Convoluting of two separate issues? How did he make these issues more complicated and difficult to follow?

angry/confused people cannot be using weapons

That pretty much rules out most folks.

So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?

Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.

angry/confused people cannot be using weapons

That pretty much rules out most folks.

So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?

Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.

He didn’t ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.

angry/confused people cannot be using weapons

That pretty much rules out most folks.

So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?

Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.

He didn’t ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.

You are just so entertaining

1 - There is no reason in the world for any civilian to own an automatic weapon. Period; case closed.

2 - It is a mental health and a gun issue. Did someone who was court-martialed and imprisoned for battery against his wife and child obtain weapons legally?

3 - From both a gun and an immigration standpoint: Yes, this guy was eventually dishonorably discharged. But if the US military can't vette someone how can we trust our government to vette either of the above?

No automatic weapons have been used in any of the incidents being discussed. The National Firearms Act of 1984 prohibited the sale of automatic weapons to civilians for guns made after the date the Act was enacted. So only guns made prior to 1984 can be held by civilians. The number of these guns is small which makes them prohibitively expensive for most people. Also, an application for purchase on one of these weapons has to go through the BATFE and you will be thoroughly investigated prior to it being approved which takes a minimum of six months usually much longer. Also, you are then subject to no notice inspections at your residence by BATFE agents or local law enforcement to ensure you are following the restrictions on the storage of such weapons.

If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic. Too many of the laws passed deal with aesthetics of the guns and not with anything that contribute to their lethality.

If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic.

Macho macho man! BirdsAway's got to be...a macho man. At the very least, you should know this isn't about the semantics of automatic v semi-automatic.

[Edited on 11/17/2017 by BoytonBrother]

angry/confused people cannot be using weapons

That pretty much rules out most folks.

So how do you make sure the law the abiding citizens can have the weapons that they are entitled to under the Constitution to protect themselves and their families and prevent angry/confused people from getting a weapon?

Simple, the left has one answer and only one for this issue, more laws.

He didn’t ask for one of your pointless generalizations, he asked what you would do. Try again.

You are just so entertaining

And you can't answer questions you wish others to answer.

If you want to have a national discussion on the topic then please, at the very least, educate yourself on the topic.

Macho macho man! BirdsAway's got to be...a macho man. At the very least, you should know this isn't about the semantics of automatic v semi-automatic.

[Edited on 11/17/2017 by BoytonBrother]

The personal attack was unwarranted and somewhat childish. I'm not challenging your echo chamber here. I'm merely stating that to have a "national discussion" both sides must be knowledgeable about the topic at hand. Otherwise it becomes very easy for one side to dismiss the other as ignorant of the facts. A lack of specific knowledge is what brings us laws banning pistol grips, muzzle devices, etc. that have little or nothing to do with the lethality of the weapons in question.

I was responding in the same fashion in which you initiated, to show you how you sound.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

Heard an interesting seg on Coast2coast last night - casino host who knew the killer. As much as anyone could know him. The profile he gave was a good schooling in personality red flags; antisocial, isolated, no friends, shunned by others (common descrip was "that guy gives me the creeps"), extremely confrontational, angry, no sense of humor, only engaged in conversation to prove himself right (when he talked at all).

Of course this describes a lot of us, but still worthwhile to take seriously and keep in mind as we observe folks in our own interactions. These traits when exaggerated could be good indicators of who is most likely to go postal.

It is possible that if people like this were made aware, even through a few simple comments from coworkers, family, associates, blogmates, that their wiring was apparent "man, what's eating you, you gonna go postal or what?", their illusion of isolation and secrecy would be weakened just enough to keep them from stewing and following through.

This seems to be something that requires a coccoon of self to thrive. They are cowards, and surely must be convinced that nobody knows, which feeds their illusion of power. If they felt that their cover were blown, they just might stand down.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

OK so just call them "mass murder rifles" because that is all they are used for. Abolish the 2nd Amendment it is to blame for responsible gun owners turning into gun fanatics. Banning and regulation of guns is very effective, just look at fully automatic weapons. Machine guns not easily available so killers get a convenient AR-style instead. Body count goes down. Ban the AR-style weapons the body counts will go down even further.

Also the NRA needs to be established as a hate group. They are no longer a simple advocacy for gun safety and rights. Don't believe me? Here is their latest commercial. Your NRA membership fees at work:

Enjoy, gun f*ckers!

Another person to teach, yeaaaa!

Now, explain to me what is wrong with the ad. What is not true about the ad? Where is hate for others by the NRA shown in the ad?

Why don't you just admit that you don't like firearms. There's no shame in that. It's not like you are going to be made to own and carry a firearm.

Abolish the 2nd Amendment

Absolutely not.

it is to blame for responsible gun owners turning into gun fanatics.

Keyword:Responsible

Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Let’s drop the “I need to educate people” act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.

Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Let’s drop the “I need to educate people” act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.

Fine, let's talk about the mental health issue in America. We all hear about these terrible tragedies but there are smaller tragedies that play out every day all over the country. Simply flip on the local news on any day and there will be at least one, if not many, story or stories that reflect directly on our inability to tackle this problem.

Jerry, I respect your knowledge on guns, but spare me your irrelevant b.s. Who gives sh*t about what the damn guns are called? Let’s drop the “I need to educate people” act.

You mention a lot about guns, about how a mentally ill person cannot buy one once diagnosed, as if that magically addresses the issue somehow. Do you really believe that eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person legally buying a gun? Talk about being educated.

You really need to go back and read what you typed.

Once a person has been legally adjudged to be mentally ill, they cannot LEGALLY purchase any firearm, they cannot LEGALLY own a firearm, they cannot LEGALLY be in possession of a firearm.

So yes, it does address the issue of a mentally ill person and firearms and eliminates the threat of a mentally ill person LEGALLY buying a firearm with no magic involved.

Of course it helps if the facts of their case are reported so as to show up in the background check, unlike the latest issue with the USAF not reporting the domestic abuse, jail time, commitment to a mental institution, escape from the mental institution, and subsequent issues after release.

You can believe it or not, but the background check system works if proper information is submitted.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them

I realize you are making a point about the danger of hi-power military arsenals in every garage of every Joe Blow whacked out on Xanax and Coco Puffs, but man gotta say this reads really bad - in effect that only the govt can "own" guns. Which would mean wben anyone wants to exercise their 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms, they would have to obtain them from the govt.

Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them

I realize you are making a point about the danger of hi-power military arsenals in every garage of every Joe Blow whacked out on Xanax and Coco Puffs, but man gotta say this reads really bad - in effect that only the govt can "own" guns. Which would mean wben anyone wants to exercise their 2nd amendment right to "bear" arms, they would have to obtain them from the govt.

Actually, my point was more about how Jerry likes to give everything a literal interpretation when it suits his purpose. There are 2 sides to that coin.

Jerry, you seem to be in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Not one of the gun control screamers has or ever will offer a proposal or legislation that would ensure the citizen’s Constitutional right to defend themselves and get guns out of the hands of the criminals and people who should not have a gun.

Look at all their posts claiming that no one should have an automatic weapon. Apparently, they are all unaware that automatic weapons are already illegal.

The Obama administration made the bump-stock accessory legal for sale to anyone yet the only people working on legislation to make it illegal are Republicans.

We can all wait for the lefties to come up with a solution should they ever chose to participate in a resolution.

Don’t hold your breath.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?

BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.

Yeah - the Constitution is "Living Document", which means interpretation is a process.

Ok, now this:

The Obama administration made the bump-stock accessory legal for sale to anyone yet the only people working on legislation to make it illegal are Republicans.

Looks here like the Republicans are bringing down the gavel on new law, while the Artist Formerly Known as President actually did some freeing up of restrictions.

I really don't get your angle. Whine about restrictions, but it is ok for Republicans to interfere with gun rights, but if a Democrat eases restrictions he is an evil SOB who supports mass murder?

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?

BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.

So you are afraid to read the Constitution since it will prove you wrong? Here's the place to go to if you just don't like to read and be properly informed.
Find a copy of the Constitution. Go to Article I, Section VIII, para 16. You can go read the rest if you want.

I wasn't aware of any arguments against me, other than from those who don't like to be presented with facts that don't support or contradicts their dogma.

As for the debate, I agree that everyone should be educated on the topic, which is not about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, but rather about why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease.

You talk about the need to be educated on the topic, but you continuously say in one form or another "why mentally incompetent Americans can purchase high-powered assault rifles with ease".

1) Assault rifles can't be bought by civilians. Civilians who pass the background check, FBI investigation, and financial resources available can purchase full auto weapons, but they are not assault rifles. ( I hold ATF F5530.3 permits and they aren't no where as tough as getting a class 3 FFL.)

2) Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent are legally prohibited to purchase any weapon.

3) I have pointed these items out to you and others many times on this forum, but you choose not to learn
these facts and keep spouting off the phrases and buzz words you are told to.

4) The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The letters AR do not represent automatic rifle, or assault rifle. They stand for Armalite, the company that made the AR-10 which the M-15 was based on, and the AR-30 which is a bolt action rifle. I thought that bolt actions would never be classified as an assault weapon, but it's been tried.

5) The framers of the Constitution knew of multi-shot firearms. The Continental Congress even contracted with Cookson to make 100 of his LEVER ACTION breech loading repeaters. So the line used about them only knowing about single shot muzzle loaders is basically a lie.

Now, there are a few things you can learn today. I'll be glad to post more if you wish to learn

BirdsAway, I've been trying for about 15 years to get these guys to acknowledge truth rather than party dogma. Maybe with several of us giving back facts when they repeat drivel will help them learn.

The police in Texas and Las Vegas said it was an assault rifle. The FBI said it was an assault rifle. The ATF said it was an assault rifle. Semantics aside, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to own an AR-15.

The same people use "decimated", "point blank range", and "cop killer bullets" all the time. I guess they don't know the definition of those words either.

And yes, people do need to own AR-15's, also according to the Constitution the public is supposed to have access to anything the military has access to.
Like I said before, I hold ATF F5530.3 permits. I can import ammo, components, and implements of war to the US. I know what is legal and what is not. I know what the ATF designates as an assault rifle. Guess what, it isn't the AR-15.
The only firearms the ATF legally recognizes as assault rifles is the military issue AK-47 full auto and the STG-44 military issue full auto.

So now you know that those who said the AR-15 is an assault rifle didn't know what they were talking about.

See, ya'll learned something new right there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the people are allowed too have access to the same weapons as the military. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does not allow ownership of weapons. It says we have the right to bear arms, which is not the same as owning them. People in the military do not own the weapons the government gives them. Since you are such a literalist, I am surprised you do not see that. The 1st Amendment allows free speech, but there are restrictions on that such as slander, libel and yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

See? You learned something. And you are not really as smart as you perceive yourself to be.

If you had been reading my posts, you would find I had given the Article and Section of the Constitution that says that. By the way, it's not the 2nd Amendment, but in the body of the Constitution.
Go back and read my posts, then come back and argue if you can. Oh, and get a copy of the Constitution and read it. AND, remember I said ACCESS, not POSSESS. You do know the difference between those two words, right?

BS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to bear arms other than the 2nd Amendment. Nice try to send me off on a wild goose chase. And if the Constitution only permits access to arms, your arguments for gun ownership are BS as well. Most of your arguments are meant to deflect. Take a stand and stick with instead of deflecting every argument that is made against you.

So you are afraid to read the Constitution since it will prove you wrong? Here's the place to go to if you just don't like to read and be properly informed.
Find a copy of the Constitution. Go to Article I, Section VIII, para 16. You can go read the rest if you want.

I wasn't aware of any arguments against me, other than from those who don't like to be presented with facts that don't support or contradicts their dogma.

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Yeah, that is called the National Guard. What that has to do with gun ownership is... nothing.

Once a person has been legally adjudged to be mentally ill,

You are right. I’m sold! I no longer worry about a psychopath buying a gun and going on a shooting spree. Problem solved!

Fine, let's talk about the mental health issue in America. We all hear about these terrible tragedies but there are smaller tragedies that play out every day all over the country. Simply flip on the local news on any day and there will be at least one, if not many, story or stories that reflect directly on our inability to tackle this problem.

I agree 100%. Americans with mental illnesses cause far more daily damage on top of the sporadic mass shootings. The illnesses lead to dysfunction in households that spreads like a virus. Getting guns is only a small part of the problem. I agree that the main problem is our inability to address it, not the object. I respect guns more than the average Joe, IMO. I own a .38, but only shot it a few times during target practice years ago.

I wish our country was like it was before terrorism and mental illness became as serious of a threat as it is today. But it’s not. And since it’s very different now, shouldn’t we adapt? Should an 18-year old millennial, who can’t use a broom, who is bipolar but never been treated, be able to get a gun with ease? Or should he have to demonstrate his knowledge and competence first, like drivers ed? I realize a mass murderer will carry out his act regardless, but we should be at least decreasing his odds of success by making it a longer, more difficult process to obtain the weapon. The more difficult it is, the better chance we have of it maybe not happening. In no way shape or form should this type of person walk into a Walmart and buy a gun - I don’t believe that’s what a “right to bear arms” means.

The problem is not the object. I would’ve thought that those who love and respect the object, like I do, would want to protect it, rather than let a bunch of deranged lunatics, or inexperienced children start misusing it to the point where people are dying at an alarming rate. Let’s protect our citizens and guns, by preventing the dopes of our country from ruining a good thing. But any measure to do that is struck down immediately because the NRA has effectively brainwashed people into believing it somehow erodes our rights. Certainly we can figure out a way to make sure the idiots of the world have to demonstrate knowledge and competency first before exercising their 2nd amendment right. Responsible, knowledeable, law abiding citizens will have nothing to fear, just like passing a drivers exam. If anything, maybe the exams prevent idiot parents from leaving it loaded and unlocked for little Billy to grab. We should be evolving - otherwise the jokes on us.

I am currently on vacation in Sweden and have to tell you it is so nice to be in a place with so little gun violence that you can walk into the Royal Palace on a day that the King is hosting a state dinner and not have to walk through a metal detector or have your bags pass through an x-ray machine.