ADVERTISEMENT

Death of football...

MC:

I have to break this down, and, although it is not necessary because I do find we have a cordial relationship, you know this is delivered with due courtesy.



Well, of the 38,000, approximately 24,000 are suicides and, regrettably, very few of those deeply, emotionally injured people can be salvaged. What the Left does is to casually toss out the "38,000" number, irresponsibly attach the vague description the death was the result of a firearm to lead their gullible followers into believing guns are a plague and a threat to decent society. If it is not a firearm, it could be pills, drink, a rope, gas, opening the veins, or jumping in front of a bus. Tragic, yes, but one of the many dangers in society we can not prevent. Moreover, the Left may talk about mental illness, a conversation we need, but they never talk about stripping kitchens of knives or outlawing the sale of rope.



It is relevant; it is actually very relevant. Do we not break down the cause of auto accidents, train wrecks, or aircraft disasters separately? Each incident has a cause, some different than others. Incidents in which innocents die in autos are caused by faulty fuel lines; and others are caused by drivers operating a vehicle while under the influence. Some aircraft crash because of pilot error, bad weather, or hijacking. Some trains slip off the rails. They must be treated differently. While I'm on the subject, I'd like to add most Left-leaning publications never make any mention over the number of accidental firearm deaths.



I chose those publications because they are respected in some circles as indisputable sources of facts, figures and statistics. The citations I offered were done in good faith. As far as the WSJ, I read it every day, cover to cover, and find it filled with varying opinions encompassing both sides of the political spectrum. It is, in fact, the only American news source I read. I do not watch Fox at all, nor do I read the Tribune or Sun Times. I find both of Chicago's newspapers are stand-ins for journalism and simply bellow Left-wing groupthink.



Of over 22,000 gun-control laws, most are weak? What are you looking for? With all due respect, I hear this argument all the time: When gun-control laws fail to achieve the expressed goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence, the Left perforce repeats the need for more gun-control laws.



Democrats have pushed for ex-cons and prison inmates to have the right to vote. I own four firearms, all of which have been disabled and sit handsomely on my office wall behind glass. In my view, they are trophies and decorative items. I am not a firearm owner otherwise; I do not have a FOID card; and I have only fired a weapon once. Just no interest, but others have the right to own a firearm without their personal information broadcast in public. Look at the hue and cry over online security breaches: People were screaming over Internet hacks in which their personal information was exposed. Why should gun owners have their personal information revealed simply because they own a firearm?

I watched Sandy Hook unfold and was horrified. Alex Jones is a crank with zero credibility. As a comparison, MSNBC's hero, Rachel Maddow, an utter crackpot, habitually retails absurd Russia conspiracy theories on his evening show, and not a word is voiced as he brainwashes his audience with propaganda and outright lies about alleged collusion with Russia.

Before we go on, I want to remind you both you and I witnessed Watergate evolve. The Senate Committee on Watergate was established in February 1973. Scarcely four months into the probe, the panel had secured the cooperation of a White House aide and had obtained testimony from dozens leading even the brain dead to know Nixon was guilty.

We are closing in on one year, and Mueller (a good man caught up in a mess), has secured a handful of guilty pleas, all of which are entirely unconnected to the 2016 presidential election, but Maddow is out howling every night, vomiting up this nonsense on cable television. I don't own Jones, the Right has to contend with him, but Maddow is the Left's version of Jones. He just has a larger platform on MSNBC to hawk his fictions and apocalyptic visions.



Loesch enunciates reasoned arguments to preserve the right of gun owners.

On the contrary, the Left reflexively seizes on mass shootings and with an unholy glee is perfectly comfortable trotting out lawmakers with gruesome images of dead children to emotionally blackmail citizens to invite them to their anti-gun cause. Pretty sickening tactic, but when you have no argument and seek an end, its "anything goes" for the anti-gun crowd.



