Liberals-"Nobody's trying to take your guns!"

[Number_58]

Your diversion into semantics is lame. You know what the target of sane people is - assault weapons. The weapons being used for their intended purpose - slaughtering as many people as possible as quickly as possible. But why do you pretend to care about the distinctions? You oppose any bans of any guns now on the market, right?

How is it semantics when I tell you and link the wording of the Resident?

Biden's exact words...

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. Just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers,”

Where does he say "assault weapons" in that quote? Where did I use any type of semantics?

The left must be pissed that Biden tipped off the country to what their true end game is. They wanted to see how it goes over in Canada before they attempt to make the same move.

 

[God of War]

Joe Biden-"Hold my beer! Get rid of all semi-automatic guns!"

Critics erupt on Biden after ‘sick’ comment on semi-automatic gun purchases: 'Sheer ignorance'

Conservatives ripped into President Biden after he called semi-automatic gun purchases "sick" and reiterated his call to ban "assault weapons" in America.

www.foxnews.com

Joe Biden, to use his words, "has no social redeeming value." Between defunding the police. open borders, early release, no bail, and his sick ass government THAT WOULD HAVE FORCED EVERYONE TO GET A CLOT SHOT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEIR GUNS.... you're not getting them Joe. Never, ever again will you globalist-communist scum bags get that chance again.

 

[God of War]

The GOP “stinks on ice”? Such blistering criticism!

;-)

Well, Trump is the dregs and yet Biden, Kamala, Buttgig, and the rest of the Dem managerie was literally worse. And even then @RickWA didn't vote Trump (I believe). Nor did any of the other high standards conservatives around here. You know Trump was just the worst. ha ha

 

[Dawg]

ZOOM! Off he goes!

If you leftist gun grabbers want to take Guns start with the lil' teen minor gangbangers

Victim in fatal Atlanta shooting near shopping center was 12 years old, mayor says (msn.com)

Make parents take responsible again

 

[RickWA]

I see. You would prefer if other people responded to your weird posts. Only those who agree with what you say, right?

No, but you’re dumb as a stump…so I’ll just leave it to you to continue to emit your foul secretions all over this thread (just as you do every other). Bye.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

How is it semantics when I tell you and link the wording of the Resident?

Biden's exact words...

“The idea we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. Just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers,”

Where does he say "assault weapons" in that quote? Where did I use any type of semantics?

The left must be pissed that Biden tipped off the country to what their true end game is. They wanted to see how it goes over in Canada before they attempt to make the same move.

Smart people know Biden is talking about assault weapons. You’re flummoxed.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

No, but you’re dumb as a stump…so I’ll just leave it to you to continue to emit your foul secretions all over this thread (just as you do every other). Bye.

That was even lamer than your usual drivel.

 

[Number_58]

Smart people know Biden is talking about assault weapons. You’re flummoxed.

Not flummoxed...taking the man at his word.

That was his Freudian slip and he said what the left means.

 

[Dawg]

Smart people know Biden is talking about assault weapons. You’re flummoxed.

No citizens have assault weapons w/out federal permits
Appears you're more than flummoxed and ignorant of guns

Dems more concerned with getting out of DC for holidays than assault weapons

Senate Lacks Votes To Pass Assault Weapons Ban, Sen. Murphy Says—As Other Gun Bills Remain Stalled (msn.com)

They have their base fooled

 

[trapdoor]

Even without splitting hairs over the full-auto function that is the hallmark of a true assault weapon, I defy any of the people who would outlaw assault weapons to define "semiautomatic assault rifle" in a way that doesn't either outlaw a lot of other weapons, or that doesnt' descend into inanity.

This is because there is functionally no difference between a Remington 742, which is a semiautomatic "hunting" rifle, and an AR-15 which (they think) is identifiable assault rifle. The fact is both are gas-operated semiautomatic rifles, with the Remington being generally more powerful because it is offered in more powerful cartridges.

And then you descend into inanity. It didn't pass, it may not have even received a floor vote, but in the "assault" weapons ban proposed after the Newtown massacre, just to provide one example, the Ruger Mini-14 was not names as a weapon to be outlawed. The Ruger Mini-14 with a folding stock, however, was designated as on the banned list -- scheduled to be outlawed. There is literally no functional difference between the two, save that one has stock that folds up meaning it takes up less space when it is stored -- that's it. It doesn't make the gun more or less lethal, because a folding stock merely changes the appearance of the rifle, not its function. Banning either was inane, banning one rather than the other is just appearance-based stupidity.

And that's what we encounter with almost every attempt to limit these, mostly based on the attempt to "limit the size of the clip magazines" or some other misuse of firearms terms revealing an ignorance of firearms functions.

Even if gun owners were willing to compromise on this issue, how? All it takes is for someone to run amok with multiple revolvers, or with a Winchester lever action, and they become the next "bad " gun that needs to be banned. We're never offered "this much and no more," and if we were, the offer comes from people who, based on their own stated desires, can't be trusted on the subject.

I've personally become intransigent -- offered no line in the sand, I've drawn one of my own. No new restrictions. Each is just a stepping stone to the next.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Even without splitting hairs over the full-auto function that is the hallmark of a true assault weapon, I defy any of the people who would outlaw assault weapons to define "semiautomatic assault rifle" in a way that doesn't either outlaw a lot of other weapons, or that doesnt' descend into inanity.

This is because there is functionally no difference between a Remington 742, which is a semiautomatic "hunting" rifle, and an AR-15 which (they think) is identifiable assault rifle. The fact is both are gas-operated semiautomatic rifles, with the Remington being generally more powerful because it is offered in more powerful cartridges.

And then you descend into inanity. It didn't pass, it may not have even received a floor vote, but in the "assault" weapons ban proposed after the Newtown massacre, just to provide one example, the Ruger Mini-14 was not names as a weapon to be outlawed. The Ruger Mini-14 with a folding stock, however, was designated as on the banned list -- scheduled to be outlawed. There is literally no functional difference between the two, save that one has stock that folds up meaning it takes up less space when it is stored -- that's it. It doesn't make the gun more or less lethal, because a folding stock merely changes the appearance of the rifle, not its function. Banning either was inane, banning one rather than the other is just appearance-based stupidity.

And that's what we encounter with almost every attempt to limit these, mostly based on the attempt to "limit the size of the clip magazines" or some other misuse of firearms terms revealing an ignorance of firearms functions.

Even if gun owners were willing to compromise on this issue, how? All it takes is for someone to run amok with multiple revolvers, or with a Winchester lever action, and they become the next "bad " gun that needs to be banned. We're never offered "this much and no more," and if we were, the offer comes from people who, based on their own stated desires, can't be trusted on the subject.

I've personally become intransigent -- offered no line in the sand, I've drawn one of my own. No new restrictions. Each is just a stepping stone to the next.

No need to waste precious brain cells on this question - we already had an assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse, due to pressure by the gun lobby. That legislation outlined what was covered by the bill. We can use that definition. We can even tweak it if you like. But not in a way that exempts the people slaughtering devices gun nuts love so much. We would have a far better society without people slaughtering devices. There’s just no doubt about that.

This is not a definitional problem. This is a gun nut problem - a problem caused by people who value people slaughtering devices more than they value people.

 

[trapdoor]

No need to waste precious brain cells on this question - we already had an assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse, due to pressure by the gun lobby. That legislation outlined what was covered by the bill. We can use that definition. We can even tweak it if you like. But not in a way that exempts the people slaughtering devices gun nuts love so much. We would have a far better society without people slaughtering devices. There’s just no doubt about that.

This is not a definitional problem. This is a gun nut problem - a problem caused by people who value people slaughtering devices more than they value people.

No, it wasn't "allowed to lapse via the pressure of the gun lobby" it was not renewed because of a sunset clause written into the law when it was originally passed by Congress. There was no attempt to renew it once it reached its sunset -- and this had little or nothing to do with "the gun lobby" and a lot to do with the FBI saying it had no measurable impact on violent crime.

And yes, the "assault weapons" defined in that happily-defunct legislation were essentially a joke. Importers proved this by importing (or building in the U.S.) copies of the AK47 that complied fully with the law -- simply by joining the pistol grip to the stock to create a thumbhole stock, and by removing the bayonet lug. It was still the same rifle capable of shooting the same number of times with the same ammo. The language of the law was fundamentally a joke, and any attempt to repeat is is in fact a definition problem. Why is my AR15 a "people slaughtering device" but the Remington I mentioned (which does the same thign but which was never called an assault rifle), not one?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

No, it wasn't "allowed to lapse via the pressure of the gun lobby" it was not renewed because of a sunset clause written into the law when it was originally passed by Congress. There was no attempt to renew it once it reached its sunset -- and this had little or nothing to do with "the gun lobby" and a lot to do with the FBI saying it had no measurable impact on violent crime.

And yes, the "assault weapons" defined in that happily-defunct legislation were essentially a joke. Importers proved this by importing (or building in the U.S.) copies of the AK47 that complied fully with the law -- simply by joining the pistol grip to the stock to create a thumbhole stock, and by removing the bayonet lug. It was still the same rifle capable of shooting the same number of times with the same ammo. The language of the law was fundamentally a joke, and any attempt to repeat is is in fact a definition problem. Why is my AR15 a "people slaughtering device" but the Remington I mentioned (which does the same thign but which was never called an assault rifle), not one?

Yikes. You actually contend that the gun lobby had nothing to do with the lapsing of the assault weapons ban. You lose all credibility when you say something like that. But for the influence of the gun lobby, that bill would have been renewed, or a new bill would have been passed since that time. But the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our government. You should just admit that since you look ridiculous denying it.

And again, I’m not going to pretend this is a definitional problem. People of good will, acting in good faith, can easily draft a definition covering the people slaughtering devices, commonly called assault weapons, that plague our society and cause so much death, pain and anguish. Those of us who value people more than people slaughtering devices could crank out a good definition within 24 hours. You would hate it, because it would actually ban the people slaughtering devices. But it would do the trick.

 

[trapdoor]

Yikes. You actually contend that the gun lobby had nothing to do with the lapsing of the assault weapons ban. You lose all credibility when you say something like that. But for the influence of the gun lobby, that bill would have been renewed, or a new bill would have been passed since that time. But the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our government. You should just admit that since you look ridiculous denying it.

And again, I’m not going to pretend this is a definitional problem. People of good will, acting in good faith, can easily draft a definition covering the people slaughtering devices, commonly called assault weapons, that plague our society and cause so much death, pain and anguish. Those of us who value people more than people slaughtering devices could crank out a good definition within 24 hours. You would hate it, because it would actually ban the people slaughtering devices. But it would do the trick.

How could the gun lobby oppose legislation that was never offered? It literally never came to even a committee vote? The only effect one way or another the gun lobby could have had was in electing pro-gun legislators, and that had pretty much happened at the time of the law's passage 10 years earlier than its expiration.

And you can pretend or not pretend anything you like, but that contention will remain ignorant of firearms, and consequently antagonistic to rational firearms owners.

Again, I will ask as a matter of exercise, because I don't think you'll make the effort, what's the difference between my AR-15 and a Remington 742?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

How could the gun lobby oppose legislation that was never offered? It literally never came to even a committee vote? The only effect one way or another the gun lobby could have had was in electing pro-gun legislators, and that had pretty much happened at the time of the law's passage 10 years earlier than its expiration.

And you can pretend or not pretend anything you like, but that contention will remain ignorant of firearms, and consequently antagonistic to rational firearms owners.

Again, I will ask as a matter of exercise, because I don't think you'll make the effort, what's the difference between my AR-15 and a Remington 742?

Again, you shred your own credibility when you argue against the impact of the gun lobby. Your irrational denial of their influence is just not worthy of further discussion.

As to your continued claim that this is a definitional issue, there’s no need to compare any one gun versus another. For example, as between an AR-15 and a Remington 742, if you think it’s too hard to definitionally distinguish between the two, a bill would ban both of them to take care of your concern. But a good definition would take care of such things. You try to create a problem that doesn’t exist due to your love of guns.

 

[Sickofleft]

Joe Biden-"Hold my beer! Get rid of all semi-automatic guns!"

Critics erupt on Biden after ‘sick’ comment on semi-automatic gun purchases: 'Sheer ignorance'

Conservatives ripped into President Biden after he called semi-automatic gun purchases "sick" and reiterated his call to ban "assault weapons" in America.

www.foxnews.com

Like so many things he has convinced himself that the "ban" did anything, it did not. (Mainly because it was aimed at the millions of people who buy guns legally, why it had no bearing on crime at all)

Is anything the Democrats propose NOT just blatant power grab?

The Answer: No, no it is not.

 

[God of War]

Even without splitting hairs over the full-auto function that is the hallmark of a true assault weapon, I defy any of the people who would outlaw assault weapons to define "semiautomatic assault rifle" in a way that doesn't either outlaw a lot of other weapons, or that doesnt' descend into inanity.

This is because there is functionally no difference between a Remington 742, which is a semiautomatic "hunting" rifle, and an AR-15 which (they think) is identifiable assault rifle. The fact is both are gas-operated semiautomatic rifles, with the Remington being generally more powerful because it is offered in more powerful cartridges.

And then you descend into inanity. It didn't pass, it may not have even received a floor vote, but in the "assault" weapons ban proposed after the Newtown massacre, just to provide one example, the Ruger Mini-14 was not names as a weapon to be outlawed. The Ruger Mini-14 with a folding stock, however, was designated as on the banned list -- scheduled to be outlawed. There is literally no functional difference between the two, save that one has stock that folds up meaning it takes up less space when it is stored -- that's it. It doesn't make the gun more or less lethal, because a folding stock merely changes the appearance of the rifle, not its function. Banning either was inane, banning one rather than the other is just appearance-based stupidity.

And that's what we encounter with almost every attempt to limit these, mostly based on the attempt to "limit the size of the clip magazines" or some other misuse of firearms terms revealing an ignorance of firearms functions.

Even if gun owners were willing to compromise on this issue, how? All it takes is for someone to run amok with multiple revolvers, or with a Winchester lever action, and they become the next "bad " gun that needs to be banned. We're never offered "this much and no more," and if we were, the offer comes from people who, based on their own stated desires, can't be trusted on the subject.

I've personally become intransigent -- offered no line in the sand, I've drawn one of my own. No new restrictions. Each is just a stepping stone to the next.

Everything the Democrats push down to eating bugs and CBDC is going to lead to extreme confrontation.

 

[trapdoor]

Again, you shred your own credibility when you argue against the impact of the gun lobby. Your irrational denial of their influence is just not worthy of further discussion.

As to your continued claim that this is a definitional issue, there’s no need to compare any one gun versus another. For example, as between an AR-15 and a Remington 742, if you think it’s too hard to definitionally distinguish between the two, a bill would ban both of them to take care of your concern. But a good definition would take care of such things. You try to create a problem that doesn’t exist due to your love of guns.

Well, there's no way to define a mechanical difference, which was rather my point, and no need to ban either.

And show me how the NRA caused the former Assault Weapons Ban to not be renewed -- name a single event or action other than simply making public statements that its renewal was a bad idea. You can't. The simple fact is, at the time of the sunset, the people who wanted it renewed didn't have the votes in Congress to get it renewed. About the most fun in this was the at-the-time blaming of it on the president (George W. Bush) who couldn't have extended it if he'd wanted to do so. Now yoiu're blaming the NRA, and it couldn't have extended it if every member had wanted it extended -- again the votes simply weren't there after the Gingrich takeover of the House in 1994.

 

[Dawg]

No need to waste precious brain cells on this question - we already had an assault weapons ban that was allowed to lapse, due to pressure by the gun lobby. That legislation outlined what was covered by the bill. We can use that definition. We can even tweak it if you like. But not in a way that exempts the people slaughtering devices gun nuts love so much. We would have a far better society without people slaughtering devices. There’s just no doubt about that.

This is not a definitional problem. This is a gun nut problem - a problem caused by people who value people slaughtering devices more than they value people.

"people slaughtering devices"==========Automobiles

 

[sensible don]

As usual, liberty-trampling lying leftists tamp down what they will REALLY do until AFTER the election. Then, they trot out the tyranny.

The GOP stinks on ice…but I’ll NEVER understand why anyone votes for Democrats.

so who do you vote for ? enlighten us all with your wisdom please