Hillary: Ban weapons of war; Bye bye pistols, deer rifles, shotguns....muskets...

[bucs90]

Yall saw the speech. Hillary says "Weapons of war have no place on our streets."

Nevermind the 2nd Amendment guarantee arms...which were weapons of war in 1776 (muskets and pistols).

Pistols...used in all wars.
Deer rifles....the founding father of battlefield sniper rifles...USMC and Army snipers to this day use bolt action single shot sniper rifles that are identical to grandpa's deer rifle.
Shotguns....also used in wars.

AR-15s.....actually not used much in war. M16 and M4 yes. AR-10 yes.


So libs....when she wants to ban "Weapons of War"....which ones? And how far back?

Because in 1776 there were only 2 firearms. Pistols and Musket rifles. All military infantry carried them. And the Founders granted citizens the right to them.

 

[bucs90]

I suppose I'm gonna ask for an honest debate libs. No name calling and I'm open minded to change opinion if you convince me.

Let me ask to start....Hillary wants "Weapons of War" out of Americans hands.

Would THIS BE a "Weapon of War"???

 

[Kosh]

That is the point, the far left wants to ban all guns and make sure that only the criminals are armed.

 

[bucs90]

That is the point, the far left wants to ban all guns and make sure that only the criminals are armed.

No...I wanna have a fair debate and let them respond.

Libs...is this a "Weapon of War"?

 

[Valerie]

they'll figure it out. which weapons to permit to whom and for what lawful purposes. some weapons should be permitted only to some citizens for some purposes but not all weapons for all purposes to all people...

 

[bucs90]

they'll figure it out. which weapons to permit to whom and for what lawful purposes. some weapons should be permitted only to some citizens for some purposes but not all weapons for all purposes to all people...

Ok. I agree. Rocket launchers. Claymore mines. Grenades. Yes...no one should have them except military. Fair debate.

But...what about this one. Is this a Weapon of War...as Hillary says that doesn't belong in US citizens hands??

 

[Rexx Taylor]

and how are we supposed to protect ourselves from bigfoot and chupacabra? i mean,,,i have to fight them off all the time!

 

[bucs90]

I see libs are very hesitant here.

Libs....is this a Weapon of War to be banned by Hillary...as she said to do???

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I take it this ban will apply to all civil law enforcement agencies also.

After all if civilians can't own them then the government should lead by example.

Only the military can own weapons and other equipment not authorized to civilians.

*****SMILE*****

 

[bucs90]

I take it this ban will apply to all civil law enforcement agencies also.

After all if civilians can't own them then the government should lead by example.

Only the military can own weapons and other equipment not authorized to civilians.

*****SMILE*****

Yep....that would HAVE to be true. Police aren't military so they'd need to give up all weapons other than I suppose some revolvers maybe.


Libs....still haven't answered....is THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:

 

[couch protester]

The libs have abandoned you, their silence is their weapon, full of hot air. Return to the right side.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

>> stocking up on tuna cans,,,,i know those can kill if they land/strike a human on the side of the head

 

[bucs90]

I don't understand why libs can't answer this simple question.

Weapon of War???

 

[Lakhota]

Why must you NaziCons lie about everything?

 

[Valerie]

there is no civilian lawful purpose for this type of military grade weapon...

SIG SAUER developed the MCX rifle for America’s special forces.


While the SIG SAUER MCX kinda looks like a standard AR-15, there’s one major difference: it’s gas piston operated. Buffer and gas tube? Gone. SIG’s replaced them with a short stroke gas piston and a compact recoil system contained completely within the upper receiver. To provide the force necessary to stop the bolt carrier’s rearward movement and return it to battery after each round, the MCX features a pair of recoil springs directly attached to the bolt carrier. Because the recoil springs are housed where an AR-15’s charging handle would normally sit the charging handle has been moved slightly higher than normal on the receiver.

When you run a suppressed rifle the added back pressure from the silencer creates additional force to the bolt carrier, which makes the rifle cycle faster. That’s not good; it can become uncontrollable and cause excessive wear on the operating bits. The MCX has an adjustable gas system that changes the amount of gas being sent to the piston, controlling the cycle rate. The system’s equipped with a gas regulator that the shooter can adjust on the fly.

[NB: There are currently two MCX version on the market. The first (sold through Cabela’s) uses a self-regulating gas system that vents super-heated gas directly into the air to control the pressure. The latest and now official version uses a closed system manually adjusted from “suppressed” to “unsuppressed.” The official word from SIG SAUER: the adjustable gas system was done on request, but they settled on the manual system to make the civilian MCX be as close as possible to the military MCX.]

Gun Review: SIG SAUER MCX - The Truth About Guns

 

[bucs90]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:

 

[Lakhota]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

 

[Valerie]

"The shootings are sparking debate about whether to revive and update a lapsed assault weapons ban. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, applied to 118 models and variations. An assault weapon is different from an assault rifle, which by definition is a military weapon that can either fire continuously or in short bursts with a single pull of the trigger."

Weapons gunman used in Orlando shooting are high-capacity, common

 

[bucs90]

"The shootings are sparking debate about whether to revive and update a lapsed assault weapons ban. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, applied to 118 models and variations. An assault weapon is different from an assault rifle, which by definition is a military weapon that can either fire continuously or in short bursts with a single pull of the trigger."

Weapons gunman used in Orlando shooting are high-capacity, common

See...I said it'd be a fair civil debate. Here's how those work. I asked a question...you answer. You ask a question...I answer. And so forth.


My original question.

Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War from US citizens hands.

Is this a weapon of war:

 

[Juan de Fuca]

In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?

The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?

Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.

The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.