Serious question Re: guns

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? And in New York City or the Long Island suburbs, what does carrying a gun allow you to do that you couldn't before? Be honest!
 
It was a farce based on the cosmetic appearance of the weapon. As such, it was a nod to the anti-gun lobby that really did nothing.

Under that ban, I could still buy this:

OIP.Isdtpd83LtEhH78yekGxxAHaEK


Or one of these:

wm_3733408.jpg


But couldn't buy this:

wm_7568744.jpg


The only real difference between the three is and was appearance.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? And in New York City or the Long Island suburbs, what does carrying a gun allow you to do that you couldn't before? Be honest!
Click to expand...
The freedom to purchase a specific type of gun was taken away by the government.

In NYC, carrying a gun allows you to protect yourself from armed criminals and other unarmed people who wish to do you harm.
 
A government that this abuses me does not get to tell me that I am not allowed a gun to protect myself.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It was a farce based on the cosmetic appearance of the weapon. As such, it was a nod to the anti-gun lobby that really did nothing.

Under that ban, I could still buy this:

OIP.Isdtpd83LtEhH78yekGxxAHaEK


Or one of these:

wm_3733408.jpg


But couldn't buy this:

wm_7568744.jpg


The only real difference between the three is and was appearance.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to take that DUBIOUS bait, because inadvertently you prove my point! All the gun monkey wail was about "gun grabbing" and "violation of the 2nd Amendment" WHICH WAS TOTAL BULLSHIT, AS YOU DEMONSTRATED HERE.

So you were just a sucker for the gun manufacturers, the retailers and the gun lobby. But you can't deal with the truth, so now you'll regurgitate all types of mantras and BS, twisting like a pretzel to avoid your foible.
 
ZenMode said:
The freedom to purchase a specific type of gun was taken away by the government.

In NYC, carrying a gun allows you to protect yourself from armed criminals and other unarmed people who wish to do you harm.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but THAT is NOT the case, as all weapons fall into categories. During the gun monkey screech, it was always a condescending attitude as to how "gun grabbers" weren't aware of ALL the other weapons in the same category as the one's on the ban list were "just as good" if not better.

If that is indeed the case then the childish "I want it because I want it" is a just that, childish ... AND DEADLY, as the mass shooting using formerly banned weapons has proved.

As to your last sentence: you state a moot point that does NOT answer the OP question. By the by, I'm a New Yorker .... born in Brooklyn, partially raised in Long Island, partially lived and commuted to NYC for 25 years. My father's a retired NYPD Homicide Detective. So we know all about NY gun laws and how tough they are in comparison to the rest of the country.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I'm not going to take that DUBIOUS bait, because inadvertently you prove my point! All the gun monkey wail was about "gun grabbing" and "violation of the 2nd Amendment" WHICH WAS TOTAL BULLSHIT, AS YOU DEMONSTRATED HERE.

So you were just a sucker for the gun manufacturers, the retailers and the gun lobby. But you can't deal with the truth, so now you'll regurgitate all types of mantras and BS, twisting like a pretzel to avoid your foible.
Click to expand...
What I'm pointing out is the ineffectiveness of gun grabbers. The "assault weapons" bans do nothing to increase safety, nothing to stop firearms that can do the exact same thing in the exact same way with the only difference being their appearance.

That is to say, that 90%+ of what the anti-gun lobby wants is total bullshit.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? And in New York City or the Long Island suburbs, what does carrying a gun allow you to do that you couldn't before? Be honest!
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon. Define 'assault weapon'.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I'm not going to take that DUBIOUS bait, because inadvertently you prove my point! All the gun monkey wail was about "gun grabbing" and "violation of the 2nd Amendment" WHICH WAS TOTAL BULLSHIT, AS YOU DEMONSTRATED HERE.

So you were just a sucker for the gun manufacturers, the retailers and the gun lobby. But you can't deal with the truth, so now you'll regurgitate all types of mantras and BS, twisting like a pretzel to avoid your foible.
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon. There is no 'brand' clause in the constitution.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahh, but THAT is NOT the case, as all weapons fall into categories. During the gun monkey screech, it was always a condescending attitude as to how "gun grabbers" weren't aware of ALL the other weapons in the same category as the one's on the ban list were "just as good" if not better.

If that is indeed the case then the childish "I want it because I want it" is a just that, childish ... AND DEADLY, as the mass shooting using formerly banned weapons has proved.

As to your last sentence: you state a moot point that does NOT answer the OP question. By the by, I'm a New Yorker .... born in Brooklyn, partially raised in Long Island, partially lived and commuted to NYC for 25 years. My father's a retired NYPD Homicide Detective. So we know all about NY gun laws and how tough they are in comparison to the rest of the country.
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon. NY gun laws are unconstitutional.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahh, but THAT is NOT the case, as all weapons fall into categories. During the gun monkey screech, it was always a condescending attitude as to how "gun grabbers" weren't aware of ALL the other weapons in the same category as the one's on the ban list were "just as good" if not better.

If that is indeed the case then the childish "I want it because I want it" is a just that, childish ... AND DEADLY, as the mass shooting using formerly banned weapons has proved.
Click to expand...

