Holmes was clearly provided with exotic gear (and bomb-making skills)
Continuing from CBS:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21X7EXjOk

again deeerp
naturalnews.com is total bullshit

I mean yeah, everything you are saying is factually true, but it will merely be dismissed as "NRA talking points".

since I'm arguing against the idea, assault rifles--bad, all other guns--ok.

Do you have any idea how unwieldy that would be? Of course not, because you don't really know anything about firearms. You just don't like them and want them banned.

system that produces what we are seeing needs to be banned.

support system, the one that has gun play in probably 75% of the shows on its television stations, the one that sees war as the first option when it comes to another country threatening the dollar, you know, the system that you and I live in.

I wonder if the irony in that statement registers at any level.

Probably not, since as best I can tell the op is making an argument against gun control.

I don't care if posters here want to ban all guns or all rifles. Keeping all guns except for "assault" rifles doesn't make sense.

It's early as I'm not sure about the irony, did I confuse affects and effects again? I wasn't referencing any one specific policy when I made that statement, certainly not a gun control policy.

with 80 to 100 guns per 100 people is the occasional mass murder. And the 60% of all homicides are committed by firearms affect.
The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world

One could argue that the crime rate is going down, and attribute that to firearm ownership, but I think that is incorrect use of statistics. There is absolutely no data (that I am aware of) indicating that gun proliferation is related to drops in crime rates.

Visualizations : Crime Rates vs. Population Density of Cities

that the vast majority of those gun homicide cases were committed using hand guns. (I remember reading a stat like that but don't remember the specifics).

Other than that I don't disagree with what you're saying.

aka Saturday night specials. You are correct.

Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I might be more in agreement if you said .25, but even then there are quality handguns in that caliber

Those clever NRA types have made it necessary to ban "semi-automatic rifles"...

Youre going to ban 90% of the guns on the market today?

Most rifle sold today are semi auto. 90% of handguns as well.

The NRAers have erased the distinction between semi and full auto.

Again: Ya did it to yourselves.

Has the power to rule any of those items illegal if they wish to.

There is no need to reset firearms ownership back to the mid 1800s

The current interpretation of the Second Ammendment is that it protects an indivual's right to own firearms... to allow for an armed populace in order to protect the Freedom of State. The founders intended for The People to have access to military-effective firearms (small arms, at the least). Like it or not, that is the interpretation.

And before someone says, "Herp-Derp, well all they had were muzzle loaders and muskets, guns are different today"... that was the cutting edge miltary armament of the time. Warships and cannons/artillery used in battle were commonly provided and owned by private mechants as well - I'm sure they were well of this. In addition to that, our other rights have evolved with time (ie: freedom of speech, new religions, etc...). What justifies the special-pleading that the 2nd Amendment should not evolve with technology as well?

Repeal the Hughes Ammendment.

YUP!

And, as another poster stated, almost every firearm sold is a semi automatic, long gun or handgun. They have been around for over 100 years.

the distinction between semi and full auto has been de facto erased

Obama's ATF gave you enough rope...

And you know who is picking up on this? Bill Kristol.

After the election, WHO EVER WINS, this issue will be addressed. Bipartisan. NO ONE wants machine guns back on the street.

Here's how it will go down: New manufacture will be stopped - that will take the big money push from the NRA.

Federal buy-back programs will be announced and existing owners will be give time to either obtain a special license or risk a federal felony.

I'm asking honestly. All the recent polling on the issue that I've seen indicates that a majority of Americans are either satisfied with current firearms restrictions or want them eased even further. That being the case, why do you believe that public opinion will change between now and January?

1) "Assault Rifles" are already defined legally and technically. They consist of rifles firing intermediate centerfire rifle cartridges capable of burst or fully automatic fire (multiple rounds fired with a single pull of the trigger). Assault rifles are considered machineguns and are HEAVILY regulated under the 1932 Natinal Firearms Act. Public consumption of new machineguns (including Assault Rifles) ceased in 1986 under the FOPA's Hughes Ammendment.Perhaps you meant "Assault Weapon"... the ease of these phrases conflation is not a coincidence, but rather engineered as such.

2) "Semi-Auto Military Rifle" is a misnomer. The military uses Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles. An AR-15 is not a military-grade firearm. They are also excellent for hunting small and intermediate game (coyote, small deer, varmints, etc)...

Your other points are sound. I tink a BIG point that needs discussed is the DOJ firearms use statistics showing that rifles and shotguns are VERY small contributers to the overall annual gun homicide.

I was using "Assault rifles" as it is used in latest context. I know there is a difference between actual assault weapons.

Secondly, I was trying to specify semi-auto and only used "military rifle" to give posters here an idea what exactly I'm referring to.

I purposely used it incorrectly so the unfamiliar types would know what I'm talking about.

Also please be nice. I constructed the OP 15 minutes before work and only recently got back.

Here is the key part of my OP "Assault rifle in this context, I believe, deals with semi-automatic military style rifles" It shows my reasoning behind using the language I used.

My shotgun only has a two-cartridge clip. I've looked for a larger one but can't find it. Note: I've never fired this particular gun. Still, I'm only interested in a 5 or so clip. If you have to reload, you're vulnerable. If you don't have to reload you're free to slaughter. Clamping down on clip sizes wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment, but it MIGHT just stop senseless massacre like the incident in question.

It jammed the gun. They have a reputation for doing that.

The massacre continued only after the shooter switched to a gun with a much smaller magazine.

Of course, my statement should not be construed to mean that I believe such mags ought to remain legal.

I have 15-round magazines and 30-round magazines. Without claiming to be especially proficient, I can swap out magazines in roughly four seconds.

If somebody wants to throw a lot of lead quickly, does anybody really think that having to stop for FOUR SECONDS after the first 15 rounds to fire the next 15 makes any appreciable difference?

modern army combatives level I, and some sera knife fighting will end your rampage damn quick.

It always amazes me how many people think that if they were at the scene of one of these shootings, they'd suddenly become the bastard love child of Rambo and Chuck Norris.

I wouldn't stand in the way of magazine rounds and while 100 rounds seems like an awful lot, it seems most magazine proposals are arbitrary more than anything.

"That is how I feel about recent calls for assault rifle bans. Assault rifle in this context, I believe, deals with semi-automatic military style rifles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


"Assault Rifle" is defined as a select-fire carbine. Just because some crackpot uses the term to describe an AR-15 bought at Academy doesn't make the crackpot right.