There's a bill on the House floor...

[F.U.]

The only people who NEED assault weapons are soldiers, SWAT teams and spree killers.

And nothing anybody says is going to change my opinion.

There fixed it for you.

[Cynical Ninja]

I'm waiting for someone to present me with a convincing or compelling argument that civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.

And saying “because we are” just doesn't cut the English mustard I'm afriaid.

[Duchess]

What exactly do you have against law abiding people owning them, OP?

[Jimbone]

Kids get killed ACCIDENTALLY by cars all the time what we are talking about is MURDER not accidental death.

Its not about emotion its about facts and the fact is death by accident and death by design are two completely seperate issues as you know all too well.

So that's another cowpat full of fact flung right back in your face meathead.

So now we want to talk about murder instead of accidental death by firearm? Great! I'm still up for it, because the numbers are still ridiculously low.

Do you know how many children age 0-14 were intentionally killed by firearms? Just over 200. So a quick recalculation of the numbers isn't even necessary... vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, parents beating their kids to death ALL individually exceed firearms as a cause of death to children.

Square the data here and stop being so emotional.

[Jimbone]

I'm waiting for someone to present me with a convincing or compelling argument that civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.

And saying “because we are” just doesn't cut the English mustard I'm afriaid.

Again, you're significantly impaired on the facts.

Assault weapons - as you continually blather on about - are rarely if ever used in crimes. In fact, they account for less than 2% of all gun crimes here in the US. That's assuming by 'assault weapons' you mean the cosmetically scary looking guns that function identically to their non-scary looking cousins.

And while you may not like it, they are currently protected by our 2^nd Amendment and legal. So basically, 'because we can' is a valid reason.

[F.U.]

I'm waiting for someone to present me with a convincing or compelling argument that civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons.

And saying “because we are” just doesn't cut the English mustard I'm afriaid.

English mustard means nothing in this conversation. All that is important is that OUR founding fathers said we have the right to arms!

[Maggot]

People are the same today as they were back then, the problem is that some think they are smarter than anyone else and can make decisions for everyone else. It always fails. Then history repeats, the ones that are trying to be smart have a very short memory and they never last long in the grand scheme of things. You cannot legislate it nor escape it. Only live with it. And some forget that. What is the end product? Utopia? Equality? Good luck with that.

[Cynical Ninja]

That's assuming by 'assault weapons' you mean the cosmetically scary looking guns that function identically to their non-scary looking cousins.

Uh huh, identically huh? The last time i checked the average hunting rifle couldn't fire 800 rounds per minute.

[Cynical Ninja]

Ok.

Finish this sentence “CN you stoopid limey douchebag we “need” (notice i used the word “need” not want, crave or desire) assault weapons because.....”

[Cynical Ninja]

So now we want to talk about murder instead of accidental death by firearm? Great! I'm still up for it, because the numbers are still ridiculously low.

Do you know how many children age 0-14 were intentionally killed by firearms? Just over 200. So a quick recalculation of the numbers isn't even necessary... vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, parents beating their kids to death ALL individually exceed firearms as a cause of death to children.

Square the data here and stop being so emotional.

I call 200 hundred preventable child deaths 200 too many. And 0-14 years? How many 15, 16 and 17 year old were intentionally killed with guns?

Accidental death and murder are two completely seperate issues your attempt to blend the two together just will not wash no matter how many times you repeat it they are like oil and water.

Sorry for being emotional but the deaths of innocent people and children at the hands of homicidal maniacs is an emotional thing for me because i am normal human being with empathy for the suffering of others especially when simple steps can be taken to lessen the likelihood of it happening again.

I put innocent human lives before the right to own machine guns every time.

[Maggot]

Bloomberg and his "mayors against illegal guns" was in my state the other day, they went home with their tails tucked between their legs and a "get the fuck out" sign on their bus.

link


They were naming people killed by guns........including the boston bomber and about 60 other criminals killed by the cops. Lefty lunatics.

[Duchess]

They were naming people killed by guns........including the boston bomber and about 60 other criminals killed by the cops. Lefty lunatics.

SMH

[Adub]

.

[Maggot]

That would basically outlaw abortions after 20 weeks except in the case of rape or incest.

I would support that but it's anticipated that Democrats in the Senate will shoot it down. Pisses me off.

I'm curious if other people who consider themselves mostly pro-choice feel the same?

