ‘Reactionaries’, a term I hadn’t seen nor heard in recent times since it was used during Stalin’s reign to label then eliminate/kill anyone who spoke out against the government.
If most were to read “Bloodlands, Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” by Timothy Snyder your views on gun control may temper.
Anyways, good luck with your debate…….
J
Listening to today’s political rhetoric while looking back at history is a bit disconcerting. Last year I think I heard a CA politician call opponents of more Federal expansion ‘Reactionaries’, a term I hadn’t seen nor heard in recent times since it was used during Stalin’s reign to label then eliminate/kill anyone who spoke out against the government.
If most were to read “Bloodlands, Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” by Timothy Snyder your views on gun control may temper.
Anyways, good luck with your debate…….
J