Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[Juan_Bottom]

This kinda sums up the public discussion, I think.

[Symmetry]

Um, just a question: how would the second one discourage someone intending to die?

About as much as a "This is a great place to have someone kill you" sign.

[stahrgazer]

There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.

In an historical context, it does, indeed, say individuals, "the people" have the right to bear arms. First, back then, "militia" was a group of citizen volunteers who brought their supplies with them. Further, it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It may be that their reasoning was because militia is necessary, but it also doesn't explicitly say, "keep arms while they're acting within the regulations of the militia itself."

[mizery24]

Um, just a question: how would the second one discourage someone intending to die?

It is public knowledge that these people are cowards. The only reason this coward shot himself was because he heard the police.

All of these mass shootings have happened in states with stiff gun laws. HOW is that? Because people can't arm themselves.

Drug users still find drugs. Criminals will still find guns, and if they can't get a gun they will use a bomb, knife or even a BOX CUTTER. Remember the most horrific tragedy (which this tragedy is pretty close) happened because of box cutters not guns!!!!!!!!!! Killers will still kill

[Night Strike]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.

Quote to get a NS/PS answer.

There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.

It specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
And it was written for a time long ago when the United States had no army and was a frontier country.

The Constitution provided for the formation of an army, so why would the same document do both? (The Bill of Rights was already planned at the same time the body of the document was being ratified.) And what does being a frontier country have to do with the right to self-protection? Are police in the modern day able to respond to a person in danger in a matter of seconds so that personal weapons aren't necessary?

There's a good case to be made here, from the perspective's of the battle of Lexington and Concord. Of course, the supreme court ruled that the right to own a gun has nothing to do with militia's or army's. I seriously question that the Supreme Court paid any mind to the historical context of the words written.

Because the other 8 of the first 9 amendments were all applicable to the individual, so it's completely logical to understand that individual citizens also held the right to own guns and that such a right didn't belong only to government-sanctioned groups.

There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.

In an historical context, it does, indeed, say individuals, "the people" have the right to bear arms. First, back then, "militia" was a group of citizen volunteers who brought their supplies with them. Further, it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It may be that their reasoning was because militia is necessary, but it also doesn't explicitly say, "keep arms while they're acting within the regulations of the militia itself."

I know that, but that historical context and intent tend to mean little or nothing to the people who want to reinterpret everything the Constitution says. At least if it had specifically said "individuals", there would be one fewer area for people who want to take away rights to go after.

[Symmetry]

Interpretation of the constitution is a big part of law, indeed it's pretty much the job of judges, NS. For example, you are under the impression that the US constitution gives people the right to own guns. This is not mentioned in the constitution, or any of it's amendments. You're going with an interpretation of one of the amendments to the constitution.

Whether that;s a fair interpretation is up up for debate. I don't think it is, and despite your hyperbole, I don't think you do either.

[Night Strike]

Interpretation of the constitution is a big part of law, indeed it's pretty much the job of judges, NS. For example, you are under the impression that the US constitution gives people the right to own guns. This is not mentioned in the constitution, or any of it's amendments. You're going with an interpretation of one of the amendments to the constitution.

Whether that;s a fair interpretation is up up for debate. I don't think it is, and despite your hyperbole, I don't think you do either.

I don't believe the Constitution gives people the right to own guns!? It's amazing how people from other countries think they understand our Constitution. And it's not simply a modern day reinterpretation of what the amendment says/means.....it's also the original intent of the people who wrote and ratified the text. That should always hold more weight than what a modern judge who only studies case law (instead of Constitutional law) thinks.

[Symmetry]

Interpretation of the constitution is a big part of law, indeed it's pretty much the job of judges, NS. For example, you are under the impression that the US constitution gives people the right to own guns. This is not mentioned in the constitution, or any of it's amendments. You're going with an interpretation of one of the amendments to the constitution.

Whether that;s a fair interpretation is up up for debate. I don't think it is, and despite your hyperbole, I don't think you do either.

I don't believe the Constitution gives people the right to own guns!? It's amazing how people from other countries think they understand our Constitution. And it's not simply a modern day reinterpretation of what the amendment says/means.....it's also the original intent of the people who wrote and ratified the text. That should always hold more weight than what a modern judge who only studies case law (instead of Constitutional law) thinks.

Given that only you appear to understand the constitution, I'm not surprised that foreigners find your take on it baffling. Few people have the psychic link to the founding fathers and the authors of every amendment that you have, even within the US.

[thegreekdog]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

[Symmetry]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

As the assault rifle used is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, this all seems rather redundant.

[thegreekdog]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

As the assault rifle used is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, this all seems rather redundant.

