“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[iceberg]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

the US military doesn't use the AR15.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

OH LOOK - NOT THE SAME!!! (stevie wonder saw your shit coming here) and great. just because we've not regulated voting and "free speech" doesn't mean we can't.

i gotcha boo. let's keep doing "hold my beer" and saying "**** IT" to due process so you can get your way. once we lose due process, do you honestly think things will stop there? we're WAY BEYOND gun control at this point and simply putting ourselves into a bent-over state hoping our ever growing government won't come at me next.

I'm not interested in your anal sex fantasy s, even though there is nothing wrong with that.

see what i mean? you won't address issues, just barbs. hell yea, i'll get my own "shots" back in since that's the only game you choose to play; but you simply can't/won't talk over the issues themselves.

do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?

Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post.

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

 

[iceberg]

OH LOOK - NOT THE SAME!!! (stevie wonder saw your shit coming here) and great. just because we've not regulated voting and "free speech" doesn't mean we can't.

i gotcha boo. let's keep doing "hold my beer" and saying "**** IT" to due process so you can get your way. once we lose due process, do you honestly think things will stop there? we're WAY BEYOND gun control at this point and simply putting ourselves into a bent-over state hoping our ever growing government won't come at me next.

I'm not interested in your anal sex fantasy s, even though there is nothing wrong with that.

see what i mean? you won't address issues, just barbs. hell yea, i'll get my own "shots" back in since that's the only game you choose to play; but you simply can't/won't talk over the issues themselves.

do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?

Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post.

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The gun owners will make the rules. You can sit down now.

Make the rules ?

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment

 

[iceberg]

Make the rules ?

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

 

[sealybobo]

Which amendment in the bill of rights covers buying long rifles without a universal background check, or mandatory registration?

None.

Wrong again Stoopid. The 2nd A says: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that is too far over your head?

Are you in a militia? Is it well regulated?

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

 

[iceberg]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

that is what it feels like. but the left is not alone there. both sides have been ever increasingly doing the "i'll make this move, that will show them!" but the only thing it shows them is another way to get what THEY want in return. borrow said move, apply it to my desires, WHAM, "hold my beer" takes another victim.

trump using military funds for the wall - path now opened up for the left to take military funds for their pet projects. the right will scream unholy hell but i don't hear them doing it NOW cause it gets them what they want.

today.

don't see many working for tomorrow, just bandaiding shit up for today and wondering why we're spinning down a drain.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower.

So why do we allow our military to have it? You said nobody. Nobody means nobody.

Many of us with foresight can envision scenarios where those in power who have the exclusive use of force will abuse that power.

We get what the common soldier/marine has, goddamnit, or the military can disarm.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not interested in your anal sex fantasy s, even though there is nothing wrong with that.

see what i mean? you won't address issues, just barbs. hell yea, i'll get my own "shots" back in since that's the only game you choose to play; but you simply can't/won't talk over the issues themselves.

do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?

Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post.

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?

 

[sealybobo]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

No I get that and I struggle with this. How powerful and deadly is too much? And yea I like it that we have guns in case our government gets too corrupt. But they have drones with missiles. Do you want them too? So from my living room I can fly my drone with a missile to the Lions football stadium and wipe everyone out? Hey, it's my 2nd amendment right.

You know when you idiots will wake up? If one day angry blacks mexicans or muslim Americans start using these WMD's to take out Americans. Like, if it happened every day for a year you may wake up and realize we shouldn't let just any tom dick or mohammad own these types of guns. And every gun sale should require a real background check. No loopholes. If Sandy Hook happened at a private school that all the politicians sent their kids to, you'd see legislation tomorrow.

 

[iceberg]

Wrong again Stoopid. The 2nd A says: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that is too far over your head?

Are you in a militia? Is it well regulated?

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

 

[iceberg]

I’m building a drone like the ones the Iranians used to bomb the Saudi oil fields. And I’m selling them. No background checks.

And like employers take fake ids from illegals, I can’t help it that the person had a fake Id. Not their fault, not my fault when I accidentally sell one to al quida.

Th us government has them so why can’t I?

So, you are building/selling bomb-capable drones? How can I get one?

So you get my point then? The US Military has them and you want to be just as armed as they are? You people are insane.

You can't see a scenario where the people in command could get out-of-control.? Has history taught you nothing?

It's typical leftism. You can either see the future nor can you look back to the past and learn from it.

