F430murci

Apart from wishing to commit mass murder, what other "justification" is there for a civilian to own an AR-15?

How about being attacked by a gang of thugs with weapons? Having to cock your pistol or rifle after every shot would get you killed for sure if you were facing more than one assailant. An AR 15 is nothing special. It is just a gun that does not have to be cocked after every shot.

Haha, that is ridiculous. This rates up there with the guns don't kill people stuff. AR-15 shreds flesh and holds a lot if flesh shredding bullets.

If a gun is meant to protect against armed criminals, shredding flesh is the whole point.

Your no better than them if you want to go around shredding flesh. Maybe if more if mankind was focused on things other shredding flesh we won't have 27 dead.

BTW, was that the whole point to shred as much flesh as possible with these 20 first graders. Did we really need .223 walking into that school?

Apart from wishing to commit mass murder, what other "justification" is there for a civilian to own an AR-15?

How about being attacked by a gang of thugs with weapons? Having to cock your pistol or rifle after every shot would get you killed for sure if you were facing more than one assailant. An AR 15 is nothing special. It is just a gun that does not have to be cocked after every shot.

Haha, that is ridiculous. This rates up there with the guns don't kill people stuff. AR-15 shreds flesh and holds a lot if flesh shredding bullets.

Seriously, are you going to be strutting around the streets with your AR-15 everyday for rest if your life just in case you get surrounded by the Bloods or the Crips. Stay off crack and out of their hood and you will probably completely safe. Sounds like movie Fallen Down. All we need are crackpots walking around the streets with Assault Weapons.

Truth is, dudes carry guns to compensate and feel manly. See Psychology Today article I posted a page back to see the real deal with the need for guns. Has nothing to do with protection. That's just excuse.

I'm pretty sure they understand the guy just would have used a different type of weapon if an AR type weapon wasn't available. That point seems to be overlooked by many here.

But tragically the AR-15 was available in a store or gun show near you, with 30, 60 or 100 round magazines, or the more bulky drum magazines if you insist...just what every untrained civilian "needs".

Or how about a Barrett 50 sniper rifle (again available in many states for almost any civilian, and of course to carefully chosen Irish terrorists) to pick off your "deer" at 1000 metres+ , if you knew what you are doing, (but sadly Barrett don't produce ammunition that won't rip your deer apart and spoil the trophy). Having been at the receiving end of one of these delights I can assure you that it has no place in any civilian hand, let alone being sold to terrorist organizations with the aim of killing fellow NATO soldiers, plus the occasional policeman (final score was 7 dead British soldiers plus 2 policemen just in case you were interested, thanks Barrett corporation).

And I guess that would prove gun control doesn't always work in Ireland doesn't it. The fact is the CT shooter chose to use the rifle, instead of the handguns he had with him. I have no doubt he could have killed just as many with those handguns, considering their magazines can hold 13-17 rounds, and a 10mm or 9mm is plenty powerful to kill an adult.

Really, you apparently don't know too much about energy transfer and muzzle velocity of various weapons. .223 at 2700 + is going to shatter bone and emulsify organs and tissue. People survive multiple hits from 9mms and pistols unless using 5.70. Hits from high MVs maim if not kill.

There is a reason the Bushmaster was selected. Even if they only cause a 1,000 deaths a year, there is no legimate purpose for one in a civilized society. The danger these impose far outweighs any benefit.

Yeah, they need to do away with clips larger than 10 rounds in handguns also. The problem is getting this crap off streets, but the solution is not to sell more. That is some backwoods logic of the Knob Creek boys.

Boy you guys do like to digress in a seriously off topic way.

I don't see any correlation between recent posts and the OP in any way, shape or form.

Haha, we been bad. I guess we just want to be punished by the Mistress Whiplash.

Can we say "Non sequitur", or did you simply post on the wrong thread?

I wonder if she was a victim of Europe's latest Norovirus, which seems to be having quite an impact, albeit not a fatal one.

[quote

Clinton backed out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf on Monday because she was sick. She caught the virus during a recent visit to Europe.

The former first lady is known for her grueling travel schedule and is the most traveled secretary of state, having visited 112 countries while in the job.