I've provided you with multiple pieces of evidence showing that assault rifles are not available for sale in the United States, including a federal law. I think the onus is now on you to show evidence that assault rifles are available for sale in the United States. Alternatively, you can provide evidence that your definition of assault rifle is correct (and mine is not).

[Symmetry]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

As the assault rifle used is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, this all seems rather redundant.

I've provided you with multiple pieces of evidence showing that assault rifles are not available for sale in the United States, including a federal law. I think the onus is now on you to show evidence that assault rifles are available for sale in the United States. Alternatively, you can provide evidence that your definition of assault rifle is correct (and mine is not).

And I've given you evidence for that already.

[thegreekdog]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

As the assault rifle used is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, this all seems rather redundant.

I've provided you with multiple pieces of evidence showing that assault rifles are not available for sale in the United States, including a federal law. I think the onus is now on you to show evidence that assault rifles are available for sale in the United States. Alternatively, you can provide evidence that your definition of assault rifle is correct (and mine is not).

And I've given you evidence for that already.

No, you provided me with a link to the website The Nation which shows that Wal-Marts sell various weapons, all of which are semi-automatic weapons which are, by definition, not assault rifles.

So, if that is your evidence (that Wal-Mart sells semi-automatic weapons), you must also provide evidence showing a different definition of the term "assault rifle" that defines that term as a weapon that is a semi-automatic weapon.

[Symmetry]

Also, Sym is correct, Assault Rifles are legal in the US.

tgd has Assault Rifles confluttered with Automatic Weapons, which is not the same thing, yet Automatic weapons are also legal with heavy restrictions. Typically you need permits and they have to be registered with local police. Most states wont let you have them anyway, but you can own machine guns in Carolina. The regulation actually goes back to the NFA 1938. But the bans ended in 2004, to my knowledge.

No offense, but you need to find a definition of assault rifle other than "Juan Bottom says this is an assault rifle." I've looked at wikipedia and the language of the Assault Weapons Ban for my definitions. I hold those two sources more important than you.

The rest of your post is also mostly incorrect. Automatic weapons are not legal except for those owned and registered prior to 1986. The bans up to 2004, which expired, were only for certain semi-automatic weapons (NOT assault rifles). And they were not for all semi-automatic weapons.

I will point you to the following post of mine, in this thread, which you must have read and ignored. Perhaps if you read it again...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994199

Honestly you guys, this is not about whether I think guns should be legal or illegal. I honestly don't know enough about the statistics and the relative effect of gun bannings to understand whether banning guns will have a great effect. What this is about is getting the facts right on what guns are and are not assault rifles and are and are not banned currently (or were banned in the past). This is not something that is up for debate really. Symmetry noted that he would like to ban assault rifles. Well, they are banned (except for those registered prior to 1986). So, I asked him and I'll ask you Juan - what weapons would you like to ban? Would you like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban, which arbitrarily banned certain semi-automatics and not others?

As the assault rifle used is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, this all seems rather redundant.

I've provided you with multiple pieces of evidence showing that assault rifles are not available for sale in the United States, including a federal law. I think the onus is now on you to show evidence that assault rifles are available for sale in the United States. Alternatively, you can provide evidence that your definition of assault rifle is correct (and mine is not).

And I've given you evidence for that already.

No, you provided me with a link to the website The Nation which shows that Wal-Marts sell various weapons, all of which are semi-automatic weapons which are, by definition, not assault rifles.

So, if that is your evidence (that Wal-Mart sells semi-automatic weapons), you must also provide evidence showing a different definition of the term "assault rifle" that defines that term as a weapon that is a semi-automatic weapon.

The assault rifle used in the recent school shooting, we're referring to, right?

[thegreekdog]

The assault rifle used in the recent school shooting, we're referring to, right?

So no? No evidence?

What is the name of the gun that you think was used in the Newtown killings?

According to my evidence, the gun used was the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. That particular firearm is a semi-automatic weapon, and thus, by definition, not an assault rifle. The overview page for wiki states, specifically:

The M4 Type Carbine is a firearm manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms International, modeled on the AR-15 platform.
OverviewThe M4 Type Carbine is a reproduction of the Colt M4 Carbine, but is usually only semi-automatic for legality within the U.S. civilian market. However, it can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability.

I wait with bated breath for your thoughts.

[CreepersWiener]

Bushmaster XM-15...ASSAULT RIFLE!

[thegreekdog]

Bushmaster XM-15...SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON... THEREFORE NOT ASSAULT RIFLE!

Fixed that for you.

[Symmetry]

The assault rifle used in the recent school shooting, we're referring to, right?

So no? No evidence?

What is the name of the gun that you think was used in the Newtown killings?

