Sonic And Chili's Announce No-Gun Policies

[Boiler 45,434]

I think the answer is pretty simple Dave. The modern day firearms are capable of much more death and destruction in a shorter period of time. With the advances in modern technology, one does not need to be a marksman to take out 20 people in a matter of seconds with a modern day weapon. It's far too easy for some nut to get a hold of one of these weapons and go on a rampage with death tolls in the double digits in just a matter of seconds. They simply serve no purpose in modern day society other than causing death and destruction and fighting a pretend war against the gov't.

Would you care to explain?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Would you care to explain?

No, not really. I already tried that approach with you and I wasn't impressed with the results.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Too much gun porn- reported.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Too much gun porn- reported.

Jacque, you hit that report button and your toast.

[GandD 5,966]

You can't really ban them. So you write a law saying 'All AR 15s are banned". Well its a trademark, so you have banned one company (I think Colt owns the trademark…could be wrong).

Next you go after features that make an AR what it is. Manufacturers adapt until you get to the point CA is at….which is you have to ban all semi-autos that do not have perm. fixed magazines to get to the AR type platform. But that is generally going too far even for democrats…..and even going so far as as banning semi autos with removable mags isn't enough because the platform is so damn module. A guy invented a pin allowing for rapid reloading by hinging the upper off the lower.

Didn't they successfully ban assault weapons in Australia? Why not do what they did?

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I think the answer is pretty simple Dave. The modern day firearms are capable of much more death and destruction in a shorter period of time. With the advances in modern technology, one does not need to be a marksman to take out 20 people in a matter of seconds with a modern day weapon. It's far too easy for some nut to get a hold of one of these weapons and go on a rampage with death tolls in the double digits in just a matter of seconds. They simply serve no purpose in modern day society other than causing death and destruction and fighting a pretend war against the gov't.

Perhaps in YOUR world. But in mine, they provide much enjoyment and family bonding when we go to the range and shoot. I have never used a weapon against another human being (outside my work, that is). I have also hunted and provided food for my family. Another positive use.

Anti-gun folks need to realize that guns are NOT the problem; never have been, never will be.

THESE are examples of the problem:

Peoples. CrAzY peoples. Dem's da problem, my friend.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Jacque, you hit that report button and your toast.

Make me an offer I can't refuse;)

Perhaps in YOUR world. But in mine, they provide much enjoyment and family bonding when we go to the range and shoot. I have never used a weapon against another human being (outside my work, that is). I have also hunted and provided food for my family. Another positive use.

Anti-gun folks need to realize that guns are NOT the problem; never have been, never will be.

THESE are examples of the problem:

Peoples. CrAzY peoples. Dem's da problem, my friend.

Are they all you???

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Are they all you???

You may just find out the next time you walk by that dark alley just down from your house.

Mwwwaaaahhhhaaaaaaa hhhhhhhaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa

[Teddy B 17,252]

Perhaps in YOUR world. But in mine, they provide much enjoyment and family bonding when we go to the range and shoot. I have never used a weapon against another human being (outside my work, that is). I have also hunted and provided food for my family. Another positive use.

Anti-gun folks need to realize that guns are NOT the problem; never have been, never will be.

Could you not have hours of enjoyment at the range without the modern assault style weapons? Could you not bond while shooting a .22 rifle or a revolver?

Dave, I'm not anti-gun. I would never want to take away someone's means of self defense or hunting game. But there has to be a line of reason drawn somewhere.

[Jacque67 7,328]

You may just find out the next time you walk by that dark alley just down from your house.

Mwwwaaaahhhhaaaaaaa hhhhhhhaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa

Not sure I could handle the excitement - bad ticker and all that

[Jacque67 7,328]

Could you not have hours of enjoyment at the range without the modern assault style weapons? Could you not bond while shooting a .22 rifle or a revolver?

Dave, I'm not anti-gun. I would never want to take away someone's means of self defense or hunting game. But there has to be a line of reason drawn somewhere.

Stop being so goddam serious Teddy!

[Teddy B 17,252]

Stop being so goddam serious Teddy!

Spooky just sent me a pm and said for you to meet him in the produce aisle.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Could you not have hours of enjoyment at the range without the modern assault style weapons? Could you not bond while shooting a .22 rifle or a revolver?

Dave, I'm not anti-gun. I would never want to take away someone's means of self defense or hunting game. But there has to be a line of reason drawn somewhere.

Can, and do. I don't own what you seem to be wanting to label as "modern assault weapon". But I have guns that are capable of killing just as swiftly as an AR-15, whether it is used in single-shot mode (which most users use) or semi-auto (gets expensive and highly inaccurate real fast). IMO, any weapon pointed at another human is an assault weapon. The outer shell of a weapon is just cosmetics to appeal to our eyes.

Know what the difference is between all these "modern assault weapons"?

Looks and price. They are all .22 cal semi-autos. Capable of wounding and killing people very quickly. OR... capable of creating one of those family bonding moments we spoke about earlier at about the lowest price one can spend on ammo. It's not what's behind the facade of the gun that makes it so deadly, but what is in the heart of the holder...

[lostinblue 1,989]

They just look scary to liberals Dave ... That is why we must ban them. Perhaps Ted could enlighten us as to what the difference between these guns are as far as being "lethal"... They need to be locking the crazies up ,,,, But that is not the liberal way.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Can, and do. I don't own what you seem to be wanting to label as "modern assault weapon". But I have guns that are capable of killing just as swiftly as an AR-15, whether it is used in single-shot mode (which most users use) or semi-auto (gets expensive and highly inaccurate real fast). IMO, any weapon pointed at another human is an assault weapon. The outer shell of a weapon is just cosmetics to appeal to our eyes.

Know what the difference is between all these "modern assault weapons"?

Looks and price. They are all .22 cal semi-autos. Capable of wounding and killing people very quickly. OR... capable of creating one of those family bonding moments we spoke about earlier at about the lowest price one can spend on ammo. It's not what's behind the facade of the gun that makes it so deadly, but what is in the heart of the holder...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe #1 would fall under the category of assault weapon as defined here.

In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.^[1][2][3] The exact definition of the term varies among federal, state, and local jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting firearms manufacture, importation, sale, or possession.^[4] Some firearms are specified by name. A key defining law was the defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.^[5] At that time, the U.S. Justice Department stated "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."^[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon