Re:United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year...
by tomlockwood on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @03:47PM
(#21829258)
> Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles?
AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15 lol
So I'm guessing you're pro gun control - considering you're ok with the control of assault rifles? Just an example. Lets control some of the most dangerous guns. No miniguns please. Also tighter controls on handguns.
Re:United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year...
by CompanionCuuube on Thursday December 19, 2019 @12:58PM
(#21837392)
If you were intending to be a parody of a gun control zealot, unaware of the subject proposing to be regulated as well as what regulation already exist, you have done a wonderful job. AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle 15, and assault rifles are already heavily controlled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Re:United States to fund gun-violence research after 20-year...
by tomlockwood on Thursday December 19, 2019 @03:55PM
(#21839186)
> AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle 15
That's the joke. I thought the "lol" I put at the end of that phrase would really sell that fact.
> assault rifles are already heavily controlled.
Awesome! Perhaps we can better control other guns for which self-defence is not a valid justification.
This comment of yours is just another example of that when you ask "Do you need an assault rifle (I didn't mention semi-auto rifles) to defend against meth heads with knives?"
Is it your understanding that any of the firearms being discussed are assault rifles? That's pretty damning.