I disagree. The Left is singularly determined to repeal the Second Amendment. Period. While you can argue allowing the unrestricted sale of automatic weapons is a gateway to flame throwers or cannons, I can easily argue the slow infringement on legal gun ownership is a gateway to a full repeal of the Second Amendment. Despite this, I have never heard anyone say flame throwers, mortars or cannons should be part of the conversation. In contrast, I routinely hear the Left call for a repeal of legal gun ownership, and it's growing.

Billionaires like their toys...........and, for clarity, I did not vote for the blowhard New York real estate developer, but I would have never voted for the serial prevaricator from Park Ridge.



This on top of the other 22,000 gun-control laws?

This is an awfully vague demand. It would have to include very specific language, which I don't think many on your side of the political divide would be willing to add.



I heard the same argument in the 60s and crime has only increased.

Here is my offer to you: I pledge to you my support to repeal the Second Amendment for a period not exceeding three years beginning January 1, 2019. By the Left's rationale, gun crime will be virtually non-existent at midnight January 1, 2019.

If, by chance, there is a single death by a firearm over the three-year period, we revive the Second Amendment and repeal every gun-control law on the books at any level. Agreed? It seems to be a fair trial period.



I've had countless exchanges with you over the last 15 years. I've never been snide.


I'm not going to continue a debate on gun control, or perhaps anything else, in a message forum. My point is very simple: Are we better off as an American society if assault weapons flow freely, or if they are totally banned? Anyone who chooses the first option must accept that the blood of those kids in Florida is on their hands, as well. Assault weapons serve no legitimate purpose ... not for hunting, and not for protecting yourself, your love ones or your property.

No more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LakeCtyNewt
What is wrong with you? Why are you getting personal and coming down on me? All I am doing is disagreeing with you and providing facts. You are pushing your political and personal agenda.

As for my quote...the first time I heard it said that way was from Howie Long. He was a grown man at the time and so was I.

Why all the anger directed at me?

Why would I care what Howie Long said about anything? If he jumped off the Empire State Building, would you follow him?[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. All I did was repeat what he said. The last time I heard someone ask me "if so and so jumped off a bridge would you?" was from my Grandfather. He would be 123 years old this October. How old are you?
 
I'm not going to continue a debate on gun control, or perhaps anything else, in a message forum. My point is very simple: Are we better off as an American society if assault weapons flow freely, or if they are totally banned? Anyone who chooses the first option must accept that the blood of those kids in Florida is on their hands, as well. Assault weapons serve no legitimate purpose ... not for hunting, and not for protecting yourself, your love ones or your property.

No more.
Probably the smartest thing you can do is walk away from this thread. I congratulate you. He is making far better points, based on facts, than you are. I'd walk away too if I was you. All you are doing is making an emotional argument based on pie-in-the sky theory. That gets us nowhere. To say "well, if they didn't have the gun" is silly. That is about as unrealistic as it gets. To intimate people who support the 2nd amendment have blood on their hands is not only ignorant but irresponsible.

If I were to say to you all Muslims are terrorists you would say I shouldn't judge all Muslims based on what a few do and you would be correct. But that is exactly what you are doing when you lump everyone into this and say law abiding citizens have blood on their hands. I would expect more sense from you.

I have defined what an assault weapon is to you. Obviously you don't understand what it is or choose to be obstinate. You and I both have opinions here and we won't agree or change each other's mind. That's fine. This is only your opinion and nothing else. But you and I don't have the right to tell other people what they need or how they should think about things.
 
The only people who should have guns are those that ignore 39 domestic calls and two direct reports of school-violence threats. Anyone who thinks otherwise has blood on his hands.
 
Why would I care what Howie Long said about anything? If he jumped off the Empire State Building, would you follow him?
You're missing the point. All I did was repeat what he said. The last time I heard someone ask me "if so and so jumped off a bridge would you?" was from my Grandfather. He would be 123 years old this October. How old are you?[/QUOTE]


Your grandfather was fifty when I was born.
 
