Trump derangement syndrome.

[prophet]

Does that mean that a 19 year old needs to be able to buy an assault rifle?

An assault rifle, by definition, is capable of fully automatic fire. An AR-15 is semiautomatic. It functions no differently than any other semiautomatic sporting rifle. It looks military because it is a civilian variant of a military rifle. Thus "assault rifle" has been divorced by the Left from its actual meaning and become a buzzword that means only "spooky-looking black rifle."

No 19-year-old can purchase an assault rifle. Automatic weapons are already illegal for civilians to own, and have been for decades.

You tell me where I am wrong. The AR-15 is the civilian counterpart to the M-16. The difference between the two is the M-16 is automatic and the AR-15 is semiautomatic. This basically means that with the semi-automatic the user needs to pull the trigger for each shot. The AR-15 was designed for speedy reloading. A 9mm handgun bullet travels at 1,200 feet per second and delivers 400 foot pounds. The standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 pounds. The reason that AR-15 are popular for mass shootings is the high fatality rates.  An AR-15 is easier to shoot accurately and rapidly because it mitigates recoil. The AR-15 has large capacity ammunition magazines so the user can feed 30 or more bullets into the rifle  without reloading.

So whether you call the AF-15 an assault rifle or not it does not change the question of whether a 19 year old who can not legally buy a beer should be able to buy a AF-15 that is capable of this destruction.

You can enlist in the Service at 17.



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

But they only give you a sock full of marbles to fight with until you are 21....

And this kid bought an "AF-15 that is capable of this destruction."...

Right!
I remember anxiously awaiting my 21st birthday, in The Corps...so i could finally use a rifle.
Good timing, too, cuz my wrist-rocket slingshot had just worn plumb out.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

You tell me where I am wrong.

You asked a question based on a wrong premise: that a 19-year-old can legally purrchase an assault rifle. Having been proven wrong about that simple fact, you are now moving the goalposts.

Not only are you wrong, you're dishonest to boot.

 

[LongGone]

You tell me where I am wrong.

You asked a question based on a wrong premise: that a 19-year-old can legally purrchase an assault rifle. Having been proven wrong about that simple fact, you are now moving the goalposts.

Not only are you wrong, you're dishonest to boot.

I am not trying to move the goal posts or be dishonest. Many people refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle. The AR-15 was banned under Clinton's assault weapons ban.  You were technically correct but were wrong in the way the AF-15 is viewed.

To me it is obvious the point I was making is that if a 19 year old can not purchase beer should the same 19 year old be able to purchase an AR-15.

As ironic as this sounds apparently Trump and I may agree NYT reported that Trump has privately expressed support for raising the age when Americans can buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, according to a report.

 

[Ransom]

I am not trying to move the goal posts or be dishonest. Many people refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle. The AR-15 was banned under Clinton's assault weapons ban.  You were technically correct but were wrong in the way the AF-15 is viewed.

By contrast, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle was not banned by the assault weapons ban. It is basically functionally identical to an AR-15. It is chambered for the same .223 Remington rounds. So why didn't the ban cover it? It doesn't have (amongst other things) a collapsing stock or barrel shroud. It looks like a traditional hunting rifle. Therefore, not an "assault weapon" - because it isn't a spooky-looking black rifle.

The assault weapons ban, therefore, would not have prevented Canada's most notorious school shooting, the Montreal Massacre in 1989. Marc Lepine was armed with a Ruger rifle that he used to kill 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique.

To me it is obvious the point I was making is that if a 19 year old can not purchase beer should the same 19 year old be able to purchase an AR-15.

It's obvious to me that it's a complete non sequitur. A 19-year old can legally do far more serious things than buy a beer, such as join the military and be trained to use weapons that are illegal for civilians. What does the legal drinking age have to do with purchasing firearms? It makes far more sense to me to say that if we permit a 19-year-old to join the Army and use an M4 carbine, it should be lawful for him to buy a semiautomatic rifle, too.

