Current Events > Why are people so against the ban on Assault Rifles?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean... you can hunt with your hunting rifles or shotguns... You can protect yourselves with pistols.

What logical purpose does ARs serve?
---

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?
---

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

Because thoughts and prayers should stop bullets.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

So are you just not going to answer the question about why they are needed or are we just going to do this dance all day?
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.

So you seriously don't see what's relevant about distinguishing between a fully automatic and semi automatic weapon? I mean the government did enough to ban them.

Fully auto guns are already illegal.
---

DepreceV2 posted...

You can protect yourselves with pistols.

A bad guy can massacre people with pistols. A good guy can protect himself with an AR-15. Come at me, bro.
---

Assault rifles are banned. If you want to ban ARs you might as well ban all guns. I dislike ignorant people

I mean, if you're trying to pass a law, it's probably a good fucking idea to have a clear definition
---

no one is banning shit lmao

its just more paperwork and making it harder for people to attain these weapons
---

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.

Look I'm the furthest thing from a gun nut but in this case it's kind of important.

That old-ass senator on the Town Hall last night kept trying to incite even more fear by trying to imply AK-47s were somehow as legal to buy as an AR-15 and that's a gross misrepresentation of the issue
---

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.

This is why it's so hard to have a conversation about guns. This is just flat out wrong. Production and sale of new assault rifles, ACTUAL assault rifles, that is select fire, fully automatic or burst fire rifles, was banned in 1986. You want to ban assault rifles, you're three decades late to the party. But you don't get to be blatantly WRONG about terminology and brush it off with "No, it's not important." Knowing what something is and how it functions is absolutely prerequisite to having a valid opinion on whether or not somebody else should have one.
---

dead kids are their fetish
everytime the news talks about another school shooting they get aroused
they just dont want anything that gets in the way of their porn
---

I love how the people who want to be super nuanced and particular about gun terminology are often the same people who say things like "If it has a heart beat it's a human being!" and "All taxation is theft!"
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.

So you seriously don't see what's relevant about distinguishing between a fully automatic and semi automatic weapon? I mean the government did enough to ban them.

You completely dismissed his question when you knew exactly what he meant. Like I said, it's pathetic.
---

Imagine knowing nothing about a topic you make.
---

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Look I'm the furthest thing from a gun nut but in this case it's kind of important.

That old-ass senator on the Town Hall last night kept trying to incite even more fear by trying to imply AK-47s were somehow as legal to buy as an AR-15 and that's a gross misrepresentation of the issue

Provided they're both semi auto only models, they're both plane Jane, title 1 firearms that are available in every state. No difference in legality.
---

yusiko posted...

dead kids are their fetish
everytime the news talks about another school shooting they get aroused
they just dont want anything that gets in the way of their porn

You're a real piece of work.

r4X0r posted...

DezDroppedFreak posted...

Look I'm the furthest thing from a gun nut but in this case it's kind of important.

That old-ass senator on the Town Hall last night kept trying to incite even more fear by trying to imply AK-47s were somehow as legal to buy as an AR-15 and that's a gross misrepresentation of the issue

Provided they're both semi auto only models, they're both plane Jane, title 1 firearms that are available in every state. No difference in legality.

You know about as well as I do what he was trying to imply, hell probably even more so
---

Anteaterking posted...

I love how the people who want to be super nuanced and particular about gun terminology are often the same people who say things like "If it has a heart beat it's a human being!" and "All taxation is theft!"

LOL at thinking the difference between semi-auto and full auto is "super nuanced."
---

Wouldn't matter to me either way.

The rifle I want is banned or at the least restricted anyway.
---

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?
---

Again, they just want a blanket ban on weapons. Once they get the AR they will go after similar rifles like the Mini14, then they will go after handguns like mine that have 18 round capacity.

You aren't fooling us.

Pepys Monster posted...

LOL at thinking the difference between semi-auto and full auto is "super nuanced."

I'm talking about the attitude of "You said the wrong word and so the conversation ends here".
---

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

How ignorant are you? You think that was the intention of the weapon?

Good God the people on CE

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

He modified his AR-15s with bumpfire stocks. Do you not understand that weapons can be modified?
---

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

Bump stocks are a legal workaround modification that came along quicker than the law could keep up with.

Pepys Monster posted...

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

He modified his AR-15s with bumpfire stocks. Do you not understand that weapons can be modified?

And it was completely legal. Do you even understand what he's asking?
---

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

If you make it out of wood it fires just like an AR. It's mostly cosmetic.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Assault rifles are banned. Try being informed before having opinions.

Oh excuse me. I though semi-automatic Rifles that are magazine feed count as Assault Rifles. Let's change that. What not ban AR type of Rifles? Or are you going to correct me again and ignore the real question I was asking?

