Unlike most anti-gun activists, I actually want to have a civilized conversation

Unlike most anti-gun activists, I actually want to have a civilized conversation.

I have a few questions for you guys, and I think they're pretty reasonable. Feel free to disagree or tell me why I'm wrong, just please don't be childish about it.

>1: I see everyone talking about how the AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle in the same caliber, but it isn't the caliber we're worried about, it's the magazine capacity and semi-automatic rate of fire. If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it? The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.

>2: Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns? I understand there is currently no transparency or appeals process, but what if there was? If the government had to cogently state why someone was put on a watchlist and there was an affirmative appeals process, would banning people on said lists from buying guns be acceptable? How about the suggestion of placing a 3 day delay on their purchase so they can be more thoroughly checked?

>3: Why the opposition to universal background checks? I don't want to use the old, "if you have nothing to hide" argument, but... yeah. I understand there are problems with the current NICS check system, such as people being denied or delayed for having too similar a name, but it's my understanding that those are easily cleared up after the first time should the applicant give his SSN. I also understand that the concern is that this will add cost to private sales. What if it was mandated that FFLs perform NICS checks for private parties for free, and were reimbursed by the federal government? As for private sale checks being unenforceable... they absolutely are. Those who legally perform the checks can use a copy of the 4473 kept by the FFL as an affirmative defense.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Death by a thousand cuts, fuck off traitor.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

No.

SHALL

SHALL

...

>thoughts?

ur a faggot and should get the fuck back to what ever shithole people tolerate this level of faggotry

If you explain why what I said is wrong I'll fuck right off. Right now you're not being any better than the Democrats filibustering the senate like crybabies because they're not getting what they want. Use your words.

>The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.
the fuck

There is a TV show called Yukon Men. It's about a town in Alaska and here is one of the stars Charlie dropping a Caribou with an AR-15. Also the Orlando shooter did not use an AR-15 .

...

NOT

If the ban is just symbolic then why do it?

1. Because I want an AR-15. It is roughly the same, but I want this one.

2. Due process, not appeals, not fixing a mistake, due process.

3. Lists = registry.

No thanks

>it's the magazine capacity and semi-automatic rate of fire. If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle

Other guns that people are fine with have much greater capacities, and semiauto is pretty much meaningless. The real guns that kill people are pistols, and that's mostly to do with blacks.

>Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns?
The fact that there's no transparency or appeal is the real issue in my mind. I think until the no-fly list is fixed it's stupid to use it. You don't build a house of broken foundation.

>Why the opposition to universal background checks?
There are already checks though, at least in my state, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Unless you mean like gun shows, and then that's as issue of just creating a working fast cheap system.

The day we have to nickel and dime to have certain parts of the Bill of Rights selectively upheld is the day we cease to exist as a free society.

Shit post deserves shit replies

Saged

oh sorry let me explain further.


S H A L L

H

A

L

L

Sorry buddy, all that time you spent crafting that bait post was for nothing. Here's a sympathy (You), may it bring you better luck in the future.

1. Google the definition of "semi-automatic." It is COMPLETELY arbitrary to ban the AR-15.

2. Placement on those lists is arbitrary, has no oversight, and the government has no plans to lessen that.

3. Every purchase of mine from gun shows I have had background checks performed. This is nothing more than an irrelevant meme to try and take away rights—the overwhelming vast majority of guns are NOT purchased at gun shows.

1) There are plenty of guns with large magazines
2) The No-Fly list is a huge clustefuck, it has children and retards on it because they have similar names to criminals
3) I don't have a problem with background checks

Let's put this in language you can understand. Just replace every mention of guns in your post with gay sex, which can also cause unfavorable outcomes (including death.)

The second amendment had more than just self-defense and hunting in mind, it was for people (the militia is the people according to one of the authors of the amendment) to be able to viably defend themselves from tyranny both foreign and arguably domestic (early Americans obviously had suspicious for even their own government). In order to have a weapon suitable for that purpose, you'd need something like an AR-15. As far as increased background checks, they won't work on someone like Mateen who doesn't have a criminal history and suspending people's rights via watch lists is void of any real due process. Short of banning all Muslims, they need to set up stings in Muslim communities to get them for conspiracy like they do biker and narcotrafficking gangs. The only problem is a lot of them seem to be lone wolves or only work with family.

I refuse to listen to what you've said on the ground that while we are approaching 100 years of continuously increasing control, regulations, and restrictions on firearms, the anti-gun side demands that we have a "serious discussion" about how we need "common sense" legislation and can arrive at a "fair compromise."

I'm not having it. I will not support any additional restrictions on something I enjoy which is protected by the bill of rights.

If you want to throw down, try to have the amendment struck, and let's have it out once and for all.

Otherwise, I encourage you to go fornicate with a cactus.

He only used a SIG brand AR-15 variant.
Basically the same as every other single AR-15 variant sold by every company in the gun market.

>it was just a SIG MCX

Shoots the same caliber and performs the same functions with the model style of an AR-15.
I'm pro-gun but this is the dumbest argument to this date.

There is no debate. You cannot have our guns without a revolution. I hope my government sees this. If they pass laws we will revolt. Violently because it is the duty of every citizen to defend the constitution. If you will not defend it you are in default on your agreement to citizenship. Why try to discuss us laying down our freedoms paid in blood. Fuck the idea of gun laws right in the pussy. Your flawed feel good idea just may cause the deaths of millions of unarmed Americans. Or do you secretly just want to kill?

Furthermore the fear of AR-15 is just irrational reaction to the way they look and name association.
I'd be more afraid of a hunting rifle with a scope than some out of the box AR clone that shoots a bullet designed to be less deadly for purposes of war

>I'm pro-gun but this is the dumbest argument to this date.
Says the noguns

1. 2nd Amendment
2. 2nd Amendment
3. 2nd Amendment

Semi-auto is not a rate of fire. It means you can only shoot one round at a time. With training a bolt action is just as fast.
Watch In Search Of The Second Amendment. It will explain everything you do not understand.
This is not about guns. Bloomberg's not giving up his heavily armed security detail, neither is Obama. This is about our legal system. Universal gun ownership is the crystallization of our unique philosophy of negative rights. Changing that is changing our entire system.

You make some sense... however...

S H A L L
N O T
B E
I N F R I N G E D

The problem lies within education and other factors. Not lifeless inanimate objects

>Unlike most anti-gun activists
>anti-gun activist

That right there shows you're stupid ass hell and not worth having a conversation with. Meditate on the fact that you have bias against a piece of hardware and then we can talk.

It has literally no interchangeable parts. It is a piston gun with no buffer tube. It is literally a different fucking gun you retard. The only thing it has in common with the AR is that one of the models shoots 5.56 and uses the same mags. As do hundreds of other guns

...

2 and 3 are canards. This Muslim terrorist received administration protection, like many other terrorists. The FBI was told to stand down, as they had been for 9/11.
As for point three, I don't know what you're talking about. I passed a separate background check for every single gun I own to include those bought at gun shows, which work exactly like brick and mortar stores.

These pussies just think this is another tree or whale to hug. This is revolution. Not on the part of the people defending the constitution but revolution by the government. Live free or die!

>If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it?
Because its unconstitutional
>2: Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns?
Because its unconstitutional
>3: Why the opposition to universal background checks?
Because its unconstitutional

The main purpose of the second amendment is to maintain an armed militia and populace in order to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. In fact I would go as far to say that gun laws are too restrictive. The average citizen should have access to Mortars, RPG's, Anti Aircraft, Grenades and armed drones. This would level the playing field a bit

The Constitution clearly says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Any gun laws are unconstitutional

move to a different country, faggot

1. It accounts for an incredibly small percentage of gun crimes, it's owned mostly by law abiding citizens. If the government actually cared about gun violence they would bitch about all the gang violence that occurs, mainly with handguns. In this past this has led to hand gun bans in places like DC.The government is more concerned with law abiding citizens that have the ability to resist tyranny and get uppity.

2. There would be no due process, it would just be a huge bureaucratic mess if they were to put an appeals process in place, which in the end would only hinder law abiding citizens. (What if the visitation of certain websites such as Sup Forums put you on a list, and then they could revoke your guns rights because of it?)

3. I don't see the issue with background checks done in a timely manner, but the main opposition to it falls in line with the 2nd bullet point. If the government decides at some point that you are unfit to own guns, whatever that reason may be (religious/political views perhaps) they then know exactly what they need to take away from you.

Private sales are tough to regulate which is the main issue with trying to regulate it. It goes unnoticed until the privately sold gun is used in a crime and at that point it's too late.