Of course, in Canada, a 19-year-old can legally buy beer, join the military, and purchase an AR-15 - so it's really not about his age, is it?

 

[LongGone]

I am not trying to move the goal posts or be dishonest. Many people refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle. The AR-15 was banned under Clinton's assault weapons ban.  You were technically correct but were wrong in the way the AF-15 is viewed.

By contrast, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle was not banned by the assault weapons ban. It is basically functionally identical to an AR-15. It is chambered for the same .223 Remington rounds. So why didn't the ban cover it? It doesn't have (amongst other things) a collapsing stock or barrel shroud. It looks like a traditional hunting rifle. Therefore, not an "assault weapon" - because it isn't a spooky-looking black rifle.

The assault weapons ban, therefore, would not have prevented Canada's most notorious school shooting, the Montreal Massacre in 1989. Marc Lepine was armed with a Ruger rifle that he used to kill 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique.

To me it is obvious the point I was making is that if a 19 year old can not purchase beer should the same 19 year old be able to purchase an AR-15.

It's obvious to me that it's a complete non sequitur. A 19-year old can legally do far more serious things than buy a beer, such as join the military and be trained to use weapons that are illegal for civilians. What does the legal drinking age have to do with purchasing firearms? It makes far more sense to me to say that if we permit a 19-year-old to join the Army and use an M4 carbine, it should be lawful for him to buy a semiautomatic rifle, too.

Of course, in Canada, a 19-year-old can legally buy beer, join the military, and purchase an AR-15 - so it's really not about his age, is it?

It is about age on this point. If we don't trust a person who to handle alcohol why would we trust them with a AR-15?

Since you brought up what you do in Canada let's look at it.  Is it not true that Canada has a 60 day waiting period? Don't Canadians have to pass a written and a practical exam? Isn't it true that in Canada that a background check is done that focuses on mental health and addiction?

It is a given that there can be mass shootings that where the purchase of a gun was not illegal. It could be the law was not comprehensive enough. We may not be able to stop all shootings but we don't have to make it easy for people to commit these crimes.  We don't stop all drunk driving deaths with laws but we have decreased the numbers with laws and enforcement.

Your comment about being 19 and joining the military so they should be able to purchase gun is the non sequitur. You said it yourself that the 19 year old going into the military is going to get extensive training.  The 19 year old going into the military may be put in a position where he is expected to shot and kill someone. That is not going to happen with the 19 year old civilian.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I like this quote: (sorry about the fuzz...)

From the slave-owner:

"Support the troops! But have your military weapons ready by your door to fire at them and mow them down as they come toward your house!"

 

[FSSL]

Why are you against slaves owning guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Meanwhile, Trump (who is still President) continues to push his agenda:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heritage-foundation-64-of-trumps-agenda-already-done-faster-than-reagan/article/2650141

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Why are you against slaves owning guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because there should be no such a thing as a slave.

 

[FSSL]

Then thanks to the Republican Party and the NRA!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

It is about age on this point. If we don't trust a person who to handle alcohol why would we trust them with a AR-15?

In Canada, we do trust 19-year-olds with alcohol. What are you implying, that American teenagers are less responsible?

Since you brought up what you do in Canada let's look at it.  Is it not true that Canada has a 60 day waiting period?

It is not true. There is a mandated 28-day waiting period for new firearms licence applicants before their application is processed. The RCMP aims to finish processing the application within 45 days. There is no waiting period for a valid licence holder to purchase a gun.

Don't Canadians have to pass a written and a practical exam? Isn't it true that in Canada that a background check is done that focuses on mental health and addiction?

Yes, it is. Canada is a different country with different laws regulating firearms. Congratulations on your discovery.

Note that a) I never said I disapproved of regulating or licensing firearm ownership; and b) you are making a red-herring argument, since none of this blather contradicts the fact that in Canada, a 19-year-old may buy alcohol, join the military, and own an AR-15.

So notwithstanding your denial, this is just you making another red-herring argument.

Your comment about being 19 and joining the military so they should be able to purchase gun is the non sequitur.

Really. The ability to enter a profession in which a variety of weaponry is handled and used is a non sequitur when it comes to firearm ownership, while the irrelevant relationship between buying beer and buying a gun isn't? I question whether you know the meaning of the term. You don't appear to know how to use it correctly.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Then thanks to the Republican Party and the NRA!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't keep them from using Jim Crow and now mass incarceration to enslave.

 

[FSSL]

Didn't keep them from using Jim Crow and now mass incarceration to enslave.

You are confused.

Jim Crow laws = Democrats
Mass Incarceration = Democrats

The Japanese are still thankful to FDR!!!

 

[LongGone]

It is about age on this point. If we don't trust a person who to handle alcohol why would we trust them with a AR-15?

In Canada, we do trust 19-year-olds with alcohol. What are you implying, that American teenagers are less responsible?

Since you brought up what you do in Canada let's look at it.  Is it not true that Canada has a 60 day waiting period?

It is not true. There is a mandated 28-day waiting period for new firearms licence applicants before their application is processed. The RCMP aims to finish processing the application within 45 days. There is no waiting period for a valid licence holder to purchase a gun.

Don't Canadians have to pass a written and a practical exam? Isn't it true that in Canada that a background check is done that focuses on mental health and addiction?

Yes, it is. Canada is a different country with different laws regulating firearms. Congratulations on your discovery.

Note that a) I never said I disapproved of regulating or licensing firearm ownership; and b) you are making a red-herring argument, since none of this blather contradicts the fact that in Canada, a 19-year-old may buy alcohol, join the military, and own an AR-15.

So notwithstanding your denial, this is just you making another red-herring argument.

Your comment about being 19 and joining the military so they should be able to purchase gun is the non sequitur.

Really. The ability to enter a profession in which a variety of weaponry is handled and used is a non sequitur when it comes to firearm ownership, while the irrelevant relationship between buying beer and buying a gun isn't? I question whether you know the meaning of the term. You don't appear to know how to use it correctly.

I have no idea whether US teenagers are more or less responsible than Canadian teenagers but nor does it really matter.  The US is the nation with the problem with school shootings and Canada is the nation with stricter gun control.

Since you live in Canada I will assume you are correct on the 60 day waiting period in spite of the fact there are at least three website that refer to Canada's 60 day waiting period. They are takepart.com , pardonapplications.com and immigroup.com.

In reference to your sarcastic congratulations on discovering that Canada is a different country with different laws regarding owning firearms...you were the one you brought up Canada. The point is that Canada has laws that make it more difficult to buy firearms. It is easier for a US 19 year old to buy firearms than it is for a Canadian 19 year old.

I never said that you were against regulating or licensing firearm ownership. While you are correct that in Canada a 19 year old may buy alcohol, join the military and own an AR-15 you omitted the fact that is is more difficult for a Canadian 19 year old to purchase the AR-15 than the US 19 year old. The additional fact is the gun violence in school is a US problem not a Canadian problem so what a 19 year Canadian maybe allowed by law is not necessarily what a US 19 year should be allowed. 

A red herring is defined as something that misleads or distracts from an relevant or important issue.  What you did was imply that I said that you were against regulating or licensing firearm ownership. That would appear to be the perfect example of a red herring. I was pointing out the laws concerning the purchase of a firearm are stricter in Canada and you tried to distract by implying I said something I never said.

Non sequitur is defined as a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Both the drinking of alcohol and the owning of a gun has the potential to be life threatening when in the hands of the wrong person. In the US we have decided that the drinking age should be 21 so it would be logical that if we don't think a person under 21 should be able to purchase alcohol that it if you are having a problem with people under 21 purchasing guns that we should consider banning the purchase of firearms for persons under 21. You may not agree with that conclusion but it does not make it a non sequitur.

