Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[BrokeLoser]

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

Haha...that’s a poor spin. They fire the same round, hold the same magazines and are equally affective at close range...Any AR-15 related incident we’ve seen could have easily been carried out with the mini-14

Only equal at close range, and the AR barrel doesn't deform as quickly under excessive use. Nice try though. I'll bet you have lots of guns you want to say are just the same as an AR, don't you? Why don't you list some of them?

My cheap but robust and awesome stainless barrel Ruger mini-14 is one of my favorite rifles. There’s no way it ‘fatigues’ as you claim...I’ve fired hundreds of rounds repetitively without any accuracy issues...You’ll need to try harder.

They don't use the same Mag at all. The Mini-14 is designed from the M-14 which is an extinction of the original M-1A-1 Garrand from WWII. When you go to drop the Mag, you hit the release and have to rotate the mag in a forward motion to extract it using your left hand. In order to get another mag into place, you have to release the empty mag then, using the left had, rotate another mag into the gun.

The M-16 or AR is a different breed. The Mag uses gravity to drop the mag. Therefore, you are reaching for a loaded mag while using the right hand to drop the mag. Then you slam the mag straight up until it sets. The Left hand isn't used to eject the empty mag. Making the AR much faster to reload. And that feature is because it's the absolute best design for battle there is. Even the AK isn't as good no matter what some Rexall Ranger will tell you.

I was referring to capacity....anyone who has practiced with a mini knows exactly how to quickly reload one...We’re splitting hairs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many handguns hold 15-18 rounds. Handgun are much more mobile and concealable. The rounds they hold can be excessively deadly.

Yes, in some situations, but not as consistently as the AR. The AR's accuracy doesn't degrade any where near as quickly as any other commonly available gun, including pistols, and concealment isn't always an issue.

Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Is that why the military only issues handguns to our soldiers?

They also issue machine guns. Do you want everyone to have access to a Ma Deuce?

Actually, I have the legal right to own a Ma Deuce as long as I have a Class 3 FFL license and have the facility for storage and security for the weapon. And the hundred grand to purchase one.

 

[BrokeLoser]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

Wow, you are still playing that same tired old BS tune over and over again. Just so you won't feel that you got away with anything, I'll respond to your post.

1. The AR looks the way it does because of it's design to do one job and one job alone. Not one ounce of design was wasted on anything else. That job was for a scared shitless 18 year old with little training to kill people in combat as quickly and for as long as necessary. And unless you haven't noticed, that same design is still the dominant design in ALL combat rifles. Yes, Combat Rifles, not piddly little 9mm short ranged guns not much more than automatic handguns. There is a reason I bring up the function of the AR. I once was one of those scared shitless teens in combat that owes his life to that weapon. And I have experience with the original AR-15 Model 601 all the way through the M-16A-4 and the Civilian AR-15. It's not scary looking. It's functional to a fault. And in a combat situation, even the M16A-4 fires semi auto. The 3 shot burst is worthless and is rarely used. That means that the Civilian AR and the M-16A-4 have exactly the same capability in combat. And it's not because it's scary. It's because it's functional. Take it from an old scared shitless teen.

2. If you make a rifle more powerful, you start losing the function of the AR. When you go from a light combat rifle to a Battle Rifle you lose some of the functions that makes the AR the best combat rifle ever made. Even if you try and keep the same features, the weight goes up, the number of available rounds goes down. Packing a 5 to a 7 lbs rifle versus a 10 to a 12 lb rifle and then the reduction of available rounds means your capability actually went down. There is a reason that almost every combat troop carries an AR derivative. And only a few carries a more powerful weapon like the M-240 or the M-249. Those two are heavy and a second support person has to carry the ammo. Try carrying one of the more powerful weapons in combat for 12 to 18 hours and it will become quite apparent why the M-14 was replaced. Just because the caliber has more power doesn't make the gun any more lethal. The AR has only the features to kill at a high rate and nothing is left over for anything else. You can say that "They" will next go after the more powerful weapons but you'll find that the more powerful weapons or war are already covered by the Class 3 FFL aren't readily available in the Civilian world. If you think they are, you watch way too many fictional movies.

Let's add a 3. Stop using the word "Ban". Firearms are not banned. Not a single one. And this includes full automatic machine guns. They are regulated. If you want a fully auto machine gun, you can buy one after you apply for a Class 3 FFL license. Those are not hard to obtain. Almost every law abiding citizen can easily obtain one. It's not much harder to pass one of those than it is to pass a standard Background Check. So you need to change your fear tactic from Ban to Regulate. the Lie is wearing thin.

I agree, I propose the following to all but eliminate the problem...
Completely forbid Blacks, Hispanics and Democrats from owning any firearm. TA-DA! Gun violence is a thing of the past.

And you say your aren't bigoted in any way, right? Your whole argument just went to the funny farm.

Nope, I’m a very proud bigot. And the truth will never cause me to piss my pants.

 

[OKTexas]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

 

[Slade3200]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

Haha...that’s a poor spin. They fire the same round, hold the same magazines and are equally affective at close range...Any AR-15 related incident we’ve seen could have easily been carried out with the mini-14

Only equal at close range, and the AR barrel doesn't deform as quickly under excessive use. Nice try though. I'll bet you have lots of guns you want to say are just the same as an AR, don't you? Why don't you list some of them?

My cheap but robust and awesome stainless barrel Ruger mini-14 is one of my favorite rifles. There’s no way it ‘fatigues’ as you claim...I’ve fired hundreds of rounds repetitively without any accuracy issues...You’ll need to try harder.

They don't use the same Mag at all. The Mini-14 is designed from the M-14 which is an extinction of the original M-1A-1 Garrand from WWII. When you go to drop the Mag, you hit the release and have to rotate the mag in a forward motion to extract it using your left hand. In order to get another mag into place, you have to release the empty mag then, using the left had, rotate another mag into the gun.

The M-16 or AR is a different breed. The Mag uses gravity to drop the mag. Therefore, you are reaching for a loaded mag while using the right hand to drop the mag. Then you slam the mag straight up until it sets. The Left hand isn't used to eject the empty mag. Making the AR much faster to reload. And that feature is because it's the absolute best design for battle there is. Even the AK isn't as good no matter what some Rexall Ranger will tell you.

I was referring to capacity....anyone who has practiced with a mini knows exactly how to quickly reload one...We’re splitting hairs.

Okay, let's not split hairs.

Side A is armed with the AR and has 5 mags of 30 rounds. Side B is armed with the Mini-14 and has 5 mags with 30 rounds. Let the battle begin.

For the first 30 rounds, the Mini-14 will hold it's own as long as all other things are equal. The Adrenaline is pumping, hands are shaking and mistakes are going to happen. Then the first series of mag changes have to happen. In a combat situation, you are more likely to drop one of your Mini-14 Mags or not set the mag in right the first time. The AR is less prone for mistakes and the Mag glides into the slot easily and quickly. While you are having to take your left hand and rock the mag out of the Mini-14, you are holding the loaded mag in the same hand if you are smart. You drop the empty mag and rock the new mag in. Meanwhile, the AR let's gravity get the empty mag out of the way and you slam the new mag into place. Reload time will be less than half of the time with the AR over the Mini-14. That means that while you are reloading your Mini-14, the AR is shooting at you. Side A wins hands down as long as all things are equal.

 

[OKTexas]

You might want to check you stats, you're way off.

You are as ignorant as you are uninformed. But I repeat myself.

edit...My apologies. You are right, I meant to say around half of all US homicides are committed with handguns. They should be severely restricted in order to lower that rate.

Damn, are you not reading the thread, the real numbers have been posted a couple of times.

“In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.

Can you do math?

.

 

[MAGAman]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Abortion Doctors kill a lot more innocent people than AR15s.

Obama's Drone Strikes killed more innocent people thsn AR15s.

I could go on. Point is, you don't give a damn about innocent lives.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, whoops...me and that stupid critical thinking shit. Sorry, you’re right, ban them and trample on our Constitution on FEELZ alone.

Im right about banning them? I never said I wanted to ban them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

I jumped the gun...so what is your position? Ban or No ban?

no ban

Okay, no ban. But Regulation then.

Yeah sure depends on what the plan is, I’m always open to smart ideas to help solve problems and make our world safer.

On handguns, I don't have an answer or even a suggestion. But Handguns aren't inherent to the high body count potential. In fact, a Shiv Specialist can inflict the same body count as the handgun in the same time and space. So I don't have an opinion on how to address it. But the handgun has other uses other than going for a body count. And I think we have covered those to death already.

But the AR is another story. I think I have clearly expressed my thoughts on that already.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Abortion Doctors kill a lot more innocent people than AR15s.

Obama's Drone Strikes killed more innocent people thsn AR15s.

I could go on. Point is, you don't give a damn about innocent lives.

I have no control of Roe V Wade.

Rump's Drone Strikes are doing the same. Drones are indiscriminate weapons systems. Sure you probably bagged your bad guy but the innocents around him are just as dead as well. You make it sound like Rump is an Angel. Not hardly. anymore than Bush Jr or Obama was. And almost every other President that ever served.

And since you approve of Mass Murders, you must not give a damned about innocent lives. Remember, you started this.

 

[OKTexas]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

what about the most obvious reason... they are most often used to kill school children and innocent citizens in mass murder shootings. Why did you leave that very obvious reason out?

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

Are you saying you are completely against common sense gun regulations? Are you saying that ALL firearms regulations need to be stuck? The Countries that have little or no firearms regulations are battle grounds like Yemen that has zero firearms regulations and how is that working out fo them?

You are going to get firearms regulations. Otherwise, we end up with a war torn country free for all. Rather than say, "No Compromise" maybe you should be working with people like me for common sense gun regulations.