]

Sorry for ambiguity. Some that argue guns don't kill in one thread are here in this thread urging that Obama and Hillary are somehow responsible for these deaths so it seems, when convenient for these individuals, neither the weapons nor those pulling the trigger are responsible here. Point is sone try and use any situation possible to support partisan politics. Just not very well made point.

Guns, RPGs and mortars were used to kill the four Americans. You must have forgotten that Libya is a war zone, and therein lies the problem with the Obama administration.

The Ambassador should never have been permitted to travel to Benghazi on 9/11 to a consulate that consisted of a concrete block building with only a perimeter wall for security. I place the blame for this directly on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton and I think she should answer questions to explain her reasoning behind this inaction.

The attempted cover-up and lack of response out of the White House needs some explanation as well but Obama will claim executive privilege and waltz away from questioning.

This is at least as bad as Watergate and we all know what happened there. If you want some semblance of transparency in government, there is no better place to start than an existing cover-up...and that is Benghazi.

Watergate. Haha. This is all Monday morning quarterback, bitter beer faced, partisan politic bs. This is like a car accident vicim saying "if I knew that guy was going to run a red light, I would have left five minutes earlier." National security issues are not purview of public. You certainly are not on a need to know basis. The world is very dangerous over there and the ambassador surely knew better than anyone the climate there and what was prudent at that time. I would say move on your guy lost, but it is certainly your right to be obcessive and stay in inner turmoil over the actions of the current administration. Partisan politics are a wonderful, but blinding, occurence all over the world. Fact is, Fox news is just taking years off your life getting all worked up over stuff that is somewhat imaginary and completely out of your control.

With all the Thai-bashing that goes on in these forums (i.e., a violent and lawless place where there's no respect for life), I wonder what people make of the recent tragedies in the US. I'm no expert on Thai history, but I can't recall instances of mass shootings at schools or theatres in Thailand where the gunman's intent is simply to take as many innocent lives as possible. No society is perfect.

The problem I have with Thailand is corruption at the law enforcement and government level. Regardless as to what the uninformed might say, the justice system in the US is very even handed overall. In Thailand, you can kill a cop, kill nine people in accident and be sentenced to death and still be free if you know or pay the right people. People commit intoxicated vehicular homicide crimes, flee the scene and essentially escape both civil liability and criminal liability.

There are whack people in the US who commit crimes and unfortunately every one and their brother has a gun. People get angry, intoxicated or irrational and act upon such emotion with easy access to guns resulting in permanent outcomes which may have been temporary had guns nit been so readily available. In US, however, you commit a serious crime or take another's life, you will very likely pay the price with your freedom. US is much more prone to imposing personal responsibility for both criminal and civil acts.

Article in psychology today states individual own guns to intimidate others and gain respect resulting in very high rates of antisocial behavior

"[T]he gun s an icon for democracy and personal empowerment. For example, some moviegoers claimed they could have “taken out” Holmes if only they had a gun, although additional people firing guns in a dark theater probably would have increased rather than decreased casualties and injuries."

"A U.S. survey found that guns in the home are more likely to be used by men to intimidate women than against strangers. Indeed, other weapons (e.g., baseball bats, knives) were more commonly used than guns in self-defense against strangers."

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

So guns don't kill people nor do the people pulling the trigger . . .

I would rather these guys help Mathew Moneymaker find bigfoot. Time better spent.

Can we say "Non sequitur", or did you simply post on the wrong thread?

I wonder if she was a victim of Europe's latest Norovirus, which seems to be having quite an impact, albeit not a fatal one.

[quote

Clinton backed out of a trip to North Africa and the Persian Gulf on Monday because she was sick. She caught the virus during a recent visit to Europe.

The former first lady is known for her grueling travel schedule and is the most traveled secretary of state, having visited 112 countries while in the job.

]

Sorry for ambiguity. Some that argue guns don't kill in one thread are here in this thread urging that Obama and Hillary are somehow responsible for these deaths so it seems, when convenient for these individuals, neither the weapons nor those pulling the trigger are responsible here. Point is sone try and use any situation possible to support partisan politics. Just not very well made point.

I am sitting here fuming over this bunch of morons. They should be made to watch the police crime scene video and then asked,

''Are you happy with YOUR gods work, method and choice of target '' ?

''Do you think the living kids will be happy at watching their chums being shot to pieces by YOUR god and perhaps join YOUR flock'' ?

I'm sure they can't wait for Armageddon.

Too bad they cannot experience it sooner than later. I get the free speech thing, but come on. I wonder if an executive order could shut their ass up if they try and show up with their signs and upset children and parents of deceased children.

Reading the recent posts on here gives a very worrying glimpse into the paranoid mind of a pro-gun American. There seems to be an irrational fear that is being used as justification for mass armament, why? I blame the US media to a certain extent, Fox news and similar controlled news outlets have brainwashed people and it seems it's all too easy for a US citizen to get lost in the scaremongering and buy into what they are fed hook line and sinker.

There's talk about an armed population being a check on your own Government, well who's checking the moral balance in the US, who's monitoring the ethics of the situation? Since when are your rights more important than the rights of others? Somehow your right to bear arms is more important than the rights of those innocents gunned down in cold blood as a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership and weak gun control regulations?

Why this irrational fear of your own Government and your own people, your fellow man? Some vague references to Nazi Germany... some inane fantasising about guerilla warfare... is this a good example of what someone should be diagnosing as mental health and treating appropriately? Get out more, socialise with other people, I find the more widely I travel and the more people I talk to the better my perception of my fellow man is. Reality check - The vast majority of people out there are decent sorts, much like you or me, they're not seeking to enslave you, kill you, rob you or impeach on your personal freedoms, they're just trying to get by as best they can and enjoy what time they have on this earth.

In the face of this terrible incident those calling for tighter gun controls and new regulations should be commended, now is just the time to bring about change. It's a natural response to this terrible side effect of having such weapons freely available and a horrific reminder of what such lax laws can result in. It is high time that changes were made, how many more innocents have to die before people realise that something is deeply wrong?

Those digging their heels in and advocating the easy access US citizens have to such devastating firearms, firearms that have no place in the world outside the arena of war, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. To make such comments on this particular thread shows a deeply saddening lack of compassion for those that lost their lives that day and their families who will be effected forever by this tragedy. There is a distinct lack of empathy being shown and some very callous and self centred opinions being voiced.

As to the comment on WW2, good God man, you need to wind your bl@@dy neck in. The UK stood alone against Hitler and the Nazis, fighting the good fight while the fat US bankers worked out how best to extract money from the situation and your troops stood idol with their fingers up their butts. All the while true men were fighting and dying next to each other; we had no choice, war was on our doorstep, mainland Europe had succumbed to the Nazis and still the US stood idol. I guess Pearl Harbour had nothing to do with the US joining the war, just a coincidence and there was no price paid for the assistance in arms and troops from the US? Your pride is misplaced, your country profiteered from the war in a cold, calculating and mercenary fashion. Utter ignorance and the perpetuation of these lies does nothing to educate your people.

I agree. The Republican base can be very impressionable. Just look throughout the Bush years and all of axis of evil speeches, keeping air ports at orange level long after threats had passed, and his constant use of thugs and evil one language. I used to think to myself is anyone really buying this, but it did appeal to it's intended audience. Same with gun message. Some people, as evidenced here, buy into it hook line and sinker while some of us sit back and wonder do people really believe that or think that way.

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

Our federal agencies are led by liberals with an agenda. They aren't to be trusted. As I said, they would label a hunting knife an assault weapon if they had a purpose for it. Real gun owners, dealers, and even military members know what a real assault rifle is, and the liberal press and liberal agencies can't change it.

One thing politicians do well is to play with words to gain advantage.

Okay, now you are sounding out in left field. a Hunting knife is not labeled as an assault weapon and is much different than a Bushmaster or AR-15 with a 30, 50 or 100 round clip. No "liberals with an agenda" are trying to ban hunting knife's as assault weapons.

Assault rifles are not the same as assault weapons. Gun dealers, politicians, me and anyone that reads about it can easily understand the difference. An assault rifle is a fully auto rifle. An assault weapon is semi-automatic version of the fully auto rifle. Not too terribly difficult and no one is trying to trick anyone as the definition of assault weapon is very specific, list model numbers and lacks any ambiguity. Would be stricken if ambiguous . . .

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

First, US citizens don't own assault weapons and I'm actually a bit tired of making that point. Assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns. Only people such as reporters and other uneducated people keep calling these weapons that. Paint a rifle black and it scares the uneducated. The military has assault weapons with which they conduct assaults.

Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the citizens have more power than the government. A baseball bat won't get you there.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator?

A lot. Not only are invaders confronted and usually run off rather than shot, but just knowing that a home is armed is a deterrent for all but the drugged up crazies. Then you really do need some defense.

If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

When the house is empty, the guns should be locked in a safe. At night there is one under my pillow. Children don't have access to my guns. Do you take away all cars because of drunk driving deaths? No, you punish the drunk. If someone allows a child to have a gun and something happens, that adult is liable for it.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Again, you don't take cars away from people due to the (many times more deaths than by guns) problems which occur, even by drunks and idiots. You accept some risk by driving, and you make sure you yourself are responsible. That's the best you can do.

Also, people seem to continue to ignore my postings about mass murders in so many other countries including the 46 deaths at the hands of the government in Thailand. No country is exempt. The scariest part is when the mass murders are by the government against the people.

People also seem to ignore the 90 million gun owners in the US who DIDN'T commit a crime with a gun on that day. Statistically the numbers are small, and again I'll take my freedom, and my knowledge that my government can never overrun the people in exchange for some risk just as I take some risk when I get into my car.

In the countries where people have given up their guns in exchange for what they perceive as safety, cannot see into the future and promise what may befall them just as the Germans couldn't predict what Hitler would do even to babies and small children after they surrendered their guns. The rest of the story about Europe has yet to be written. Europe is shaking at the core, and a central government is controlling the money for the Eurozone, and I would be afraid to live there. Much more afraid than in the US.

Maybe getting facts straight help with your credibility, esepcially since I have pointed this out several times . . .

ASSAULT WEAPONS:

Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific "semi-automatic firearms "classified as "assault weapons."Assault Weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

• `(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `( The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `© The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
  `(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  `(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
  `(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
  `(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  `(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
  `(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  `(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
  `(K) A conversion kit.
  `(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
  
  • `(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
    `(ii) AR-10;
    `(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
    `(iv) AR70;
    `(v) Calico Liberty;
    `(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
    `(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
    `(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
    `(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
    `(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
    `(xi) M1 Carbine;
    `(xii) Saiga;
    `(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
    `(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
    `(xv) SLG 95;
    `(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
    `(xvii) Steyr AUG;
    `(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
    `(xix) Tavor;
    `(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
    `(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).`(i) Calico M-110;
    `(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
    `(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
    `(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
    `(v) Uzi.`(i) Armscor 30 BG;
    `(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
    `(iii) Striker 12; or
    `(iv) Streetsweeper.`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
    `(ii) a threaded barrel;
    `(iii) a pistol grip;
    `(iv) a forward grip; or
    `(v) a barrel shroud.`(i) a second pistol grip;
    `(ii) a threaded barrel;
    `(iii) a barrel shroud; or
    `(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
    `(ii) a pistol grip;
    `(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
    `(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
    

http://www.govtrack....110/hr1022/text

That is a political, bureaucratic definition, designed to scare and control. It is not the term used by the military or by knowledgeable gun owners or dealers.

An assault weapon is fully automatic - a machine gun, such as the M16 common in the US military.

The liberal press and our liberal bureaucrats would define a hunting knife as an assault weapon if they took any advantage from it.

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

Oh by the way, Neversure (Approp . . .), US Citizens can also own assault rifles or fully auto stuff mfg prior to 1986 if I recall correctly. Have to check my date, but a Class III license is really not that difficult to obtain. Now the Federal registry on machine guns is very strict and they are extremely expensive so most of your garden variety criminals won't be using these for random crimes. Truth is, semi is much more accurate and deadly than full auto on the assault rifles and a criminal can pay $ 150 for a receiver to make an AK or AR fully auto so they won't spend huge dollars and register federally for a Class III when they can buy and AR-15 or AK Romanian eddition not subject to class III registration for a few hundred bucks and get fully auto at a fraction of the price if they so want. Again, FA is aonly good for supression fire so no need for FA to rob a bank or commit mass murder.

I bet they are doing it just to get a rise out of the Fox news psychos and to anger people like you.

Yeah, that's a great way to do it, we don't like our diplomats being murdered, denied aid and having it covered up by a narcissist concerned only with keeping his job. It's safe to say most Americans don't look at the assassination of our Ambassador and 3 other Americans as "sh*t happens".

It's also safe to say that only Fox News viewers and other diehard right wing nutters think it was a conspiracy by Obama and Clinton.

So guns don't kill people nor do the people pulling the trigger . . .

I would rather these guys help Mathew Moneymaker find bigfoot. Time better spent.

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

First, US citizens don't own assault weapons and I'm actually a bit tired of making that point. Assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns. Only people such as reporters and other uneducated people keep calling these weapons that. Paint a rifle black and it scares the uneducated. The military has assault weapons with which they conduct assaults.

Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the citizens have more power than the government. A baseball bat won't get you there.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator?

A lot. Not only are invaders confronted and usually run off rather than shot, but just knowing that a home is armed is a deterrent for all but the drugged up crazies. Then you really do need some defense.

If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

When the house is empty, the guns should be locked in a safe. At night there is one under my pillow. Children don't have access to my guns. Do you take away all cars because of drunk driving deaths? No, you punish the drunk. If someone allows a child to have a gun and something happens, that adult is liable for it.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Again, you don't take cars away from people due to the (many times more deaths than by guns) problems which occur, even by drunks and idiots. You accept some risk by driving, and you make sure you yourself are responsible. That's the best you can do.

Also, people seem to continue to ignore my postings about mass murders in so many other countries including the 46 deaths at the hands of the government in Thailand. No country is exempt. The scariest part is when the mass murders are by the government against the people.

People also seem to ignore the 90 million gun owners in the US who DIDN'T commit a crime with a gun on that day. Statistically the numbers are small, and again I'll take my freedom, and my knowledge that my government can never overrun the people in exchange for some risk just as I take some risk when I get into my car.

In the countries where people have given up their guns in exchange for what they perceive as safety, cannot see into the future and promise what may befall them just as the Germans couldn't predict what Hitler would do even to babies and small children after they surrendered their guns. The rest of the story about Europe has yet to be written. Europe is shaking at the core, and a central government is controlling the money for the Eurozone, and I would be afraid to live there. Much more afraid than in the US.

Maybe getting facts straight help with your credibility, esepcially since I have pointed this out several times . . .

ASSAULT WEAPONS:

Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific "semi-automatic firearms "classified as "assault weapons."Assault Weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

• 
  `(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `( The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `© The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
  `(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
  `(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  `(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
  `(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
  `(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  `(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
  `(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  `(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
  `(K) A conversion kit.
  `(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
  
  • 
    `(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
    `(ii) AR-10;
    `(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
    `(iv) AR70;
    `(v) Calico Liberty;
    `(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
    `(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
    `(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
    `(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
    `(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
    `(xi) M1 Carbine;
    `(xii) Saiga;
    `(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
    `(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
    `(xv) SLG 95;
    `(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
    `(xvii) Steyr AUG;
    `(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
    `(xix) Tavor;
    `(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
    `(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
    
    • 
      

    `(i) Calico M-110;

    `(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

    `(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

    `(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

    `(v) Uzi.

    • 
      

    `(i) Armscor 30 BG;

    `(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

    `(iii) Striker 12; or

    `(iv) Streetsweeper.

    • 
      

    `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

    `(ii) a threaded barrel;

    `(iii) a pistol grip;

    `(iv) a forward grip; or

    `(v) a barrel shroud.

    • 
      

    `(i) a second pistol grip;

    `(ii) a threaded barrel;

    `(iii) a barrel shroud; or

    `(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

    • 
      

    `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

    `(ii) a pistol grip;

    `(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

    `(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

    • 
      

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1022/text

Official public data on the web from the FBI shows that from January to November 2012 there were 16,808,538 (yes, 16,8 million) Applications for firearms in the USA, including the type of fire arms.

