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

[2aguy]

Facts get in their way. I also read the various court rulings and notice they are shying away from those with me around. So the only thing they have left is their little digs. I can live with that. It means they admit defeat on a regular basis and are too dense or stupid to see it.

Question is why do you fight every idea we throw out there. You like murder

What idea do you present? I haven't seen any real ideas as of yet. You scream "NO" or "You can't tell me what to do" every step of the way. I want the AR to be regulated but leave the traditional hunting rifles alone. Is that a bad idea? And I have clearly stated my reasoning why. Now clearly state your ideas.

Hunting rifles are deadlier.

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

Take one average run-of-mill duck gun. Load with OO buckshot (at 9 shot per shell) and three pulls of the trigger will put 27 projectiles in the air. Many have magazines able to hold five which will yield 45 projectiles with five trigger pulls and no reloading. Whereas an AR-15 requires 20 trigger pulls to fire 20rnds with a 20rnd. mag. If both are fired into a packed crowd of people which is more deadly?

Not only that, they will target children more...from the notes of the Sandy Hook shooter he chose that school because it didn't have an armed police officer like the Middle School and High School had, and he chose the smaller children because...he knew they would be easier to kill, and getting his "score" really high, was the goal..... he saw this as a game......it was in his notes.

 

[Lakhota]

Colt suspends production of AR-15s for civilian market.

You are correct but you may wish to include a URL to go with it.

Don't have one. Rachel Maddow told me a few minutes ago.

You may wish to google it and get a good URL on it. It's out there. the UP reported it.

Thanks, but Rachel Maddow already told me it's true. That's good enough for me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Colt suspends production of AR-15s for civilian market.

You are correct but you may wish to include a URL to go with it.

Don't have one. Rachel Maddow told me a few minutes ago.

You may wish to google it and get a good URL on it. It's out there. the UP reported it.

Thanks, but Rachel Maddow already told me it's true. That's good enough for me.

I can't spend more than about 2 minutes listening to her. If she says the sky is up I will always verify it myself by looking up. And then change the channel.

 

[Lakhota]

Colt suspends production of AR-15s for civilian market.

You are correct but you may wish to include a URL to go with it.

Don't have one. Rachel Maddow told me a few minutes ago.

You may wish to google it and get a good URL on it. It's out there. the UP reported it.

Thanks, but Rachel Maddow already told me it's true. That's good enough for me.

I can't spend more than about 2 minutes listening to her. If she says the sky is up I will always verify it myself by looking up. And then change the channel.

Well, that's your choice. I think that probably says more about you than her. Personally, I think she is great. Yes, sometimes I get tired of her preaching and screeching - but what she delivers is usually worth it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Question is why do you fight every idea we throw out there. You like murder

What idea do you present? I haven't seen any real ideas as of yet. You scream "NO" or "You can't tell me what to do" every step of the way. I want the AR to be regulated but leave the traditional hunting rifles alone. Is that a bad idea? And I have clearly stated my reasoning why. Now clearly state your ideas.

Hunting rifles are deadlier.

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

Take one average run-of-mill duck gun. Load with OO buckshot (at 9 shot per shell) and three pulls of the trigger will put 27 projectiles in the air. Many have magazines able to hold five which will yield 45 projectiles with five trigger pulls and no reloading. Whereas an AR-15 requires 20 trigger pulls to fire 20rnds with a 20rnd. mag. If both are fired into a packed crowd of people which is more deadly?

The AR. The AR will penetrate up to 3 bodies and probably lodge in the forth. The OO buck won't go much past the first person although it's going to make one hell of a mess.

Maybe but doubtful. The 5.56 round is highly frangible and tends to fly apart or deflect wildly when hits something. A more stable and powerful traditional hunting round like the .30-'06 could be expected to have much greater penetration. My money would be on the 12 Ga. fired at aprox. head level.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

isn't this what i said?

i just also said we need to fix the background db before we flood it with even more.

and you never have answered direct questions i've asked. yet you wonder why i tag you "troll".

When the government does it's job background checks works. Nothing needs to be changed about what we already have.

Background checks are a joke. Just like the NRA wants them

Until they apply to the secondary market, there is nothing preventing a felon from getting a gun

Great if you can regulate criminal action there would be no need for background checks. How do you propose regulating criminal action?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

isn't this what i said?

i just also said we need to fix the background db before we flood it with even more.

and you never have answered direct questions i've asked. yet you wonder why i tag you "troll".

When the government does it's job background checks works. Nothing needs to be changed about what we already have.

