[quote name='EdRyder']First you stated that something hypothetical was a fact: "He could've just as easily murdered all those people with a semi auto" (paraphrasing)
Then you base your second "Fact" (loose quotes) ((that the 2nd Amendment was created for the hypothetical need to overthrow the Government
)), on a video starring Penn Gillette.
Dont take it to heart though bother. Plenty of shmucks out there that'll never be convinced that they're shmucks. You're not alone[/QUOTE]
Because, the only thing that makes an AW an AW is having a detachable magazine AND two evil features (pistol grip, flash hider (or threaded barrel), bayonet lug or retractable stock). Tell me how those things would make any weapon deadlier than a semi-auto hunting rifle without evil features? There's nothing hypothetical about it until you can draw a distinction.
I posted the video so that you could see it explained, so that I wouldn't have to type it all out. Why go through the trouble of explaining it when it has already been done? I have yet to hear why you think it's incorrect.
[quote name='eLefAdEr']It's because the
King Queen of England could walk in through your door any day now and claim it for the Empire.[/QUOTE]
Hyperbole at its finest.
[quote name='RealDeals']So you basically admit that assault weapons don't serve any extra purpose for defense a regular weapon or handgun would offer, but when legislation to RE-INSTATE an assault weapons ban is mentioned (for
s sake, there was one under REAGAN), there goes the farm because you may need them to overthrow the government one day? If the guy who killed six and injured 19 including Giffords didn't have an assault weapon and instead a standard weapon, there is no chance he'd do the damage he did. People had to cower for their lives and wait til he had to reload to take him down. Before you go into emphasizing how the argument was spun, the point is any reform through Congress is unlikely. Never said there wouldn't be trying. And yes, anyone with half a brain cell or iota of compassion sees the need for reform.[/QUOTE]
First of all, the guy in Arizona didn't have an assault weapon. He had a pistol, so by legal definitions, he HAD a standard weapon.
You're missing the point, and it's that AWs are no more dangerous than any other gun. Not only that, but they're used in far fewer crimes, and not just crime in general, but gun crimes, than you're average non-AW.
As I said before, Obama doesn't need congressional approval, he could push it through by EO.
Again, with so few crimes committed with these weapons, WHERE is the need for reform? It's a useless ban that doesn't do anything to curb gun violence, both in the fact that so few crimes are committed with them AND the fact that if someone is looking to commit murder, they're not going to give two shits about gun laws!