I shot four AR-15's today

My only point was to point out dishonesty. I don't have to be knowledgeable on guns, since the dishonesty lies within the statements of the opposition to gun laws; i.e. 1)saying that we want to ban accessories because of "appearance/looks/scary", when you fully well know the reason someone adds these things to their weapon is to increase the efficiency of that weapon for the purpose they have in mind when making the purchase(function), and by (2)saying that the limitations on the types of guns you can own is really an attempt to come get all of your guns and take them away.........as if your 2nd amendment rights are in jeopardy. But I digress)

So, it doesn't matter if I don't know the difference between the grain size of a 30.06 compared to a .22! It doesn't matter if I know that AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite or not. And you guys pointing things out like this and asking questions to test my knowledge does nothing to disprove/discredit my original point. My point was never about the specific function of these accessories, nor the cost, nor how powerful one is compared to the next. My point was that the GOP/CON group is saying that the DEMS want to ban these accessories because of how they look, when you well know the reason someone adds these things to their weapons.

Its like the example of the car whose owner adds a cowl hood. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the owner had a purpose for adding such a thing; even if you don't know the exact reason or function. Whether it be a benefit to the car's performance, handling of the vehicle, or just because it looks cool and muscular...................doesn't matter. No matter of the exact function, any person with half a brain cell would know that the car's owner added it for SOME reason.

Now, in pointing out this dishonest "look/scary/appearance" argument, just about every single person who was in opposition, was unwilling to address the most simple and fundamental core to the issue at hand; i.e. whether there was function or not in these accessories. (you did this above by pretending the flash doesn't have a function) No one was willing to admit that accessories provide some function because they knew if they admitted to this, they could not longer be dishonest and claim that our reasons for banning such things was based on "looks". They would have to accept that "looks" wasn't our real argument and they would have to start addressing the "function." And they don't want to do that because they KNOW there is function. Its just much easier to cause noise and chaos over non-issues(looks and taking away your guns) in order to muddy the water and to keep from having a discussion that you don't want to take place...............because you KNOW there is SOME function.

If you can admit that these accessories do add function and therefore the "looks/scary" argument put forth by the GOP/CON group is untenable, or maybe even a lie, then my point has been made. Because as I said, admitting there is a function will cause the GOP/CON to drop the "looks" argument and allow us to have a discussion over which accessories/guns should or should not be banned based on function. If the GOP/CONs do not drop the "looks/scary" argument, then decisions will most likely be made without their imput; they are too busy screaming about how "scary" something is.

 

I highly doubt the people who want this assault weapons ban know what the parts are or their function. They just see a rifle that looks militaristic and want it banned because it looks militaristic. It does indeed come down to looks, because like yourself, the majority of the anti-gun people I've seen out there have no idea of what they are talking about. It's clear as day that the ban isn't about saving lives, it's about taking guns the anti-gun people feel are scary out of the hands of peaceful people. That's the point that people have been making, and they've been doing a great job. If you honestly believe functionality is the issue, outside of 30 round+ magazines which is an actual enhancement, then I challenge you to ask the anti-gun crowd what the items that are being banned under the AWB are and their function. You might want to learn this information yourself so that you can see if they got it right or not.

Honestly though how is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you say "we need to ban this item that has a function, even though I don't know what that function is I just know it has a function?" That is after all essentially what you are saying.

 

Show me where I claimed that the banned parts served no purpose. I'm not saying that they serve no purpose, I'm saying that their purpose isn't the reason that they were banned.

That is the point of my illustration about the car. You can buy (or ban) something simply based on looks, even if it does serve a purpose. We are talking about motivation here. I could go buy a hat because it is bright out and I want to protect my eyes from the sun, or I could buy a hat because I like the way I look it in. Those are two different motivations. Whether or not the hat serves any other purpose is irrelevant to my motivation in buying the hat.

So what is the motivation of the writers of the assault weapons ban? If the motivation is to eliminate each feature based on purpose, then they would have banned all other items that have the same purpose equally, rather than focusing on a handful of items that are all found on military weapons. If they were banning because of purpose, then the features would have banned the rifle even if no other listed features were included. The AWB fails on both counts.

Actually, I'm not surprised that you are incapable of answering my two questions. The answer to them destroys your entire argument. These questions were asked of the writers of the original bill a decade ago and those writers were unable to answer them then either. The fact that they could not was proof to pro-gunners that the ban was about looks, not function.

If you want to prove that the banned features are about function, find a legitimate answer to the two questions. Otherwise all you are doing is trolling.

 

So you finally admit that these things do have a function? Or do you want to keep running because you are scared?
People can SEE that you added things to the gun. They KNOW you added them for SOME reason. Adding things for looks doesn't create any potential harm. Adding things that increase your killing capacity, which we can see, does increase potential harm...............and doesn't mean we are after them because of how they look.

So again, we are not after thinks because of looks; its function..............no matter if you can be honest and admit it or not!!!!

 

Interesting. I never said that you claimed what the banned(bought) parts served no purpose. Show me where I said this. I know you CANT!!! Now, since you are claiming that I said something, which I clearly didn't, I wonder if you have understood anything else I wrote?