 

[OKTexas]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Not really. Check out what guns Charles Whitman used. There is also Lee Harvy Oswald. Even for his times the fun he used to kill a presidant was about as shitty as they come. It's not the weapons it's the people behind them.

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

Actually, he killed a police officer too, although it was not with his rifle.

Forgot about that. I was thinking about people in the limo.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Not really. Check out what guns Charles Whitman used. There is also Lee Harvy Oswald. Even for his times the fun he used to kill a presidant was about as shitty as they come. It's not the weapons it's the people behind them.

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

Actually, he killed a police officer too, although it was not with his rifle.

Forgot about that. I was thinking about people in the limo.

.

For that series of shots, the AR would have been the wrong tool. I can think of a large number of rifles that would have worked just as well and they are all bolt action like the one used. And the AR WAS available in 1963. There were two different ARs available then. The AR-15 Model 601 Full Auto (introduced in 1959) and the AR-15 model 750 (semi auto civilian) introduced in 1962.

 

[OKTexas]

That's a lie. Hand guns are used in most mass shootings.

.

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

Are you saying you are completely against common sense gun regulations? Are you saying that ALL firearms regulations need to be stuck? The Countries that have little or no firearms regulations are battle grounds like Yemen that has zero firearms regulations and how is that working out fo them?

You are going to get firearms regulations. Otherwise, we end up with a war torn country free for all. Rather than say, "No Compromise" maybe you should be working with people like me for common sense gun regulations.

Is there something you failed to understand about "NO MORE", also I have yet to see you exhibit any common sense. How about faithful enforcement of the laws we have.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I wasn’t lying.. just stating an observation

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

Are you saying you are completely against common sense gun regulations? Are you saying that ALL firearms regulations need to be stuck? The Countries that have little or no firearms regulations are battle grounds like Yemen that has zero firearms regulations and how is that working out fo them?

You are going to get firearms regulations. Otherwise, we end up with a war torn country free for all. Rather than say, "No Compromise" maybe you should be working with people like me for common sense gun regulations.

Is there something you failed to understand about "NO MORE", also I have yet to see you exhibit any common sense. How about faithful enforcement of the laws we have.

.

You have been too busy playing, "Take no Prisoners" to notice what I have been doing. Until you start showing an adults method of discussion, your views will just get caught up in the hate speech that it really is.

 

[OKTexas]

Not really. Check out what guns Charles Whitman used. There is also Lee Harvy Oswald. Even for his times the fun he used to kill a presidant was about as shitty as they come. It's not the weapons it's the people behind them.

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

Actually, he killed a police officer too, although it was not with his rifle.

Forgot about that. I was thinking about people in the limo.

.

For that series of shots, the AR would have been the wrong tool. I can think of a large number of rifles that would have worked just as well and they are all bolt action like the one used. And the AR WAS available in 1963. There were two different ARs available then. The AR-15 Model 601 Full Auto (introduced in 1959) and the AR-15 model 750 (semi auto civilian) introduced in 1962.

That has nothing to do with how many people Oswald shot.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The AR-15 wasn't as readily available for Whitman, and Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person.

2

.

Actually, he killed a police officer too, although it was not with his rifle.

Forgot about that. I was thinking about people in the limo.

.

For that series of shots, the AR would have been the wrong tool. I can think of a large number of rifles that would have worked just as well and they are all bolt action like the one used. And the AR WAS available in 1963. There were two different ARs available then. The AR-15 Model 601 Full Auto (introduced in 1959) and the AR-15 model 750 (semi auto civilian) introduced in 1962.

That has nothing to do with how many people Oswald shot.

.

I am just keeping your BS straight, that's all. If you are going to report history, read a friggin history book.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

Are you saying you are completely against common sense gun regulations? Are you saying that ALL firearms regulations need to be stuck? The Countries that have little or no firearms regulations are battle grounds like Yemen that has zero firearms regulations and how is that working out fo them?

You are going to get firearms regulations. Otherwise, we end up with a war torn country free for all. Rather than say, "No Compromise" maybe you should be working with people like me for common sense gun regulations.

Is there something you failed to understand about "NO MORE", also I have yet to see you exhibit any common sense. How about faithful enforcement of the laws we have.

.

You have been too busy playing, "Take no Prisoners" to notice what I have been doing. Until you start showing an adults method of discussion, your views will just get caught up in the hate speech that it really is.

I saw your version of common sense, classifying semiautos as class 3 is stupid. You also might want to learn about the incorporation doctrine behind the 14th Amendment. It says all of the bill of rights are binding on the States as well as the feds.

.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

Give it up. You live in a police state and you're under constant surveillance; Israeli Intelligence grade. Your guns can save you from nothing now. Your militarized police murder unarmed citizens on the street and even in their own homes. You are being walled in and have reverted once again to concentration camps.

Polishing your gun and voting is moot.