Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3002844
Sniff! Sniff! whats that smell?Oh its another one of your OPINIONS.

Fact Vs Opinion....You lose
What part isn't fact? IT'S A SUPREME COURT RULING ON GUN BANS, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CHANGE. Supreme Court decisions are overturned all the time. Is that fact or opinion?
How many times you gonna post the same useless NRA mantra? Is that all you have? It's pointless and useless information. Where did they get their numbers? From the same 1,783 people who opposed modifying the 2nd Amendment?
I've already told you, there are no accurate numbers to validate how many deaths by a firearm were done with an assault weapon. How many assaults and deaths are unsolved on a weekly basis in this country when it involves a firearm? Look at the number of drive-by shootings that happen weekly where a house has 8 or 10 bullets shot into it. Done by a couple of handguns, or maybe an Uzi? More homicides could occur everyday from these types of assaults. Most people just get lucky and aren't in the area where the bullets are flying. THAT'S FACT, NOT AN OPINION. So quit bending over and smelling between your legs and come up with viable numbers. SHOW ME FACTS, NOT OPINIONS.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002857
Are you saying anyone who gets in a car drunk will use to the car to kill someone?
No but how many people die each year at the hands of drunk drivers as opposed to ALL guns? If you think banning assault weapons because the POTENTIAL for loss of life makes it an acceptable sacrifice are you also going to ban cars? Many more people die because of misuse of automobiles than guns.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3002864
What part isn't fact? IT'S A SUPREME COURT RULING ON GUN BANS, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CHANGE. Supreme Court decisions are overturned all the time. Is that fact or opinion?
How many times you gonna post the same useless NRA mantra? Is that all you have? It's pointless and useless information. Where did they get their numbers? From the same 1,783 people who opposed modifying the 2nd Amendment?
I've already told you, there are no accurate numbers to validate how many deaths by a firearm were done with an assault weapon. How many assaults and deaths are unsolved on a weekly basis in this country when it involves a firearm? Look at the number of drive-by shootings that happen weekly where a house has 8 or 10 bullets shot into it. Done by a couple of handguns, or maybe an Uzi? More homicides could occur everyday from these types of assaults. Most people just get lucky and aren't in the area where the bullets are flying. THAT'S FACT, NOT AN OPINION. So quit bending over and smelling between your legs and come up with viable numbers. SHOW ME FACTS, NOT OPINIONS.
Ill keep posting it until it sinks into your thick skull that it is the law of the land.From the Fore Fathers interpreted by the Supreme Court to be exactly what it is.The Right of The People to arm them self with weapons to protect The People from Tyranny from foreign or domestic government.
None of the info I have posted came from the NRA, it has come from a government web sites and US Constitutional History sites and literature.ALL FACTS
Again your little tirade about multiple bullet holes in buildings is crap,show proof.Its not hard to figure out the difference between a rifle round ,shot gun round and a handgun round. In addition its not relevant,what is relevant is the fact that current laws involving felons obtaining weapons is not being enforced or followed.
You have yet to provide anything but your own personal opinion that dosent fall in line with the 2nd Amendment .I guess you and the rest of the Constitution haters will just have to suck it up, maybe try working on the 1st amendment then you can quiet the masses and make it easier to kill the Constitution completely.
Educate yourself man! No need to live in ignorance forever.Sheesh!
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3002903
Ill keep posting it until it sinks into your thick skull that it is the law of the land.From the Fore Fathers interpreted by the Supreme Court to be exactly what it is.The Right of The People to arm them self with weapons to protect The People from Tyranny from foreign or domestic government.
None of the info I have posted came from the NRA, it has come from a government web sites and US Constitutional History sites and literature.ALL FACTS
Again your little tirade about multiple bullet holes in buildings is crap,show proof.Its not hard to figure out the difference between a rifle round ,shot gun round and a handgun round. In addition its not relevant,what is relevant is the fact that current laws involving felons obtaining weapons is not being enforced or followed.
You have yet to provide anything but your own personal opinion that dosent fall in line with the 2nd Amendment .I guess you and the rest of the Constitution haters will just have to suck it up, maybe try working on the 1st amendment then you can quiet the masses and make it easier to kill the Constitution completely.
Educate yourself man! No need to live in ignorance forever.Sheesh!
Look in the mirror. Ignorance is bliss. Why in the world makes you think I hate the Constitution? Just because I don't interpret it the same way you do? I keep tweaking you because you're stuck with this part of the 2nd Amendment where you think its sole purpose it to allow you storm the White House anytime you disagree with their policies. I guess if you still lived in the 1700's, that type of approach would be acceptable. But in this modern day and age, that would be considered borderline insane. I don't care if it's written in the Amendment or not. No sane person today would ever contemplate arming themselves against our government, no matter how extreme or 'left' (in your mind) they came across. The way you talk, apparently you would try.
Drive-by shootings are crap? Tell that to the families it's happened to. If a house is hit with a 9mm bullet or .223 round, how do you know whether it came friom a handgun or an Uzi, SKS, or AR-15? You now a ballistics expert? Why isn't it relevent? Why do you think DC implemented a gun ban in the first place? You think they just wanted to curb road rage shootings or armed robberies? Go ask DC residents for statistics about drive-bys and get back to me.
You're the one who needs education. Try to understand how difficult it would be to modify or change any of the original 10 Amendments. There's even protection factors in place that make it difficult, if not impossible to change them. You seemed to be getting worked up about something I doubt would ever happen in either of our lifetimes. So keep a tight grip on all those weapons you hold so dear. I don't think Obama's Weapon Patrol will be knocking on your door anytime soon.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3002865
No but how many people die each year at the hands of drunk drivers as opposed to ALL guns? If you think banning assault weapons because the POTENTIAL for loss of life makes it an acceptable sacrifice are you also going to ban cars? Many more people die because of misuse of automobiles than guns.
How can you compare the two? How many MILLIONS of cars are on the road daily, as opposed to the number of people who use guns for illiegal means? What's the ratio of people who own cars, and people who own guns? 1000:1, 10,000:1, 100,000:1? What's the ratio of the number of vehicles on the road, and the number of people who do drive drunk on a daily basis? Probably a heck of a lot more than the number of gun owners combined. Assault weapons have their place in this world. But I would say more people purchase them for illegal use as opposed to the gun enthusiast who enjoys collecting various types of weapons for occasional shooting. And no, I don't have any numbers or statistics to back that claim. That would almost be impossible to do, unless you start having people take polygraph tests before they by one and ask them what they intend to do with it.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003129
Look in the mirror. Ignorance is bliss. Why in the world makes you think I hate the Constitution? Just because I don't interpret it the same way you do? I keep tweaking you because you're stuck with this part of the 2nd Amendment where you think its sole purpose it to allow you storm the White House anytime you disagree with their policies. I guess if you still lived in the 1700's, that type of approach would be acceptable. But in this modern day and age, that would be considered borderline insane. I don't care if it's written in the Amendment or not. No sane person today would ever contemplate arming themselves against our government, no matter how extreme or 'left' (in your mind) they came across. The way you talk, apparently you would try.
Drive-by shootings are crap? Tell that to the families it's happened to. If a house is hit with a 9mm bullet or .223 round, how do you know whether it came friom a handgun or an Uzi, SKS, or AR-15? You now a ballistics expert? Why isn't it relevent? Why do you think DC implemented a gun ban in the first place? You think they just wanted to curb road rage shootings or armed robberies? Go ask DC residents for statistics about drive-bys and get back to me.
You're the one who needs education. Try to understand how difficult it would be to modify or change any of the original 10 Amendments. There's even protection factors in place that make it difficult, if not impossible to change them. You seemed to be getting worked up about something I doubt would ever happen in either of our lifetimes. So keep a tight grip on all those weapons you hold so dear. I don't think Obama's Weapon Patrol will be knocking on your door anytime soon.

It seems to me your the only one thats getting riled up in all your ignorant blissfulness lol.Your of the belief that because the Constitution was written in the 1700's it out dated, and i believe it works just fine. The sooner we get back to living in accordance with it the better.After all it was working just fine until we let the bureaucracy grow and get out of hand.
As far as why do i think the DC gun ban was enacted?The same reason that the Chicago hand gun ban was.Bureaucrats thought it sounded like a good idea to curb violent crimes ,get politicians re-elected with promises of crime reduction.....
Chicago still has a hand gun ban, it also the murder capital of the united states.

Again for the those who cant comprehending English ill say it again so you might understand it with repetition.
More people are killed with knifes,blunt instruments,hands and feet than Assault Weapons in the United States of America.
Again
More people are killed with knifes,blunt instruments,hands and feet than Assault Weapons in the United States of America.
Get some facts boy, otherwise you are just giving YOUR opinion that isnt in line with the Constitution.
Again for those who are dense.
Show some facts not opinion......Otherwise you have no case.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003136
How can you compare the two? How many MILLIONS of cars are on the road daily, as opposed to the number of people who use guns for illiegal means? What's the ratio of people who own cars, and people who own guns? 1000:1, 10,000:1, 100,000:1? What's the ratio of the number of vehicles on the road, and the number of people who do drive drunk on a daily basis? Probably a heck of a lot more than the number of gun owners combined. Assault weapons have their place in this world. But I would say more people purchase them for illegal use as opposed to the gun enthusiast who enjoys collecting various types of weapons for occasional shooting. And no, I don't have any numbers or statistics to back that claim. That would almost be impossible to do, unless you start having people take polygraph tests before they by one and ask them what they intend to do with it.
What does the intent matter? Cars account for more deaths than guns period. People don't light up a cigarette intending to hurt themselves or others. You can't limit the improper use of cars to one class either. Drunks, habitual speeders, street racers, cell phone gabbers etc. all cause traffic deaths so that argument doesn't hold water anyway.
There are about 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US, Estimates range form 200 to 250 million for the number of guns. Cars cause many more deaths so if the key motive is to prevent death you should be advocating banning private use of cars.
I would have to say based on the statistics you haven't thought out your claim when you say people tend to by assault weapons to commit illegal acts. According to the propaganda anti-gun sites the high estimates for assault weapons only account for 10% of those used in criminal activities based on other numbers I have seen from credible sites quoting FBI and ATF statistics that number is at least twice the real rate (and those are not the "right wing gun nut sites that place the number between 1 and 2%). Even assuming the 10% was correct that means those who purchase assault weapons are far less likely (about 90%) to use their weapons for illegal purposes. It also fails the common sense test. You don't spend a lot of money (So-called assault weapons are expensive) on a gun you will likely have to ditch at some point. Most weapons used in crimes are inexpensive models.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3003168
It seems to me your the only one thats getting riled up in all your ignorant blissfulness lol.Your of the belief that because the Constitution was written in the 1700's it out dated, and i believe it works just fine. The sooner we get back to living in accordance with it the better.After all it was working just fine until we let the bureaucracy grow and get out of hand.
As far as why do i think the DC gun ban was enacted?The same reason that the Chicago hand gun ban was.Bureaucrats thought it sounded like a good idea to curb violent crimes ,get politicians re-elected with promises of crime reduction.....
Chicago still has a hand gun ban, it also the murder capital of the united states.

Again for the those who cant comprehending English ill say it again so you might understand it with repetition.
More people are killed with knifes,blunt instruments,hands and feet than Assault Weapons in the United States of America.
Again
More people are killed with knifes,blunt instruments,hands and feet than Assault Weapons in the United States of America.
Get some facts boy, otherwise you are just giving YOUR opinion that isnt in line with the Constitution.
Again for those who are dense.
Show some facts not opinion......Otherwise you have no case.

Boy? I've got short hairs in my pants older than you SON. Chicago the Gun Capital of the World? Got statistics to back up that OPINION? Got statistics to back up your OPINION that more people are killed by knives and blunt instruments than assault weapons? You make more wild claims on this topic than I do SON.
BTW, I don't think the Constitution is outdated. I'm stating that it is always up for review as things change in this country. Open your mind for a second and use your imagination. Think how this country would look today if we'd have never modified the Constitution and stayed with just the original 10 Amendments. Do I need to repeat that in English, or do you prefer another language BOY.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3003197
What does the intent matter? Cars account for more deaths than guns period. People don't light up a cigarette intending to hurt themselves or others. You can't limit the improper use of cars to one class either. Drunks, habitual speeders, street racers, cell phone gabbers etc. all cause traffic deaths so that argument doesn't hold water anyway.
There are about 250 million registered passenger vehicles in the US, Estimates range form 200 to 250 million for the number of guns. Cars cause many more deaths so if the key motive is to prevent death you should be advocating banning private use of cars.
I would have to say based on the statistics you haven't thought out your claim when you say people tend to by assault weapons to commit illegal acts. According to the propaganda anti-gun sites the high estimates for assault weapons only account for 10% of those used in criminal activities based on other numbers I have seen from credible sites quoting FBI and ATF statistics that number is at least twice the real rate (and those are not the "right wing gun nut sites that place the number between 1 and 2%). Even assuming the 10% was correct that means those who purchase assault weapons are far less likely (about 90%) to use their weapons for illegal purposes. It also fails the common sense test. You don't spend a lot of money (So-called assault weapons are expensive) on a gun you will likely have to ditch at some point. Most weapons used in crimes are inexpensive models.
You've shown some very valid statistics. However, tell me why any reasonable person should own an assault weapon. Don't use the argument that they have the right to own them based on the 2nd Amendment. We know that already. Don't use the argument that they like to collect them. AR-15's, SKS's, and Uzi's aren't rare weapons. You can go to virtually any gun shop and pick one up. Granted they have gone up in value over the years, but that's because gun dealers fed off the paranoia of the '94 weapons ban and used that to entice the gun fanatics to pay a higher price before 'they disappeared off the market'. They're fun to shoot? You bet they are. But isn't it just as fun to shoot a handgun, something you could actually use to protect yourself in a home invasion (and apparently in your case, your car)? Go WAY back to the top of this thread. Look where I showed exactly what guns would actually be banned if they reenacted the '94ruling. There's only 2 or 3 weapons that would be affected. That's what's so ridiculous about this argument in the first place. You and Vici boy think if they can restrict these guns, they'll restrict all guns. You know that would never happen. They tried it in DC, and look at how it turned out.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003129
Drive-by shootings are crap? Tell that to the families it's happened to.

It was prom night at the local school, and I had to tell the parents of a girl she would not be coming home from prom. She was killed by a drunk driver. Her date, paralysed. The drunk walked away from the wreck.
I hope none of you have to do that.
People who drive drunk or even lower than dirt.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003288
You've shown some very valid statistics. However, tell me why any reasonable person should own an assault weapon.
Show me a reasonable argument for owning a vehicle that can do a top speed of 180 mph and do 0-60 in 4 seconds.
Show me a valid reason for a family of four to own a home with 30 bedrooms in it.
Your basis is it is an excess. well so are these. Yet you have no problem with them.
As stated car related accidents (be the drunk driving or negligence) kill more people each year than any other item related death. Yet would you stand by if the government asked that all vehicles have a governor placed on them limiting their speed to 30 miles an hour in an effort to save lives. After all, we don't NEED to drive faster than that.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003288
There's only 2 or 3 weapons that would be affected. That's what's so ridiculous about this argument in the first place.

Actually, under the old ban there were some 20 models that were banned, not sure how you keep getting 2 or 3 models.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3003349
Show me a reasonable argument for owning a vehicle that can do a top speed of 180 mph and do 0-60 in 4 seconds.
Show me a valid reason for a family of four to own a home with 30 bedrooms in it.
Your basis is it is an excess. well so are these. Yet you have no problem with them.
As stated car related accidents (be the drunk driving or negligence) kill more people each year than any other item related death. Yet would you stand by if the government asked that all vehicles have a governor placed on them limiting their speed to 30 miles an hour in an effort to save lives. After all, we don't NEED to drive faster than that.

Of course there's more deaths by car accidents. People use cars every day. How often do you shoot your weapon? Once a month, three or four times a year? How many deaths occurred in The Old West, when anyone and everyone could carry a gun? How many people were killed on a daily basis based on the populations during that time?
Sorry, I don't consider owning an assault weapon an excess. People who buy these weapons for the mere purpose of collecting them are few and far between.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3003354
Actually, under the old ban there were some 20 models that were banned, not sure how you keep getting 2 or 3 models.
Look at the '94 ban. Go look at my previous post where I showed the rules of the ban. Based on those rules, certain 'models' of assault weapons that are listed can still be legally sold. For instance, if an AR-15 doesn't have the capability of mounting a grenade launcher, and doesn't have a collapsible stock, you can still buy it under thee '94 ban. Guns like the Uzi and the little short stock AW that look like pistols are pretty much banned. There's no criteria or exceptions that would keep those off the ban.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003287
Boy? I've got short hairs in my pants older than you SON. Chicago the Gun Capital of the World? Got statistics to back up that OPINION? Got statistics to back up your OPINION that more people are killed by knives and blunt instruments than assault weapons? You make more wild claims on this topic than I do SON.
BTW, I don't think the Constitution is outdated. I'm stating that it is always up for review as things change in this country. Open your mind for a second and use your imagination. Think how this country would look today if we'd have never modified the Constitution and stayed with just the original 10 Amendments. Do I need to repeat that in English, or do you prefer another language BOY.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_137804.html
Some new fact for you in addition to the factual information I have already provided. How many times must i show you proof until you open you eyes.
Maybe those short hairs in your pants are growing inward and having some sort of effect on your brain located in your rear end.
Imagine what we could do with the Constitution in tact , with smaller government and no progressive liberals?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003288
You've shown some very valid statistics. However, tell me why any reasonable person should own an assault weapon. Don't use the argument that they have the right to own them based on the 2nd Amendment. We know that already. Don't use the argument that they like to collect them. AR-15's, SKS's, and Uzi's aren't rare weapons. You can go to virtually any gun shop and pick one up. Granted they have gone up in value over the years, but that's because gun dealers fed off the paranoia of the '94 weapons ban and used that to entice the gun fanatics to pay a higher price before 'they disappeared off the market'. They're fun to shoot? You bet they are. But isn't it just as fun to shoot a handgun, something you could actually use to protect yourself in a home invasion (and apparently in your case, your car)? Go WAY back to the top of this thread. Look where I showed exactly what guns would actually be banned if they reenacted the '94ruling. There's only 2 or 3 weapons that would be affected. That's what's so ridiculous about this argument in the first place. You and Vici boy think if they can restrict these guns, they'll restrict all guns. You know that would never happen. They tried it in DC, and look at how it turned out.
*SIGH*

The "94 " ban IMO was unconstitutional based on the fact that the 2nd amendment was not amended or ratified by the states.
Dont Tread On Me
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3003453
*SIGH*

The "94 " ban IMO was unconstitutional based on the fact that the 2nd amendment was not amended or ratified by the states.
Dont Tread On Me

*SIGH*

Well if you'd own one of the weapons on the list during the ban, and got caught with it, you'd probably be sending these useless replies in your local prison jail cell. Unless of course some NRA-backed ambulance chaser could get you off by buying off a judge.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3003450
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_137804.html
Some new fact for you in addition to the factual information I have already provided. How many times must i show you proof until you open you eyes.
Maybe those short hairs in your pants are growing inward and having some sort of effect on your brain located in your rear end.
Imagine what we could do with the Constitution in tact , with smaller government and no progressive liberals?
Probably be overtaken and overthrown by a country with a large government and a majority of progressive liberals. Conservatives had their chance the last 8 years to make a change. Problem is, they messed it up more than they fixed it. But of course you don't claim Bush and his cronies as being loyal Conservatives any longer. Isn't it the right-wing way to stab their faithful in the back when they decide to not bow to your every whim?
You're not answering my question. What would this country look like today if we only lived by the first ten Amendments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top