A 19 year old in the military being trained to handle a firearm correctly has absolutely nothing to do with a random 19 year old being able to work in and just purchase a firearm.  That is a non sequitur.

 

[FSSL]

My 16 yr old just bought a 30-06 to hunt elk.

The idea that we need to make it illegal for her to buy that is absurd and goes contrary to gun safety. She has at least 5 years under our supervision to handle and shoot it correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[subllibrm]

Does that mean that a 19 year old needs to be able to buy an assault rifle?

An assault rifle, by definition, is capable of fully automatic fire. An AR-15 is semiautomatic. It functions no differently than any other semiautomatic sporting rifle. It looks military because it is a civilian variant of a military rifle. Thus "assault rifle" has been divorced by the Left from its actual meaning and become a buzzword that means only "spooky-looking black rifle."

No 19-year-old can purchase an assault rifle. Automatic weapons are already illegal for civilians to own, and have been for decades.

You tell me where I am wrong. The AR-15 is the civilian counterpart to the M-16. The difference between the two is the M-16 is automatic and the AR-15 is semiautomatic. This basically means that with the semi-automatic the user needs to pull the trigger for each shot. The AR-15 was designed for speedy reloading. A 9mm handgun bullet travels at 1,200 feet per second and delivers 400 foot pounds. The standard AR-15 bullet travels at 3,251 feet per second and delivers 1300 pounds. The reason that AR-15 are popular for mass shootings is the high fatality rates.  An AR-15 is easier to shoot accurately and rapidly because it mitigates recoil. The AR-15 has large capacity ammunition magazines so the user can feed 30 or more bullets into the rifle  without reloading.

So whether you call the AF-15 an assault rifle or not it does not change the question of whether a 19 year old who can not legally buy a beer should be able to buy a AF-15 that is capable of this destruction.

Ruger Mini 14

 

[subllibrm]

FWIW Canada had a comprehensive ban on certain weapons and eventually repealed it because it was a waste of resources and largely ineffectual.

 

[Ransom]

FWIW Canada had a comprehensive ban on certain weapons and eventually repealed it because it was a waste of resources and largely ineffectual.

The only comprehensive ban on weapons is the list of prohibited weapons - basically, automatic weapons, sawn-off rifles or shotguns, and certain small-calibre handguns.

You might be thinking of the long-gun registry that the government mandated in the 1990s. It went insanely over budget (ended up costing close to a billion dollars when it was originally supposed to be about $2M), and certainly ineffectual, as it was never known how many gun owners simply did not register their guns. It was scrapped in 2012. Only weapons classified as restricted - primarily most handguns and semi-automatic rifles - are now required to be registered.

 

[Ransom]

The point is that Canada has laws that make it more difficult to buy firearms.

Sure, OK, "more difficult" in the same sense that it's "more difficult" to be licensed to drive a Greyhound than a car. If your idea of "more difficult" is upgrading your licence and taking another test, have at it.

Tell you what. Since you apparently don't believe a law-abiding 19-year-old is responsible enough to own an AR-15, maybe we also shouldn't trust them to make policy concerning firearms. By voting, for example.  That "if you're not old enough to X, maybe you shouldn't Y" canard cuts both ways.

 

[LongGone]

The point is that Canada has laws that make it more difficult to buy firearms.

Sure, OK, "more difficult" in the same sense that it's "more difficult" to be licensed to drive a Greyhound than a car. If your idea of "more difficult" is upgrading your licence and taking another test, have at it.

Tell you what. Since you apparently don't believe a law-abiding 19-year-old is responsible enough to own an AR-15, maybe we also shouldn't trust them to make policy concerning firearms. By voting, for example.  That "if you're not old enough to X, maybe you shouldn't Y" canard cuts both ways.

Yes I can cut it both ways. Nobody is going to die because Nicholas Cruz had the right to vote. 17 people died because Nicholas Cruz could buy a AR-15.