Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[AURaptor 1,137]

Freedom is greater than " collective safety ".

Shoot yeah. What's a few dead folks mowed down by an assault weapon....as long as we got our 'freedom'

Maybe if the FBI had done its job... no, wait. Can't blame them, huh? The one thing we ALL belong to is govt, right ?

[AUUSN 823]

Everybody hear this? Raptor thinks people should be able to buy child porn...

liar. Never said it.

We should be allowed to buy anything we want.

Anything.

[AURaptor 1,137]

We should be allowed to buy anything we want.

Anything.

Context

Learn it

Know it

Live it

[AUUSN 823]

We should be allowed to buy anything we want.

Anything.

Context

Learn it

Know it

Live it

Now where did I put that weasel gif.

[aujeff11 6,243]

We should be allowed to buy anything we want.

Anything.

Context

Learn it

Know it

Live it

Now where did I put that weasel gif.

lol

[cole256 17,085]

Mideast descent is a misnomer, so I'll ignore that part.

But to answer your question - Yes. I'm in favor of selling guns to those on an FBI watch list.

As is FBI director James Comey.

Here's why -

Q: Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns?

A: That's the law. Being on a terrorist watch list is not "in and of itself a disqualifying factor" for people purchasing firearms and explosives, according to a 2013 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

People purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers must undergo background checks, and they can be denied if they fall into any of 10 categories. These include convicted felons or drug abusers, people found by courts to have certain mental problems and immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

I find it funny that the right wants to ban Muslims from entering the country( because they're supposedly either terrorists or are closet terrorist supporters), but they don't mind arming potential terrorists that are already over here.

Oh, but if you refuse the sale of a gun to a brown person because they look Muslim, then you're going to be labled a bigot and islamophobe. No-win situation.

Yeah....I mean just on this board alone you can see there are no bigots here....

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

Who was talking to you? And what it's apples and oranges just because you say so? Gtho

Gtho...Nice...glad you are the authority....you can't even come up with a good comparison and someone calls you on it...is that the best you got?

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?

You are so full of yourself...there are many more vets on this board...I just get tired of people lecturing that those of us who oppose your lefty views are wrong or dumb...you and others don't see the root cause of some of these problems. I have spent a few years in the middle east in service to our country plus time in Somalia, Kosovo and other places you don't want to vacation but when I call out someone much like you do.....and then he explained himself with which he wants to exclude and that those he is trying to exclude would or should already fail the background check, you weigh in...

I don't have any anger issues or paranoia...nice try though...you need to spend some time where there is much hatred for the US in other parts of the world and see what is going on there...take palestine for instance...where they use disney characters to teach hate to toddlers or other places where it is taught in Islamic religious schools...but according to some that isn't the problem...being able to buy a gun is...

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Mideast descent is a misnomer, so I'll ignore that part.

But to answer your question - Yes. I'm in favor of selling guns to those on an FBI watch list.

As is FBI director James Comey.

Here's why -

Q: Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns?

A: That's the law. Being on a terrorist watch list is not "in and of itself a disqualifying factor" for people purchasing firearms and explosives, according to a 2013 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

People purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers must undergo background checks, and they can be denied if they fall into any of 10 categories. These include convicted felons or drug abusers, people found by courts to have certain mental problems and immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

I find it funny that the right wants to ban Muslims from entering the country( because they're supposedly either terrorists or are closet terrorist supporters), but they don't mind arming potential terrorists that are already over here.

Oh, but if you refuse the sale of a gun to a brown person because they look Muslim, then you're going to be labled a bigot and islamophobe. No-win situation.

Yeah....I mean just on this board alone you can see there are no bigots here....

So what does that have to do with what aujeff said about arming potential terrorists?

[cole256 17,085]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

Who was talking to you? And what it's apples and oranges just because you say so? Gtho

Gtho...Nice...glad you are the authority....you can't even come up with a good comparison and someone calls you on it...is that the best you got?

It's much better than apples and oranges nice try....lol, like you are the esteemed most high on everything on the board forum...what did you offer? Called me on it how? Yeah gtho. Maybe raptor do have a son....

[AURaptor 1,137]

Just threaten them with violence, cole.

That'll show everyone how smart you are, and that you are right.

[aujeff11 6,243]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?

You are so full of yourself...there are many more vets on this board...I just get tired of people lecturing that those of us who oppose your lefty views are wrong or dumb...you and others don't see the root cause of some of these problems. I have spent a few years in the middle east in service to our country plus time in Somalia, Kosovo and other places you don't want to vacation but when I call out someone much like you do.....and then he explained himself with which he wants to exclude and that those he is trying to exclude would or should already fail the background check, you weigh in...

I don't have any anger issues or paranoia...nice try though...you need to spend some time where there is much hatred for the US in other parts of the world and see what is going on there...take palestine for instance...where they use disney characters to teach hate to toddlers or other places where it is taught in Islamic religious schools...but according to some that isn't the problem...being able to buy a gun is...

People with PTSD buy guns all the time...If you're going to be a dick, at least fix your argument, run-on sentences too.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Mideast descent is a misnomer, so I'll ignore that part.

But to answer your question - Yes. I'm in favor of selling guns to those on an FBI watch list.

As is FBI director James Comey.

Here's why -

Q: Why can people on the terrorist watch list buy guns?

A: That's the law. Being on a terrorist watch list is not "in and of itself a disqualifying factor" for people purchasing firearms and explosives, according to a 2013 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

People purchasing guns from federally licensed firearms dealers must undergo background checks, and they can be denied if they fall into any of 10 categories. These include convicted felons or drug abusers, people found by courts to have certain mental problems and immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

I find it funny that the right wants to ban Muslims from entering the country( because they're supposedly either terrorists or are closet terrorist supporters), but they don't mind arming potential terrorists that are already over here.

Oh, but if you refuse the sale of a gun to a brown person because they look Muslim, then you're going to be labled a bigot and islamophobe. No-win situation.

Dont discriminate at all. How bout them apples?

[AUUSN 823]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?

You are so full of yourself...there are many more vets on this board...I just get tired of people lecturing that those of us who oppose your lefty views are wrong or dumb...you and others don't see the root cause of some of these problems. I have spent a few years in the middle east in service to our country plus time in Somalia, Kosovo and other places you don't want to vacation but when I call out someone much like you do.....and then he explained himself with which he wants to exclude and that those he is trying to exclude would or should already fail the background check, you weigh in...

I don't have any anger issues or paranoia...nice try though...you need to spend some time where there is much hatred for the US in other parts of the world and see what is going on there...take palestine for instance...where they use disney characters to teach hate to toddlers or other places where it is taught in Islamic religious schools...but according to some that isn't the problem...being able to buy a gun is...

People with PTSD buy guns all the time...If you're going to be a dick, at least fix your argument, run-on sentences too.

Jeff, dont you know he's a Vet? I mean he let's us know in every single post.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?

You are so full of yourself...there are many more vets on this board...I just get tired of people lecturing that those of us who oppose your lefty views are wrong or dumb...you and others don't see the root cause of some of these problems. I have spent a few years in the middle east in service to our country plus time in Somalia, Kosovo and other places you don't want to vacation but when I call out someone much like you do.....and then he explained himself with which he wants to exclude and that those he is trying to exclude would or should already fail the background check, you weigh in...

I don't have any anger issues or paranoia...nice try though...you need to spend some time where there is much hatred for the US in other parts of the world and see what is going on there...take palestine for instance...where they use disney characters to teach hate to toddlers or other places where it is taught in Islamic religious schools...but according to some that isn't the problem...being able to buy a gun is...

People with PTSD buy guns all the time...If you're going to be a dick, at least fix your argument, run-on sentences too.

And PTSD sufferers should be also marked with mental health problems while they are being treated. That should show up on background checks and they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun until their treatment ends and they have the ability to deal with it. the problem is that this country is so afraid to say hey...this person has a mental issue and shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun so as we don't offend anyone...and then when a person that has mental problems shoots up people or places, people get all hyped up about guns and other reasons but fail to go for the root cause...

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

Who was talking to you? And what it's apples and oranges just because you say so? Gtho

Gtho...Nice...glad you are the authority....you can't even come up with a good comparison and someone calls you on it...is that the best you got?

It's much better than apples and oranges nice try....lol, like you are the esteemed most high on everything on the board forum...what did you offer? Called me on it how? Yeah gtho. Maybe raptor do have a son....

I offered more than you and your stupid analogies...you spout off but offer very little in critical thinking...

[homersapien 12,215]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

Its not as simple as saying we need to keep them out of the wrong hands. Who are the wrong hands? I believe many vets don't need to carry as a matter of fact. Many people with mental disabilities don't need the weapons but where is the line in saying you can possess one but the other can't. Because in actuality, you're saying you can have a pistol, but this guy shouldn't have one and he is SOL if he is ever attacked. On the other end, I don't believe being a felon at one point automatically disfranchises the person from carrying. Also, Muslim Americans deserve to carry too if the public can. Saying otherwise is discriminatory. There are just so many questions to contemplate that it's hard to make such decisions, but still, it's better than being a brainless NRA sheep.

Who are you to judge whether vets deserve or don't deserve to carry? There are two vets in my house so you say that we can't carry? who gave you that right? Are you aligned with that general who says that vets should get behind him and support a ban? give me a break...I may or may not own a weapon but that still doesn't give you the right to say that I shouldn't carry one...

I said many vets dont need to carry, not all. I personally know a couple vets that are struggling with PTSD in various ways and I dont trust them with weapons. Also, is it not true that roughly 22 vets commit suicide everyday? I never said anything about whether they deserve to carry or whether they dont deserve it. Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I highlighted your words...you never said anything about PTSD or suicide until called out...suicide will happen with or without guns...PTSD is something different as it can be classified as a mental health issue thus they should qualify in a background check...

His explanation wasn't enough? As I recall, Jeff is a vet.

You seem to have some anger issues or maybe paranoia.

Ironic, huh?

You are so full of yourself...there are many more vets on this board...I just get tired of people lecturing that those of us who oppose your lefty views are wrong or dumb...you and others don't see the root cause of some of these problems. I have spent a few years in the middle east in service to our country plus time in Somalia, Kosovo and other places you don't want to vacation but when I call out someone much like you do.....and then he explained himself with which he wants to exclude and that those he is trying to exclude would or should already fail the background check, you weigh in...

I don't have any anger issues or paranoia...nice try though...you need to spend some time where there is much hatred for the US in other parts of the world and see what is going on there...take palestine for instance...where they use disney characters to teach hate to toddlers or other places where it is taught in Islamic religious schools...but according to some that isn't the problem...being able to buy a gun is...

Well you certainly aren't thinking clearly. Implying that favoring more restrictive gun regulations makes one dismiss the problem of sectarianism and radical Islamists in the world is clearly illogical and irrational.

That was an emotional tirade.

[homersapien 12,215]

We should be allowed to buy anything we want.

Anything.

A case of anthrax?

Silly. There's no such thing as anthrax. Remember ? We looked for that in Iraq, and it was a myth! Bush lied !

Stupid post.

[DoctorBarnaby 5]

This is probably covered in another thread but I wanted to get specific ...

Personally, I can not fathom a single situation where an ordinary citizens would have any need to purchase and possess a military grade fully automatic assault rifle.

If you disagree, could you please explain why these should be legal to purchase?

Well Runin ...... you can't buy full auto " legally " in our country anyhow . But ........... my reason is defending against multiple attackers

in a stand alone confrontation . Most home invasion crimes are perpetrated by 3 or more armed assailants . The people that commit these

type of crimes also tend to be extremely ( hit you strong ) violent . I must also add that it is not a prerequisite for another man to understand

why or how I choose to defend my loved ones and myself in order for me to do so . It's simply not your call .

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

This is probably covered in another thread but I wanted to get specific ...

Personally, I can not fathom a single situation where an ordinary citizens would have any need to purchase and possess a military grade fully automatic assault rifle.

If you disagree, could you please explain why these should be legal to purchase?

Well Runin ...... you can't buy full auto " legally " in our country anyhow . But ........... my reason is defending against multiple attackers

in a stand alone confrontation . Most home invasion crimes are perpetrated by 3 or more armed assailants . The people that commit these

type of crimes also tend to be extremely ( hit you strong ) violent . I must also add that it is not a prerequisite for another man to understand

why or how I choose to defend my loved ones and myself in order for me to do so . It's simply not your call .

Dr B, you actually can legally buy a fully automatic weapon, but there are a number of hoops you have to jump through, not to mention that they are a minimum of around $3,000+ to buy them when they are available. They aren't that plentiful

Runin, although I don't currently have the money to buy a full-auto firearm, If this ever-growing government continues down the path that it is starting to go and is getting more brazen about stripping law-abiding citizens of their rights, there may be a time when I might need one to protect myself and my family from that government. That is one reason why there is a second amendment. If that right is taken away, you could soon look forward to such wonderful things as hate speech laws like they have in Britain, and many others.

You asked, I answered.

[AUUSN 823]

This is probably covered in another thread but I wanted to get specific ...

Personally, I can not fathom a single situation where an ordinary citizens would have any need to purchase and possess a military grade fully automatic assault rifle.

If you disagree, could you please explain why these should be legal to purchase?

Well Runin ...... you can't buy full auto " legally " in our country anyhow . But ........... my reason is defending against multiple attackers

in a stand alone confrontation . Most home invasion crimes are perpetrated by 3 or more armed assailants . The people that commit these

type of crimes also tend to be extremely ( hit you strong ) violent . I must also add that it is not a prerequisite for another man to understand

why or how I choose to defend my loved ones and myself in order for me to do so . It's simply not your call .

But you can buy a Sig Sauer MCX with no wait and go mow down a club full of people.

[AUUSN 823]

Unless this nation wants to see more mass killing in our schools, churches, theaters, nightspots, and office buildings, we must address the casualty quotient, which vastly increases with the use of semiautomatic assault arms. The idea of restricting unfettered access to assault weapons is only considered radical when it comes out of the mouth of a modern US president. To most Americans, and every other democracy on the planet, it is rightly considered common sense.

http://apps.bostonglobe.com/graphics/2016/06/make-it-stop/

[AURaptor 1,137]

Guns are far from unfettered

[AUUSN 823]

Guns are far from unfettered

We arent discussing guns weasel. The discussion is on high capacity, rapid firing weapons. Really. There is no need for you to post in every. Single. Thread.

[cole256 17,085]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

We could say things about drugs but they still have laws against them, could we not?

apples and oranges...nice try though

Who was talking to you? And what it's apples and oranges just because you say so? Gtho

Gtho...Nice...glad you are the authority....you can't even come up with a good comparison and someone calls you on it...is that the best you got?

It's much better than apples and oranges nice try....lol, like you are the esteemed most high on everything on the board forum...what did you offer? Called me on it how? Yeah gtho. Maybe raptor do have a son....

I offered more than you and your stupid analogies...you spout off but offer very little in critical thinking...

Says the person that offered nothing