[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Because someone does it proves it is right? Using your logic, I run red lights constantly and never kill anyone. That proves running red light is safe and acceptable? That was your logic.

It proves the statement, "Nobody hunts with an AR-15" is not true, and people who keep repeating it are liars.

An Allentown example demonstrates why assault weapons are not for hunting. And why hunting rifles exist. And also demonstrates the childish emotions he used to justify shooting a pregnant woman..

Is that so...

Mr. Wetzel was more than a half-mile away, hunting for deer. His .284-caliber Remington hunting rifle had a range of two to three miles.

and

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A hunter who accidentally shot a pregnant woman pleaded guilty Wednesday to violating hunting laws, but declined to apologize to the victim. Craig T. Wetzel, 46, of North Whitehall Township, was sentenced to six months of probation and ordered to pay $2,700 in fines for the Nov. 30 shooting of Casey Burns, 18, also of North Whitehall Township.
Wetzel also lost hunting privileges for five to 10 years and will be required to pay $3,175 in restitution.

It seems tw is misinformed, as usual, or is cherry picking facts to twist into a false scenario, as usual.

Please do not do what xoxoxoBruce has done only because emotion justifies it. Almost nobody says all guns should be banned. Even where some guns can and cannot be used or carried must vary according to the venue. Some Federal standards are desirable. That is what most believe. But again, rhetoric from an excellent brainwashing institution (NRA) says many if not most people want to ban all guns. That brainwashing also says why everyone should carry an AR-15 to protect themselves.

More tw made up "facts". His opinions become "most people", while the real most people, on both sides of the issue, know he's a liar.

Cars are for moving humans. Using your logic, cars also should not be regulated because cars are not used to mow down people. My contempt for the "I do it is proof that is it acceptable" logic should be obvious and transparent. Please now use honesty and logic to stay in context.

So much chutzpah he doesn't even see the irony.

Beest correctly asked about 'wants' and 'needs'.

Yes he did, and I explained to him the authors deliberate use of that term to attract the anti-gun people who use "need" as an argument.

That is the damning question. Please answer that. What are the 'needs'. Not your 'wants' or what others have done. Needs.

Very simple, everyone determines their own needs, and you can't do it for them. Even though everyone knows you need an enema, that's for you to decide.

Bottom line: one banned from planes can get an assault rifle even with 'cop killer' bullets that day to kill all they want. I expect every adult here to find that unacceptable. Once Federal standards existed to make that difficult. Even those laws are now successfully subverted by NRA extremists.

I'll agree with he should not have been able. However there is no such thing as an assault rifle, and until you can define what constitutes one so it will hold up in court, you can't control it.

Question remains to be answered: wants verses needs. Why does anyone need a machine whose purpose is to quickly kill peopple in mass numbers? And can be obtained within hours. Explain that logically without hiding behind a 2nd Amendment. The question is 'need'.

No, the question is truth, so that leaves you out.