![]()
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
congratulations, for figuring that out, but they accelerated at a faster rate afterwards by almost 75% did you not read the text you quoted?
it's 100 less people killed each year. if the population wasn't increasing. and guess what its higher in the states where more guns were handed back.The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards.
if you want to claim that as its only a 100 extra people getting shot and killed it's nothing. you must be pretty pathetic especially given that is about l1200 less people killed since the laws were changed.
What's funny is you claim it's significant that's its falling then try and say oh that same rate being doubled is insignificant.
That's a special kind of self-importance you place on playing with a gun you don't need.
![]()
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
But if it isn't enforceable by the Courts....
As for the not-existing part - Deep Sea fishing and Radio Waves didn't exist (or weren't known to exist) but yet they are covered by the Treaty...Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.
I'm stating what the two interpretations are, I've stated I tend to side more on the originalist P.o.V. This isn't hard to follow.
And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....
Except they wrote a large number of treatises and letters expanding on what their intent was, so not really guesswork.
If you were observant, you'd know I'd already hinted at 2 cases: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia
In Particular 2 Justices putting forth the opinion that Execution itself was Cruel and Unusual and therefore unconstitutional. The subsequent case affirmed that since the Death Penalty was not considered Cruel and Unusual when the 8th amendment was written, it cannot be judged as Cruel and Unusual by todays standards.
Except I've not brokered an Argument, I've pointed to what the Supreme Court says and simply reply "This is the correct interpretation, as per the Supreme Court".
You seek a different interpretation - and whilst I might agree with some of the points you raise about wording, practicality and the differences between now and then - what actually matters is how the Supreme Court interpret it - which is what I defer to.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
What about a chart showing the overall murder rate once the guns were banned, just because they're not using guns doesn't mean people aren't being killed
Meanwhile back on topic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T5BrmBVV5Q
There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop
"Oh we just want to limit Handguns, they are used in most of the Gang Shootings"
"Well, no one needs an AR for home defence"
"Why would anyone need a Military grade 'Sniper Rifle'"
"Shotguns cause an unnecessarily large number of wounds"
No, I really don't mean 'some', I do mean all.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
You've lived here, you should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+a...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Lets go Brandon
OK, so now I know you post was not a piss take, it warrants further scrutiny. As mentioned below, the AR15 for a time was in fact designated as an assault rifle. It was developed for the military and used by the military in it's earlier AR-10 designation and later its AR-15 designation. So in regards to your point number 2, it was in fact designed to kill people. Simply disabling full auto hardly makes it much less effective at killing people - hence it's starring role in many, many mass killings.
Maybe you should hold your own posts to the same level of scrutiny you place upon others posts.
My automatic gearbox vs a manual gearbox analogy relates to versions of the AR-15 coming in the military version with full auto vs civilian versions without full auto. Automatic vs manual if you like. I feel it is a bit silly having to explain this, but you know - Wooooosh and all that
Well, there is this in the wikipedia article you kindly linked to - "Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act in 1994 within the United States. This act expired in 2004.". So at least at one time they were classified as assault rifles.
Having said that, I'm clearly no expert in weaponry. My only exposure to guns outside of cops wearing them and people wandering around walmart using their open carry license to full effect is my father in law who hunts with a musket style rifle, to give the critters a chance as he puts it. As he kept our freezer full of venison, I'm not so sure the critters fared that well![]()
Excuse me whilst I put on my favourite Pedant hat.
Assault Rifle is a technical Term. The AR-15 that is commercially available has never been an Assault Rifle.
'Assault Weapon' is a Political Term, that can be applied to just about anything they want to ban.
Furthermore, the AR-10 wasn't developed for the Military, it was borne out of a concept of a lightweight survival rifle and a desire to make full-auto controllable with the full-power 7.62 NATO cartridge.
The US Trials to replace the M1 Garand (which lead to the adoption of the M14) had already begun, Armalites decision to submit their rifle to this process was an after-thought, not the main purpose.
To conclude, like most Arms inventions, the purpose is not to Kill people, but to solve a technical problem - in the case of the AR-10, it was to both reduce the weight of the Rifle and to keep the Recoil inline with the shoulder, to prevent a fulcrum being formed by a conventional buttstock resulting in full-auto fire making the Muzzle rise uncontrollably.
As above, Assault Weapon is not synonymous with Assault Rifle. One has a specific technical meaning, the other is a political term to associate things they don't like with the technical term 'Assault Rifle'.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks