What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I Should Have an AR-15, but not YOU! Gun grabber speaks honestly

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
20,404
Reaction score
3,574
Points
245
Location
New England
Everyone can serve in some capacity. Otherwise, fk em and you too. Nigeria, Germany, and Denmark have mandatory national service. Many others have national conscription. You lazy effin ass holes should no be able to get out of service in some capacity. If you can work, you can serve.

Well...no, that's wrong. Many people CAN'T serve. My good friend couldn't, he's diabetic. My nephew can't, he has asthma. My wife's best friend is too small. Guy I work with was sent home from navy boot camp due to a heart murmur.

Obviously you’re FOS. You did no research did you. The military mandated a smaller caliber firearm then the A10. You’re ridiculous. You think gun makers determine what the mandatory performance capabilities are for service weapons and hardware. Geesus, you NEVER HAVE SERVED HAVE YOU ? Chicken shit.

No, that's wrong. The AR-10 was considered, but rejected...and the Springfield T44 became the M-14...which, you know, is a full size battle rifle and fires THE SAME CALIBER as the AR-10, you fucking idiot.

Ha ha
You’re hilarious. You’re ridiculous Garands aren’t used by topical low life sissy boy mass shooters. They’re too much firearm for them to handle.

Actually, it's more that despite 5.5 million made, they're uncommon (since aside from a few made in the early 80s, the newest is about 60 years old). And as such, they are expensive, easily 5-6x the cost of an AR-15.
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
40,398
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
20,404
Reaction score
3,574
Points
245
Location
New England
Now you‘re you’re changing your tune because you know I’m right. Lethality is A DECIDING FACTOR. Funny. The 5.56 is lethal for the task at hand as required by the military. It had to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards…..that’s not 700 yards.

All you have to do is look at victims of mass murderers using this round. It was chosen to fulfill the military requirements….
They aren’t the same as need by anyone in the civilian world except but a mass murderer. I guess if you’re attack by a herd of rabid pigs in heat, it would be an exception.
Because in the military, that’s what is required…..kill and incapacitate as many humanoids as efficiently as possible. That requires minimal felt recoil and lots of ammo…..just what mass killers use when they can get their hands on one…..they are AVAILABLE.

This is a fever dream. And note: 5.56 is NOT a good choice for feral hogs, it's nowhere near strong enough. It's (barely) enough to hunt deer..

You’re waddling in assumptions and taking it into minutia…..

The military performs a lot of laudable services, from search and rescue to technology that is used to help mankind in general……but it also developed through their contractors, weapons for mass killings. Artillery, nukes, and the AR15/m16 are just some of them.

Why are you promoting and excusing their use by civilians ?

Probably because the AR is simply a semiautomatic rifle...little different (other than caliber-the .223 Remington was only developed in the 50s, and the .222 it was developed from in 1950) from rifles that have been in use for over a century.

Hilariously bullshit. You never served did you…..if that were the case mr uninformed we’d have a separate unit just to pick up combatants and nurse them back to health.

You mean the...Army Medical Corps, which dates to 1908, you mental midget?!

What a bunch of bull crap. I suppose flame throwers and nukes were designed to just wound the enemy so we could what, spend trillions nursing all victims back to health. Oh, we specifically tried To what, shoot the guns out of the hands of the enemy . You need a stint in the infantry…

You need 30 days observation. Or a prefrontal.

Find one military man who was taught to wound combatants..
geesus, you think the arms makers are trying to put our servicemen at risk with weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal ? Can you get any dumber ?

You certainly can get dumber...you prove it with every post.

Hilarious. At 700 feet per minute plus faster then the famous mid size hunting cartridge .30-30 which is not designed to just wound but humanely kill, the .223 produces a much greater wound channel in gelatin with much less recoil. So if a .223 is designed to just wound, it’s an utter failure.

The .30-30 is archaic. It's an early smokeless powder cartridge and dates to the 19th century-it's popularity comes from light recoil (about half that of a .30-06) and the fact that the rifles that used it (notably, the Winchester 1894) were cheap and very common-it is by far the most common caliber for smokeless-powder lever-action rifles. It's only effective to 150-200 yards. While good, it's archaic compared to the .223 Remington.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,827
Points
198
This is a fever dream. And note: 5.56 is NOT a good choice for feral hogs, it's nowhere near strong enough. It's (barely) enough to hunt deer..



Probably because the AR is simply a semiautomatic rifle...little different (other than caliber-the .223 Remington was only developed in the 50s, and the .222 it was developed from in 1950) from rifles that have been in use for over a century.



You mean the...Army Medical Corps, which dates to 1908, you mental midget?!



You need 30 days observation. Or a prefrontal.



You certainly can get dumber...you prove it with every post.



The .30-30 is archaic. It's an early smokeless powder cartridge and dates to the 19th century-it's popularity comes from light recoil (about half that of a .30-06) and the fact that the rifles that used it (notably, the Winchester 1894) were cheap and very common-it is by far the most common caliber for smokeless-powder lever-action rifles. It's only effective to 150-200 yards. While good, it's archaic compared to the .223 Remington.
Wow, you do copy and paste irrelevant shit.
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
40,398
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada


Yeah, you are. You don't know shit about anything. So you try and bullshit your way along.

You are a typical fascist piece of shit.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,827
Points
198
Yeah, you are. You don't know shit about anything. So you try and bullshit your way along.

You are a typical fascist piece of shit.
At least I’m typical. You are an atypical POS.
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
40,398
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
At least I’m typical. You are an atypical POS.



Indeed I am. You're just common pond scum.

And you STILL have no idea how guns work.
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
40,398
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
How guns work ? Yah, it’s so complicated. Must keep you up at night



Indeed. I build them so I am always coming up with new designs.

A simpleton, like you, would never understand.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,827
Points
198
Indeed. I build them so I am always coming up with new designs.

A simpleton, like you, would never understand.
Oh, I understand. You’re breathing way too much Hoppe’s 9 fumes. You do make up shit.
 

badbob85037

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
2,576
Reaction score
1,749
Points
1,938

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, "We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That's part of our Second Amendment right." Personally, I think that's ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

View attachment 659196


I feel safer already! /sarcasm
Let the little dick wad get his AR 15. We will meet at 900 yards. Dick wad with his AR 15 and me with my AR 10 giving him a 5 advantage.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,222
Reaction score
1,827
Points
198
Let the little dick wad get his AR 15. We will meet at 900 yards. Dick wad with his AR 15 and me with my AR 10 giving him a 5 advantage.
Gun a holics don’t have a clue…
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
40,398
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
Gun a holics don’t have a clue…




No, it is pretty obvious that you are the clueless one. You have no concept of the exterior ballistics of anything.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$55.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top