Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

Lets be real. This guy is not a real hunter. No real hunter needs this type of weapon.

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

The Clinton era ban didn't ban AR15's, they were readily sold during that time. All that ban did was ban them from having things like adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet attachment points. Similar to the versions sold in states that still have state level assault weapons bans


Please correct me it I'm wrong, but I don't think that taking adjustable stocks or bayonets back away will prevent shootings like this. In fact Sandy Hook was done with a ban compliant AR15

The AWB banned an entire list of assault weapons in addition to the assorted paraphernalia meant to boost kill totals. The next ban should simply add the AR-15 to the list. Fact is mass shootings were down duiring the ban period and rose again after it was lifted.

It's amazing that people are pushing for this legislation and don't even know what it is.

No, the federal AWB did not ban "an entire list of assault weapons". It did ban any weapons at all. As stated before, all it did was ban them from having too many of a list of features. Features such as adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet lugs.

Another fact is that violent crime and murder were way up during that ban, and have dropped steadily since the end of that ban.

Why is it that you insist that the problem must be inanimate objects, instead of issues with people and out mental health system?

Stay focused. We are not talking about solving the 80s crack gang wars. We are talking about reducing the number and severity of mass shootings. Also you are wrong. The original ban had both a list of banned weapons and separately a list of features, to cover future weapons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

The Clinton era ban didn't ban AR15's, they were readily sold during that time. All that ban did was ban them from having things like adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet attachment points. Similar to the versions sold in states that still have state level assault weapons bans


Please correct me it I'm wrong, but I don't think that taking adjustable stocks or bayonets back away will prevent shootings like this. In fact Sandy Hook was done with a ban compliant AR15

The AWB banned an entire list of assault weapons in addition to the assorted paraphernalia meant to boost kill totals. The next ban should simply add the AR-15 to the list. Fact is mass shootings were down duiring the ban period and rose again after it was lifted.

It's amazing that people are pushing for this legislation and don't even know what it is.

No, the federal AWB did not ban "an entire list of assault weapons". It did ban any weapons at all. As stated before, all it did was ban them from having too many of a list of features. Features such as adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet lugs.

Another fact is that violent crime and murder were way up during that ban, and have dropped steadily since the end of that ban.

Why is it that you insist that the problem must be inanimate objects, instead of issues with people and out mental health system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

The Clinton era ban didn't ban AR15's, they were readily sold during that time. All that ban did was ban them from having things like adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet attachment points. Similar to the versions sold in states that still have state level assault weapons bans


Please correct me it I'm wrong, but I don't think that taking adjustable stocks or bayonets back away will prevent shootings like this. In fact Sandy Hook was done with a ban compliant AR15

The AWB banned an entire list of assault weapons in addition to the assorted paraphernalia meant to boost kill totals. The next ban should simply add the AR-15 to the list. Fact is mass shootings were down duiring the ban period and rose again after it was lifted.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - who really thinks having these types guns available to the general public is a good idea? Why are gun owners choosing these guns to take a stand? If you are a hunter or a sportsman, would you want one of these? If you do, you are a pretty sucky hunter is all I will say. What about if you want a gin for personal protection? Who the heck actually wants one of these?

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - who really thinks having these types guns available to the general public is a good idea? Why are gun owners choosing these guns to take a stand? If you are a hunter or a sportsman, would you want one of these? If you do, you are a pretty sucky hunter is all I will say. What about if you want a gin for personal protection? Who the heck actually wants one of these?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

The Clinton era ban didn't ban AR15's, they were readily sold during that time. All that ban did was ban them from having things like adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet attachment points. Similar to the versions sold in states that still have state level assault weapons bans


Please correct me it I'm wrong, but I don't think that taking adjustable stocks or bayonets back away will prevent shootings like this. In fact Sandy Hook was done with a ban compliant AR15

The AWB banned an entire list of assault weapons in addition to the assorted paraphernalia meant to boost kill totals. The next ban should simply add the AR-15 to the list. Fact is mass shootings were down duiring the ban period and rose again after it was lifted.

Correlation is not causation.

Sometimes it is, like in this case.

I'm sure you have some evidence of that, right?

I do. Lots of pictures of kids lying on the ground, surrounded by puddles of blood, with their limp and lifeless bodies torn to shreds by an AR-15.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

The Clinton era ban didn't ban AR15's, they were readily sold during that time. All that ban did was ban them from having things like adjustable stocks, muzzle brakes, or bayonet attachment points. Similar to the versions sold in states that still have state level assault weapons bans


Please correct me it I'm wrong, but I don't think that taking adjustable stocks or bayonets back away will prevent shootings like this. In fact Sandy Hook was done with a ban compliant AR15

The AWB banned an entire list of assault weapons in addition to the assorted paraphernalia meant to boost kill totals. The next ban should simply add the AR-15 to the list. Fact is mass shootings were down duiring the ban period and rose again after it was lifted.

Correlation is not causation.

Sometimes it is, like in this case.

I'm sure you have some evidence of that, right?