Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

[homersapien 12,353]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

[homersapien 12,353]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

What????

The question was why you support restrictions on automatic weapons. What has that got to do with magazine capacity?

But it's interesting to note that the above argument can be used to justify the regulations of any semi automatic rifles capable of being fitted with high capacity magazines. Would you support that?

[The Freak 2,559]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

[homersapien 12,353]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Let me catch you up. The question he asked was: "Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons?" "You," referring to me.

My response was just that; why I support the restictions on fully auto weapons.

If you want to start a conversation on the second amendment, start one.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

What does you asking my opinion on anything have to do with the Bill of Rights?

This is why people here get aggravated discussing things with you. You have trouble focusing on not only the topic, but the same questions you ask others.

[The Freak 2,559]

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Let me catch you up. The question he asked was: "Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons?" "You," referring to me.

My response was just that; why I support the restictions on fully auto weapons.

If you want to start a conversation on the second amendment, start one.

Fair enough, but my point remains valid. Hunting has no business as a justification for across the board weapon restrictions. If you think one or two shots is enough, that can be changed in the hunting regulations... not when the discussion is about all weapons.

And for the record, ALL the gun topics I've seen on this board in the last few days are conversations about the second amendment. Which is why hunting is irrelevant.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Our right to bear arms is given to protect us from our own government, or tyrants, whichever you prefer.

[homersapien 12,353]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

What does you asking my opinion on anything have to do with the Bill of Rights?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

This is why people here get aggravated discussing things with you. You have trouble focusing on not only the topic, but the same questions you ask others.

Not true. First I didn't know that people get aggravated discussing things with me, but if you do, it's probably because I expect you to respond to simple questions. After all, I respond directly to questions, why can't you?

I asked why you support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and you response was you only need a few rounds when hunting?

That doesn't even make sense. What does an automatic action have to do with the number of rounds it holds? Do you understand the distinction between automatic (vs. semi-automatic, aka auto-loader)?

Do you understand why your answer is nonsensical?

[homersapien 12,353]

Our right to bear arms is given to protect us from our own government, or tyrants, whichever you prefer.

That's your opinion. What about that "to insure a well regulated militia" part?

Do you oppose restrictions on fully automatic weapons?

[alexava 6,977]

Our right to bear arms is given to protect us from our own government, or tyrants, whichever you prefer.

this is exactly why it should be reworked totally. this sounds about as logical as the Waco texas bunch of misfits.

[homersapien 12,353]

Our right to bear arms is given to protect us from our own government, or tyrants, whichever you prefer.

this is exactly why it should be reworked totally. this sounds about as logical as the Waco texas bunch of misfits.

Exactly.

But at least that response is logical, if not rational.

Presumably, Bottomfeeder is against restrictions on automatic firearms and other categories of military-purposed weaponry like grenades or mortars.

[japantiger 4,185]

Our right to bear arms is given to protect us from our own government, or tyrants, whichever you prefer.

this is exactly why it should be reworked totally. this sounds about as logical as the Waco texas bunch of misfits.

Not sure I understand the connection to the answer and the logic that it should be reworked; and whatever this has to do with Waco. The Amendment is there to ensure the "people" are protected from the government. I assume you assert now that that need longer exists? Otherwise, I can't understand the logic of the need to rework it...Then, I'd like to understand why you think it is no longer needed?

[AUGradinTX 0]

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Let me catch you up. The question he asked was: "Why do you agree with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons?" "You," referring to me.

My response was just that; why I support the restictions on fully auto weapons.

If you want to start a conversation on the second amendment, start one.

Fair enough, but my point remains valid. Hunting has no business as a justification for across the board weapon restrictions. If you think one or two shots is enough, that can be changed in the hunting regulations... not when the discussion is about all weapons.

And for the record, ALL the gun topics I've seen on this board in the last few days are conversations about the second amendment. Which is why hunting is irrelevant.

I was asked why I agree with restrictions on fully automatic weapons and I gave it. If you have a different opinion, fine. You are welcome to it.

As far as the second amendment. It reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe."

And I, for one, am all for it. Fully automatic weapons are available for those want them, but they are regulated. Which I am for.

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

What does you asking my opinion on anything have to do with the Bill of Rights?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

This is why people here get aggravated discussing things with you. You have trouble focusing on not only the topic, but the same questions you ask others.

Not true. First I didn't know that people get aggravated discussing things with me, but if you do, it's probably because I expect you to respond to simple questions. After all, I respond directly to questions, why can't you?

I asked why you support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and you response was you only need a few rounds when hunting?

That doesn't even make sense. What does an automatic action have to do with the number of rounds it holds? Do you understand the distinction between automatic (vs. semi-automatic, aka auto-loader)?

Do you understand why your answer is nonsensical?

You asked me a simple question. I gave you a very simple answer. You just don't like that my opinion is hard to argue with. You can say all you want about it. Nonsensical. Whatever. I think the same about you.

You'll get a kick out of this. I didn't say you only need a few rounds with hunting. I said it only takes one or two rounds to kill most game. If you can't make sense of that as to why I support regulations on weapons that spew out 700-900 rounds a minute, I can't help you.

And for people thinking I want to take away their second amendment rights because I agree with these regulations, you are way off base. You are allowed to own them if you choose and I am all for that. I just don't think they should be sold at Cabellas and Academy like semi-auto.

[homersapien 12,353]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

What does you asking my opinion on anything have to do with the Bill of Rights?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

This is why people here get aggravated discussing things with you. You have trouble focusing on not only the topic, but the same questions you ask others.

Not true. First I didn't know that people get aggravated discussing things with me, but if you do, it's probably because I expect you to respond to simple questions. After all, I respond directly to questions, why can't you?

I asked why you support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and you response was you only need a few rounds when hunting?

That doesn't even make sense. What does an automatic action have to do with the number of rounds it holds? Do you understand the distinction between automatic (vs. semi-automatic, aka auto-loader)?

Do you understand why your answer is nonsensical?

You asked me a simple question. I gave you a very simple answer. You just don't like that my opinion is hard to argue with. You can say all you want about it. Nonsensical. Whatever. I think the same about you.

You'll get a kick out of this. I didn't say you only need a few rounds with hunting. I said it only takes one or two rounds to kill most game. If you can't make sense of that as to why I support regulations on weapons that spew out 700-900 rounds a minute, I can't help you.

And for people thinking I want to take away their second amendment rights because I agree with these regulations, you are way off base. You are allowed to own them if you choose and I am all for that. I just don't think they should be sold at Cabellas and Academy like semi-auto.

Well, let's try this:

Presumably, since you support restrictions on automatic rifles because "only takes one or two rounds to kill most game", you support restrictions on semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines for the exact same reason.

Correct?

[AUGradinTX 0]

1. One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt.

Quite true, but not the point.

2. This is the way to ban the type of weapon used in Newtown. My concern then will be that manufacturers will make the magazine non-detachable and simply make some sort of clip to quick load them. They will find a way around this restiction. They stand to lose too much money not to.

Possible, but doubtful. Regardless, it would be rather easy to also ban stripper clips for high capacity magazines. It's not necessarily the means used to create the capability, it's the capability itself.

A gunsmith can also modify a semi-auto to full auto, but that's no reason not to restrict full autos.

3. I agree. It wasn't very well thougth out.

It was a dumb, knee-jerk, emotional, political, completely ineffective measure (as so many opponents to gun regulation love to point out.)

1. You asked why I agree. Your point may not necessarily be mine.

2. Based on what happened during the 1994 ban, where manufacturers simply worked around what was technically banned, not only is it likely, it is an almost certainty. Scratch that, I would bet everything I own that they find a work around for that particular item and continue selling their guns. A company is not going to quit selling something they've spent millions to create if they can find a work around for next to nothing.

3. It just flat out didn't work. If something doesn't work, it's useless.

You never told me why you support restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

Yes, I did.

"One or two rounds is enough to kill whatever it is people are using rifles to hunt."

That's for hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Valid point, IMO.

What does you asking my opinion on anything have to do with the Bill of Rights?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

This is why people here get aggravated discussing things with you. You have trouble focusing on not only the topic, but the same questions you ask others.

Not true. First I didn't know that people get aggravated discussing things with me, but if you do, it's probably because I expect you to respond to simple questions. After all, I respond directly to questions, why can't you?

I asked why you support the restrictions on fully automatic weapons and you response was you only need a few rounds when hunting?

That doesn't even make sense. What does an automatic action have to do with the number of rounds it holds? Do you understand the distinction between automatic (vs. semi-automatic, aka auto-loader)?

Do you understand why your answer is nonsensical?

You asked me a simple question. I gave you a very simple answer. You just don't like that my opinion is hard to argue with. You can say all you want about it. Nonsensical. Whatever. I think the same about you.

You'll get a kick out of this. I didn't say you only need a few rounds with hunting. I said it only takes one or two rounds to kill most game. If you can't make sense of that as to why I support regulations on weapons that spew out 700-900 rounds a minute, I can't help you.

And for people thinking I want to take away their second amendment rights because I agree with these regulations, you are way off base. You are allowed to own them if you choose and I am all for that. I just don't think they should be sold at Cabellas and Academy like semi-auto.

Well, let's try this:

Presumably, since you support restrictions on automatic rifles because "only takes one or two rounds to kill most game", you support restrictions on semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines for the exact same reason.

Correct?

I've stated here several times that restrictions on magazines holding more than ten rounds is fine with me.