Background checks are a joke. Just like the NRA wants them

Until they apply to the secondary market, there is nothing preventing a felon from getting a gun

In 2013, Colorado went to Universal Background Checks. In 2016, there were 127 potential violent felons sent back to prison that violated their parole. And don't do the Cite crap. That's already been covered in here and we don't need to keep redoing the same crap over and over just s you can try and make a point that doesn't hold water.

Yes, we do need to recover fake shit unless you can verify it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I stand with Joe Manchin...


“I can tell you one thing, Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me,” Manchin said Wednesday when asked about the plan. “You tell Beto that, OK?"


Manchin to O'Rourke: You are not taking my guns

What will you do if the law is passed and a policeman sees you with an AR 15 and attempts to confiscate it.

Are you really a tough guy or only on the internet?

What would Joe do?

I'm not in the habit of taking my guns out in public, so the chances of anyone seeing them is slim and none, and slim just left.

Of course, with Beto polling at zero, I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about... not that we ever really did.

I would ask him the same question I asked you
You talk tough, but would you shoot a police officer trying to lawfully confiscate your weapon?

Lexington and Concord were lawful acts of confiscation Tory

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What idea do you present? I haven't seen any real ideas as of yet. You scream "NO" or "You can't tell me what to do" every step of the way. I want the AR to be regulated but leave the traditional hunting rifles alone. Is that a bad idea? And I have clearly stated my reasoning why. Now clearly state your ideas.

Hunting rifles are deadlier.

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

Take one average run-of-mill duck gun. Load with OO buckshot (at 9 shot per shell) and three pulls of the trigger will put 27 projectiles in the air. Many have magazines able to hold five which will yield 45 projectiles with five trigger pulls and no reloading. Whereas an AR-15 requires 20 trigger pulls to fire 20rnds with a 20rnd. mag. If both are fired into a packed crowd of people which is more deadly?

The AR. The AR will penetrate up to 3 bodies and probably lodge in the forth. The OO buck won't go much past the first person although it's going to make one hell of a mess.

Maybe but doubtful. The 5.56 round is highly frangible and tends to fly apart or deflect wildly when hits something. A more stable and powerful traditional hunting round like the .30-'06 could be expected to have much greater penetration. My money would be on the 12 Ga. fired at aprox. head level.

You are giving the mass shooter way too much credit. They are usually the bottom of the barrel for skill sets. They like to use the AR because it makes up for their deficiencies. They just come in and start blasting away with no plan or rhyme nor reason. You are thinking about how YOU would do it. They don't do that. And you are expecting them to have some kind of skill and proficiency with their weapon. They have either very little or zero. The AR allows them to go for a high body count fast. Your shotgun idea would be for a seasoned shooter that actually knows what he's doing before he commits suicide.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Oh, stop this nonsense. They use the AR-15 Model 604. But they are stamped with M-16A-4 before it's delivered to comply with the Military identifying program.

The M-16a-4 is an ADAPTION of the AR-15. It is NOT an AR-15.

The M-16A-4 is an AR-15 Model 604 stamped to read M-16A-4 before it's delivered to the Military. Didn't we already cover this?

And your point?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hunting rifles are deadlier.

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

Take one average run-of-mill duck gun. Load with OO buckshot (at 9 shot per shell) and three pulls of the trigger will put 27 projectiles in the air. Many have magazines able to hold five which will yield 45 projectiles with five trigger pulls and no reloading. Whereas an AR-15 requires 20 trigger pulls to fire 20rnds with a 20rnd. mag. If both are fired into a packed crowd of people which is more deadly?

The AR. The AR will penetrate up to 3 bodies and probably lodge in the forth. The OO buck won't go much past the first person although it's going to make one hell of a mess.

Maybe but doubtful. The 5.56 round is highly frangible and tends to fly apart or deflect wildly when hits something. A more stable and powerful traditional hunting round like the .30-'06 could be expected to have much greater penetration. My money would be on the 12 Ga. fired at aprox. head level.

You are giving the mass shooter way too much credit. They are usually the bottom of the barrel for skill sets. They like to use the AR because it makes up for their deficiencies. They just come in and start blasting away with no plan or rhyme nor reason. You are thinking about how YOU would do it. They don't do that. And you are expecting them to have some kind of skill and proficiency with their weapon. They have either very little or zero. The AR allows them to go for a high body count fast. Your shotgun idea would be for a seasoned shooter that actually knows what he's doing before he commits suicide.

Jared Lee Loughner used a Glock 19
You have a better chance of being run down by a vehicle than being shot with a rifle.

 

[the other mike]

Your thread The most popular new shooting range poster. was moved to a different forum. Reason: too suggestive of violence against political "leadership"...

 

[the other mike]

 

[MisterBeale]

Your thread The most popular new shooting range poster. was moved to a different forum. Reason: too suggestive of violence against political "leadership"...

It is completely gone now.



Hmmm. . . who was the YOU? Who was this post directed at?, the OP?

Either way. . . interesting.


I went through a short phase in my life where I was opposed to guns, I don't really care for them. I don't like them.

I had the deluded POV that many on the left have. I had the notion that small arms could never make a difference against the might of the US military. I did not know that the armed civilian population of the US made up the largest army on the planet.

Then, I finally came to understand, after the first and second Iraq wars, and all the boondoggles that the US military gets into why Americans need them.

It is the only way for Americans to truly and really ensure that they themselves do not become victims of genocide to their own psychopathic leadership.

An open society is part of our culture. I do not think Americans would tolerate a closed society for very long, guns ensure we will always keep our open society.

 

[AntonToo]

Not really satire.

Beto: 'Hell Yes I'm Going To Violate My Oath To Defend The Constitution'

Horseshit - we've had Assault Weapons Ban in 1994-2004, it was never ruled to be unconstitutional.

Comrade;

{At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions. }

Ex Post Facto

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah stupid, it's illegal to pass laws that criminalize acts in the past. If you try to make people who legally own AR-15's into felons, it's YOU who are the criminals, and you'll be treated accordingly.

Hey nutbag the only one talking about criminalizing past acts is you, not me.

I swear, something really ain’t right with you righties.

 

[AntonToo]

Not really satire.

Beto: 'Hell Yes I'm Going To Violate My Oath To Defend The Constitution'

Horseshit - we've had Assault Weapons Ban in 1994-2004, it was never ruled to be unconstitutional.

Comrade;

{At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions. }

Ex Post Facto

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

It was never found to make a difference either, huh?

It may have, it’s tough to account something like a limited ban. Certainly we’ve had way more mass shooting deaths since it expired.

Did assault weapon ban bring down mass shooting deaths?

 

[the other mike]

I went through a short phase in my life where I was opposed to guns, I don't really care for them. I don't like them.

Neither do I. The only shooting I ever do is hustling drunks in the pool hall. But my wife and I have protection in case of intruders.

That said, I'm all for stricter background checks and registering all the firearms. If a gun owner dies, for example, whoever inherits his guns should be required by law to either sell them or have them registered in their own names. Same with all private gun sales....I don't care if it's a gun show at the Omni Convention Center or out of the back of a Ryder rental truck.

And obviously a lack of funding for mental health treatment is a huge problem, especially with prisons overcrowded with non violent drug offenders, being locked up along with dangerous felons and so on.

 

[AntonToo]

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

I asked you this before :
Why do you think the current court would rule it constitutional?
Maybe this time you'll answer.

It would rule it constitutional because even If the court deems 2nd amendment to apply to individuals owning firearms, the law only limits the type of weapon you could have, it does not prevent you from owning a firearm.

 

[the other mike]

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

I asked you this before :
Why do you think the current court would rule it constitutional?
Maybe this time you'll answer.

It would rule it constitutional because even If the court deems 2nd amendment to apply to individuals owning firearms, the law only limits the type of weapon you could have, it does not prevent you from owning a firearm.

Good. I'm keeping my OshKosh.

 

[iceberg]

No need Daryl, just read American history. Apparently you know nothing about it.

Facts get in their way. I also read the various court rulings and notice they are shying away from those with me around. So the only thing they have left is their little digs. I can live with that. It means they admit defeat on a regular basis and are too dense or stupid to see it.

Question is why do you fight every idea we throw out there. You like murder

What idea do you present? I haven't seen any real ideas as of yet. You scream "NO" or "You can't tell me what to do" every step of the way. I want the AR to be regulated but leave the traditional hunting rifles alone. Is that a bad idea? And I have clearly stated my reasoning why. Now clearly state your ideas.

Hunting rifles are deadlier.

No, they aren't. Some are just more powerful (velocity vs. energy). I've never seen an elephant gun with a 100-round rotary magazine.

mostly because you can't pick it up and even come close to firing it accurately with 100 rounds of that ammo in any magazine.

pretty ******* heavy but hey - bypass physics 101 so you can get angry at shit you obviously don't take the time to understand.