Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

[img width=500 height=340.99]https://i.imgur.com/YeBcpnk.png[/img]

you still cant have my gun

lol, this is why there are people out there who want all the guns taken away.

And that might be a consistent position, but just focusing on scary looking rifles is ignorant for reasons I have explained several times.

And that might be a consistent position, but just focusing on scary looking rifles is ignorant for reasons I have explained several times.

There are no words...

When it says "these weapons", to what is it referring?

It's about "assault rifles". 

Yeah, semiautomatic seems like a useless term when discussing this.  It's also very much about how many bullets you're able to shoot before reloading.

I'm fearful (can't prove) that this is on purpose by the gun lobby.  While the egg lobby was resting, the gun lobby harped on the distinction between automatic and semiautomatic, making the semiautomatic moniker sound safer and preferable.  All the while, knowing that politicians and the masses wouldn't realize that all of these mass shootings are by semiautomatic weapons with 30-40 bullets being shot in mere seconds. 

I think further distinction would be useful, but the NRA would be against it's widespread use.  I don't think they want non-gun owners knowing more about this at all.

How many seconds are "mere seconds"?  30 or 40?
I don't understand your point about the NRA.  The NRA would oppose the "widespread use" of what?  A "further distinction"?  Of what?
I think you alluded to magazine sizes upthread.  I think that magazine-size restrictions are largely futile.  It would take mass confiscation by the police that you don't trust (and have my doubts too) to round up even a large fraction of the magazines that hold, say, more than 10 rounds.  And it doesn't take sophisticated metal-shop skills to expand legal-size magazines into larger, illegal ones.
Trying to forcibly collect AR-15, as you seem to be implying would be a good thing, would encounter massive resistance, even from people who don't own them.

you bet and I want to keep it that way

how horrible it would be if I ever had to use my gun for defense

but just in case I choose to remain armed

I'm actually part of YOU PEOPLE, it was just a call-back.  I don't have a gun, but I'm all for people having guns.  

At the same time, I don't understand why people want to have 30 guns.  Or guns that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute.  I'd be for being able to rent them at gun ranges or something.  And I guess if you collect guns and they're just sitting in a cabinet for show, that's cool.  

I get both sides, but all the guns should never be taken away (AND THEY WON'T BE).  But there's no need to have military-grade munitions under private ownership, either.

  But there's no need to have military-grade munitions under private ownership, either.

Your ignorance is rather appalling.  Maybe try and learn something if this issue is important to you.  You continue to spew "Talking Points" that simply are incorrect and nonsensical.