Final note. I am opposed to having AR-15 type guns removed from the American populace by a government that has provided resources for wars in the middle east and given guns to the Mexicans (fast and furious).

I appreciate the civility by the way, I'm always down for a debate that isn't reduced to yelling and name calling.

: I see everyone talking about how the AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle in the same caliber, but it isn't the caliber we're worried about, it's the magazine capacity and semi-automatic rate of fire. If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it? The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.

Because - in practice - the ban would achieve absolutely nothing. Assuming AR-15s were banned and nobody could get their hands on them anymore, anyone who wanted to commit a mass shooting would simply move onto a different but equivalent firearm of choice, and the cycle of 'X needs to be banned!' would begin anew.

The argument on magazine capacity is moot because magazines of the same capacity are available for just about every other semi-automatic rifle out there. The argument about the AR-15's rate of fire is nonsense, because all semi-autos fire a single round for each pull of the trigger, and no matter what gun you're firing, the rate of fire is as fast as your finger can pull and release the trigger.

: I see everyone talking about how the AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle in the same caliber...

It's retarded, there is no reason to give a fucking inch to gun grabbers, it is the cheapest and most popular option, and because there are fucking millions in circulation. How do you propose to get rid of millions of fucking rifles?

: Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns? I understand there is currently no transparency or appeals process...

Because innocent until proven guilty. Get a conviction you fucking nigger

: Why the opposition to universal background checks? I don't want to use the old, "if you have nothing to hide" argument, but... yeah. I understand there are problems with the current NICS check system...

Because NJ and IL still have more murders per capita than texas. The government will still use background check fees as taxes, it fucks you into only buying from stores that Jew up their costs, and because if you can't stop someone from selling weed for cash how do you stop them doing that with a gun?

It is illegal to sell guns over state lines with no background check anyway and see how well that works for Chicago?

1 - Symbolic laws are stupid as fuck. You either make legislation that makes sense or you are wasting everyone's god damn time. Passing legislation for 'muh feels' is retarded.

2 - Show me transparency and appeals first, you're putting the cart before the horse based on 'muh feels'

3 - We have background checks, what more 'background checks' do you want when the FBI lets someone off their observation TWICE. Prove to me that would in anyway do anything to prevent crimes and not simply waste hundreds of thousands of honest man-hours a year.

>It has literally no interchangeable parts. It is a piston gun with no buffer tube.

Oh shit you got me. It's not an AR-15 then.
And if it's not, WHAT GUN IS IT?

And the OP is gone

may have already been said, but DHS is considering "right wingers" as domestic terrorists. remember the whole IRS persecution of tea party groups? yeah... that's why.

if the truth of this quote isn't obvious to you, you should not have the right to make political decisions.

1.2.3. Any federal law restricting firearm ownership is unconstitutional.

...

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

anyone posting in this thread is merely helping gun grabbers frame their debate.

>1-Magazine capacity

Unless you are lacking a few chromosomes or you have lost your fingers, reloading a semi-automatc rifle or a handgun is not difficult whatsoever. By reducing magazine capacity, all you do is make the shooter buy more magazines. One of the columbine shooters had 15 ten-round magazines for his hipoint carbine, and ARs are even easier to reload.

The reason why it would be wrong to restrict magazine capacity is that ARs are often used as home defense weapons and when somebody is panicking and shooting at a burglar, they dont want to have to waste a second reloading.

>2-No fly lists
If you havent been convicted of a crime and you are not on trial, you should have all your rights.

>3-Background checks
Why should I have to inform big brother if I want to get rid of an old shitty shotgun in my basement? If there is somebody who is willing tp pay me 60 dolars for it, then it is up to me and the buyer, nobody else.

It isnt really relevant anyway because something like less than 1% of all firearms used in crime are bought in private sales. Nobody is really making a big fuss about having to fill in a background check if you are in a gunshop, or at least I have no problem with it but other peopls opinions may be different.

Fuck off kike.

Shall not be infringed.

Repeal all gun control laws now.

The government is not your mother bitch.

Try to imagine self reliant responsible cutizens who don't need a cock in their mouth to feel safe.

Write laws to support them. They are better than you.

You're all faggots. People who want to have actual discussions should be engaged intelligently. Shitposting is for mocking SJWs on twitter.

