Please gun supporters - explain to me once and for all why you need an automatic weapon

[Anonymous]

Let's give gun control a try:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

"About 130 studies, from 10 different countries, converged on the idea gun deaths declined after laws restricting access to firearms went into force."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

So you are willing to try something? You would give up your guns if abortions were illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

So you are willing to try something? You would give up your guns if abortions were illegal?

The entire 14th amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

So you are willing to try something? You would give up your guns if abortions were illegal?

The entire 14th amendment.

So you no longer want states to be obligated to afford you rights guaranteed under the US Constitution? Is that it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

LOL Now you're just messing with the liberal youths. The latest events warped their fragile minds already, show mercy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An AR-15 magazine holds 30 rounds. There are many handguns with similar capacity. But even handguns with 1/2 that capacity can be reloaded quicker than an AR. Its actually significantly easier to reload a handgun than an AR. It's also easier to conceal. The AR just looks and sounds scarier. Be very thankful USPSA open pistol competition shooters are law abiding.

+1. "Assault weapons" is just a stupid term for "scary-looking guns." It has absolutely nothing to do with firing power, the damage the bullets that can be loaded can do, etc. You want to get rid of guns, you need to do a full ban and get rid of them off of the streets, underground, black market. That would require a constitutional amendment and very robust changes to our criminal system.

So I take it that our incompetent military (after all, DOD is part of the government, and we know the government can't do anything right) really should be fighting wars with revolvers instead of those "scary looking guns," that don't have any firepower or whatever.

Please read and comprehend. The military is NOT using the AR15 that is available to the public. The military using a gun that only LOOKS the same but fires 100% different. The military gun is an M16 that fires automatically and can fire with ONE trigger pull 700 rounds a minute. The civilian AR15 can fire with ONE trigger pull ONE bullet, the same as a handgun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civilians do not "need" AR-15s, period.

Stop confusing want with need.

Civilians do not "need" freedom of speech, period.

See how we can play this game with any rights?

Is this the road you want to go down?

Yes, let's go down this road. It's time to revisit the 2nd Amendment. If that means teasing out other Amendments for you to get it done, then fine. Let's do it. Let's do something.

Cool. I suggested striking the 14th and 2nd yesterday. Because abortions also kill people.

Are we ready to make that deal yet?

So you are willing to try something? You would give up your guns if abortions were illegal?

The entire 14th amendment.

Ok - entire 14th. Then you'd give up your guns? Is that what it'd take? Just trying to figure out your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

The only thing anybody needs is food, water, and air. It's not a need it's a want.

[Anonymous]

And this is why limousine liberals are dangerous. They have no clue what they're talking about. No clue how easy it is to turn a rifle into a "scary-looking gun" with a "scary-looking widget." It really doesn't take an Einstein to turn this around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

That's a slippery slope. Are all amendment rights under the same clause? Can you choose the specific mannor in which others can exercise their 1st amendment right or their fourteen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

That's a slippery slope. Are all amendment rights under the same clause? Can you choose the specific mannor in which others can exercise their 1st amendment right or their fourteen?

I just told that the Supreme Court says you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is why limousine liberals are dangerous. They have no clue what they're talking about. No clue how easy it is to turn a rifle into a "scary-looking gun" with a "scary-looking widget." It really doesn't take an Einstein to turn this around.

You are the one that has no clue. Liberals would like to regulate guns just like we regulate thousands of other dangerous products from cigarettes to lawn darts, and conservatives talk about details of how guns operate. Yes I know the difference. It has no bearing on my argument. And if you noticed, not every poster even wants to ban semi-automatic rifles, some just want to regulate them more tightly. But in typical conservative fashion, you just paint them all with one broad brush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read every article I've seen on gun supporters. You want to keep your handgun "for safety", fine. But please tell me why you need and feel it's your right to buy something like an AR-15. I just can't understand.

Brilliant article by the way -

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/gun-laws-and-terrorism-an-american-nightmare?mbid=social_facebook

You're an idiot. You can't buy an automatic weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's give gun control a try:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

"About 130 studies, from 10 different countries, converged on the idea gun deaths declined after laws restricting access to firearms went into force."

Did you know during that gun deaths in the US have also declined despite increased ownership?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/