as well as other things that make them great for competition

seriously? a assault rifle for competition? what is the sport in shooting a paper whit 100 bullets?
have ever seen a actual competition gun? they look nothing like a normal gun at all. a competition gun has hundreds of settings that you dont have whit a normal gun of any kind.

hat advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.

you didn't fight untrained troops there.
and in vietnam more vietnamese died then usa soldiers. but they could hide in the forest and knew the forests, unabling the usa to move forward because of the ****load of traps.

You must be very paranoid walking around in public, if the average joe is just a murderer waiting to snap and kill people.

hello strawman. (yes i can do that aswell)

(havn't seen this, i'm not that into this topic anymore. obama is going the right way. so i'm now watching what is going to happen. do they pass or not)
and sorry that i get annoyed of this topic and do not reply on everything all the time. i have better things to do then this topic. as i said befor. personally i dont care if you guys keep shooting each other. just want to bring over the point that you dont need guns. as they seem to think.

I totally agree with all you've said and it's a waste of time to talk to the so-called moderated ones because even when they keep saying they don't agree with the NRA views, they still get offended when I call it a terrorist organization.
They are also naive to think that the National Retard Association doesn't have a monetary gain by protecting gun factories and the gun nuts.
BTW, that link that doesn't work talks about how the NRA sabotaged the ATF because they tried to put an end to gun factories selling to the Mexican drug cartel and they wanted everyone who sells guns to keep logs on their sales.

It might be in a thousand years but I guarantee that the 2nd amendment will be needed eventually. Get rid of it now and your potentially dooming the future of this country.

To assume that America will last for centuries is errant folly. While much of our modern world is historically unprecedented, this does not mean that our nations will remain for longer. America has roughly 200 years of history, in historical terms 200 years is nothing. Arguing for the far flung future is pointless.

advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s. Also, You might wanna take a look at the Vietnam War.

This is... well wrong. Many of the insurgents fighting American forces over there have some degree of military training. Furthermore, terrain plays a huge role in these engagements. Guerilla style warfare, in rough terrain, is actually very effective.

As for the Vietnam War, this is also wrong. Once more for the same reasons. Those fighting Americans were trained to some degree, many with military training, and the jungle is a hard place to fight in if you do not know the terrain.

you group aswell.

I do, but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

tbh, i dont see what is wrong whit stereotyping. 

It's inaccurate, simply.

we all do that. look at yourself. your stereotyping me for being sstg and for having his ideas.

No, I've already said this. What I'm grouping you with him in is how you (not recently) came into this thread and just shot off one sarcastic remark after another and acted like your views are so superior. I know you aren't as hard-line thinking as he is, and I've said as much.

stereotyping happens all the time and people laugh about it.
stereotypes hold some truth but is taken a step further then reality go's. if you know that, then what is wrong whit stereotypes?

There's nothing wrong with it in jokes.
In a debate though, it's annoying, inaccurate, and shows that someone either does not understand the issue or has a messed up world view.

Redneck does something stupid in a joke = funny for 99% of people.
All people who like guns get called a redneck = inaccurate and offensive.

showing the point that a average joe whit a gun for self defense can easly use it to kill someone if they dont agree. i.e. showing the risk of guns everywhere.

Yes, they could. That's why it's important to make sure those types of people don't get their hands on guns.

Do I need an electric mixer for the kitchen? No, I don't.

Red Herring. An electric mixer isn't (usually...) capable of killing people. Nor is it a gun.

Do I need to own several different kitchen knives? No.

Red Herring, again. Knives aren't guns and a kitchen knife is a utensil for cooking. Unless you want to argue that you use an assault rifle when making scrambled eggs, well...

They are not made only for killing.

Deth666, if you're seriously going to argue that modern assault rifles were made for anything other than war, I'm going to start questioning some other things.

Assault rifles are made for accuracy, rate of fire, ruggedness, as well as other things that make them great for competition as well as very enjoyable to shoot. They're easy to use, easy to shoot and most of all they're fun.

And so there should be no problem with such things being kept out of people's houses and in places where they are used for competition, now is there? Unless you want to argue that you're going to be using your assault rifle in your backyard, or on some intruder.

All guns are made for killing, when it comes down to it. Your argument applies to all guns.

Yes, but not all guns are equal in those qualities which you listed.

Also, machine guns are different from assault rifles. What credible threat is there for a law abiding citizen, as an overwhelming majority of gun owners are, to own an assault rifle?

Perhaps I've got a different idea of what an assault rifle is than you do.

Here's the definition of what I think they are. "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Basically, something that can shoot a lot of lead and do a lot of damage fast.

As for what threat they are? None, in the hands of someone who isn't going to harm anyone with them.

Again, I don't see why such weapons can't be kept at gun clubs or shooting ranges or whatever. People could still legally own them, they just wouldn't be keeping them at their homes.

That advanced military tech is really working over in Iraq and Afghanistan against mostly untrained civilians with ak-47s.

US Military Casualties in Iraq
Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Wikipedia

4488 vs ~116k.

Also known as, completely out matched. Imagine what the situation would be where the side that lost 4488 is on its homefield, where all of its heavy duty thingamabobs rest sitting around, where the police would be with them, where transportation costs would be so much less, and much, much more?

What can an armed mob do against an air strike? Tanks? Helicopters? All it would be is a blood bath.

they still get offended when I call it a terrorist organization.

I'm not offended. I'm simply amazed at how stubborn you can be in making that ridiculous claim. They fit none of the criteria to be considered terrorists and also advocate things that are directly opposite to what terrorism is.

They are also naive to think that the National Retard Association doesn't have a monetary gain by protecting gun factories and the gun nuts.

I've already admitted that they do. I'm just not such a conspiracy nut to think that the NRA advocates civilian ownership of guns because they're running secret gun manufacturing plants and stores.

BTW, that link that doesn't work talks about how the NRA sabotaged the ATF because they tried to put an end to gun factories selling to the Mexican drug cartel and they wanted everyone who sells guns to keep logs on their sales.

Link it again then please, or give me the name of the article. I wish to read it.

My opinion on gun control is that everybody should own a gun. Here are two examples to illustrate this:

example 1: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this they reach for  there 45ib riot shields that nobody would carry everywhere anyway and two are shot because they were not fast/strong enough. The remaining 8 customers hide behind there slabs of plastic hoping for protection but are gunned down one by one (because riot shields are not made to stop bullets) until only 2 customers are left because there riot shields were (for the sake of the story) bullet-proof. The shooter simply tears the shields from the remaining costumers hands and shoots them. (If you want to test this go bench press 45 pounds and then have a friend jump on top of the dumbbell. if you drop the dumbbell even a little bit your dead.) There are no survivors.

example 2: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this 5 of them reach for their guns and 2 are shot because they are two slow. The remaining three shoot the shooter and he dies. There are 8 survivors.

My opinion on gun control is that everybody should own a gun.

Yes...give all the anger management, mentally unstable, extremist believers, irresponsible jocks and whatever other groups you want weapons which can kill with the pull of a trigger.

I suspect you didn't mean "everybody" but still, why should everyone own a gun? What if they don't want to? Why is it necessary?

example 1: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this they reach for  there 45ib riot shields that nobody would carry everywhere anyway and two are shot because they were not fast/strong enough. The remaining 8 customers hide behind there slabs of plastic hoping for protection but are gunned down one by one (because riot shields are not made to stop bullets) until only 2 customers are left because there riot shields were (for the sake of the story) bullet-proof. The shooter simply tears the shields from the remaining costumers hands and shoots them. (If you want to test this go bench press 45 pounds and then have a friend jump on top of the dumbbell. if you drop the dumbbell even a little bit your dead.) There are no survivors.

That was honestly the worst fake hypothetical I've ever read, and I've read some really bad ones. Go look up the definition of bias.

example 2: A member of the armed forces is traumatised in combat and goes insane. He takes a high calibre (45+) rifle to a restaurant with the intent to kill. When he arrives he busts through the door brandishing the rifle. As soon as the 10 costumers realise this 5 of them reach for their guns and 2 are shot because they are two slow. The remaining three shoot the shooter and he dies. There are 8 survivors.

Not going into how if things were regulated as they should be, said traumatized soldier shouldn't have a high caliber gun to begin with.

In the case of a random shooting, yes, someone on scene with a means to defend oneself is better than waiting the few minutes it takes for the police to arrive. However, just having a gun doesn't guarantee that the civilian will win the shoot out. They're just going to get shot at first.

Ever heard of the term, "escalation?" That's where your line of thinking leads.