From November 1998 to November 2012 (14 years) a total of more than 156 Million (!) applications for firearms were received in the US.

Only some serious consciousness and awareness of the dangers of possessing firearms amongst Americans themselves is necessary to change the way of thinking in order to realize that the rest of the world also lives and survives WITHOUT hundreds of millions of firearms in private possession.

The same way of changes in thinking amongst a large part of the Americans happened with/about same-sex marriage...it took decades to realize and accept that the world is changing; the same will be needed for firearms

US Gun statistics overall:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5Hb2htdzJYUk1XeFRxMkJIdEFNUXc#gid=0

datablog by The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#data

How many guns per State:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us#state

Wow. Kentuckians sure like their guns. About 10 to 20 percent times national average. Guess they gotta protect those stills and pot fields from the revenue man.

Kentucky and West Va. Are two of the 4 lowest income and poorest education states in the US, but yet they sure do spend a whole lot on guns.

I do get gun ownership in states such as Alaska, Montanna, and Colorado type places. When I had my summer place in Salida Colo, we used to carry a 50 or 44 pistol when hiking just in case we ran into a bear.

I bet they are doing it just to get a rise out of the Fox news psychos and to anger people like you. Probably made up the whole stomach virus thing, fall and head injury due to underestimating the great investigation ability of TV members. If Republicans had been in office, you guys would be defending the administration so at least not act like you give two rats butt checks about anything but discrediting the evil opposing party.

Why not use all this great conspiracy busting ability to solve the mysteries of UFOs, alien abduction, ancient alliens and, more importantly, help those dudes on animal planet find big foot once and for all.

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It is easy to misunderstand. From the beginning, the reason for the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms had everything to do with allowing citizens to protect themselves from the government. It was to assure that the people were more powerful than the government, and they are.

Even though the government has far more powerful weapons, they are too far outnumbered. Also, the people can hide as civilians an come in and out to fight guerrilla style.

Never in history has any guerrilla army been defeated on its own soil. We saw that in N. Korea in the 50's, in Viet Nam in the 60 - 70's, and are today seeing it in Afghanistan. It just cannot be done, even against the US military.

This is why I reject all statements about citizens needing guns only for sporting purposes or even just for hunting. That's NOT what the guns are for. They are for defense of the home, the person, and the populace, and this requires capable weapons.

SO BEFORE anyone thinks this belief in defense against government is crazy, let's not forget the many massacres around the globe by governments against their people. In 1976 the Thai government massacred and then mutilated the bodies of 46 university students who were protesting. Link BTW the right to protest is also protected in the US.

There isn't room here to list all of the massacres by governments against their own people just in my lifetime, and certainly not in my father's lifetime and he fought against Hitler who killed 6 million Jews who had surrendered their guns to him. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China resulted in the government killing at least hundreds and many believe thousands of protestors. How would that have turned out if the Chinese citizens had guns? There were about 1/2 million protesters and a population of over one billion.

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me. As a matter of fact, the increasingly centralized monetary power (and money makes the rules) in Europe, and a somewhat unarmed populace would scare me. History says there are things to be concerned about when government gets too much power.

Too many inaccuracies to enumurate here. Unfortunately people read this kind of emotive half-truth and it re-inforces their paranoia. Most USA citizens that I know - including my very large extended family - are against public ownership of assault style weapons, seriously beefed up checks on the suitability of potential owners, and limits on the quantity in any household. There is a religious-like fervour about the constitution on USA as amended, but there is little thought put into implementing it correctly. Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated. If that had been the case there would not have been an arsenal in that house because of the unstable son, and those kids would not be dead now. RIP

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator? If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Hey, someone has to care about our diplomats getting murdered and get to the bottom of it. Can't expect those guilty of covering it up and refusing help to do it. That would be like asking Nixon to investigate what happened at the Watergate.

Secretary Clinton, most certainly cares about her personnel. What motivates you to engage in such cruel character assassination as to intimate that she doesn't care? She knew the deceased diplomat and had to deal with the aftermath of pain and despair at the State Department. The Secretary is not afraid of the truth, nor has she covered up anything.

