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

[BULLDOG]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

The AR15 is a reasonable place for that line.

In your misguided opinion.

I think a reasonable place for that line is the standard load out of a foot soldier or marine.

If you insist on further diminishing the right, I will insist on motherfucking machine guns to minors.

Or you can stop now. You choose.

.

Insist all you want. Your wishes don't count anyway.

 

[iceberg]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

The AR15 is a reasonable place for that line.

In your misguided opinion.

I think a reasonable place for that line is the standard load out of a foot soldier or marine.

If you insist on further diminishing the right, I will insist on motherfucking machine guns to minors.

Or you can stop now. You choose.

.

Insist all you want. Your wishes don't count anyway.

the wishes of gun-grabbers mean just as much.

 

[BULLDOG]

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

 

[iceberg]

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

i put those right next to the gun grabbers making goofy claims.

******* disneyland around here at times there so much "Goofy".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

What illegitimate authority is going to declare a natural right unlawful?

.

 

[iceberg]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

If you take a gun from a non-violent citizen who is lawfully in possession by whatever means (including government force), you are a ******* criminal and you deserved to be executed.

Don't be a criminal. You'll live longer.

.

If a weapon is declared unlawful possession of one is against the law

If you use that weapon you belong in jail

What illegitimate authority is going to declare a natural right unlawful?

.

his "internet police" would be my guess.

the internet police, they live inside of his head...

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

i put those right next to the gun grabbers making goofy claims.

******* disneyland around here at times there so much "Goofy".

For most gun nuts, anybody who isn't a gun nut is a gun grabber.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

The AR15 is a reasonable place for that line.

In your misguided opinion.

I think a reasonable place for that line is the standard load out of a foot soldier or marine.

If you insist on further diminishing the right, I will insist on motherfucking machine guns to minors.

Or you can stop now. You choose.

.

Insist all you want. Your wishes don't count anyway.

But, my guns do.

You seem to believe that society exists for a purpose other than an agreed truce? It does not.

A truce (society) does not require disarming, only an agreed cease fire.

Did early humans allow other humans to confiscate their weapons without resistance? Why would modern humans tolerate the same? It's an act of war, ending the societal truce.

That is what I mean by insistence. Destroy the very purpose for society and watch who survives.

.

 

[iceberg]

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

i put those right next to the gun grabbers making goofy claims.

******* disneyland around here at times there so much "Goofy".

For most gun nuts, anybody who isn't a gun nut is a gun grabber.

for most gun grabbers, any form of asking for details on what they want banned is tantamount to insurrection.

we can do this shit all day. you seldom if ever get to the meat of a topic, instead lobbing out genercisms as if they have a point or place in intelligent discussion.

i tried several times today to dig deeper into what you are saying and it simply didn't end well.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

OK. How about pointing out which volume in "The Law of the Land" cares how many times you pull the trigger to determine if it is constitutional.

there isn't one; which makes this criteria pointless.

So that gun nut made another goofy claim. Imagine that.

i put those right next to the gun grabbers making goofy claims.

******* disneyland around here at times there so much "Goofy".

For most gun nuts, anybody who isn't a gun nut is a gun grabber.

For gun grabbers, anyone who believes in maintaining the nearly intolerable status quo of infringement is a gun nut.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

Untrue.

Don't be silly. You think regulation of automatic weapons is an infringement The SC would disagree.

You think banning a weapon in common use (ARs) is not infringement. The SC disagrees with you.

.

 

[toobfreak]

You can describe it any silly way you want, but just be ready for it to happen.

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

The board has an ignore function.

 

[iceberg]

The free world calls that a TYRANNY and a COUP. The Constitution provides a remedy for that.

View attachment 279910

View attachment 279911

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police.

both are just here to stir up shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

That's because it was designed over THREE HUNDRED years ago, idiot. Right around the same time as the piano and tuning fork were first being invented. No one was comparing it to a modern machine gun. That was unbelievable state of the art for its day. Jesus, talking to you, is like talking to a babbling idiot. I feel like I need a frontal lobotomy to come down to your level of itinerant stupidity.

Yet you presented it as proof that the founding fathers were able to envision the modern fire power we have today. Make up your mind which way you want to go on that.

Do you honestly believe that they had no ability whatsoever to envision improvements in weaponry?

It doesn't even ******* matter. It says do not infringe, there should be no infringement whatsoever. recent supreme court cases have indicated that weapons in common use or protected. I don't agree with that finding but it does screw over your argument. If you don't like it, amend. Otherwise shut your ******* commie mouth.

. it's really that simple amend or shut the **** up.

.

You're dealing with a total ******* idiot who like Rightwinger, no matter what you say or present in B&W, they will simply deny and try to deliberately twist things around because THEY SIMPLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO OWN GUNS.

PERIOD.

They find you a personal threat to their existence.

It's not about crime, safety or anything else. They know they cannot be trusted with guns so assume you are like them. You might as well talk to the wall because they have a dream that involves telling others how they can and cannot live their lives. The best thing they could do is donate their bodies to science so we can dissect their brains to find out what went wrong with them.

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police.

both are just here to stir up shit.

The board has an ignore function.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"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.

AR-15s are not assault rifles. Nor are they especially powerful. What do you really want banned? They are indeed used to hunt all manner of things. They are especially favored by women and other smallish people who have difficulty handling more powerful rounds. They are indeed used to hunt deer and bear. They are also used to hunt wild hogs which can be quite dangerous and may show up in groups of two doz. or more and in many places there is no limit on how many you can or should kill due to the damage they do to the land and other species.

 

[toobfreak]

called them both on it quite politely today (for the most part!) and bulldog would simply refuse to answer direct questions and rightwinger did what he always does only this time he turned me into the internet police. both are just here to stir up shit.

Ice, you are describing at least 80% of the hardline far left idiots here. You cannot have any reasonable, intelligent conversation with them. It is not a matter of facts. There is no debate. Most of them like Faun start EVERY post about how stupid you are and what a blithering idiot you are. He doesn't even come out unless he can ridicule someone else. You are dealing with vile ignorant people who hate everything about America and are here just to blow everything up, so why bother even being polite to them? They will only return the respect with spit in your face. They live to troll.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

that's what it comes down to.

a 6 shooter revolver can fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
an AR15 will fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.

so your "method" now applies to all but bolt action guns.

Firing rate is dependent on trigger resistance and reset as well as how quickly the next round enters the chamber

Now, stop trolling or you will be reported

Firing rate is also based on the position of the selector switch. There is no way to regulate finger action or the use of a simple rubber band.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 279098

Schumer does.

Chuck Schumer Says He Doesn’t Know Any Democrats Who Support Beto’s Gun Grab

 

[M14 Shooter]

AR-15s are not assault rifles. Nor are they especially powerful. What do you really want banned?

Like all anti-gun loons: As many guns as possible.