I think that you should be able to have guns.
Guns are dangerous but that is only in the wrong hands. I think people should take hunter safety before you buy a gun. Guns are really fun to shoot at targets with family and friends. Guns can also be used for safety purposes. I think if you sell guns you should do an intense back ground check of the people you are selling the guns to.

I do, but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

Kasic, really? You're so busy thinking you're right that you didn't even realized I was messing with you. xD
You should have ignored my comments a long time ago.
I could care less if people own guns, machine guns, missile launcher, or whatever. I just love to stir sh*t and I'm sorry to say that you're not half as smart as you think you are. xD xD xD
Don't worry, you'll survive.
I just can't help it, this thread has gone for way too long and it's getting pathetic.
I feel sorry for Obama to have to put up with all this crap but as he showed before, he can do it.

but I'm not grouping people wrongly. SSTG just separates everyone from, "Doesn't like guns" to "redneck gun lover." It's a simply false dichotomy fallacy.

and have you seen me make such big leap? i might leap sometimes. but not this far, i'm for sure.
why do you put me in the same team then?

No, I've already said this. What I'm grouping you with him in is how you (not recently) came into this thread and just shot off one sarcastic remark after another and acted like your views are so superior. I know you aren't as hard-line thinking as he is, and I've said as much.

your putting my name next to his when replying to him.
it makes it show like i am the same as he is. while i got nothing to do whit what he say's.

Redneck does something stupid in a joke = funny for 99% of people.
All people who like guns get called a redneck = inaccurate and offensive.

good example. i have never said the word redneck in these entire 58 pages.
still you make it look like i call them rednecks aswell.

That's why it's important to make sure those types of people don't get their hands on guns.

well befor he just wanted to defend himself. and now wants to kill him to "defend" his right for a minigun. (ofcours this is a dumb person. but there are many. and many of those have a gun)

I'm not offended. I'm simply amazed at how stubborn you can be in making that ridiculous claim.

note i never said this either. i called the NRA evil, not terrorists.
greenpeace is more a terrorist organization then the NRA is.

seriously? a assault rifle for competition? what is the sport in shooting a paper whit 100 bullets?
have ever seen a actual competition gun? they look nothing like a normal gun at all. a competition gun has hundreds of settings that you dont have whit a normal gun of any kind.

Yes, modified ARs are used in many competitions. You can even buy some that are competition ready out of the box. Some of them don't look all that different. It depends on the shooter and the type of competition.

Deth666, if you're seriously going to argue that modern assault rifles were made for anything other than war, I'm going to start questioning some other things.

There's many assault rifles that are made for competition and not meant for war or killing. There's even a few AR frame hunting rifles. So, yeah...

Here's the definition of what I think they are. "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

Yes, that's what the military gets. It's not what civilians can buy at a gun store. Everyone gets hung up on the fire rate of a gun. It depends on how fast you can pull the trigger, how fast the action of the gun can work. These rifles are civilian versions not fully automatic infantry rifles. I'm not saying it's drastically different but it is a bit different. By your definition a WWII M1 carbine is an assault rifle. Saying that an assault rifle has no other purpose but to kill is sensationalism. It's like saying a sword has no other purpose but to kill but look at all these ren fair guys running around practicing with swords for fun.

hello strawman. (yes i can do that aswell)

Sorry for the sarcasm, but maybe I just didn't understand your point. People with guns will be more apt to snap and shoot someone doesn't seem very likely. People walk around with guns all the time. I walk around with a gun all the time and never felt like I was gonna snap. I've even gotten into heated arguments with people that have gotten physical while carrying concealed. I've never snapped and shot them. Maybe, that's not what you mean?

Also known as, completely out matched. Imagine what the situation would be where the side that lost 4488 is on its homefield, where all of its heavy duty thingamabobs rest sitting around, where the police would be with them, where transportation costs would be so much less, and much, much more?

What can an armed mob do against an air strike? Tanks? Helicopters? All it would be is a blood bath.

I don't completely agree, but I suppose, I see your point.

As for what threat they are? None, in the hands of someone who isn't going to harm anyone with them.

Again, I don't see why such weapons can't be kept at gun clubs or shooting ranges or whatever. People could still legally own them, they just wouldn't be keeping them at their homes.

What's the advantage keeping them at the gun club locked up vs. in their homes locked up?