20 weeks is a long time. (trying to get back on topic)

[HairOfTheDog]

Was confused about why I've been seeing that the bill looks to ban abortion after 20 weeks, but also reading that it's a ban after 22 weeks.

Turns out, both are correct. The specific wording of the bill is 20 weeks (after conception), which is generally equated to 22 weeks of pregnancy.

In any event, this bill will die on the Senate floor this time out, despite Dr. Gosnell's atrocities and recent murder convictions. IMO. I don't think such a bill will have a chance of being voted into law without a Republic majority in both the House and the Senate, though it'll probably be attempted whenever horrific late term abortion cases hit the media.

[username]

I'm disgusted by Senate democrats for their position on this bill.

[Jimbone]

I put innocent human lives before the right to own machine guns every time.

This shows you to be what you are: an unreasonable ideologue.

Machine guns are illegal in the US. Have been for quite some time. Find you a hunting rifle that can fire 800 rounds per minute? In yet another nod to your complete ignorance, any semi-automatic weapon will fire EXACTLY THE SAME AS A SCARY LOOKING AR-15. For each pull of the trigger, a round will be fired - the spent casing ejected - and a new round will be chambered. If you pull the trigger once, one bullet. If you pull the trigger twice, two bullets. Get it? That's how semi-auto works... whether it's an AR-15, 9MM pistol, or .22 rifle.

Keep at it though sport, you'll get it eventually.

“CN you stoopid limey douchebag we “need” (notice i used the word “need” not want, crave or desire) assault weapons because.....”

Again, more ignorance from the ignorant. We have here what is called the Bill of RIGHTS. It's not called the Bill of NEEDS. Jesus man, take a civics class or something on the US Constitution if you want to understand it.

I've said a thousand times already... if the citizens of the US (notice I said the US, and not the UN or UK) want to get rid of the 2^nd Amendement as written, they can at any time.

But until then, the answer to you sentence is simple:

CN we “need” (notice i used the word “need” not want, crave or desire) assault weapons because we currently have a RIGHT to own them.

[Cynical Ninja]

This shows you to be what you are: an unreasonable ideologue.

Machine guns are illegal in the US. Have been for quite some time. Find you a hunting rifle that can fire 800 rounds per minute? In yet another nod to your complete ignorance, any semi-automatic weapon will fire EXACTLY THE SAME AS A SCARY LOOKING AR-15. For each pull of the trigger, a round will be fired - the spent casing ejected - and a new round will be chambered. If you pull the trigger once, one bullet. If you pull the trigger twice, two bullets. Get it? That's how semi-auto works... whether it's an AR-15, 9MM pistol, or .22 rifle.

Keep at it though sport, you'll get it eventually.

“CN you stoopid limey douchebag we “need” (notice i used the word “need” not want, crave or desire) assault weapons because.....”

Again, more ignorance from the ignorant. We have here what is called the Bill of RIGHTS. It's not called the Bill of NEEDS. Jesus man, take a civics class or something on the US Constitution if you want to understand it.

I've said a thousand times already... if the citizens of the US (notice I said the US, and not the UN or UK) want to get rid of the 2^nd Amendement as written, they can at any time.

But until then, the answer to you sentence is simple:

CN we “need” (notice i used the word “need” not want, crave or desire) assault weapons because we currently have a RIGHT to own them.

Are you trying to suggest that fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US?

Huh? Are you?

Having the right to own something doesn't mean you need it either that's a strawman argument.

[Jimbone]

Are you trying to suggest that fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US?

Huh? Are you?

Having the right to own something doesn't mean you need it either that's a strawman argument.

For the vast majority of Americans, yes, fully automatic weapons are illegal to own. The reason? Most Americans don't possess a federal firearms license with a class 3 endorsement.

I'm truly sorry you believe the rights guaranteed Americans by the Bill of Rights is straw man argument. If we change the topic, do you still feel that way?

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you need it... just because you have a right to assemble doesn't mean you need to... just because you have the right to worship freely doesn't mean you need to.

See how that works?

We either have a Constitution or we do not. It's not that complicated, and it's certainly not a straw man.

[username]

You don't really have the right to free speech. Try walking in to an airport yelling "allahu Akbar" and see what that gets you.

Not to mention libel, slander and inciting laws.

If Paula Deen truly had the right to free speech, she ought to be able to sue Food Network for wrongful termination.

ETA: n/m the part about Paula. They didn't fire her but instead chose not to renew her contract. There's still a point in there somewhere though.