Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

I don't know......come and try and take them and find out.......just because you soccer girls have bent over doesn't mean we ever will.....

I can just take yours. Pretty easily. A louisville slugger will do the job nicely.

you would look funny with it sticking out of your ass....

Well that doesnt make any sense. You are obviously a complete pussy if you carry a gun.

That's a stupid thing to post.

And even more stupid to take it seriously....

 

[Rambunctious]

Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

I don't know......come and try and take them and find out.......just because you soccer girls have bent over doesn't mean we ever will.....

I can just take yours. Pretty easily. A louisville slugger will do the job nicely.

you would look funny with it sticking out of your ass....

Well that doesnt make any sense. You are obviously a complete pussy if you carry a gun.

When did I say I carry a gun?......you are drinking a bit early.....

 

[OldLady]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

 

[freyasman]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

You are just going to keep embarrassing yourself, aren't you?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

And how many of those gun deaths are suicide vs violent crime deaths and then take into how many people die yearly from reckless drivers vs someone going to kill me in a violent crime my chances of dying is higher on the open road...

Stats for homicides alone:
Results: US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher.

See the link for details.

Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010 - PubMed

The United States has an enormous firearm problem compared with other high-income countries, with higher rates of homicide and firearm-related suicide. Compared with 2003 estimates, the US firearm death rate remains unchanged while firearm death rates in other countries decreased. Thus, the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Still, my chances of dying on the open road is much higher than being killed in a violent crime resulting from a firearm.

Many firearm deaths have suicides in them which if you remove them and focus on the violent crime deaths then the reality of dying from a firearm death during a violent crime is much lower than dying on the open roads and you know this.

Also many of your violent crime deaths are in gang infested neighborhoods and if you look at that you will realize your are even less likely to die from a violent crime death with a firearm in Maine...

The stats I put up do not include suicides or accidents.

Misguided yoot are people too.

This argument is not about car accidents. Start another thread if you want to talk about them. This is about the needless 30,000+ gun homicides each year BEYOND car accidents and cancer and Covid and whatever else.

Most of America's gun homicides are done by Black Gangsta's, usually drug deals gone wrong and general Black Gang violence, sometimes random peoples are caught in the crossfire of this Black Gang violence.

There is a thread in Current Events about the amount of gun deaths across the weekend in Chicago, all Black areas it occur in.

That's true. Going by stats from the National Gang Center, about half of US homicides yearly are done by gangs. But blacks aren't the only people who form gangs, Lucy. Hispanics, Asians, Whites--anyone at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder looking for some cash and some influence and protection from other gangs. It's a mess. BUT THESE PEOPLE ALSO COUNT. A lot of those guns they use are illegally purchased on the street or stolen. If there weren't about a billion guns floating around in the US, it would be a LOT harder to get one illegally. Even if you take away that half (which we can't, they are part of our nation and our culture), we would still be many times higher in gun homicides than any other "highly developed" nation. Because a whole stinkin' bunch of us still have a gun in the closet for when we get pissed off. Around here, over half the gun homicides here are domestic violence.

Wrong. "We" dont do any such thing.

Right.. Never. Except about 18,000 times a year.

Break that down by race.

These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

National Youth Gang Survey Analysis: Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

The NGC conducted an annual survey of law enforcement agencies to assess the extent of gang problems. This page shows data measuring the extent of gang problems.

www.nationalgangcenter.gov

My post early in this thread was wrong: 15,000 gang related gun homicides over several years, not in one year. I've requested mod staff fix it if they can. It's too late to edit.

National youth gang

And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

View attachment 340895

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

THEY ARE THE SAME GUN!

The same action, the same mechanics, the same ballistic characteristics, they take the same magazines, the same ammunition. The only difference is in what furniture is installed on them—purely a cosmetic difference, that has no bearing on how suitable either is for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise.

If I'm not mistaken, both the guns ion that picture are Ruger MIni-14s. I could be wrong, but I know that that's a popular gun to depict in two widely-different cosmetic forms, in order to emphasize the abject ignorance of hoplophobic cretins such as yourself, who are so easily led to believe that a gun's cosmetic appearance has any bearing on it's suitability for legal or illegal uses.

Well, both Ruger 14's. The bottom one is a Tactical Rifle. It has 30 different add-ons to enhance "performance." This is from Field and Stream on what a "Tactical Rifle" is.

A tactical rifle is a firearm designed for shooting people in a precise manner, as opposed to New York City Police Department doctrine, which is to empty the magazine as fast as you can in the general direction of everything standing and hope for the best.Mar 20, 2014

As far as accuracy goes, both can be made to be accurate. But a tactical rifle with a heavier barrel, can generally shoot more rounds before barrel heat starts to affect things. For hunting, this doesn't really come into consideration as you probably wont be taking that many shots.Oct 30, 2008
Tactical Rifles | Field & Stream

And I guessed right. The "tactical" version accepts 20 round mags.

I'll take the militaries ideas about what constitutes an assault rifle...and that aint it.

I don't give a damn what you call it. These "tactical rifles" and AR's have only one thing missing--the full auto feature. They aren't sold to civilians, so that topic is not even under discussion here.

Sure they are if I want to ass up the money for a permit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Your idiocy never fails to amaze me. The government of the German Democratic Republic was overthrown without guns, as was the USSR. Not to say that we don't need guns for that reason but it shows that government might isn't enough to protect government. They're not going to nuke us. Their machine guns don't kill any faster or better than a well-used AR-15.

To suggest that the time for needing to defend against murderous, totalitarian, governments is in the past is not surprising for you, especially, or for the left, as a whole. The standing army is right around one million. They don't stand a chance against the civilian population. Not that they would need to; a large number would not turn their guns on their own neighbors - but some would; there are those who would kill their own mothers in the furtherance of their communist goals.

Imagine a force of 2 million, that's all the army and all of law enforcement combined, trying to take the guns of 100 million gun owners.. How do you think that's going to turn out? They would have early success; calling each gun owner killed a wacko. Eventually, it would become clear. And probably 50 million of the gun owners would give up their guns, maybe even 75 million.

No; armed combat against the government doesn't scare me at all. It's never going to happen - because we have guns.

You really have no idea about anything of which you speak on here. It's all emotion and how you wish it was. You've never researched the data, the science, the history, or the facts.

I don't know if it will be in your lifetime, your children's, or your grandchildren's, but the day will come when your ilk will be begging my ilk to defend them.

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

So what towns full of civilians will these guns be pointed at?

 

[freyasman]

Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

I don't know......come and try and take them and find out.......just because you soccer girls have bent over doesn't mean we ever will.....

I can just take yours. Pretty easily. A louisville slugger will do the job nicely.

you would look funny with it sticking out of your ass....

Well that doesnt make any sense. You are obviously a complete pussy if you carry a gun.

That's a stupid thing to post.

And even more stupid to take it seriously....

Text doesn't show a lot of nuance, so if you weren't serious, you might want to indicate that in some way.

 

[OldLady]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

You have to take into consideration she didnt know that Isopropyl alcohol was flammable and deadly to drink.
Or how there's fire involved in bananas foster.
And to think she's a teacher....

LIAR. I wasn't putting two and two together about fucking rubbing alcohol being highly flammable but the rest is a lie. Keep it honest, HWGA.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

You have to take into consideration she didnt know that Isopropyl alcohol was flammable and deadly to drink.
Or how there's fire involved in bananas foster.
And to think she's a teacher....

LIAR. I wasn't putting two and two together about fucking rubbing alcohol being highly flammable but the rest is a lie. Keep it honest, HWGA.

You flat out said you didnt know what caused banana flambe to burn.

 

[OldLady]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

Who the hell are you to make that judgment?

You do not speak for everyone across America and you sure the hell do not speak those like me.

Owning a firearm is just not standing up against tyranny but also to protect your land and life from those you do social work for in Maine!

So do not tell people that the Second Amendment is outdated and not needed just because you have no need of a firearm!

I can understand the argument for self protection; that is not what that post was about.

 

[Levant]

But mostly universal BG checks which 90% of Americans and 60% of NRA members support should be a no-brainer.

Background checks for what? To see if they're covered under the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Levant]

I can understand the argument for self protection; that is not what that post was about.

The least of reasons for the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is self-protection.

 

[Rambunctious]

Leftists want to disarm them NOT to prevent gun deaths but for OTHER sinister motives

That's silly.

Venezuela banned all firearms about 6 or 7 years ago and look where they are now.

Yeah, and then they intentionally tanked their economy by manipulating the world oil market. Makes all the sense in the world.

They knew the shit they were about to pull would likely end up with armed resistance.
Witch of course is the same reason dems want guns banned.

Comparing Democrats to what Chavez did in Venezuela is just plain silly. Enough horseshit.

How can you know that when we still have our guns?
And with the way you freaks acted during the corona spamdemic only enforces my point.
You're all a bunch of wanna be dictators.

You. Are. A. Nut.