According to my evidence, the gun used was the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. That particular firearm is a semi-automatic weapon, and thus, by definition, not an assault rifle. The overview page for wiki states, specifically:

The M4 Type Carbine is a firearm manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms International, modeled on the AR-15 platform.
OverviewThe M4 Type Carbine is a reproduction of the Colt M4 Carbine, but is usually only semi-automatic for legality within the U.S. civilian market. However, it can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability.

I wait with bated breath for your thoughts.

The Bushmaster AR-15, as I've provided evidence for.

Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

Perhaps reuters would be more trustrworthy:

Late on Monday, California Treasurer Bill Lockyer asked CalPERS and CalSTRS, the state's public pension funds and the largest in the United States, to account for their investments in gun manufacturers, and proposed that they sell their interest in any company that makes guns that are illegal under California's assault weapons ban.

California's ban includes the Bushmaster rifle

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-cerberus-freedomgroup-idUSBRE8BH08F20121218

[thegreekdog]

The assault rifle used in the recent school shooting, we're referring to, right?

So no? No evidence?

What is the name of the gun that you think was used in the Newtown killings?

According to my evidence, the gun used was the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. That particular firearm is a semi-automatic weapon, and thus, by definition, not an assault rifle. The overview page for wiki states, specifically:

The M4 Type Carbine is a firearm manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms International, modeled on the AR-15 platform.
OverviewThe M4 Type Carbine is a reproduction of the Colt M4 Carbine, but is usually only semi-automatic for legality within the U.S. civilian market. However, it can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability.

I wait with bated breath for your thoughts.

The Bushmaster AR-15, as I've provided evidence for.

Connecticut school shooter used assault rifle, had many bullets

Perhaps reuters would be more trustrworthy:

Late on Monday, California Treasurer Bill Lockyer asked CalPERS and CalSTRS, the state's public pension funds and the largest in the United States, to account for their investments in gun manufacturers, and proposed that they sell their interest in any company that makes guns that are illegal under California's assault weapons ban.

California's ban includes the Bushmaster rifle

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-cerberus-freedomgroup-idUSBRE8BH08F20121218

As I've demonstrated, the gun used in the Newtown killings was not an assault rifle (defined by me, pursuant to the evidence I've provided and for which you've provided no evidence to the contrary). It was a semi-automatic weapon.

The LA Times article does not define assault rifle, but uses the term "semi-automatic" numerous times. As I've demonstrated, a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault rifle. Therefore, the LA Times contradicts its own use of the term assault rifle. This is likely because it prefers the term "assault rifle" which has high shock value compared to semi-automatic weapon.

The Reuters article does not mention the term "assault rifle" at all, but does refer to semi-automatic weapons on a number of occasions.

I'm not sure what your point is, except to make yourself look silly. I've had nice discussions with Lootifer and Comic Boy, but you've chosen to go a different route. So, in the interest of your own feelings, let's try again - would you be in favor of banning all semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons, or something different? I think Lootifer had some good ideas, did you?

If, on the other hand, you want to keep arguing about your definition of assault rifle, which is based on nothing but wild fantasy, let's keep doing that.

[Symmetry]

Look, I'm not sure what else, if anything that I can give. You've got evidence that it's an assault weapon, from a bunch of opinions- media, legal, and commercial.

i don't know what else i can provide. Tgd, your arguments of late seem to be summed up as a general "No". To all sources given, and to all posters who disagree.

Giving you what you ask for, source-wise, seems like it will only garner insults,

[thegreekdog]

Look, I'm not sure what else, if anything that I can give. You've got evidence that it's an assault weapon, from a bunch of opinions- media, legal, and commercial.

i don't know what else i can provide. Tgd, your arguments of late seem to be summed up as a general "No". To all sources given, and to all posters who disagree.

Giving you what you ask for, source-wise, seems like it will only garner insults,

Hmm... it seems you've now changed the term from assault rifle to assault weapon.* Is there no limit to the depths you will go?

No, no there isn't - you again resort to ad hominems when you don't win the argument.

I would think you would have to ask yourself, "Self, since I can't find a definition of assault rifle that includes the term "semi-automatic" perhaps TGD is correct and I should acknowledge it." Apparently your ego does not permit you to think this way. And that is unfortunate because we could have had such a good discussion instead of this back and forth where you look silly. If my arguments of late (i.e. today) can be summed up by "no," it is merely because you refuse to acknowledge evidence and prefer, instead, to rely upon the LA Times or ad hominem attacks. I'm not sure what else I can do for you. You refuse to acknowledge evidence. You refuse to read other, more constructive discussions (I mean, seriously... where do you get this idea that my answer is "no" to all posters... it's only you sweetie pie and only in this thread).

