Using common sense seems to elude some...

@TexChik I did fight for our freedoms and rights. Been there, done that and besides combat time, I served 20 years in the U.S. Army. And, with all the noise about freedoms provided to us, why is it less than 1% of Americans' have served in combat?

I'm still waiting for an argument that justifies assault-style firearms. Have not heard one from you or anyone opposed to gun controls

@TexChik Oh, as a by the way, there are no where near 20,000 laws on the books. More factual data shows it to be in the 300 neighborhood and that includes state and federal laws. Stop believing what you hear from the NRA and associated groups - try doing a bit of your own research - there are plenty of unpartisan organization providing factual data.

@Ontheroad stop believing what you see on CNN. “ Assault style” ? No soldier I have ever knew calls a weapon “ assault style” , but liberal bloggers do . The word didn’t exist until the Clinton gang coined it to demonize guns and the 2A .

A semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rule , no matter which military variant it is made to look like . Saying it does is just lib BS and propaganda.

Please tell me how all the restrictive legislation would stop a criminal intent on committing a crime ? Please tell me how those common sense laws help in Chicago, Philadelphia, or LA ?

Would the government thugs in Australia have ganged up and beaten people who dared set foot outside of their homes to find food if Australian’s were free and had arms ? The 9 Australian police I saw curb stomping a poor woman and her husband certainly were armed.

@Ontheroad mos? unit?

@TexChik We are (or at least I am) discussing mass murders/killings.

I can lay a select fire/fully automatic M16 and its variants along side an AR15 and from a few feet away you wouldn't know the difference. "Assault-style" as a description easy understood is perfectly acceptable. You trying to use that as an argument is meaningless. Nobody goes full auto who wants to hit their target. Full auto is used to suppress or interdict the target, not hit targets. In full auto the M16/M4 will quickly overheat and malfunction, not to mention get so hot it's unusable not to mention inaccurate. To get an accurate sustained rate of fire you have to drop your rate of fire to something like 10-15 rounds per minute. Very attainable with an "assault-style" rifle or carbine. Your argument there is another another smokescreen.

Please tell me how sensible restrictions of certain types of firearms isn't part and parcel to reducing these mass killings. Not the sole and only part but as part of a comprehensive set of laws.

Nobody (or almost nobody) wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

Like I said, I'm still waiting for an argument that justifies assault-style firearms. Have not heard one from you or anyone opposed to gun controls

I grow weary of your repeated arguments and unless you can come up with something new, I'll stop responding to you.

@Ontheroad “Assault” rifle is liberal BS .mass shootings wouldn’t happen nearly as often if laws were enforced. But if you think you can come and take my guns away … you are welcome to try . 🙄

@TexChik Preach Tex!

@wildbill83 PMOS 05B, SMOS 36K, and during Vietnam, 1st Cav.

@TexChik A typical response when you have no response. And the place I'll stop responding to you.

@Ontheroad I thought it was a fair response.

@Ontheroad the typical lib response when one refuses to accept your lib nonsense.

Biden refused to help fortify schools but sent billions to the Ukraine. Libs don’t prosecute and choose the release violent criminals to reoffend , but some how the freedoms of law abiding citizens are the cause?

@Ontheroad
completely irrelevant. pretty much any firearm could be made to "look like" a so called "assault rifle" to the uneducated. To a liberal, my old Tippman A5 paintball gun probably fits their definition of an "assault rifle"; it's black, has an adjustable stock, holds more than 30 rounds and can fire over 15 balls a second...

and weapon effectiveness depends solely on the user, not the weapon itself; and quite frankly, society should be thankful that the majority of these active shooters are uneducated, undisciplined morons...

against unarmed soft targets, a vehicle or explosives would be far more effective against a large group of people; and needless to say, a vehicle is easy to obtain, and most explosives can be manufactured with commercially available chemicals (terrorists have been using TATP for decades which is little more than hydrogen peroxide and acetone)

Whether the gun control advocates attack firearm ownership in it's totality, or whittle it down bit by bit, the end result is the same... (as has occurred in dozens of countries with little to no reduction in total crimes)

and as the UK and practically every middle eastern and north african country is evidence of, if you remove one type of weapon available to the public, they'll just find or improvise another...

As Samuel Colt put it, guns are the great equalizer. With them, even someone with little physical strength and training can overcome a superior enemy; without them, that margin widens; a stronger enemy can attack with more confidence.

People who argue about what firearms they think we "don't need" are precisely the reason we do need them. No criminal, group, or even government would knowingly attack someone armed with superior weapons.

And for the record, M16's haven't been fully automatic since the 80's (the m1 version), all later versions are single and burst only...