Executive order for Gun Control!!

[Natsuru]

Yes, poorfish, I remember your picture

1. Can you explain why that particular weapon is necessary for home defense?

2. Assuming you do not own that weapon, is home defense impossible?

3. Before the creation of that weapon, was home defense not possible?

Again, refutation is nice, but if you just want to quote things with no relevance to the issue, then go ahead

[n8ball2013]

Yes, poorfish, I remember your picture

1. Can you explain why that particular weapon is necessary for home defense?

Its not necessary. no weapon is necessary. after all you're supposed to call 911 to have the police save you right? The police who were already determined by the supreme court to have no duty to protect the citizens

2. Assuming you do not own that weapon, is home defense impossible?

anything is always possible

3. Before the creation of that weapon, was home defense not possible?

Well I'm not sure since it was created in the 60s.

Again, refutation is nice, but if you just want to quote things with no relevance to the issue, then go ahead

Ill be honest. You call yourself the voice of reason. I call it no one wants to hear you ramble. STay the hell out of any anti gun control threads and go start your own gun control advocacy thread. I promise we will leave all you like minded folks alone.

[Natsuru]

I'm not advocating gun control, I'm a proud gun owner

Analyzing one's own argument allows for strengthening it, and opposition from another usually helps

I'm sorry if my posting has "offended" you in some way, but the OP post didn't appear to specify a specific side on this topic

[MrSkippyJ]

Yes, poorfish, I remember your picture

1. Can you explain why that particular weapon is necessary for home defense?

2. Assuming you do not own that weapon, is home defense impossible?

3. Before the creation of that weapon, was home defense not possible?

Again, refutation is nice, but if you just want to quote things with no relevance to the issue, then go ahead

It isn't just home defense. Protecting ourselfs from a tyrannical governed is a constitutional right. I am not saying we have one, just saying it is a right. Can't do that with handguns and shotguns. Unfortunately we can't get assault rifles, so we use semiautomatic rifles instead. And yes, sometimes we dress them up to look very scary, that's the point

[Natsuru]

Yes, poorfish, I remember your picture

1. Can you explain why that particular weapon is necessary for home defense?

2. Assuming you do not own that weapon, is home defense impossible?

3. Before the creation of that weapon, was home defense not possible?

Again, refutation is nice, but if you just want to quote things with no relevance to the issue, then go ahead

It isn't just home defense. Protecting ourselfs from a tyrannical governed is a constitutional right. I am not saying we have one, just saying it is a right. Can't do that with handguns and shotguns. Unfortunately we can't get assault rifles, so we use semiautomatic rifles instead. And yes, sometimes we dress them up to look very scary, that's the point

I personally think that the attacks on the appearance of weapons is absolutely retarded

A modification to a weapon that does not affect the overall functionality shouldn't even be considered in this law

For example

They make a lot of big, bad looking "Assault weapons" chambered in .22lr, and these would be made illegal due to this ban

This, to me, is stupid

Cosmetics shouldn't effect anything

[LT.Smoke]

It's an assault weapon, deal with it

They also won't take any of my guns, for reasons I won't discuss

It IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON... Its a semi auto civilian rifle bro jesus

[LT.Smoke]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet) Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

^^That was taken straight from wikipedia... YOU tell me how many civilians you know running around with rifles like that??? I sure dont know of any that own select fire weapons or anything that fits the description of what is listed above

[Hotdog]

but the OP post didn't appear to specify a specific side on this topic

I am definitely pro Constitution and they should leave the 2nd amendment right alone completely. There should be no guns on any banned list.

No matter how many guns you ban if a guy wants to kill people he going to do it by any means necessary with what ever there is available.

[LT.Smoke]

but the OP post didn't appear to specify a specific side on this topic

I am definitely pro Constitution and they should leave the 2nd amendment right alone completely. There should be no guns on any banned list.

No matter how many guns you ban if a guy wants to kill people he going to do it by any means necessary with what ever there is available.

Yep because there again when have you known criminals to follow laws???

[lifted_silverado]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet) Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

^^That was taken straight from wikipedia... YOU tell me how many civilians you know running around with rifles like that??? I sure dont know of any that own select fire weapons or anything that fits the description of what is listed above

I 2nd this. Any gun is made for the same reason, to fire a round at a target aimed at. The only difference is how many rounds how quickly and easily. An ar is fed the same way as a glock, or shotgun these communist keep posting about and keep labeling the ar as an assault rifle.

I dont see how a foldable stock or a pistol grip changes this either. Thats like saying a brush guard on a truck is illegal because it would make it easier to kill someone you try to run over. Its all an excuse and scare tactic to get conservative, news watching, buy everything the government says people to sway in what the few people in power want them to believe. If the governament wanted to ban starbucks because they blamed murderous rage on caffeine addicted lunatics the other half would have a different outlook.

People will continue to kill people whether with guns or other means. 100s die every year from arson, knife wounds, bombings, strangulation, and the like. Blaming guns is the equivalence of blaming the pencil for a child failing a test. Its not the tool its the operator and mind behind it. If people no longer take responsibility for their actions, this is what we'll continue to see