No I get that and I struggle with this. How powerful and deadly is too much? And yea I like it that we have guns in case our government gets too corrupt. But they have drones with missiles. Do you want them too? So from my living room I can fly my drone with a missile to the Lions football stadium and wipe everyone out? Hey, it's my 2nd amendment right.

You know when you idiots will wake up? If one day angry blacks mexicans or muslim Americans start using these WMD's to take out Americans. Like, if it happened every day for a year you may wake up and realize we shouldn't let just any tom dick or mohammad own these types of guns. And every gun sale should require a real background check. No loopholes. If Sandy Hook happened at a private school that all the politicians sent their kids to, you'd see legislation tomorrow.

this is where your credibility drops below zero. WMD.

as usual, the left simply ratchets up their verbiage in hopes if we call it a meaner/nastier name we'll get our way.

WMD my ass. THAT is retarded.

 

[iceberg]

see what i mean? you won't address issues, just barbs. hell yea, i'll get my own "shots" back in since that's the only game you choose to play; but you simply can't/won't talk over the issues themselves.

do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?

Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post.

yet you don't post anything of value on these topics, do you? i asked you a simple question so we can understand your viewpoint and you won't answer it.

ergo, that falls heavy into trollism, wouldn't it?

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It seems to me that many are perfectly fine with a complete imbalance of power and use of force.

An arms races does not have to be between nations. They can be between citizens and government. We are at a severe disadvantage. And, the communist left wants to put us at an even greater disadvantage.

.

 

[sealybobo]

"What’s the purpose for an AR15?"
Exactly like any other firearm it's purpose is make holes in things that are out of reach. It is used for target shooting/competition, hunting to feed families, defense of home family livestock and self, emergency preparedness, collection, and investment. The reasons a person might want one are none of your business.

"Like a machine gun we might deem ar15s too dangerous for the general public to possess."
You do not have the right or the authority to do. UnConstitutional. Nor is the AR-15 any more dangerous than any other gun car or jet aircraft.

"We can’t stop nuts from taking a semi auto pistol that carries ten rounds. But at least most of the people hav a chance to get away."
Really? Exactly how do you intend to do that? High capacity magazines are common and long-lasting and easily fabricated? Also almost all weapons that use any sort of magazine can be converted to handle high capacity magazines. And even if could make such a ban effective I doubt if the police and military will appreciate the handicap.

"Your right is taking the rights away from all the people who die because even dumb Americans can buy wmds."
Untrue. Obviously you are the one advocating taking people's rights away. Does the word "tyranny" ring any bells with you.?

That's a good point. A semi auto handgun is just as powerful or can be but it's not as good from far away. So if you take one into a crowd and people start running you'll kill much fewer people with the handgun. And a CCW holder in the room might have a chance against you. I say ban assault rifles. I have a pretty powerful Ruger 450 Bushmaster. It only holds 4 rounds. That should be legal. It's a hunting gun. I like the person who said the purpose of a AR15 is to put holes in things. What things? Is it used to hunt deer or bear? Ok, how many bullets do you need? We should only allow 4 round magazines. If you can't hit the bear in 4 shots you suck and should be eaten by the bear.

If you are shooting paper plates then you just have to reload after 4 shots. Apparently you guys say that won't slow you down one bit so don't cry about nuthin.

 

[rightwinger]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

 

[MisterBeale]

The country decided gay people had a right to get married, and we got gay marriage. The country decided weed should be legalized, and weed is being legalized. The country decided we need universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines and guns designed for combat. The NRA and gun nuts will whine, but we will achieve that too.

As others have pointed out, big difference here.


All those previous things did not have constitutional protections.

The state can supposedly "pass a law," but unless you change the constitution, there really isn't a damn thing that will change. Law enforcement will be as uneven doing those things, as it has been about gay marriage and pot. It is part of the fabric of the culture buddy. Thus, it will be ineffective. Good luck with your fantasies.

 

[rightwinger]

Make the rules ?

Yep....make the rules.

What rules will a gun owner make?

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon. Assault weapons are protected by the second amendment

Assault weapons are not protected by the second amendment

If you want a definition of assault weapon, it can be done

 

[MisterBeale]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

So we are going to ban security forces and police from having them, is that it?


The elites that rule over this nation would no longer be able to have their body guards and security protection services have access to carry them? Private security contractors can no longer have them?

What a relief.