What's a multi automatic round weapon?

 

I've been scratching my head all day on that one. :lol2:

Yes. If you are a public official and you want to talk about banning any weapon you should, at the very least, know what you're talking about. You, much like the politician I just gave an example of, have no clue what you're speaking of. You just admitted that any and all semi automatic guns and rifles should be banned. You ARE the problem. She IS the problem. Maybe people such as yourself should be banned from voting? The country might very well be much better off.

 

How are these people the problem?

 

Is their ignorance causing people to use guns on others?

 

I've been scratching my head all day on that one. :lol2:

 

Does it shoot multiple, like 3 or 4 rounds at once?

How are these people the problem?

 

Is their ignorance causing people to use guns on others?

 

Its as legitimate as saying it's the guns fault. See how that works?

Does it shoot multiple, like 3 or 4 rounds at once?

 

I'm really not sure. Could be that or it maybe has multiple firing mechanisms that all chamber the same round at once. Its a conundrum.

Any and all?

No, I don't.

 

Not really a logical analogy.

 

Anyway I hate the idea we can't come up with any answers other than arming everybody or taking all guns away. That's lazy by all sides. I guess it's representative of every other argument in our country today.

No, I don't.

 

Not really a logical analogy.

 

Anyway I hate the idea we can't come up with any answers other than arming everybody or taking all guns away. That's lazy by all sides. I guess it's representative of every other argument in our country today.

 

I honestly didn't expect you would. Its quite an equal analogy. If you wouldn't think party line you'd see that.

 

On the second comment, I agree. All we ever get is knee jerk reactions, and sadly it starts at the top.

[ATTACH]53672[/ATTACH]

Any and all?

 

Unless they're well thought out and bipartisan with facts and truth being a part of the decision instead of lies and fear mongering then yeah, I agree with them.

The AK-47's maximum rate of fire is 600 rounds per minute. The AR-15's maximum rate of fire is 800 rounds a minute. Both of these weapons should be banned from civilian use.

Unless they're well thought out and bipartisan with facts and truth being a part of the decision instead of lies and fear mongering then yeah, I agree with them.

 

They didn't say that, it says "any and all".

What you're saying is that in order to have an opinion in this debate, one must be able to recite the lingo as well as a gun dealer and also be able to spout the technical differences between, say, an AK-47 and an AR-15.

 

I don't buy that. Rep. Sanchez is correct. We should ban from public use guns that go rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat. (How's that for technical know-how?) Ban all guns from public use that are capable of dispensing lead at a rate of X times per minute. That's all anyone needs to know.

Herein lies the problem!

They didn't say that, it says "any and all".

 

Likely because they know it'll be one sided. I mean come on, you and I both know thats what its going to be. It always is.

The AK-47's maximum rate of fire is 600 rounds per minute. The AR-15's maximum rate of fire is 800 rounds a minute. Both of these weapons should be banned from civilian use.

 

You do realize that is when one of those weapons is fully automatic, which by the way, is illegal for average Joe Citizen to own. You have to have a special Federal Firearms permit.

You do realize that is when one of those weapons is fully automatic, which by the way, is illegal for average Joe Citizen to own. You have to have a special Federal Firearms permit.

 

No, he doesn't know that. All he knows is to repeat the rhetoric like a good little soldier.