Did any of you guys look at the tackle bar? What are your thoughts? I think it would be good for little kids but not Junior high or older.
 
Again, the old trick where a gun whacko equates an everyday item with a mass murder weapon (for you information - a gun that fires large amounts of bullets quickly). Trucks are for transportation -- hammers for construction. Guns for killing. Yes, you can use all sorts of things to kill, but not many can kill large amounts of people quickly. Try attacking a crowd with a hammer or knife. You won't get too far. Try a drive-by killing with a hammer. You'd probably fall out of the car. In your case, it might be worth it.

So I'm gun wacko now? And since I disagree with you its "worth it" if I fall out of a car. I think your true colors are showing.
 
So I'm gun wacko now? And since I disagree with you its "worth it" if I fall out of a car. I think your true colors are showing.
Airplanes killed a whole bunch of people in New York on 09/11/2001. So did the Oklahoma City bombing. We need to outlaw planes and fertilizer.
 
You guys fall for every misleading NRA bit of nonsense they can deliver.

Guns only have one purpose -- unlike planes, fertilizer, etc., etc.

And please, quit being so tiresome.
 
You guys fall for every misleading NRA bit of nonsense they can deliver.

Guns only have one purpose -- unlike planes, fertilizer, etc., etc.

And please, quit being so tiresome.
Untrue my misinformed friend. Guns are used for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. I know quite a few guys who hunt coyote with an AR. However, I realize I'm wasting my time trying to educate you. You don't want to understand, so I'm out. Take care.
 
Untrue my misinformed friend. Guns are used for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. I know quite a few guys who hunt coyote with an AR. However, I realize I'm wasting my time trying to educate you. You don't want to understand, so I'm out. Take care.

The key word in your statement is "target shooting." I am not for taking away anyone's ownership rights provided they are of sound mind to own and carry a firearm. The NRA doesn't even want that. What is wrong with having mandatory background checks - on line, gun shows, etc., for someone to own a gun.

If a person has shown traits and background that he is an ISIS sympathizer, right now there is no road block to prevent this person from owning a firearm.

If a person has a history of mental illness or a criminal background, there is no road block to prevent that.

SO again, its not about the weapon to me. It should be about a process by where law abiding gun owners can own their guns legally. Its keeping guns out of the hands of people who aren't interested in using it for sport - unless that sport is killing kids.

I support the constitution, I support the right to bare arms - even though I am not a gun owner. What I will never support is not a proper vetting process.

I have two teenage kids. They should never be in fear of attending school. That should be motivation enough.
 
The key word in your statement is "target shooting." I am not for taking away anyone's ownership rights provided they are of sound mind to own and carry a firearm. The NRA doesn't even want that. What is wrong with having mandatory background checks - on line, gun shows, etc., for someone to own a gun.

If a person has shown traits and background that he is an ISIS sympathizer, right now there is no road block to prevent this person from owning a firearm.

If a person has a history of mental illness or a criminal background, there is no road block to prevent that.

SO again, its not about the weapon to me. It should be about a process by where law abiding gun owners can own their guns legally. Its keeping guns out of the hands of people who aren't interested in using it for sport - unless that sport is killing kids.

I support the constitution, I support the right to bare arms - even though I am not a gun owner. What I will never support is not a proper vetting process.

I have two teenage kids. They should never be in fear of attending school. That should be motivation enough.
I couldn't agree more--but we have mandatory background checks now. Yes, even at gun shows! The only time a gun purchase does not require a background check is a sale between two UNLICENSED people. If I sell a gun to a friend for instance. Every gun sold by a licensed person has a mandatory background check, period. Online--same thing, if you buy from a dealer he has to perform a background check. On a side note the Florida shooter PASSED a background check. Maybe we should look at enforcing the laws and rules before we pass new ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K. and mmca
I couldn't agree more--but we have mandatory background checks now. Yes, even at gun shows! The only time a gun purchase does not require a background check is a sale between two UNLICENSED people. If I sell a gun to a friend for instance. Every gun sold by a licensed person has a mandatory background check, period. Online--same thing, if you buy from a dealer he has to perform a background check. On a side note the Florida shooter PASSED a background check. Maybe we should look at enforcing the laws and rules before we pass new ones.
You are correct and most people don't know this because the media refuses to tell them. They would like to bash the NRA instead. It's easier. I said before, none of these school shooters are NRA members.

Unless negative information about a person is entered into the database for background information, no one knows it. People may suspect it and even warn others, like the people of Florida did. But, the info on the shooter wasn't there for the gun dealership to decline the sale. They aren't at fault, although the media would like you to think so.

To me, it isn't the guns. It's behavior and lack of morals in people that has caused this problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K. and mmca
14decoys, LTHSALUM:

I am not aware of either of your leisure reading habits, but if you found the article in City Journal informative, I would recommend you maintain a connection to this periodical. Its published by the Manhattan Institute and tends to be conservative, but is by far one of the most informative digests in print.

I stumbled onto it in the mid-90s, shortly after its inauguration and discovered one writer, Heather MacDonald, who clarifies critical subjects in a unique way, unlike a majority of writers with whom I am familiar.

A brilliant public intellectual, she has stripped away myths surrounding campus rape, crime, racial profiling, gun ownership, and welfare, laying bare raw truth for over three decades. In 2015, she penned an editorial published in the WSJ which furnished to the public the expression The Ferguson Effect, an explanation for police refusal to perform the functions of their job.

Last year, she was targeted by a bunch of snowflakes at Claremont McKenna College. Nearly assaulted by the bunch of misguided Left-wing agitators, she defied the coddled bunch and was able to complete her presentation with armed guards at her side.

Read her..........often.
 
I keep repeating myself over and over to the same group of gun-nuts. As i said on March 9th: . My point is very simple: Are we better off as an American society if assault weapons flow freely, or if they are totally banned? Anyone who chooses the first option must accept that the blood of those kids in Florida is on their hands, as well. Assault weapons serve no legitimate purpose ... not for hunting, and not for protecting yourself, your love ones or your property.

I did find it sadly amusing that one of you actually defended assault/ murder weapons through its use in "hunting" coyotes. While I have no fondness for coyotes, I don't believe that what he's doing is "hunting." Rather, it's "slaughtering." Very cowardly, but it's better than slaughtering school children..
 
Here is another. This shooting was entirely avoidable. Thats a fact
I keep repeating myself over and over to the same group of gun-nuts. As i said on March 9th: . My point is very simple: Are we better off as an American society if assault weapons flow freely, or if they are totally banned? Anyone who chooses the first option must accept that the blood of those kids in Florida is on their hands, as well. Assault weapons serve no legitimate purpose ... not for hunting, and not for protecting yourself, your love ones or your property.

I did find it sadly amusing that one of you actually defended assault/ murder weapons through its use in "hunting" coyotes. While I have no fondness for coyotes, I don't believe that what he's doing is "hunting." Rather, it's "slaughtering." Very cowardly, but it's better than slaughtering school children..
You truly are an idiot arent you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmca
Guys this is a football board, leave political views on certain topics to another message board. My post was to bring to light how certain politicans want to ban a sport till a certain age. This is a sport which I am very passionate about and I assume all you are as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voodoo Tatum 21
Yes it was -- if he had never had an opportunity to acquire that weapon.
Just today there was a school shooting in Maryland. Two people were injured by the shooter. Take a wild guess as to how this attempt was ended. Yes, an on premises armed school resource officer ended the conflict by shooting the offender.

The shooter later died. I wonder how many more people would have been shot if that officer wasn't there or decided not to confront the shooter. Hmmmm. No doubt lives were saved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.
Florida kid beat another kid to death with a baseball bat yesterday ... any ideas how to prevent that?

crusader:

Yes. Introduce legislation banning the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of all baseball bats, wood or any alloy, and prohibit the human activity of baseball.