I just answered the questions you asked. You asked:

"Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? "

The fact that YOU may categorize them differently doesn't change the fact that the right to own a particular type of gun WAS lost, right? Let's say pitbulls were eventually outlawed because they killed so many people. You might say "Well, you CAN still own a beagle, doberman, German shepherd, etc", but that doesn't undo the fact that you can't own a pitbull.
As to your last sentence: you state a moot point that does NOT answer the OP question. By the by, I'm a New Yorker .... born in Brooklyn, partially raised in Long Island, partially lived and commuted to NYC for 25 years. My father's a retired NYPD Homicide Detective. So we know all about NY gun laws and how tough they are in comparison to the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

People across the country own guns because criminals don't care about laws. So, while NY may have tough guns laws, we shouldn't expect criminals to consistently follow those laws any more than criminals consistently follow other laws.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What I'm pointing out is the ineffectiveness of gun grabbers. The "assault weapons" bans do nothing to increase safety, nothing to stop firearms that can do the exact same thing in the exact same way with the only difference being their appearance.

That is to say, that 90%+ of what the anti-gun lobby wants is total bullshit.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, the riddle me this: why is it that when the AR-15 (and various types) came off the ban list in 2004, it started showing up in an increasing number of mass shootings hence?
 
ZenMode said:
I just answered the questions you asked. You asked:

"Exactly what "freedom" was taken away when the AWB of 1994 was in place? Weren't there a ton of rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-auto handguns still available at the time (as well the same as now)? "

The fact that YOU may categorize them differently doesn't change the fact that the right to own a particular type of gun WAS lost, right? Let's say pitbulls were eventually outlawed because they killed so many people. You might say "Well, you CAN still own a beagle, doberman, German shepherd, etc", but that doesn't undo the fact that you can't own a pitbull.


People across the country own guns because criminals don't care about laws. So, while NY may have tough guns laws, we shouldn't expect criminals to consistently follow those laws any more than criminals consistently follow other laws.
Click to expand...
Actually you just regurgitated the SOS, which does not make it magically come true.
Reality check: ALL weapons have and fall into categories. That was indeed the case BEFORE the AWB1994 ban. As the AR-15 design was originally designed to be sold to the military (and failed), it was subsequently adjusted for civilian use (semi-auto) FOR PROFIT!

Try reading some material that's not put out by NRA flunkies and fellow gun monkeys or the gun manufacturer. The courts decided the categories ... the same courts that deemed gun monkey's can't have or sell Uzi's or AK-47. The mere FACT that ANY WEAPONS PURCHASED BEFORE THE BANS WENT INTO EFFECT COULD BE KEPT flies in the face of the banshee wail "gun grabbers".

Also note how many times since 2004 has the AR-15 (style) weapons that were previously on the list were used mass shootings. Why? Because they do EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO ... GIVE THE USER (PROFESSIONAL/AMATEUR/NOVICE) THE ABILITY TO KILL NUMEROUS PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT is why the nutjobs and cranks chose that particular weapon above all else.

So my previous posts stands logically and factually. If you can't defend yourself with the weapons that have been available before and after the 10 year AWB ban, then maybe you're just a lousy shot.
 
ZenMode said:
The freedom to purchase a specific type of gun was taken away by the government.

In NYC, carrying a gun allows you to protect yourself from armed criminals and other unarmed people who wish to do you harm.
Click to expand...
Why are all you guys so scared all the time?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually you just regurgitated the SOS, which does not make it magically come true.
Reality check: ALL weapons have and fall into categories. That was indeed the case BEFORE the AWB1994 ban. As the AR-15 design was originally designed to be sold to the military (and failed), it was subsequently adjusted for civilian use (semi-auto) FOR PROFIT!

Try reading some material that's not put out by NRA flunkies and fellow gun monkeys or the gun manufacturer. The courts decided the categories ... the same courts that deemed gun monkey's can't have or sell Uzi's or AK-47. The mere FACT that ANY WEAPONS PURCHASED BEFORE THE BANS WENT INTO EFFECT COULD BE KEPT flies in the face of the banshee wail "gun grabbers".

Also note how many times since 2004 has the AR-15 (style) weapons that were previously on the list were used mass shootings. Why? Because they do EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO ... GIVE THE USER (PROFESSIONAL/AMATEUR/NOVICE) THE ABILITY TO KILL NUMEROUS PEOPLE EFFECTIVELY IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THAT is why the nutjobs and cranks chose that particular weapon above all else.

So my previous posts stands logically and factually. If you can't defend yourself with the weapons that have been available before and after the 10 year AWB ban, then maybe you're just a lousy shot.
Click to expand...
All the paragraphs in the world won't change my answer to your question: what was lost was the right to own a specific type of gun.

It's a fact.
 
ZenMode said:
All the paragraphs in the world won't change my answer to your question: what was lost was the right to own a specific type of gun.

It's a fact.
Click to expand...
The FACT is that YOU NEVER HAD THE "RIGHT" TO ANY TYPE OF WEAPON YOU WANTED. Since you were born, there were state and federal gun regulations .... LIMITS ... as to what type of weapon was "legal" for a civilian to have. Grow a pair and do some honest research on the subject ... hell, when there was only one type of gun/rifle in colonial America, there were RULES as to what was necessary to be part of the local militia, particularly about upkeep and such of the weapon.

Again, your childish fantasy as to interpreting the 2nd Amendment just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But being an insipidly stubborn, ALL facts aren't necessary.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The FACT is that YOU NEVER HAD THE "RIGHT" TO ANY TYPE OF WEAPON YOU WANTED. Since you were born, there were state and federal gun regulations .... LIMITS ... as to what type of weapon was "legal" for a civilian to have. Grow a pair and do some honest research on the subject ... hell, when there was only one type of gun/rifle in colonial America, there were RULES as to what was necessary to be part of the local militia, particularly about upkeep and such of the weapon.

Again, your childish fantasy as to interpreting the 2nd Amendment just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But being an insipidly stubborn, ALL facts aren't necessary.
Click to expand...
The day before it passed, I could buy an AR-15. The next day I couldn't because the government took away my ability to do it.

That is text book "Losing a right".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top