ImageImageImageImageImage

OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification

Moderators: mpharris36, GONYK, HerSports85, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23, Capn'O, j4remi, Deeeez Knicks, NoLayupRule

ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#181 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:54 pm

LoyalFan wrote:
so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

Well yeah, this is how I would frame the question. At least acknowledge that there is some benefit of these laws, which there would be if we decrease the amount of mass-shootings by one per year.

Now you might think that's totally insignificant, but how significant is the burden on gun-owners if we say, for example you have to use a 10-capacity magazine, instead of 20?

This is the kinda of balancing we need to get into BEFORE we can simply assert that there has been a violation of constitutional rights.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#182 » by LoyalFan » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:57 pm

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude


Believe me, Hawaii has it's own set of problems not the least of which is a Meth/Ice epidemic. And we also have a very low high school graduation rate. Believe me, plenty of **** does down. And the reason we have an assault weapons ban is in response to a tragedy. And guess what? No more mass shootings. The reason I think Hawaii, like Australia, is a good example is you can't buy a gun at a Virginia gun show and then drive it to Hawaii. So we can enforce gun laws without worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

Now, back to our Professor Lott. I have to admit I had never heard of this foolio before. But his book "More Crimes, Less Violence" has been widely discredited. Now I understand the politics of personal destruction and that releasing a book like this would draw a lot of critics regardless of the strength of the conclusion. But when presented with the "coding errors" in his study Lott had his name removed from his own study. Now what does that tell you? In addition, he was going around with a pseudonym (pretending to be one of his students) and was going around trolling saying how great his book was and what a great professor he is. Now if that doesn't tell you the guy isn't playing with a full deck I don't know what will.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/




every time you speak you continue to prove me right. you live in a BUBBLE. australia is in a BUBBLE


THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT LIVE IN A BUBBLE. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN HAWAII


http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,029
And1: 1,057
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#183 » by E86 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:03 am

No35 wrote:
E86 wrote:
Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.


They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?


Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#184 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:06 am

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

Well yeah, this is how I would frame the question. At least acknowledge that there is some benefit of these laws, which there would be if we decrease the amount of mass-shootings by one per year.

Now you might think that's totally insignificant, but how significant is the burden on gun-owners if we say, for example you have to use a 10-capacity magazine, instead of 20?

This is the kinda of balancing we need to get into BEFORE we can simply assert that there has been a violation of constitutional rights.



you are determined to force some semblance of benefit into a ban. there is 0 benefit. none. zip. zilch. nada. you seriously need to get that through your head. it wont limit shootings at all. it will just MAYBE make them chose a different gun

and once again. columbine happened during the first ban which limited magazines. it had no effect on that. and it also had no effect on gun violence at all.

you cant squeeze money from a tree.
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#185 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:09 am

LoyalFan wrote:[

you are determined to force some semblance of benefit into a ban. there is 0 benefit. none. zip. zilch. nada. you seriously need to get that through your head. it wont limit shootings at all. it will just MAYBE make them chose a different gun

and once again. columbine happened during the first ban which limited magazines. it had no effect on that. and it also had no effect on gun violence at all.

you cant squeeze money from a tree.

But you yourself just said it would reduce the number of mass-shootings by about 1...

And with a different gun, they are less able to inflict as much damage.
User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#186 » by johnnywishbone » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:10 am

LoyalFan wrote:
johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude


Believe me, Hawaii has it's own set of problems not the least of which is a Meth/Ice epidemic. And we also have a very low high school graduation rate. Believe me, plenty of **** does down. And the reason we have an assault weapons ban is in response to a tragedy. And guess what? No more mass shootings. The reason I think Hawaii, like Australia, is a good example is you can't buy a gun at a Virginia gun show and then drive it to Hawaii. So we can enforce gun laws without worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

Now, back to our Professor Lott. I have to admit I had never heard of this foolio before. But his book "More Crimes, Less Violence" has been widely discredited. Now I understand the politics of personal destruction and that releasing a book like this would draw a lot of critics regardless of the strength of the conclusion. But when presented with the "coding errors" in his study Lott had his name removed from his own study. Now what does that tell you? In addition, he was going around with a pseudonym (pretending to be one of his students) and was going around trolling saying how great his book was and what a great professor he is. Now if that doesn't tell you the guy isn't playing with a full deck I don't know what will.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/




every time you speak you continue to prove me right. you live in a BUBBLE. australia is in a BUBBLE


THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT LIVE IN A BUBBLE. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN HAWAII


http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47


Hawaii[1][2][3] is a "may issue" state for concealed carry. "In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property," a license to carry a pistol or revolver may be granted or denied at the discretion of the county police chief.[4] In practice however few if any concealed carry licenses are granted.[5] Hawaii does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states.[6][7]
Acquiring a firearm in Hawaii requires a permit to acquire, issued to qualified applicants by the county police chief. There is a minimum 14-20 day waiting period for receiving a permit. A separate permit is required for each handgun(s) transaction to be acquired (valid for a period of 10 days), while a "long gun" permit can be used for any number of rifles or shotguns for a period of one year. In addition to passing a criminal background check, applicants must provide an affidavit of mental health, and agree to release their medical records. First time applicants must be fingerprinted by the FBI (fee applies). When applying to acquire a handgun, a handgun safety training course affidavit or hunter's education card is also required.[8]
Firearms acquired within the state must be registered with the chief of police within 5 days. Firearms brought in from out of state, including those owned prior to moving to Hawaii, must be registered within 3 days of arrival. Registration of firearms brought in from out of state does not involve a waiting period, however a FBI fingerprint and background check will be conducted. Registration is not required for black powder firearms or firearms manufactured before 1899.[9]
Carrying a loaded firearm, concealed or not concealed, including in a vehicle, is a class A felony. Unloaded firearms that are secured in a gun case and are accompanied by a corresponding permit are allowed to be transported in a vehicle between the permitted owner's residence or business and: a place of repair; a target range; a licensed dealer's place of business; an organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit; a place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or a police station.[10]
Fully automatic firearms, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, and rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long are prohibited by state law. Also banned are handgun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and semi-automatic handguns with certain combinations of features that the state has defined as "assault pistols".[1]


What did you say about Hawaii gun laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii
Play time is over.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#187 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:13 am

Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.[/quote]


you need to take a few minutes. **** down and **** because you dont know what in the hell you are talking about. you literally have no clue at all what you are talking about

i know 4 stores in 15 minutes of my house that sell nothing but class 3 weapons. and yes that means machine guns. the red tap you speak of is 1 form that you fill out and mail in with a 200 dollar tax stamp. i have quite a few friends that have "machine guns" i paid more than that for the trigger in my AR you clown. i have several stamps being processed for various class 3 guns as we speak as well as a few silencers.

the law dictates that you can not PRODUCE new machine guns. it has nothing to do with the 10s of millions that are already in circulation that anyone and their mother can buy any day of the week

dont make your self look stupid by presuming what is common or run of the mill when you dont have the slightest clue. go read a comic or something.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#188 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:14 am

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:[

you are determined to force some semblance of benefit into a ban. there is 0 benefit. none. zip. zilch. nada. you seriously need to get that through your head. it wont limit shootings at all. it will just MAYBE make them chose a different gun

and once again. columbine happened during the first ban which limited magazines. it had no effect on that. and it also had no effect on gun violence at all.

you cant squeeze money from a tree.

But you yourself just said it would reduce the number of mass-shootings by about 1...

And with a different gun, they are less able to inflict as much damage.



i said 'MAYBE'

if you are going to quote me do it accurately
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,029
And1: 1,057
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#189 » by E86 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:15 am

You know what. I've always been pro-gun, but I these entire debates are completely fruitless because no one can ever just present the facts without flying off the goddamn handle and it's really obnoxious. You will not convince johnny by calling him a bubble boy, and johnny you won't convince loyalfan by calling him an idiot. What's the point?
ORANGEandBLUE
RealGM
Posts: 16,144
And1: 1,334
Joined: May 06, 2001

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#190 » by ORANGEandBLUE » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:16 am

LoyalFan wrote:

i said 'MAYBE'

if you are going to quote me do it accurately

Well "maybe" is still different than "none. zip. zilch. nada."
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#191 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:18 am

every time you speak you continue to prove me right. you live in a BUBBLE. australia is in a BUBBLE


THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT LIVE IN A BUBBLE. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN HAWAII


http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47[/quote]