As I stated above
1) IF, IF, IF you are only aware of the cosmetic benefit, then when we say that we want to ban cowl hoods because of function, you will be ignorant of this function and will assume its based on looks alone...................but this is because you are ignorant.
2) IF, IF, IF you are aware of both benefits, then when we say that we want to ban cowl hoods because of function, then claiming that we want to ban them because of how they look is blatant dishonesty!

So until you admit that these accessories do have a function, you will be ignored for being dishonest in a discussion. Either you are ignorant to the functions of the these you added to your gun or you are fully aware and are just playing stupid.

So yeah, who knows why I am avoiding your questions that do nothing to discredit my original point. Who knows why I decided to not take your bait to divert the conversation away from things that have nothing to do with my original point. Who knows why?

 

You seem to be terribly ignorant about firearms. That is not my problem.

 

Why do you guys continue to feed the troll?

His parents would be so upset to know he was trolling the interwebz after being tucked in a read a bedtime story.

 

Indeed, it certainly has.

 

And like I said earlier , whether I know about firearms are not.............doesn't do a damn thing to my original claim.

 

Ahhhh, so you CANT tell me whether these accessories have a function, but yet I am the troll? Ignored until you can be honest. You seem to have a problem doing so!

 

You are right. Ignorance begets ignorance. The only good observation you have made yet.

 

Wait a second, you shot scary guns without massacring dozens of children? Something is amiss...

 

Right?

How it even possible?

 

Those scary guns should have over-rode all of your sensory skills and sent you on a killing spree, no, I simply don't believe you...

*Note: I don't really know you, but having viewed the news a few times in the last few months there seems to be a disconnect, and if we can't believe the news...

 

I am always surprised by the lack of intellect on the part of most gun control advocates; they see something bad in the news:
1. Assume that most gun owners are on the verge of a killing spree
2. Assume the only people who own weapon X do so to go on a killing spree
3. Assume just because they watch the news they somehow know something about firearms and gun laws

When in reality all of their argument revolves figures that are smaller than one tenth of one percent.

 

The same freaks also assume their pleasures are without fault and have no negative effects on society...

I love to shoot, just about anything from .22 LR from my first gun to freaking .50 Ma Deuces! I have no desire to harm anyone... Eh, (*)(*)(*)(*) 'em, they can try, but it won't happen, to get what they truly want needs a 2nd Amendment change, and they really can't do that from Courts alone, or people will rise up and remember their roots as a nation...

 

Except none of that is true. Can you show me where a DEM said that most gun owners are on the verge of a killing spree? Hmmmmm, no!
Nothing but trolls around here!

 

Notice he never said DEM and probably votes DEM himself since he is a liberal. It is interesting that you have drawn the line at DEM for gun control advocates.

- - - Updated - - -

The idiocy of the Assault Weapons Ban legislation. Anyone that thinks this is good legislation is totally ignorant of the facts.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-ban-would-protect-more-than-2200-firearms/article/feed/2072530?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

 

The ignorance of the vast majority of anti-gun crowd is amazing to me. As you said, there is an ample display of it in this thread.

Any freedom has an associated price to pay for it. no right is exclusive of this rule, and no right should be limited unless in direct violation of another.

Our right to self defense, not just from criminal intrusions but invasion from a foreign entity as well as tyrannical control of governments is not different. It amazes me when folks simply discount that as not possible, or promote said occurrences as indefensible. It can happens, it DOES happen, almost daily.

Wolverine I suspect that on other items we would not agree on much, but you are one of the folks on this forum of which I have garnered some respect simply because while I may not agree with some of your views, I can respect the logic and thoughtfulness put behind them. I would hope that you do not allow the knee-jerk reactionaries on both sides of whatever the topic du jour to dull that logic and thoughtfulness. I simply utilize the ignore function- terribly handy when scouting out someone's views that aren't really worth considering.

 

So, your absurd 'freedom' to own guns has a price to pay. Are 10,000+ needless annual deaths from gunshot an acceptable price in your percentage game? What about 100,000, a million? At which point does it become unacceptable to you, or is owning a gun to be defended irrespective of the cost?

 

All freedoms have a cost paid in lives lost, from freedom of speech to freedom of association to land ownership freedoms. (Personally I classify all lives lost as needless, I wouldn't categorize it any other way) It isn't at all a percentage "game" as some wish to characterize it and to attempt to place t as such is an absurd game of relativism.

 

There is nothing absurd about the freedom to own guns. If anything it's absurd for a government to say it may be armed but you may not. It's also absurd for the government to ban an item on the grounds that it creates violence, as though violence would not exist without it. I go out and shoot targets with my guns every now and then, I'm hurting no one and I see no reason why I should be punished because people are hate of freedom and will ignorantly rally against it without bothering to look at facts. Fact is the vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners harm no one. Removing a right from a large group of peaceful people because of the actions of a few is madness. May as well start removing other causes and tools of violence such as speech, alcohol, social gatherings, POVs, the list keeps going.

 

The only subjects I am not uber left on are firearms and immigration.

 

How many of those deaths would still happen if guns were banned? You try to blame all of them, when most would happen anyway.

How about this: How much needless suffering by crime victims is an acceptable price to pay for your restriction of firearms? How many preventable rapes and assaults are acceptable, or is your disarmament of law-abiding citizens to be pushed regardless of cost?