There is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories

[eflatminor]

I believe the silencers are for those afflicted with Delusions of 007 as they await their mission instructions.

Of course you do.

 

[Contumacious]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

OK Fucktard, are you going to be arguing next that King George III granted independence out of the goodness of his heart.

Or that the Founding Fathers only used those weapons approved by his majesty?!?!?!?

What a fucking retard.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Oh, the awful language makes me so sad...

 

[Missourian]

Why is the left constantly and consistently targeting legal gun owners?

 

[Politico]

Why is the left constantly and consistently targeting legal gun owners?

Because they're the only ones gun laws actually work on.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, the awful language makes me so sad...

You really want to know what is "awful language"

firearms regulation and banning

.

 

[hazlnut]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no legitimate reason for people to sell fuzzy dice or rimz. Let's ban those too!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

Just because something looks like a military weapon does not mean it is a military weapon.

An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semiauto rifle.

This weapon

Is no different than this weapon

Both are semiautomatic rifles
Both fire the same .223 round at the same rate

But one of them looks scarier.

 

[zeke]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

Just because something looks like a military weapon does not mean it is a military weapon.

An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semiauto rifle.

This weapon

Is no different than this weapon

Both are semiautomatic rifles
Both fire the same .223 round at the same rate

But one of them looks scarier.

Which one of those rifles were used in the recent mass killings? It was the rifle on the top photo, wasn't it? And why did the shooters use the Bushmaster AR15 instead of the other rifle? Do you know the answers?

And in the world of gun sales, when comparing numbers of guns sold betweent the two rifles, which rifle sells the best and why? Them being the same and all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

Just because something looks like a military weapon does not mean it is a military weapon.

An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semiauto rifle.

This weapon

Is no different than this weapon

Both are semiautomatic rifles
Both fire the same .223 round at the same rate

But one of them looks scarier.

Which one of those rifles were used in the recent mass killings? It was the rifle on the top photo, wasn't it? And why did the shooters use the Bushmaster AR15 instead of the other rifle? Do you know the answers?

And in the world of gun sales, when comparing numbers of guns sold betweent the two rifles, which rifle sells the best and why? Them being the same and all.

There is no reason to pick one rifle over the other but for the cosmetics.

So the AR15 was used because the guy shooting it liked the way it looked not because it was somehow superior to the other rifle pictured.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The more the Left tells us we don't need guns, the greater the need for ammo and guns.

 

[zeke]

What about the rest of the question. And you don't think that the shooters wanted to have in their hands the scariest rifle with the highest capacity mags they could get. I mean, if you want to terrorize, you are not going to get a .22 single shot rifle now are you?

And on the second rifle. Does it take the same 30 round magizines that the AR15 will accept?

And if there is no difference, why the opposition to restricting AR15's. Just buy the other weapon and carry on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

 

[peach174]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

There is every legitimate reason for gun-sellers to sell militarized accessories. when you have the Drug Cartel running though your property with the same type of accessories and semi automatic rifles.

 

[zeke]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

YOU mean there is a reason the military does not let soldiers take their M16's home with them? Keep them under lock and key when not in use.

Good fuking god, don't tell the NRA nuts. Those soldiers are not being given full access to their second amendment rights.

Revolution I say. Revolution.

 

[hazlnut]

The more the Left tells us we don't need guns, the greater the need for ammo and guns.

No one is saying you don't need guns.

yet another fail in a lifetime of failure....

 

[zeke]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

There is every legitimate reason for gun-sellers to sell militarized accessories. when you have the Drug Cartel running though your property with the same type of accessories and semi automatic rifles.

You plan on taking on the drug cartels? Good luck with that. And don't the drug guys buy their weapons from the same placees you do? And did you not read the news that an AR15is not different than many other rifles. If you can't buy an AR15, buy one of the other rifles to keep you safe from the druggies.

 

[hazlnut]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

 

[eflatminor]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.