Yes, and often creates a situation where previously law abiding and upstanding citizens are potentially able to be classed as criminals if they don’t comply with disarmament laws as is the case in the some NE states and if some of the DEM 2020 hopefuls get their way.
no it's not, I said we should make assault weapons as hard to get as machine guns, so that was the discussion
I would have no clue how to buy a machine gun illegally, have you done so? if it was easy, seem we would see more mass murders use them....
I am not a criminal, but we know that for criminals buying guns is as easy as ordering a pizza - even on an island nation with a gun ban. "Philip Etienne - a former undercover policeman who has bought dozens of guns during his career with the Met, as detailed in his book, The Infiltrators - believes the problem is growing rapidly because criminals increasingly feel pressurised into carrying firearms. There are so many guns in circulation that, to the people selling them, they are just another commodity, just a way of making money. That's the business they're in and it wouldn't occur to them to do anything else. When I was in the police force, we concentrated on taking them out of circulation rather than making arrests. If we heard someone had guns for sale we would just go and buy as many of them as we could. But today there are so many out there, I don't think we could keep up.' Unfortunately, Etienne looks to be right." THIS IS LONDON, By Danny Brown, 2/28/02. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynam...?in_review_id=509803&in_review_text_id=473066 Probably just a bit easier to buy a gun than heroin or cocaine.
*Facepalm* "assault" is an action, not a descriptor of any gun. The only ones who try and claim a gun or weapon is an "assault" type are the ignorant politicians. Assault is already illegal. The only people who believe "assault" weapons are more deadly than their identical counterparts are those who are scared of things colored black.
Actually the correct term is Assault Rifle, which is a full auto firearm capable of laying down suppressive fire, the purpose being keeping the enemy from shooting back while an assault is executed.
From whom does that come from, and if true, why is it that the label is being assigned to AR-15s which aren't "full auto" anyways? Again, the leftist political sphere doesn't know what they are talking about and are ignorant to the guns. BTW, Full auto are pretty much banned already and none of them have been used in a mass shooting for decades.
It's a military term. It's a disinformation campaign put out by anti-gunners to ban semi-automatic firearms, they represent a black military looking semi-automatic as an Assault Weapon (a term which is totally false) in an attempt to get people on board with banning such, however the way the bans are actually drafted if passed, would ban all semi-automatic long guns, not just the scary looking ones. Their cause is incremental and based on using death and repeating lies over and over until the lies are believed and rights are lost. Many of them do know what they are talking about, but revealing such would destroy not promote their cause, because of that they choose confusion over facts, misleading terms over truth, claiming they care while ignoring the root cause of the problem. And that is why they need to be exposed for who they are. If they really cared about saving lives they would go after the real problem, that being the people pulling the triggers, but to do that they would have to demand the invocation of policies and practices that go against a lot of what they truly believe in, so they go after the tool not the fool. While not banned is becoming well known that the process is not simple and very expensive and is one of the sticks the anti's get beat with now and then, another one is pointing the only difference between what they call a Assault Weapon and a semi-automatic firearm, is how it looks, not how it functions. Another tactic the anti's use are lies by omission, one of these is claiming it's too easy to buy a gun, anyone can buy one on the internet. Well that is true it is legal to buy a gun online, however what they omit is it is a federal crime to ship a gun to anyone who does not hold a federal Firearms License, so yes one can buy a gun on the internet but they cannot take possession of it without going through a FFL, which means a background check will be run unless the buyer holds a carry license. Another lie by omission they proffer is universal background checks, on the surface that seems simple enough, the reality is not. If you want to buy a gun from me and I want to sell it to you and a UBC is required, I cannot do that, the system to run background checks is only open to FFL's and law enforcement and most departments will not get involved in transfers because of liability. So in order to comply if you where my neighbor, we would have to drive three hours for 130 miles and both of us would have to pay a fee to have a FFL transfer the gun from me to you. The NRA and others pushed hard to open the FBI's background check system (NICS) for private sales, which I would love to see happen as it would make the criminal and civil liability of failing to use the system for private sales so great, only criminals would avoid it. However privacy advocates' and the FBI opposed opening the system, even though our proposed method would totally protect the buyers privacy. The proposal was the buyer would run a background check on him or herself, if passed that person would receive a NICS approval number. As a seller the buyer would provide that number and I would enter it into NICS and receive a sell, hold or deny reply, nothing else and certainly nothing personal about the buyer. But even though that would totally protect the buyers privacy, we couldn't get it passed. And another lie by omission they proffer is stronger background checks to prevent people with mental health from buying guns, this is something pro-gunners want, but guess what, patient privacy laws make that impossible, the NRA and other pro-gun groups wanted that included in the Fix NICS bill, but because of lobbying by the mental health industry it was carved out of the bill and tossed aside.
yes they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud."
Assault Weapons do not exist Assault Rifles do. And Wiki is well known as an unreliable source of information, the U.S. government has stated in court semi-automatic firearms are not Assault Rifles.
Simply because a term is made up, does not mean it actually exists, or otherwise describes something that exists. There are various definitions for various mythical creatures regarded as cryptids, but these definitions do not actually mean such creatures actually exist. Simply because a jackelope is defined does not mean a jackelope exists.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...kitchen-using-salt-water-and-electricity-ecm/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...-using-salt-water-electricity-3d-printed-jig/ Nah man. You can buy a $300.00 3d printer and make as many jigs as you want/need
Sounds like the "thought police" are alive and active. What an ingenious way to disarm people you don't like! Hitler should have thought of that!
Nuts like the transgender people who killed their animals while burning down their house should not have access to guns either. The question the OP asked was do you think white supremicists prone to violence should have access to assault style weapons like the ones used in Tree Of Life and El Paso. I have known a few of these white power Aryan brotherhood types and I consider them to be potential domestic terrorists. I have heard them saying that they would like to kill people they consider sub human. Obviously, like the tranny who burned down her house, these people are mentally deranged and should be reported to authorities by any responsible person who thinks they might go out and start shooting people. I am in favor of gun rights but not in favor of violent mentally deranged racists running around armed to the teeth.
Then if you have evidence against these people, move to have them adjudicated. Don't demand I be disarmed, because let me tell you if you actually knew someone who was AB or a Peckerwood you'd know a) they're a felon so they can't own guns anyway and b) they get them anyway so you're going to be disarming the law abiding not the actual targets of your fear. That. Is. IRRATIONAL. Myself and others flatly refuse to submit to restrictions to our liberty based upon such an irrational premise as "If I disarm the law abiding then the criminals I'm worried about won't have guns anymore even though you can make a gun in an apartment from commonly available materials and tools that are entirely non-regulated and there are already over 400 million guns in the US that we know of".
