Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It’s been done before, they were banned for years federally and in several states. Not hard.

And the definition used then was dumb.  Essentially a scary looking weapons ban.  If you want meaningful change, you need more than just ban black guns.

 

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It’s (banning assault weapons) been done before, they were banned for years federally and in several states. Not hard. 

 

Have you read how the Feds defined assault weapons?  

 

There's at least a sliver of truth to the NRA talking point that it's a "scary looking weapons ban".  

 

It took into account things like whether the weapon is also made in a different version, and the different version is capable of accepting a bayonet mount.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Have you read how the Feds defined assault weapons?  

 

There's at least a sliver of truth to the NRA talking point that it's a "scary looking weapons ban".  

 

It took into account things like whether the weapon is also made in a different version, and the different version is capable of accepting a bayonet mount.  


Here is the part of the definition you are referring to. 
 

Quote 

``(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a 
    detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
            ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
            ``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath 
        the action of the weapon;
            ``(iii) a bayonet mount;
            ``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to 
        accommodate a flash suppressor; and
            ``(v) a grenade launcher;

 

Seems pretty narrow that it would need a detachable magazine and two of 5 thing including a ****ing grenade launcher 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted (edited)


 

So just to clarify here. If a weapon both accepts detachable magazines and has a grenade launcher, it still is not an assault rifle under the federal definition. It would still need another one of the listed features to qualify. 
 

Yep, just “scary looking” weapons, said only NRA shills. 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


 

So just to clarify here. If a weapon both accepts detachable magazines and has a grenade launcher, it still is not an assault rifle under the federal definition. It would still need another one of the listed features to qualify. 

 

Unless it is capable of taking a flash suppressor.  (Whether it actually has one or not.)  

 

- NRA shill.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
  • Author
Posted
24 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not cool with grandfather. If you can have it, then I should be able to have it. 
 

im on the fence about whether there should be a reimbursement 

 

Then go buy one.  Nobody is stopping you.  That's honestly a weak ass argument.  "I didn't go buy said weapon before the ban so screw everyone that did!"  Come on bro 😕

 

If you're going to not grandfather and outright ban something the American people purchased legally, then the least you can do is reimburse them for what they paid for it.  And if the government can't afford to do that, then they should be grandfathered in.  Pretty simple solution to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DCSaints_fan

DCSaints_fan

Posted
Posted

 

4 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Have you read how the Feds defined assault weapons?  

 

There's at least a sliver of truth to the NRA talking point that it's a "scary looking weapons ban".  

 

It took into account things like whether the weapon is also made in a different version, and the different version is capable of accepting a bayonet mount.  

 

Yes, it silly.  Theres a few things that makes some guns more deadly than others 

 

1) effective rate of fire, as measured on the order of maybe a minute.  Here I include including all factors such as action, magazine capacity and reload mechanism

2) killing potential of a single bullet/projecticle

3) effective range 

 

So a semi-auto handgun, is alot less deadly than a semi-auto rifle, because the effective range is alot less.  On the other hand, I'd say its more deadly than a bolt-action rifle, because you can put out more rounds in a shorter period of time, despite the individual bullets being less deadly in most circumstances (except for maybe some edge cases like a .22 carbine vs a Desert Eagle) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

This whole disagreement is premised on people giving a **** what gun nuts think. Which I don’t, consistent with the Virginia electorate. 

 

I've heard a version of that in the past, Predicto spoke of the result from it often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Yes, it silly.  Theres a few things that makes some guns more deadly than others 

 

1) effective rate of fire, as measured on the order of maybe a minute.  Here I include including all factors such as action, magazine capacity and reload mechanism

 

(and lots more)


Yeah, that's my feelings as well. 
 

At least as far as mass shootings, (recognizing that they're a tiny fraction of the problem), to me, the number one thing is "number of rounds a typical shooter can deliver in one minute". 
 

So to me, the important factors are a removable magazine, and how big is the magazine. 

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I've heard a version of that in the past, Predicto spoke of the result from it often.

 

 


Right, people. Take it from twa about the dangers of only caring what one Party thinks. 
 

🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


which definition?

Assuming we were talking about the federal (clinton) definition, it was dumb.  (I also thought I remember a vertical foregrip was one of the items but I could be wrong).  You yourself just stated why the federal definition was dumb.....

8 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


Here is the part of the definition you are referring to. 
 

 

Seems pretty narrow that it would need a detachable magazine and two of 5 thing including a ****ing grenade launcher 

 

8 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


 

So just to clarify here. If a weapon both accepts detachable magazines and has a grenade launcher, it still is not an assault rifle under the federal definition. It would still need another one of the listed features to qualify. 
 

Yep, just “scary looking” weapons, said only NRA shills. 

A gun that has a detachable magazine and a GRENADE LAUNCHER isn't an assault rifle?  Explain why that isn't dumb?

 

As for what should fall under the assault rifle title, that conversation has been had many times in here.  Go back and check it out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Assuming we were talking about the federal (clinton) definition, it was dumb.  (I also thought I remember a vertical foregrip was one of the items but I could be wrong).  You yourself just stated why the federal definition was dumb.....

 

A gun that has a detachable magazine and a GRENADE LAUNCHER isn't an assault rifle?  Explain why that isn't dumb?

 

As for what should fall under the assault rifle title, that conversation has been had many times in here.  Go back and check it out.

 

 


Dumb, but not because it bans “scary looking” weapons (as you claimed). That is 100% just a stupid NRA talking point. 
 

Nothing about a vertical foregrip. 
 

And sure, people can disagree on how the term should be defined. It tends to differ based on whether you are pro or anti gun. In Virginia, the pro gun people’s opinions don’t matter anymore. They should make the definition as broad as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Then go buy one.  Nobody is stopping you.  That's honestly a weak ass argument.  "I didn't go buy said weapon before the ban so screw everyone that did!"  Come on bro

 

Did you intentionally miss the point?

 

So 6 months from now, after they've banned it, it's OK for one person to have it simply because they bought it before the ban and now it's not ok for another person to have it?

 

your grand rebuttal to that is "go buy one before they ban it" ?

 

If it's OK for one person to own, then it needs to be OK for others. This idea that it's only OK if it was purchased before a certain date is stupid. It's a high powered weapon and we're going to draw the line on who can/can't have it simply by whether someone purchased it before a certain date? ridiculous.

13 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

If you're going to not grandfather and outright ban something the American people purchased legally, then the least you can do is reimburse them for what they paid for it. 

 

Is that written in stone somewhere?

 

When the government decided to ban spice, did they reimburse everyone who had bought it? 

 

It's not a requirement. It's what you want. Cool. I'm not sure I care, much less think it's appropriate that tax payers fund reimbursing gun owners for owning a gun that's now banned.

 

And no, the least you can do is nothing; just ban the weapon and make it illegal to own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...