>Everyone who disagrees with common Sup Forums views is just baiting


>Person seeking legitimate discussion
>Shit post

Unless I'm mistaken, most mass shootings with high death counts were preformed with ordinary handguns, assault bans related discussion are little more than fear-mongering used to whip up general support for the Democratic party. My understanding is also that being on a terrorism watch list is something that can happen quite easily. I personally don't have an issue with background checks, and I think most of the people who do are faggots for having an issue with it. Regardless, there is a more fundamental issue with the topic, and that is the second amendment itself.

The second amendment is worded terribly. It is vague in a bad way. What does it mean to infringe on the right to bear arms? If, for example you ban assault weapons, but place no restrictions on any other form of weaponry, has the right to bear arms been infringed? Anyone could bear arms, just not whatever arms they chose, but the second amendment doesn't say people have a right to bear any arms they want. I personally feel that the second amendment should follow the model used by some of the later amendments. We are protected from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteed a speedy trial, and so on. I think that the second amendment should guarantee the right to reasonable self defense.

I remember back when you assclowns decided the AK-47 was too scary for mere mortals to posses. Now it's AR-15's. How about you fuck off with your ban shit routine.

An MCX. It is prob based on the ar18 considering the piston but I really have no idea because Sig USA is a shit company made for faggots

Damn Sweden when did you stop being a cuck?

Nope.

Discussions on this topic have been closed.

Shall not be infringed.

>1: I see everyone talking about how the AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle in the same caliber, but it isn't the caliber we're worried about, it's the magazine capacity and semi-automatic rate of fire. If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it? The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.

The Orlando shooter did plenty of damage without an AR-15. So why ban the AR-15?

We gave him a legitimate discussion
Any law passed weakens the 2nd amendment

>semi automatic rate of fire
>magazine size

Fuck you faggot

>People who want to have actual discussions should be engaged intelligently

we've discussed it years ago

it's done and over

shall not be infringed

I can't believe you would come here and advocate an American holocaust

what an asshole

Is a cam path wear insert really necessary? No one that owns this shit is going to shoot it enough to approach anything resembling "wear."

>If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it? The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.

This is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever heard.

If you can cook mostly the same things from white potatoes and yellow potatoes, why oppose a ban on yellow potatoes?

...Maybe because potatoes shouldn't be banned at all?

there is no discussion to be had. the bill of rights isn't an argument

Go read the second amendment and get back to me.

Anyone as educated as you about firearms would never have the stance you're trying to push. Therefore, fake and gay.

Liberals don't know about guns - they fear them, that's why they want them banned.

OP is just a troll from /k/ having some fun.

Troll on OP, I just bought an AR10 yesterday. It's like an AR-15, but it shoots .308 bullets - basically my 30 round mag is full of bullets that can take your arm off. But you already knew that.

>armed drones.


coming soon, predator drones for 5k

I will add if he wants to have a debate about repealing the 2nd amendment I would be glad to debate that but it is not what he said

An AR-15 is only produced by one company. Armalite. A SIG brand AR-15 isn't an AR-15. It's a Sig Rifle. AR literally means Armalite Rifle.

The left is literally calling for a ban of one gun that isn't the one being used.

And don't even start with assault weapon bullshit. All an "assault weapon" is is a gun that looks scary to the leftist cucks. You can literally use a gun with wood furniture and no pistol grip exactly the same as an "assault weapon", provided they are the same gun at the core. But the one with the scary plastic would be considered an "assault weapon"

>semi-automatic
>rate of fire
Kill yourself, tard

BE

NOT

>1. NO. A symbolic ban is idiotic. You're banning something, although you know it won't do anything, just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. You're not taking my gun for such a senseless reason.

>2. The retro active appeals process is a start, but there needs to be due process BEFORE your rights are taken, not after.

>3. The opposition exists, because of the shear amount of ignorance it takes to suggest it. How many guns are in America? Not a guesstimate, exactly. Who has the guns? How do you know when one is transferred? Crack, Heroine, Meth, etc. changes hands everyday and the government is none the wiser, so how do you plan on tracking firearms? A registry? Again you don't know where all the current guns are, so a registry would be incomplete and therefore ineffective.

High capacity mags are already restricted. It doesn't matter though because people can reload

5th amendment prevents the government from depriving someone of Liberty except through due process of law. There is no due process to be put on a watch list.