I retain some small hope that you will begin to pay attention and save yourself from further embarrassment. I mean, at this point, your posts in this thread are equitable to Creepersweiner's post.

But, here is some more evidence. This from the U.S. federal government.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... a-firearms
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... -guns.html

*Assault weapons are not banned and include, under the definition of that term, semi-automatic weapons.

[CreepersWiener]

Clearly TGD must be labeled a terrorist and rounded up with the rest of the hicks.

[thegreekdog]

Clearly TGD must be labeled a terrorist and rounded up with the rest of the hicks.

Given the amount of times I've done searches related to firearms and the websites I've been on, I'm expecting a call from the federal government shortly.

[Symmetry]

Look, I'm not sure what else, if anything that I can give. You've got evidence that it's an assault weapon, from a bunch of opinions- media, legal, and commercial.

i don't know what else i can provide. Tgd, your arguments of late seem to be summed up as a general "No". To all sources given, and to all posters who disagree.

Giving you what you ask for, source-wise, seems like it will only garner insults,

Hmm... it seems you've now changed the term from assault rifle to assault weapon.* Is there no limit to the depths you will go?

No, no there isn't - you again resort to ad hominems when you don't win the argument.

I would think you would have to ask yourself, "Self, since I can't find a definition of assault rifle that includes the term "semi-automatic" perhaps TGD is correct and I should acknowledge it." Apparently your ego does not permit you to think this way. And that is unfortunate because we could have had such a good discussion instead of this back and forth where you look silly. If my arguments of late (i.e. today) can be summed up by "no," it is merely because you refuse to acknowledge evidence and prefer, instead, to rely upon the LA Times or ad hominem attacks. I'm not sure what else I can do for you. You refuse to acknowledge evidence. You refuse to read other, more constructive discussions (I mean, seriously... where do you get this idea that my answer is "no" to all posters... it's only you sweetie pie and only in this thread).

I retain some small hope that you will begin to pay attention and save yourself from further embarrassment. I mean, at this point, your posts in this thread are equitable to Creepersweiner's post.

But, here is some more evidence. This from the U.S. federal government.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... a-firearms
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... -guns.html

*Assault weapons are not banned and include, under the definition of that term, semi-automatic weapons.

i'm happy to go back to assault rifle, if that's preferable. I'm not sure that your posts flaming me for embarrassment quite work, but hey, I'm not attacking you personally, just asking what kind of evidence you're requesting that you won't ignore or insult.

[thegreekdog]

Look, I'm not sure what else, if anything that I can give. You've got evidence that it's an assault weapon, from a bunch of opinions- media, legal, and commercial.

i don't know what else i can provide. Tgd, your arguments of late seem to be summed up as a general "No". To all sources given, and to all posters who disagree.

Giving you what you ask for, source-wise, seems like it will only garner insults,

Hmm... it seems you've now changed the term from assault rifle to assault weapon.* Is there no limit to the depths you will go?

No, no there isn't - you again resort to ad hominems when you don't win the argument.

I would think you would have to ask yourself, "Self, since I can't find a definition of assault rifle that includes the term "semi-automatic" perhaps TGD is correct and I should acknowledge it." Apparently your ego does not permit you to think this way. And that is unfortunate because we could have had such a good discussion instead of this back and forth where you look silly. If my arguments of late (i.e. today) can be summed up by "no," it is merely because you refuse to acknowledge evidence and prefer, instead, to rely upon the LA Times or ad hominem attacks. I'm not sure what else I can do for you. You refuse to acknowledge evidence. You refuse to read other, more constructive discussions (I mean, seriously... where do you get this idea that my answer is "no" to all posters... it's only you sweetie pie and only in this thread).

I retain some small hope that you will begin to pay attention and save yourself from further embarrassment. I mean, at this point, your posts in this thread are equitable to Creepersweiner's post.

But, here is some more evidence. This from the U.S. federal government.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... a-firearms
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... -guns.html

*Assault weapons are not banned and include, under the definition of that term, semi-automatic weapons.

i'm happy to go back to assault rifle, if that's preferable. I'm not sure that your posts flaming me for embarrassment quite work, but hey, I'm not attacking you personally, just asking what kind of evidence you're requesting that you won't ignore or insult.

I would urge you to report my posts if you believe I'm flaming you. That seems to be the best way to deal with these sorts of things.

Given that I've provided evidence from the US federal government and wikipedia, the kind of evidence I'm requesting from you would be from the US federal government or wikipedia.

I think it is fascinating insight that you are asking me what evidence you can provide. This means that you have not yet acknowledge the evidence I've provided. So I guess let me ask the same question to you - what kind of evidence do you request of me that you won't ignore or respond with ad hominems?