Page 42 of 45 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 442

Thread: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

  1. #411
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    And what's more dangerous: a nuclear weapon or an RPG? Being that RPGs have killed many, many more people than nuclear weapons.

    I don't think you can back that statement up factually.

  2. #412
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Firearms are not only supposed to be dangerous, but deadly, unless strictly target rifles.

  3. #413
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    It wasn't.

    Are all pistols assault weapons?
    wait long enough and the anti gun scumbags will claim they are



  4. #414
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Firearms are not only supposed to be dangerous, but deadly, unless strictly target rifles.
    the target rifle Carlos Hathcock used to win the most prestigious rifle match in the USA was the one he used to slay dozens of NVA soldiers



  5. #415
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    to answer your question yes I do think you are stupid.

    neither 1 of those weapons are dangerous, they are objects, the present no danger to anybody.
    You're not actually addressing the question, what you're saying is the equivalent of asking "how far can you walk in the woods?" and clearly you can walk all the way through the woods, but you say "ahh, but you can only walk half way, because after that, you'd be walking out of the woods." That's semantics, and it isn't a valid argument. If what you say makes sense, then nothing should be illegal. Drugs are just objects. Land mines are just objects. Enriched plutonium is just an object. Anthrax, smallpox, lightsabers, just objects.

    It has been established over and over again by our legislative, judicial, and executive branch that the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms. The SCOTUS would not be impressed by your childish semantics, nor would they be swayed by such blatant garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by CLAX1911 View Post
    let's put it this way, if the Dalai Lama had an atom bomb, would you be as worried as you would be if Kim Jong un had 1.

    if you say yes, then that's a definite yes to your question
    If only the Dalai Lama owned guns, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The fact is that if atom bombs are not regulated, then anybody could have them. This is the issue at hand. Certain weapons fall into the wrong hands. We are engaging in a pretty straightforward debate: do the value of their ("assault rifles") legitimate functions outweigh the potential cost of legally manufactured and sold firearms that fall into the hands of psychopaths and mass murderers?

    My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
    A working class hero is something to be

  6. #416
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,208

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wait long enough and the anti gun scumbags will claim they are
    that's the goal in the first place, start with registration, then confiscation.

  7. #417
    Supreme knower of all
    CLAX1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, in the great state of Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,208

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    You're not actually addressing the question, what you're saying is the equivalent of asking "how far can you walk in the woods?" and clearly you can walk all the way through the woods, but you say "ahh, but you can only walk half way, because after that, you'd be walking out of the woods." That's semantics, and it isn't a valid argument. If what you say makes sense, then nothing should be illegal. Drugs are just objects. Land mines are just objects. Enriched plutonium is just an object. Anthrax, smallpox, lightsabers, just objects.

    It has been established over and over again by our legislative, judicial, and executive branch that the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms. The SCOTUS would not be impressed by your childish semantics, nor would they be swayed by such blatant garbage.



    If only the Dalai Lama owned guns, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The fact is that if atom bombs are not regulated, then anybody could have them. This is the issue at hand. Certain weapons fall into the wrong hands. We are engaging in a pretty straightforward debate: do the value of their ("assault rifles") legitimate functions outweigh the potential cost of legally manufactured and sold firearms that fall into the hands of psychopaths and mass murderers?

    My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
    you got anything valid to say. because so far you said nothing

  8. #418
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    .


    My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense.

    That is a statement by someone who knows NOTHING about shooting a firearm. Long guns are INHERENTLY easily to shoot accurately - particularly for someone not proficient in firearms. The reason is obvious. It is easier to point accurately with a 3 foot long stick than with a 3 inch stick. This is well understood.

    ANY rifle or shotgun that holds a magazine is, according to you, an "assault rifle" as all firearms that hold a magazine can hold any size magazine. Most handguns sold in the last 2 decades hold magazines. So do many hunting rifles.

    It would be nice if anti-gun folks would explore a little bit the reality of the topics.

  9. #419
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,803

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    That is a statement by someone who knows NOTHING about shooting a firearm. Long guns are INHERENTLY easily to shoot accurately - particularly for someone not proficient in firearms. The reason is obvious. It is easier to point accurately with a 3 foot long stick than with a 3 inch stick. This is well understood.

    ANY rifle or shotgun that holds a magazine is, according to you, an "assault rifle" as all firearms that hold a magazine can hold any size magazine. Most handguns sold in the last 2 decades hold magazines. So do many hunting rifles.

    It would be nice if anti-gun folks would explore a little bit the reality of the topics.
    I guess what really bothers me is people who know nothing about a gun and don't even understand what an assault rifle is (its the most sacrosanct weapon under both the second amendment and the MILLER decision) make proclamations about the use of such firearms.

    its like a faith healer who has no training in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry or medicine telling an oncologist that a certain chemotherapy regiment has no use in treating say pancreatic cancer



  10. #420
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Says the guy who's about to make a run-on sentence....



    Let's clear that up a bit...


    That may have been your intent, but your poor word usage and sentence structure failed to express that message.


    Clear as mud.
    Have you ever heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black?
    That's exactly why we do not need registration. No one is harmed, braking a registration law is a victim-less crime, exactly like arresting someone for smoking pot. No one is harmed.

Page 42 of 45 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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
  •