I'm not opposed to universal background checks.

that jpg gave me temporary ptsd

>2: Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns? I understand there is currently no transparency or appeals process, but what if there was? If the government had to cogently state why someone was put on a watchlist and there was an affirmative appeals process, would banning people on said lists from buying guns be acceptable? How about the suggestion of placing a 3 day delay on their purchase so they can be more thoroughly checked?

I totally agree with this. In fact, why aren't we doing this for more dangerous actions? I believe anyone on a terrorist watch list should be prevented from speaking in public, or publishing any material. They also shouldn't get due process, or be protected against incriminating themselves. In fact, we should force them to house US soldiers in their home and feed them. The bottom line is that if the government can convince the government that you are a bad guy, the government should be able to take away your rights. It's the only way we're all going to be safe.

>I'm not opposed to universal background checks.

we already have background checks

you cannot regulate private sales

the only reason we can do it with cars is because those are used every day on public roads

1. Not the fucking point. If you give gun grabbers an inch they will take a mile as has already been demonstrated in various states.

2. Putting people on a list without any due process is Guantanamo-tier and you faggot liberals are always crying about that shit. I shouldn't be put on a list because someone thinks I might be a terrorist. It should have to be confirmed by due process with the burden of evidence on the State.

3. If the background check system was efficient and accurate that would be a good start. Mostly it's just going to add cost to the whole process furthering the agenda to price people out of being gun owners.

Admit it pussy, you won't do shit, you're just saying this because you think others will.

1. The ArmaLite Rifle 15 is just a product, even if it's the most bought Assault Rifle. Specifically banning it means you discriminate against the manufacturer. Can he just give it another color, call it AR-15.1 and sell it again OR are you banning it because of some characteristics? If so, how would they look like?

2. Rights being taken away without a process. Could I take your freedom of speech away for possibly being a terrorist that wants to spread ISIS propaganda? Could I take away your freedom of speech because I suspect you're a racist? It's government's job to look for the people buying a gun and they should be notified if someone buys a gun that is on their list. But the right to buy a gun SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

3. Many are in favor of background checks, even if those are ineffective and cost a lot of money and time. And if they would work, people would just get a gun from their buddy/parents/black market, you name it. If the criminal wants a gun, he gets a gun. If a person plans a murder, that person wait a week, or two.
You can't stop murders with background checks. But you can add inconvenience and costs to the people that want to protect themselves.

I don't think you folks understand. Liberals don't care if there is a nitty-gritty specific part classification that makes an AR-15 differ from an AR-18.
They do not care one bit.

Most of them have no idea what an AR-18 is.

They will seek to ban anything that remotely looks like an AR-15 or AR-15 variant.

The whole argument, "The shooter didn't use an AR-15, he just used an MCX" is pointless.
That's like saying
>The wife beater didn't use brass knuckles, he used iron knuckles

be real here

Yes the left that doesn't know anything about guns is calling for the ban of one brand and one model only.
No dude, they're going after everything fucking weapon that has the AR-15 look.
Brand won't matter.

AR-15 will be banned
SIG MCX will be banned
HK rifles will be banned

You are wrong - you are talking about the Armalite brand vs the platform.

The parts are supposed to be interchangeable. A SIG brand AR-15 should have parts interchangeable with an Armalite AR-15...otherwise the SIG isn't an AR-15 at all.

Keep telling yourself that, INM.

Why are gun owners so stupid and violent?

>semi-automatic rate of fire

Because your mom fucks niggers. Now go to bed.

>why are those innocent people I want to jail because it would make me feel good hate me?

>>>>>>>>>>SIG brand AR-15 variant

>Unlike most anti-gun activists, I actually want to have a civilized conversation.
Okies dokie, OP. Let's play bull

>I see everyone talking about how the AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle in the same caliber,
That is is because it's not.
>but it isn't the caliber we're worried about, it's the magazine capacity
Magazine capacity has can be countered by a special maneuver they came up with many centuries ago, it's called 'reloading'
>and semi-automatic rate of fire
Rate of fire does not mean anything for lethality. Precision is the greatest proponent of lethality. With proper aim, a shot from a 22 lr. could be every bit as deadly as one from a .308
If anything, firing shots in rapid succession (be they on fully automatic or semi automatic) greatly reduces the accuracy, and by the extension, lethality and just wastes ammo in the process

Allow me to give you an idea of just how overestimated rapid firing is: The US army has not used Fully Automatic in their rifles for over 50 years
m16 and m4 rifles come with a single shot and 3 round burst only (with a few glancing exceptions for niche special operators)


>If the AR-15 really is no different than any other rifle, why oppose a ban on it? The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle

1) Because there are already millions of AR-15's in civillian hands and the law abiding gun owners do not deserve to be criminalized thanks in no part to media histeria

2)Banning weapons by name is stupid. They banned the ar-15 during the assault weapon ban of 1994, colt simply renamed the ar-15 the 'Sporter' and carried along their marry way
continued...

