Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill

[DonDadda59]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpoli...-contributions

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam emails the first statement from the organization since Friday's massacre in Newtown.

Hopefully it won't be a repeat of THIS

[bmulls]

Hopefully it won't be a repeat of THIS

Damn that gave me a boner.

[DonDadda59]

Damn that gave me a boner.

Git er done.

[RedBlackAttack]

Damn that gave me a boner.

[General]

[B]A basic rundown for the idiots thinking they are going to take on the military with their guns

The Military can't take down Al Qaeda for good, you think they'll be able to take down a large insurgency of Americans in their own country

[DonDadda59]

The Military can't take down Al Qaeda for good, you think they'll be able to take down a large insurgency of Americans in their own country

Al Qaeda is made up of hardened cave-dwelling fanatics willing to die for their cause. The American 'insurgency' would be made up of obese McDonald's binging, reality TV watching gun club card holders. The uprising would be over once they realized they would miss the American Idol finale.

[RedBlackAttack]

Al Qaeda is made up of hardened cave-dwelling fanatics willing to die for their cause. The American 'insurgency' would be made up of obese McDonald's binging, reality TV watching gun club card holders. The uprising would be over once they realized they would miss the American Idol finale.

Not only that, but Al Qaeda is able to operate through a campaign of fear, which keeps villagers quiet in third world countries. There is a reason they thrive in undeveloped, uneducated parts of the world where they are able to intimidate.

In this case, you would have a relatively tiny band of gun nuts whom the vast majority of the country would despise and actively work against. Even among gun nuts, only a tiny portion would attempt to partake in government overthrow to protect their assault rifles.

They would be decimated in a matter of days if they actually attempted something so grand, which they wouldn't because they are all talk.

[DonDadda59]

Not only that, but Al Qaeda is able to operate through a campaign of fear, which keeps villagers quiet in third world countries. There is a reason they thrive in undeveloped, uneducated parts of the world where they are able to intimidate.

In this case, you would have a relatively tiny band of gun nuts whom the vast majority of the country would despise and actively work against. Even among gun nuts, only a tiny portion would attempt to partake in government overthrow to protect their assault rifles.

They would be decimated in a matter of days if they actually attempted something so grand, which they wouldn't because they are all talk.

In a nutshell

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.

[RedBlackAttack]

In a nutshell

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.

[The Real JW]

A theoretical civilian militia would benefit from any firearm advantage. As mentioned, Iraqi insurgents were able to resist the U.S. military despite being outgunned by Apaches, artillery and heavy armor. They actually have an advantage with infantry weapons like AK-47s, heavy machine guns, semi-auto sniper rifles, etc. Although the U.S. military can use weapons better suited for the task, they're just not standard issue now. Either way... a determined, well-armed opponent can make any military bleed, if the military doesn't engage in genocide. The Taliban and Iraqis demonstrated that well enough.

So it's not that fancy luxury weapons wouldn't be useful to U.S. militias. It's that the situation seems extremely unlikely. There's no cohesive, desperate population group in the U.S. that would coordinate to fight government forces, except some cartels like in Mexico. The people that want fancy machine guns want them for entertainment. They are more fun to shoot.

On a killing spree you're typically facing unarmed opponents. You can get celebrity status with a handgun if you choose the right situation. Virginia Tech only used a handgun. Sikh temple was just a handgun. If you want to shoot up a police station where every one of your targets has a handgun, only then do you really need an assault rifle.

[ripthekik]

In a nutshell

But don't tell that to the John Rambos here. Watch out 'tyranny', some ISH members have their six shooters and AR-15s ready to roll against the entire military complex.

Protectang dey property

[guy]

I love the idiotic argument that we shouldn't ban guns because if someone wanted to kill someone they'll do it some other way. Its no different then asking why do we have locks on our doors? If someone wanted to break into your home they could just break through your window anyway.

[flipogb]

lets just ban cars for everyone since there are drunk drivers and asian female drivers

cars serve a purpose that isn't killing or hurting people.

a gun's only purpose is to hurt or kill animals/people

[BMOGEFan]

Thread Date Comment
Feinstein to introduce... 12-18-2012 07:05 AM You're one of the most stupid people I've ever read on this board. I hope you and your family get shot in the next mass shooting.



whoever wrote this...you do know karma is a bitch. And things do tend to bite you in the ass.

[Sarcastic]

A theoretical civilian militia would benefit from any firearm advantage. As mentioned, Iraqi insurgents were able to resist the U.S. military despite being outgunned by Apaches, artillery and heavy armor. They actually have an advantage with infantry weapons like AK-47s, heavy machine guns, semi-auto sniper rifles, etc. Although the U.S. military can use weapons better suited for the task, they're just not standard issue now. Either way... a determined, well-armed opponent can make any military bleed, if the military doesn't engage in genocide. The Taliban and Iraqis demonstrated that well enough.

So it's not that fancy luxury weapons wouldn't be useful to U.S. militias. It's that the situation seems extremely unlikely. There's no cohesive, desperate population group in the U.S. that would coordinate to fight government forces, except some cartels like in Mexico. The people that want fancy machine guns want them for entertainment. They are more fun to shoot.

On a killing spree you're typically facing unarmed opponents. You can get celebrity status with a handgun if you choose the right situation. Virginia Tech only used a handgun. Sikh temple was just a handgun. If you want to shoot up a police station where every one of your targets has a handgun, only then do you really need an assault rifle.

They would only make the military bleed as much as the military was attempting to reduce civilian casualties.