Every experienced diplomat that has had hands on experience has said the same thing, Sh* happens. This doesn't downplay the incident, but attacks happen and a great deal of of the responsibility for local security rests with the diplomats themselves, and the decisions they take. Familiarity breeds complacency. We did it in the lab, eating our lunch in close proximity to infectious agents, doctors do it every day, in not washing their hands after touching patients, diplomats do it, when they don't take local conditions into account when they undertake activities.

Rational thinking and common sense are not traits of those governed by fear and emotion. Of course she cared, much more than any one on here simply using this for some personal agenda.

Which hospital was she taken to? Anybody know?

That's any of your business? Haha, you guys are amusing. Watch Fox, get blood boiling, concoct a bunch of conspiracy theories and stay angry. Lol, about her lying about concusion because you cannot get one from a stomach virus. Just stay away from guns when getting riiled up watching Fox and unraveling those conspiracies.

If the right to bear arms is:

1) Such an integral part of American culture

2) So contentious

and if Americans have the freedom to determine their own laws, why don't they just have a national referendum on it? It seems an appropriate issue on which to poll the nation.

It's a nice thought but Americans don't have national referendums because they are of no consequence legislatively. Some states have referendums as their state constitutions are structured so that the results actually have legislative impact. A national referendum result would just be like a bigger deal opinion poll. We've got plenty of opinion polls already. The way to change laws is in place. It often doesn't work, but that's the system. So bottom line, there will never be a national referendum on ANY issue unless the constitution is changed.

Thanks for that. So from what you've said it is impossible to change the constitution via referendum. Not that it necessarily should be changed via referendum, but the possibility would be a nice alternative to having political gridlock and no change, on this and other 'culture defining' issues.

Something like 2/3rds of house and senate and maybe like 3/4 of the states.

How was a mentally disabled man, able to acquire a gun of which one type was illegal to own in that state?

The gun could have been stolen. The kid could have bought it second hand. You are assuming he bought it from a store.

I thought it was widely known that the guns were legally owned by his mother, one of a number of Americans who are taking it upon themselves to stock pile weapons, ammunition and supplies in preparation for some imagined collapse of society. In this respect it mirrors the vast majority of gun homicides in the US, in that the weapons used were owned legally.

While the NRA and other pro-gun nut-jobs like to spread the misconception that arming yourself is a necessary precaution to combat "all those criminals with illegal firearms" the reality is that they are actually used to kill ones neighbours, friends, family and loved ones. You are nearly 3 times as likely to be shot and killed if you own a gun & 5 times as likely to shoot yourself (fatally).

Why, with an armed police force that are paid to combat crime the need to arm yourself? Simply call 911 and those that you pay to protect you with your taxes will do it for you; they are also appropriately trained and the statistics support that you are more likely to expose yourself and your family to danger by opting for the vigilante, protect yourself method.

The average time for police to respond to a 911 call is around 10 minutes.

The average time to pick up a personal weapon and defend oneself against an intruder would be in seconds.

Which do you want defending the lives of you and your family?

http://apbweb.com/fe...ty-to-city.html

Too bad guns cause way more accidental injuries to children in home or are taken out if home and used in crimes way more than they are used to shoot a home intruder. 500 children killed a year in in home accidental discharges. How many injured due to in home accidents or just got drunk and shot my wife.

I have not locked my doors in years, much less need a gun. Seems like they usually try to break to take your shit when your not there. I do agree there are some neighborhoods that are whack and you have to lock your doors.

I can understand the Americans standing up for their constitution 'rules' of a 'Right To Bear Arms' if it actually does say this. Not American so can't say for sure.

What I don't understand is why someone can hold an arsenal of weapons at home.

Want a gun for self protection then fine, a handgun with 6 rounds is sufficient. Get one licence for one gun per household only with a maximum 20 cartridges to be held at any one time.

Most tragedies like this one are when multiple guns are used and laws should be changed to prevent this.

But my forefathers said I have a right to buy each of my 9 year olds Bushmasters with 100 round clips. They need those guns and can handle them better than Chapo Guzman or Z40.

I am still waiting to hear what is so dam_n fun about owning an AR-15. Shooting cans or sitting around in your underwear and boots polishing them.

Talk about Vetted being compensation for some other area of your life. At least you can drive it on the weekends with your 20 something mistress.