1. Ban the AR-15, we immediately go out and buy AK-47, FAL's, SIG-556, etc. AR doesn't not stand for assault rifle, it is the manufacturer Armalite. Therefore you wouldn't be banning all assault rifles, just one model of assault rifle.

2. The no-fly and watch lists are extremely innacurate, there is no appeal process, youre not told you are on either. And there are cases of infants being listed on both

3. Not well informed on this topic, ask someone else. My theory is FFLs monopolizing their prices on guns, and Felons would still buy privately like they do now making this law pointless anyway

#1 the talk isnt about banning just the ar-15 it is about banning all semi auto rifles. the shooter didnt even use an AR-15. he used an completely different gun, but what is every one on about banning? the AR-15, how does that make sense.
Oh it doesn't because they want to ban ALL semi autos.

#2. there is no due process with the no fly /terrorism lists, just ask the hundreds of thousands of americans that were put on the list in error, but can not do anything about it because surprise it is a secret list with no oversight.

3# universal background checks are a joke.
Who does the check? a FFl. Guess who license FFLs the ATF. Guess what the ATF has come out and said? they are no longer licensing any home based FFL.


On top of that, under what situation would i need to do a background check? in the wording of some states, i could not even let my wife take my gun out to the range , with out her having to do a background check,

#4. criminals dont do background checks any way.

#5 the Orlando shooter would have passed any check , and did pass even more stringent checks. Why? Because no one reported his actions of abuse.

the system is only as good as the information in it. and no one wants to put info in it.

active shooter incidents like the one in orlando, san bernadino, sandy hook, ext have kill less than 300 people in 10 years. so why do anything about them?

" because even one life is saved"....
bull shit then you should be clearing out the ghettos and black neighborhoods because black on black and black on white crime accounts for the vast majority of homicides in this nation.

"oh but we cant persecute a group of people for the actions of a few bad ones"
you seem to be advocating for that with gun owners.

3)Banning rifles is stupid. Rifles are responsible for less than 2% of all homicides in the US annually
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls
The only time this gets brought up is in the wake of a rampage shooting and everybody flips their lid and starts scrambling to ban every last thing that looks remotely scary. during that period of the aforementioned the Media Circuses precious rampage shootings went on nonetheless. We also had the OKC bombing, which used no guns whatsoever and was substantially worse than any rampage shooting in history

2: Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly

Because the no fly list is extremely arbitrary, often flawed and conducted without any due process whatsoever
>terrorism watch lists from buying guns?
Ok, I'll give you that
>I understand there is currently no transparency or appeals process, but what if there was? If the government had to cogently state why someone was put on a watchlist and there was an affirmative appeals process, would banning people on said lists from buying guns be acceptable?
Put then into effect first, then we'll talk about gun control
>How about the suggestion of placing a 3 day delay on their purchase so they can be more thoroughly checked?
Many states have a waiting period of 3 days or longer including florida, Omar was able to get his right away because he was working in armed security and already had a guard card/ccw permit

Continued...

>The ban could be symbolic and you'd still have every other allegedly identical rifle.
Why ban only one mode- oh I get it. It's symbolic like banning nail clippers with files on airliners is "symbolic."

>Why the opposition to prohibiting those on no fly / terrorism watch lists from buying guns?
There is no due process for those on the watch list.

>Why the opposition to universal background checks?
I don't have a problem with universal background checks if they were really _universal_ rather than the half-assed enforcement we have now.

Oregon banned private sales.

>Why are gun owners so stupid and violent?
80 million gun owners didn't kill anyone today.

A symbolic ban is a pointless ban made to appease stupid people and infringes upon our rights for no real reason.

I'm fine with the watch-list bans as long as they inform people when they are put on them and allow you to appeal the decision.

Leave that to the states. The federal government doesn't need this information.

so by this logic. every car is the same....

they all have 4 wheels and get you from a to b.