You ignored my post about mag size and how most hunting rifles are designed for a limited number of bullets at a time. The one Markel showed above, the top rifle is a 5 + 1. The bottom gun is "dressed up" for warfare. If it's a 5 + 1, I'll be surprised. I couldn't find what it is--an AR maybe? You can buy 30 round mags for an AR, and more if you want.

The second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

You have to take into consideration she didnt know that Isopropyl alcohol was flammable and deadly to drink.
Or how there's fire involved in bananas foster.
And to think she's a teacher....

LIAR. I wasn't putting two and two together about fucking rubbing alcohol being highly flammable but the rest is a lie. Keep it honest, HWGA.

OL easy on the sherry...

 

[OldLady]

he second amendment wasnt written for hunting rifles. It was written to protect the right to own guns designed to kill people.

Of course. That is what all guns are for. And like I already said, times change. There is no way in hell the citizens of this country could withstand attack by our government armed with their AR's and hunting rifles. That is the most laughable argument of all. The Founders did not want a standing army because they did not want the central government having control of a military force they could use against the people. Well, guess what? If they wanted to, they sure as hell could now. Even if we had machine guns, it wouldn't matter.

The Second Amendment was written in a different time, long ago, and no longer applies for any of the reasons it was written.

You really shouldn't embarrass yourself by posting ridiculous shit like this.

What is ridiculous about it?

The fact that you're asking that question illustrates your complete ignorance of the topic. You are making a fool of yourself.

Freyasman, you need to do a lot better than that. To me what I wrote makes perfect sense. If you want to change my mind you have to do something more than the usual insults.

And I don't need to change your mind, because the opinion of someone like you simply doesn't matter.

All you've got is insults, then? Disappointing. I was interested to hear what deep knowledge of the Constitution and the Second Amendment and the intent of the Founding Fathers and the state of weaponry in 1787 you have that I don't.

 

[Markle]

I don't give a damn what you call it. These "tactical rifles" and AR's have only one thing missing--the full auto feature. They aren't sold to civilians, so that topic is not even under discussion here.

As you know, it is perfectly legal for you to own a machine gun.

Which of the following guns is semi-automatic?

 

[Levant]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

 

[Levant]

I don't give a damn what you call it. These "tactical rifles" and AR's have only one thing missing--the full auto feature. They aren't sold to civilians, so that topic is not even under discussion here.

As you know, it is perfectly legal for you to own a machine gun.

Which of the following guns is semi-automatic?

I don't remember which leftist state it was but I read recently that one state was working on banning all semi-automatic guns and the definition of semi-automatic was that firing one round resulted in the next round being positioned to fire on the next pull of the trigger. That makes the revolver, by that definition, a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[OldLady]

Well then what are you worried about? Who IS going to attack us that you need to defend yourself from?

More idiocy. Nobody is going to attack us - because we're armed. If we're disarmed, the answer is different.

It's a valid question. WHO do you think will attack us if the citizenry doesn't have AR's? I am not advocating banning all guns. No one is, in this country anyway. I'd love it if the goddamned things all disappeared, but I'm NOT a dreamer. I know that's not going back in the box. The Founding Fathers felt we might need to stand up to a tyrannical government, supposedly ours, at some point. They needed us armed as individuals because the last thing they wanted is what we have now--a massive standing army we have no hope of standing against.

Something very very wrong has happened in this country when people can't discuss their different ideas without being called Communists or Nazi's. It's insane. It's NOT what is actually going on here. Well, Bernie.....but he didn't make it through the primary, did he. I see some of the same things that concern conservatives. But the left is not primarily Communist or out to destroy us. We just see different approaches and solutions. Why are you making a war out of it?

 

[Levant]

Banning sporting rifles will do nothing to stop gun violence.
If you truly wanted to stop gun violence you'd be going after handguns.

Well intended but wrong. If they want to stop gun violence, they would put criminals in prison, in miserable conditions, and for long periods of time, until criminals fear prison so much that they don't commit crimes. I'm sure you don't really mean to suggest that the left is right in trying to stop violence through banning handguns.

 

[Eyepublius]

Oz - thanks for this page ... I am a retired Marine and staunch supporter of legal guns, in lawful hands and NOT the GOP BS we hear 24/7: Home safety, our 2nd Amendment right, stand you ground, and open carry laws and such - they are TOTAL bullshit and I cannot support any of that.

Most of the GOP-generated struff is utter BS for the gun industry and huge amounts of gun-owner/NRA campaign money to run and stay in office and in turn they allow the crazy laws.



.