Hawaii[1][2][3] is a "may issue" state for concealed carry. "In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property," a license to carry a pistol or revolver may be granted or denied at the discretion of the county police chief.[4] In practice however few if any concealed carry licenses are granted.[5] Hawaii does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states.[6][7]
Acquiring a firearm in Hawaii requires a permit to acquire, issued to qualified applicants by the county police chief. There is a minimum 14-20 day waiting period for receiving a permit. A separate permit is required for each handgun(s) transaction to be acquired (valid for a period of 10 days), while a "long gun" permit can be used for any number of rifles or shotguns for a period of one year. In addition to passing a criminal background check, applicants must provide an affidavit of mental health, and agree to release their medical records. First time applicants must be fingerprinted by the FBI (fee applies). When applying to acquire a handgun, a handgun safety training course affidavit or hunter's education card is also required.[8]
Firearms acquired within the state must be registered with the chief of police within 5 days. Firearms brought in from out of state, including those owned prior to moving to Hawaii, must be registered within 3 days of arrival. Registration of firearms brought in from out of state does not involve a waiting period, however a FBI fingerprint and background check will be conducted. Registration is not required for black powder firearms or firearms manufactured before 1899.[9]
Carrying a loaded firearm, concealed or not concealed, including in a vehicle, is a class A felony. Unloaded firearms that are secured in a gun case and are accompanied by a corresponding permit are allowed to be transported in a vehicle between the permitted owner's residence or business and: a place of repair; a target range; a licensed dealer's place of business; an organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit; a place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or a police station.[10]
Fully automatic firearms, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, and rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long are prohibited by state law. Also banned are handgun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and semi-automatic handguns with certain combinations of features that the state has defined as "assault pistols".[1]


What did you say about Hawaii gun laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii[/quote]


you are a moron. you post things and dont even actually know what you post. comical
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#192 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:19 am

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:

i said 'MAYBE'

if you are going to quote me do it accurately

Well "maybe" is still different than "none. zip. zilch. nada."



you might win the lottery too. are you going to go to the dealership and buy a porsche tomorrow too?
User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#193 » by johnnywishbone » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:19 am

LoyalFan wrote:
E86 wrote:Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.



you need to take a few minutes. **** down and **** because you dont know what in the hell you are talking about. you literally have no clue at all what you are talking about

i know 4 stores in 15 minutes of my house that sell nothing but class 3 weapons. and yes that means machine guns. the red tap you speak of is 1 form that you fill out and mail in with a 200 dollar tax stamp. i have quite a few friends that have "machine guns" i paid more than that for the trigger in my AR you clown. i have several stamps being processed for various class 3 guns as we speak as well as a few silencers.

the law dictates that you can not PRODUCE new machine guns. it has nothing to do with the 10s of millions that are already in circulation that anyone and their mother can buy any day of the week

dont make your self look stupid by presuming what is common or run of the mill when you dont have the slightest clue. go read a comic or something.


Well, if nothing else at least your honest about what you believe. Because E86 was on your side of the argument before you trolled him :lol:

So what bubble do you live in? Baghdad or Tijuana?
Play time is over.
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,029
And1: 1,057
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#194 » by E86 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:20 am

LoyalFan wrote:Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.



you need to take a few minutes. **** down and **** because you dont know what in the hell you are talking about. you literally have no clue at all what you are talking about

i know 4 stores in 15 minutes of my house that sell nothing but class 3 weapons. and yes that means machine guns. the red tap you speak of is 1 form that you fill out and mail in with a 200 dollar tax stamp. i have quite a few friends that have "machine guns" i paid more than that for the trigger in my AR you clown. i have several stamps being processed for various class 3 guns as we speak as well as a few silencers.

the law dictates that you can not PRODUCE new machine guns. it has nothing to do with the 10s of millions that are already in circulation that anyone and their mother can buy any day of the week

dont make your self look stupid by presuming what is common or run of the mill when you dont have the slightest clue. go read a comic or something.[/quote]

lol. i shutter to think of you owning a gun.

maybe you're right. but i've only lived in new york and washington and both states don't allow class 3 weapons.

but in the end you cannot buy a new machine gun, only those prior to 1986.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#195 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:22 am

johnnywishbone wrote:
E86 wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.



you need to take a few minutes. **** down and **** because you dont know what in the hell you are talking about. you literally have no clue at all what you are talking about

i know 4 stores in 15 minutes of my house that sell nothing but class 3 weapons. and yes that means machine guns. the red tap you speak of is 1 form that you fill out and mail in with a 200 dollar tax stamp. i have quite a few friends that have "machine guns" i paid more than that for the trigger in my AR you clown. i have several stamps being processed for various class 3 guns as we speak as well as a few silencers.

the law dictates that you can not PRODUCE new machine guns. it has nothing to do with the 10s of millions that are already in circulation that anyone and their mother can buy any day of the week

dont make your self look stupid by presuming what is common or run of the mill when you dont have the slightest clue. go read a comic or something.


Well, if nothing else at least your honest about what you believe.

So what bubble do you live in? Baghdad or Tijuana?




what does anything i said there have to do with a "belief" in anything. he made a stupid comment and i corrected him

the bubble i live in is called the continental united states. atlanta by way of jamaica queens

owning class 3 firearms is common and easy and inexpensive. the only headache is waiting for them to sign your paperwork
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,029
And1: 1,057
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#196 » by E86 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:22 am

johnnywishbone wrote:
LoyalFan wrote:
E86 wrote:Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.



you need to take a few minutes. **** down and **** because you dont know what in the hell you are talking about. you literally have no clue at all what you are talking about

i know 4 stores in 15 minutes of my house that sell nothing but class 3 weapons. and yes that means machine guns. the red tap you speak of is 1 form that you fill out and mail in with a 200 dollar tax stamp. i have quite a few friends that have "machine guns" i paid more than that for the trigger in my AR you clown. i have several stamps being processed for various class 3 guns as we speak as well as a few silencers.

the law dictates that you can not PRODUCE new machine guns. it has nothing to do with the 10s of millions that are already in circulation that anyone and their mother can buy any day of the week

dont make your self look stupid by presuming what is common or run of the mill when you dont have the slightest clue. go read a comic or something.


Well, if nothing else at least your honest about what you believe.

So what bubble do you live in? Baghdad or Tijuana?



This dude is nuts, and has some weird blind rage. I'm pro-gun and he's even coming at me like a rabid pitbull. I think legislation needs to be passed to at least keep him away from guns. He sounds like a goddamn maniac.
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#197 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:25 am

[/quote]lol. i shutter to think of you owning a gun.

maybe you're right. but i've only lived in new york and washington and both states don't allow class 3 weapons.

but in the end you cannot buy a new machine gun, only those prior to 1986.[/quote]


you should make it a habit of knowing your facts before speaking about things
LoyalFan
Junior
Posts: 345
And1: 45
Joined: Jul 18, 2012

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#198 » by LoyalFan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:27 am

E86 wrote:



This dude is nuts, and has some weird blind rage. I'm pro-gun and he's even coming at me like a rabid pitbull. I think legislation needs to be passed to at least keep him away from guns. He sounds like a goddamn maniac.[/quote]


if you dont know what you are talking about than you cant be on any side. you cant call yourself pro anything if you dont even know what it is you are "PRO" for
User avatar
johnnywishbone
General Manager
Posts: 9,698
And1: 1,361
Joined: Sep 04, 2009
Location: In the land where palm trees sway...

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#199 » by johnnywishbone » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:29 am

E86 wrote:
This dude is nuts, and has some weird blind rage. I'm pro-gun and he's even coming at me like a rabid pitbull. I think legislation needs to be passed to at least keep him away from guns. He sounds like a goddamn maniac.



See - this is exactly why guns are a problem. Friendly fire!

Oh well. I guess being from Jamaica Queens is just a good a reason as any to be paranoid. Just kidding.

I'll leave you with this and then everybody go have a cocktail or something - chill out and don't shoot anybody.

Take a look at the chart and draw your own conclusions.

Link to full size image: http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/up ... Deaths.jpg

Image
Play time is over.
User avatar
E86
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,029
And1: 1,057
Joined: Jul 30, 2004

Re: OT - Assault Weapons Ban Clarification 

Post#200 » by E86 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:34 am

LoyalFan wrote:
lol. i shutter to think of you owning a gun.

maybe you're right. but i've only lived in new york and washington and both states don't allow class 3 weapons.

but in the end you cannot buy a new machine gun, only those prior to 1986.[/quote]


you should make it a habit of knowing your facts before speaking about things[/quote]

Do you realize how poorly you represent pro-gun people right now? Perhaps being a gun owner and living in states where class 3 weapons are banned didn't make me realize how easy it is for you to get a machine gun in Atlanta, but I wasn't even talking to you and you're going off the goddamn rails with everyone in this thread.

Much as Wingo represents his side of the argument poorly because he's an extreme leftist, you're equally as guilty of doing a terrible job of making this a worthwhile conversation. You're not going to convince anyone by calling them an idiot, or a bubble boy. In fact you're going to turn anyone on the fence about the gun issues in the opposite of the direction you're personally espousing.

At the end of the day, I might not be right about every single aspect of everything, but at least I can take a civil approach to discussions as crucial as this issue and not look like a psychopath.

Return to New York Knicks