I would also like to advance a motion calling for the establishment of a national committee co-chaired by former Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to study violence in baseball and both identify and indemnify all victimized individuals and classes.

Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmca and Gene K.
crusader:

Yes. Introduce legislation banning the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of all baseball bats, wood or any alloy, and prohibit the human activity of baseball.

I would also like to advance a motion calling for the establishment of a national committee co-chaired by former Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to study violence in baseball and both identify and indemnify all victimized individuals and classes.

Problem solved.
Soon, we will only be left with yellow, hollow plastic bats and kids will be suspended from school for playing Wiffleball even after school hours.
 
crusader:

Yes. Introduce legislation banning the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of all baseball bats, wood or any alloy, and prohibit the human activity of baseball.

I would also like to advance a motion calling for the establishment of a national committee co-chaired by former Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to study violence in baseball and both identify and indemnify all victimized individuals and classes.

Problem solved.

MW - it's sad that you would make this your argument in favor of allowing the streets to be flooded with assault weapons. It's one of several fallacies the NRA puts forward to win over light-weights like LTHS, the decoy guy and now, sadly, crusader. I've met you and spoke with you in person. I know you're too intelligent to believe this nonsense.

Answer me one question, please.

If there is no credible effort to rid America of guns for hunting and protecting one's home, family or person, why in the world would you support private sale and possession of assault weapons? And please, please don't say that this would be the first step towards total confiscation. That's just more NRA nonsense. Thank you.
 
MW - it's sad that you would make this your argument in favor of allowing the streets to be flooded with assault weapons. It's one of several fallacies the NRA puts forward to win over light-weights like LTHS, the decoy guy and now, sadly, crusader. I've met you and spoke with you in person. I know you're too intelligent to believe this nonsense.

MC:

I was engaging in a bit of sarcasm ahead of what I expect will be silence over a murder committed with a baseball bat, unlike unrestrained outrage in the wake of a murder committed with a firearm. I think you know me better.

Answer me one question, please.

If there is no credible effort to rid America of guns for hunting and protecting one's home, family or person, why in the world would you support private sale and possession of assault weapons? And please, please don't say that this would be the first step towards total confiscation. That's just more NRA nonsense. Thank you.

I am not so sure there isn't a campaign to rid all guns. I admitted in a previous post I am, technically, a gun owner by virtue of the fact I have several non-functioning firearms, all of which are mounted on a wall and behind glass. I legally purchased a FN FAL, supposedly used by Argentinian forces in the 1982 Falklands War, a Lee–Enfield .303, and a StG 44. I consider the StG my "bionic man" weapon because it is more replacement parts than original, but it is nonetheless a treasure of mine.

I do support the legal private sale and possession of firearms (assault weapons), consider it a legitimate business, and am opposed to the illegal sale of firearms, assault or otherwise.

Your contention I favor the illegal sale of a firearm presupposes every purchase of an assault weapon is illegal and occurs for the sole purpose of committing a crime. This is simply not true.

With over 22,000 gun control laws on the book on every level of government, why does the Left refuse to admit it is singularly determined to eliminate legal gun ownership? 22,000? It certainly appears to me as if this is a concerted effort to target guns altogether.

If the Left could craft a law which prevented the use of a firearm to commit a crime or take a life without infringing on the rights of legal gun owners, it would have my undivided support.

My point here is simple: Criminals do not obey criminal or civil law.

I've witnessed over 22,000 laws written into law since the mid-60s. I'm still waiting for one to work.

Please do not respond with a counterargument current gun laws are weak. If they are weak, why do they remain on the books?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmca and LTHSALUM76
I think in the wake of the bombings in Austin we should make a new law and make bombs illegal. Also, I think we should make it illegal to kill someone. If we make those laws I'm sure everyone will follow them! Maybe a sign outside schools that read "no killing allowed". Yep, new laws would work!!
 
MW - it's sad that you would make this your argument in favor of allowing the streets to be flooded with assault weapons. It's one of several fallacies the NRA puts forward to win over light-weights like LTHS, the decoy guy and now, sadly, crusader. I've met you and spoke with you in person. I know you're too intelligent to believe this nonsense.

Answer me one question, please.

If there is no credible effort to rid America of guns for hunting and protecting one's home, family or person, why in the world would you support private sale and possession of assault weapons? And please, please don't say that this would be the first step towards total confiscation. That's just more NRA nonsense. Thank you.
Why do you continue to say insulting things about me? I haven't insulted you in my arguments. It's disrespectful and does nothing to advance your argument. This is exactly what the problem is in this country. People can't have a simple debate based on facts before someone starts to insult the other. It's usually the guy who is losing the debate too. You can do better than this.
 
Perhaps, but it is almost impossible that he would have killed 17 people before being stopped.
There is absolutely no way you can know this. Who was going to stop him? No one in the school had a gun. The police outside refused to come inside and engage the shooter. Tell me who was going to stop him and how. Then I will listen to you. But, again, you are making an argument based on emotion.

You have no facts and haven't presented any here that can't be debated or debunked. You continue to bring up the NRA which is a true sign of an emotional argument. NO shooter in the schools is or was an NRA member. Why can't you understand that?

Also, I have to remind you for the third time. The deadliest school shooting occurred at Virginia Tech in which 33 people were killed. Hand guns were used in that assault, not long guns.

Roughly 400 people are killed in the USA by long guns each year while over 60,000 die each year from opioids. Now, you tell me which problem is worse. Yes 400 is too many but why aren't you on a crusade to to end opioid abuse like you are anti-gun?

And by the way...you are awfully silent about the shooting in Maryland yesterday. Is it perhaps because it was stopped by someone with a gun before more damage could be done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmca
Guys this is a football board, leave political views on certain topics to another message board. My post was to bring to light how certain politicans want to ban a sport till a certain age. This is a sport which I am very passionate about and I assume all you are as well.
Go back and see who brought guns into this thread. Also, I said in my March 2nd post that I was hoping people wouldn't bring politics into the argument. Obviously it happened anyway.

This is the problem with the gun debate in this country. It has become political.
 
MC:

I was engaging in a bit of sarcasm ahead of what I expect will be silence over a murder committed with a baseball bat, unlike unrestrained outrage in the wake of a murder committed with a firearm. I think you know me better.



I am not so sure there isn't a campaign to rid all guns. I admitted in a previous post I am, technically, a gun owner by virtue of the fact I have several non-functioning firearms, all of which are mounted on a wall and behind glass. I legally purchased a FN FAL, supposedly used by Argentinian forces in the 1982 Falklands War, a Lee–Enfield .303, and a StG 44. I consider the StG my "bionic man" weapon because it is more replacement parts than original, but it is nonetheless a treasure of mine.

I do support the legal private sale and possession of firearms (assault weapons), consider it a legitimate business, and am opposed to the illegal sale of firearms, assault or otherwise.

Your contention I favor the illegal sale of a firearm presupposes every purchase of an assault weapon is illegal and occurs for the sole purpose of committing a crime. This is simply not true.

With over 22,000 gun control laws on the book on every level of government, why does the Left refuse to admit it is singularly determined to eliminate legal gun ownership? 22,000? It certainly appears to me as if this is a concerted effort to target guns altogether.

If the Left could craft a law which prevented the use of a firearm to commit a crime or take a life without infringing on the rights of legal gun owners, it would have my undivided support.

My point here is simple: Criminals do not obey criminal or civil law.

I've witnessed over 22,000 laws written into law since the mid-60s. I'm still waiting for one to work.

Please do not respond with a counterargument current gun laws are weak. If they are weak, why do they remain on the books?

I can understand your sarcasm, but those other guys believe you at face value.

