Demoncrats trying to get another "Assault weapon" ban passed

[Nick M]

It won't happen but when the names come through they will be posted so the reps can be dumped like we got Boehner dumped. Ryan is next.

Assault weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible

Well, duh.

Following a string of recent mass shootings, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by former President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, which Cicilline will introduce Wednesday afternoon, would ensure that no such guns are manufactured while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons. The bill has about 90 Democratic co-sponsors, including House Minority WHIP Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.).​

 

[quip]

Well, duh.

Planning to wade in the blood of some wicked ones?

 

[rocketman]

It won't happen but when the names come through they will be posted so the reps can be dumped like we got Boehner dumped. Ryan is next.



Well, duh.

Following a string of recent mass shootings, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by former President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, which Cicilline will introduce Wednesday afternoon, would ensure that no such guns are manufactured while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons. The bill has about 90 Democratic co-sponsors, including House Minority WHIP Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.).​

Gun sales have went up as much as 400% in some places since the San Bernardino attack, gun sales have soared in liberal California, and it is an election year coming up, I would say it is all saber rattling...the numbers are behind the second amendment not for more useless gun control especially when our president is importing terrorists from Syria.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It won't happen but when the names come through they will be posted so the reps can be dumped like we got Boehner dumped. Ryan is next.



Well, duh.

Following a string of recent mass shootings, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is looking to renew the assault weapons ban that was originally signed by former President Bill Clinton but expired more than a decade ago. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, which Cicilline will introduce Wednesday afternoon, would ensure that no such guns are manufactured while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons. The bill has about 90 Democratic co-sponsors, including House Minority WHIP Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.).​

I'm all for the second amendment, but there is no reason a normal civilian should ever need an assault weapon. That's stupid. A handgun or hunting rifle will do just fine

 

[rocketman]

I'm all for the second amendment, but there is no reason a normal civilian should ever need an assault weapon. That's stupid. A handgun or hunting rifle will do just fine

I'll take a AR-15 any day over a handgun or a hunting rifle, if you had any tactical training in firearms you would know why.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I'll take a AR-15 any day over a handgun or a hunting rifle, if you had any tactical training in firearms you would know why.

To kill people? Sorry, that's not a good enough reason.

And what do you mean by tactical training? I'm pretty damn familiar with firearms of all kinds. Been hunting and just generally screwing around with them out in the woods for a couple decades. That includes your precious AR-15. It's a blast, but it's in no way necessary.

Also I should restate what I said previously: I meant that automatic assault weapons should never be needed by regular civilians. Semi-automatics are ok

 

[drbrumley]

To kill people? Sorry, that's not a good enough reason.

And what do you mean by tactical training? I'm pretty damn familiar with firearms of all kinds. Been hunting and just generally screwing around with them out in the woods for a couple decades. That includes your precious AR-15. It's a blast, but it's in no way necessary.

Also I should restate what I said previously: I meant that automatic assault weapons should never be needed by regular civilians. Semi-automatics are ok

The military has automatics, so do the police. Whats wrong with us having them as well?

 

[musterion]

Interesting article but I think he fails to factor in the left's trump card of foreign troops brought over to do (or try to do) what neither the U.S. military nor law enforcement can/will do.

Here’s What A Liberal ‘Gun-Grab’ Would Look Like And Why It Would Ultimately Fail

 

[musterion]

I'm all for the second amendment

For what purposes?

 

[Greg Jennings]

The military has automatics, so do the police. Whats wrong with us having them as well?

Because they are trained professionals, and perhaps more importantly they might actually be expected in their jobs to use deadly force on someone.

Almost every civilian will never need to shoot to kill another person in self-defense, and for those that do a handgun works just fine

 

[Greg Jennings]

For what purposes?

I respect the constitution, I think people have a right to hunt and shoot for sport, and if a case of self-defense arises it can come in handy.

 

[musterion]

I respect the constitution, I think people have a right to hunt and shoot for sport, and if a case of self-defense arises it can come in handy.

Explain on what grounds do you seek to limit what weapons and ammo other citizens can use to defend themselves against criminals or tyrants, who tend to arm themselves as heavily as they possibly can. Think very hard before you answer.

 

[drbrumley]

Because they are trained professionals, and perhaps more importantly they might actually be expected in their jobs to use deadly force on someone.

Almost every civilian will never need to shoot to kill another person in self-defense, and for those that do a handgun works just fine

Um, yeah. A handgun vs an army officer doing the bidding of a rogue president. I see the fairness in that. NOT!!!!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Explain on what grounds do you seek to limit what weapons and ammo other citizens can use to defend themselves against criminals or tyrants, who tend to arm themselves as heavily as they possibly can. Think very hard before you answer.

What grounds? The grounds that automatics are far deadlier than others, particularly in a crowd.

Let's say a shooter comes onto a campus with an assault rifle and starts shooting people. Any person with a handgun can take him down with one shot, as can anyone with an automatic.

Here's the difference: let's say that person misses the shooter. If he has a handgun, he likely won't hit an innocent bystander with a single stray bullet. But if he misses with an automatic, he's spraying several bullets into traffic. Someone is gonna get hit.

If the job can be just as easily done without a risk of collateral damage, then that is the way it needs to be done. Handguns/semi-automatic weapons don't carry nearly as much of a risk of collateral damage as automatics do, yet they will be just as effective in combating any armed assailants.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Um, yeah. A handgun vs an army officer doing the bidding of a rogue president. I see the fairness in that. NOT!!!!

It's not about fairness. It's about who is qualified to properly handle and shoot these weapons safely. Soldiers and police officers are trained. You are not. It's that simple

 

[badp]

How often do the police actually use machine guns on civilians?

 

[Nick M]

Planning to wade in the blood of some wicked ones?

Oh look, I forgot about this one. You and shaggy still lag behind the other Q. You will be the first in that regard, but he is dumber.

 

[Nick M]

I'm all for the second amendment, but there is no reason a normal civilian should ever need an assault weapon.

Why does the second amendment that you claim you are all for, list as the reason for the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Nick M]

I'll take a AR-15 any day

I will concede TomO's point is not without merit. Not even close in fact.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Why does the second amendment that you claim you are all for, list as the reason for right to keep and bear arms?

Self defense and hunting I presume, as that would be the concerns of the day. They were talking about muskets that could be shot twice every minute or so, though. They certainly never envisioned a gun with the ability to shoot 50 rounds in mere seconds.