I said similar, not the same. My last M-16 was the A2 model which meant it had a select fire switch for burst and semi, my older M16A1 had full auto, burst, and semi. My AR-15 is semi only which means that there is one trigger squeeze for each round fired. My AR was manufactured by DPMS, a civilian supplier, NOT military. Damned shame that progressives measure the intelligence of responses based on the amount of agreement one shows to progressive rhetoric rather than truth and fact.

From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Lewis
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
Subject: Re: Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

I love the idea from the right that if it ain't a perfect fix don't do anything.

To kill someone with a gun is a tad more easy than a knife. Come on, at least make your rebuttals intelligent.

Love the fact you admit that your AR-15 is the same as your Military weapon. Yet you missed that point that it is a military issued copy. Keep your hand guns.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Boldsaber <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:

Obtuse? The whole antigun lobby is obtuse. So now it’s what a rifle looks like that’s the important thing??? Bull pucky. I have my AR-15 because it is similar to my service rifle and feels comfortable because of that. I am my Sig Sauer M1911 45 caliber because my service pistol for so long was the Colt M1911 and I’m comfortable with that. Otherwise I’d probably have a 9mm Beretta because that was my service pistol during the latter years of my career. However, I never grew as comfortable with the 9 mm as I was and am with the 45. What you suggest as reasonable I view as unreasonable and further more unconstitutional as determined by the USSC in its ruling on DCs gun ban. It IS reasonable to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminally insane and violent convicted felons but how the Hell do you intend to keep knives out of their hands or bricks or ever readily available explosives (or even fertilizer for the DIY type)? Pure ideological bunk.

From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Lewis
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:05 PM

To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
Subject: Re: Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

Hunting rifles are not the issue, do not be obtuse, i was very clear to say MILITARY style weapons.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Boldsaber <boldsaber@gmail.com> wrote:

Fully automatic weapons are already banned and have been since the 1930s. Why do you want to get Semiautomatics banned? You do realize that most rifles used for hunting are semis? That semi auto only refers to the positioning of a new round in the chamber when the previous one has been fired and that a separate trigger squeeze is necessary to fire that new round?

From: opendebateforum@googlegroups.com [mailto:opendebateforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Lewis
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
Subject: Re: Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

The issue is to get semi automatic and automatic military assault rifles out of the hands of non military individuals and to raise the bar to keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane and convicted violent felons. I don't think this is unreasonable.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 8:30 AM, lew <lewcoop@aol.com> wrote:

Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

Russ Vaughn

americanthinker.com

In an almost fifty-page study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, authors Don Kates and Gary Mauser, demonstrate again and again that strict gun control laws do not correlate with lower murder rates, neither in the United States nor Europe. In fact, just as is true in the U.S. where the highest murder rates occur in cities like Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws, the highest murder rate among developed countries is in Russia where gun ownership is highly restricted.

The study is a long but interesting read with several tables and lots of statistics and well worth your time. But for those not inclined to read it, here is the conclusion drawn by the authors:

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil -- at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed strict gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Emphasis mine

In other words, as we gun advocates have long known, the observable facts simply will not support the emotional arguments of the gun grabbers regarding both violent crime and suicide. Interestingly, the study also relates a survey of incarcerated felons that confirms that a criminal's greatest fear is that his victim may be armed. That certainly makes the case for a well-armed citizenry regardless of the definition of militia.

You should read the entire study and then make sure your elected representatives read it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opendebateforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to opendebateforum@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opendebateforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
If people only knew the facts, they would not be fighting for the 'RIGHT' to be screwed over.

Nixon 1973: "I am not a crook!"
Clinton 1998 wagging finger: "I did not have sex with that woman!"
Bush 2005 wagging finger: "I did nothing illegal!"
+ $1,899,522,392,147 Social Security Trust Fund.
– $8,367,894,586,992 The Gross National Debt $3,231,274,298,946.38 in foreign oil

Time will tell all the Truth.
VT

Sean Lewis/VirtualTruth/VT
Founder AOL Group OpenDebateForum
Founder Google Group Open Debate Political Forum IMHO
Founder of Blog Sean Lewis's Virtual Truth
Creator of Web Site The Center of Virtual Truth
Owner of GMLH http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Global_Media_Lightning_Headlines/clock Department of Justice web site

Law

Pages

Saturday, August 31, 2013

RE: Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

Harvard Gun Study Refutes Gun Grabber Claims - More Gun Laws Don't Prove Diddely-Squat

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

Followers