It's kind of important to distinguish between an extremely function-altering feature, yes. It's not semantics, it completely changes the discussion.

No it's not important. There is no contemporary ban on assault rifles. You know exactly he's referring to the assault weapon ban. Gun nuts just feel to be asshats whenever someone incorrectly uses assault rifle or clip. It's pathetic. I bet you guys feel so smart correcting people too.

So you seriously don't see what's relevant about distinguishing between a fully automatic and semi automatic weapon? I mean the government did enough to ban them.

So you are going to keep doing this dance. Understood.

GregShmedley posted...

Because it is a pointless, bandaid fix to a bigger issue.

Not only are handguns used more in both homicides and mass shootings, they result in identical death counts in mass shootings with the exception of Orlando and Vegas.

It's not pointless. It may not be the big fix needed but it will help without question. The attitude of "it isn't attacking the main issue so it is pointless" stance is stupid.

Also on your second point. Maybe we should limit pistol magazine sizes too. Or is that too much of a sacrifice to protect yourself?
---

How often are bump stocks used for criminal activity?
---

GregShmedley posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

LOL at thinking the difference between semi-auto and full auto is "super nuanced."

I'm talking about the attitude of "You said the wrong word and so the conversation ends here".

Would you have a debate or discussion with someone on abortion rights if they didn't know anything about it? How about any right in general where the person wanting to impede on it didn't know a damn thing?

That doesn't really stop most conservatives from spewing shit about abortion
---

ToonLinkWithGun posted...

Again, they just want a blanket ban on weapons. Once they get the AR they will go after similar rifles like the Mini14, then they will go after handguns like mine that have 18 round capacity.

You aren't fooling us.

This times a thousand. And this is coming from someone who doesn't own any guns, nor has any desire to do so in the future.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Bump stocks are a legal workaround modification that came along quicker than the law could keep up with.

That's absolutely not the case. Bump stocks were brought to the ATF on two occasions during the Bush administration and the ATF said "LOL no that's not legal, get this out of here." Under the Obama administration, they suddenly changed the definition of a trigger pull from two motions to one, thus legalizing bump stocks and binary triggers. Thus blurring the line between semi and full autos, and go figure, the first time one was used in a massacre, the left makes a push to ban semi autos going "Machine guns! Rapid fire! Hundreds of rounds per minute!"
---

Pepys Monster posted...

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

He modified his AR-15s with bumpfire stocks. Do you not understand that weapons can be modified?

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

Bump stocks are a legal workaround modification that came along quicker than the law could keep up with.

And?

Weapon manufacturers who designed this shit didn't know that a simple modification meant the gun could spray out bullets?
---

GregShmedley posted...

Would you have a debate or discussion with someone on abortion rights if they didn't know anything about it? How about any right in general where the person wanting to impede on it didn't know a damn thing?

That's literally every abortion discussion.
---

GregShmedley posted...

DepreceV2 posted...

It's not pointless. It may not Nebraska the big fix needed but it will help without question. The attitude of "it isn't attacking the main issue so it is pointless" stance is stupid.

Also on your second point. Maybe we should limit pistol magazine sizes too. Or is that too much of a sacrifice to protect yourself

No, it really wouldn't help. At all. Handguns are used more than rifles and their use would only increase.

No, magazine limits have nothing to do with it as proven in the Virginia Tech shooting.

But judging by your response, it doesn't appear you want to have an actual discussion and would rather be a passive aggressive smart ass.

How would reducing the size of pistol magazines have no impact on mass shootings?
---

DepreceV2 posted...

So you are going to keep doing this dance. Understood.

You're the one who's being stubborn here.

Darmik posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

He modified his AR-15s with bumpfire stocks. Do you not understand that weapons can be modified?

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

Bump stocks are a legal workaround modification that came along quicker than the law could keep up with.

And?

Weapon manufacturers who designed this shit didn't know that a simple modification meant the gun could spray out bullets?

It can spray out bullets WITHOUT that modification, just not very accurately.
---

r4X0r posted...

It can spray out bullets WITHOUT that modification, just not very accurately.

Which then goes back to;
Darmik posted...

It still blows my mind that the weapons used in the Vegas shooting were all legal. Wtf? Why were these guns ever made for the public in the first place? Who were the clowns who decided that creating guns that can massacre a crowd of people in seconds was a good idea to sell to the public?

---

We get it, you liberals simultaneously don't understand, and hate guns.
---

Because there's tens of millions of other people who own them that DIDN'T shoot up a concert, so obviously the problem is the psychopath who shot up the concert, not the tens of millions of semi auto rifles that weren't used to shoot up a concert.

When there's a stabbing, we blame the stabber. When there's a rape, we blame the rapist. When there's a bombing, we blame the bomber. When there's a shooting.... "WE HAVE TO BAN GUNS!"
---