It is impossible to outlaw the possession of all guns. You'd have to amend the constitution and that wouldn't happen in this case. Never. Just because some lefty (and I love lefties) proposes something, that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

I know that criminals don't obey gun laws. However, manufacturers and retailers would. I realize that a law outlawing assault weapons would take at least two decades to be effective -- but we'd no longer be facing the bulk of the problem in 2038 when most of you will still be around (if you haven't been shot by some good guy with a gun, that is.)

The majority of those 22,000 laws (and I question that number) are irrelevant, redundant or purposely weak. This is another NRA red herring that doesn't hold water.

There is no legitimate use for an assault weapon that outweighs the now-proven safety concerns of the public. None. Not target shooting, not coyote slaughtering, nada.
 
[.

This is the problem with the gun debate in this country. It has become political.[/QUOTE]

No, it's become medical!
 
And by the way...you are awfully silent about the shooting in Maryland yesterday. Is it perhaps because it was stopped by someone with a gun before more damage could be done?[/QUOTE]

So what??? Wasn't he some sort of guard or police officer? Not some armed nut.
 
I can understand your sarcasm, but those other guys believe you at face value.

It is impossible to outlaw the possession of all guns. You'd have to amend the constitution and that wouldn't happen in this case. Never. Just because some lefty (and I love lefties) proposes something, that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

I know that criminals don't obey gun laws. However, manufacturers and retailers would. I realize that a law outlawing assault weapons would take at least two decades to be effective -- but we'd no longer be facing the bulk of the problem in 2038 when most of you will still be around (if you haven't been shot by some good guy with a gun, that is.)

The majority of those 22,000 laws (and I question that number) are irrelevant, redundant or purposely weak. This is another NRA red herring that doesn't hold water.

There is no legitimate use for an assault weapon that outweighs the now-proven safety concerns of the public. None. Not target shooting, not coyote slaughtering, nada.
Just a couple questions for you MC--do you even know what an AR15 is? You call it an "assault weapon" which is a term invented by the left...there is no such thing. You assume that it is used to "slaughter coyotes" but are completely oblivious to the fact that there are many much higher powered rifles that are used by hunters. What is it about an AR15 that makes it different as far as "slaughtering coyotes" goes? Is it more scary looking? Educate yourself before spouting off and proving that you are clueless.
 
Just a couple questions for you MC--do you even know what an AR15 is? You call it an "assault weapon" which is a term invented by the left...there is no such thing. You assume that it is used to "slaughter coyotes" but are completely oblivious to the fact that there are many much higher powered rifles that are used by hunters. What is it about an AR15 that makes it different as far as "slaughtering coyotes" goes? Is it more scary looking? Educate yourself before spouting off and proving that you are clueless.

You guys are all hung up on the nomenclature of guns. I don't care what it's called, but what it does! Why would I care? If it shoots buillets rapidly, you don't need it - period.
 
You guys are all hung up on the nomenclature of guns. I don't care what it's called, but what it does! Why would I care? If it shoots buillets rapidly, you don't need it - period.
Well there it is! You get to tell me what I can and can't own. Thats really what this is all about, and has been about from the beginning. Its about control. The fact is, many many other weapons could also do tremendous damage in a school setting. If we confiscated ALL AR15s someone would use an AK47. Confiscate those and they'll use a Ruger mini 30. Confiscate those and....you get the idea. We need to focus on WHY they are doing these shootings, not on WHAT they are doing them with. Take care, I'm out.
 
Well there it is! You get to tell me what I can and can't own. Thats really what this is all about, and has been about from the beginning. Its about control. The fact is, many many other weapons could also do tremendous damage in a school setting. If we confiscated ALL AR15s someone would use an AK47. Confiscate those and they'll use a Ruger mini 30. Confiscate those and....you get the idea. We need to focus on WHY they are doing these shootings, not on WHAT they are doing them with. Take care, I'm out.

Why cant we focus on both?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT