View Poll Results: Would this compromise be acceptable?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. This isnít perfect, but no compromise is.

    12 12.90%
  • No. I donít mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    13 13.98%
  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    61 65.59%
  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    4 4.30%
  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    3 3.23%
Page 63 of 71 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #621
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Assault Weapon Watch

    Since Sept 13, 2004 these dangerous assault weapons STILL have not injured ANYONE...

  2. #622
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Assault Weapon Watch

    Since Sept 13, 2004 these dangerous assault weapons STILL have not injured ANYONE...
    Allegedly.

    What have these dangerous assault weapons been used for since 2004?

  3. #623
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    Allegedly.

    What have these dangerous assault weapons been used for since 2004?
    They have been continuously monitored since then. None of them have so much as MOVED. Havent killed ANYONE (and as it turns out, that's also similar to the .223 rifle that Adam Lanzas mother owned).

  4. #624
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you constantly demonstrate how little you know about this subject. You have a stun gun and I have a knife and you will die

    You have a stun gun, and I a firearm you will die even faster

    You have a stun gun and I have a baton, an escrima stick or a sword, you will die almost as fast

    a stun gun is worthless against lethal force
    In a gun free community, he will stun you.

  5. #625
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    They have been continuously monitored since then. None of them have so much as MOVED. Havent killed ANYONE (and as it turns out, that's also similar to the .223 rifle that Adam Lanzas mother owned).
    The .223 rifle Adam Lanza's mother owned, did move.

    As could any of the guns you're pointlessly banging on about.

    Have you noticed they are guns? Purpose built to kill...or do you think they make coffee?

  6. #626
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    The .223 rifle Adam Lanza's mother owned, did move.

    As could any of the guns you're pointlessly banging on about.

    Have you noticed they are guns? Purpose built to kill...or do you think they make coffee?
    Ummm...I take it you haven't read the revelations by NBC that they kinda jumped the shark there and the killer in fact used HANDGUNS and not the .223 hunting rifle...

    No...they aren't used to make coffee. They are used to hunt, target shoot, sport shoot, and God forbid if needed, take a life.

    Attacking the eeeeeevil mythical 'assault rifle' is an idiotic ploy engaged by idiotic ideologues that don't care about the TRUTH or the FACTS...and only care about their mindless drive to ban guns.

  7. #627
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    Allegedly.

    What have these dangerous assault weapons been used for since 2004?
    It appears only to serve as proof, that without a criminal to use them, absolutely nothing.

    That is the whole point, or pointlessness, about a ban on things. Any tool is useless and harmless until someone either uses or abuses it. Gasoline can ether be used as a motor fuel or abused to aid an arsonist, all by itself, it is simply a flamable liquid without any free will to do anythng at all.
    ďThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Ē ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #628
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Ummm...I take it you haven't read the revelations by NBC that they kinda jumped the shark there and the killer in fact used HANDGUNS and not the .223 hunting rifle...
    Why would I read NBC? I'm a Euro. I have read here ad nauseum (as it is all distasteful how people ignore the deaths of small children in order to protect their silly gun fetish) that there is a difference in the minds of some between types of guns.

    There is no difference. If you don't have a legitimate reason to use a gun, you should not have a right to own one.

    No...they aren't used to make coffee. They are used to hunt, target shoot, sport shoot, and God forbid if needed, take a life.
    Killing then. And therefore have indisputable potential to kill innocent people should some homicidal maniac come along and it is regularly and frequently evidenced that such people have come along and will continue to emerge.

    Attacking the eeeeeevil mythical 'assault rifle' is an idiotic ploy engaged by idiotic ideologues that don't care about the TRUTH or the FACTS...and only care about their mindless drive to ban guns.
    Pretending only certain types of weapon have potential to murder is worse. I appreciate the smart folks in US may be pushing an assault weapon law in order to insert the thin edge of the wedge and certainly there seems absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have assault weapons in existence other than perhaps the theatre of war, but a gun is a gun. Ban them all.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    It appears only to serve as proof, that without a criminal to use them, absolutely nothing.

    That is the whole point, or pointlessness, about a ban on things. Any tool is useless and harmless until someone either uses or abuses it. Gasoline can ether be used as a motor fuel or abused to aid an arsonist, all by itself, it is simply a flamable liquid without any free will to do anythng at all.
    That is disingenuous, but if you wish to allow those people with a legitimate business use for guns to continue to own them, by all means go ahead. The rest of you need to hand them over.

  9. #629
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    Why would I read NBC? I'm a Euro. I have read here ad nauseum (as it is all distasteful how people ignore the deaths of small children in order to protect their silly gun fetish) that there is a difference in the minds of some between types of guns.

    There is no difference. If you don't have a legitimate reason to use a gun, you should not have a right to own one.



    Killing then. And therefore have indisputable potential to kill innocent people should some homicidal maniac come along and it is regularly and frequently evidence that such people have come along.



    Pretending only certain types of weapon have potential to murder is worse. I appreciate the smart folks in US may be pushing an assault weapon law in order to insert the thin edge of the wedge and certainly there seems absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have assault weapons in existence other than perhaps the theatre of war, but a gun is a gun. Ban them all.



    That is disingenuous, but if you wish to allow those people with a legitimate business use for guns to continue to own them, by all means go ahead. The rest of you need to hand them over.
    indeed...why would you read ANYTHING that didn't support your bias?

  10. #630
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    indeed...why would you read ANYTHING that didn't support your bias?
    Do you read STV, oh unbiased one? What is their opinion on gun law?

    (it seems you are totally unable to counter and blowing smoke screen as usual. This is because your bias is harming your community)
    Last edited by Viv; 01-20-13 at 04:29 PM.

Page 63 of 71 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •