The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[OldLady]

Who gives a shit? It was an assault weapon. You get the drift.

Do you even know what an Assault weapon is?
Because it has a clip that carries over 30 rounds is that what makes it an Assault weapon?
Because it has a pistol grip does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
Because it looks like an M-16/M-4 does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
AR-15, is a single shot, semi automatic loading rifle, not selective fire assault weapon. That means you have to pull the trigger for each round to come out. Oh my it is soo scary, save me, Obama from the evil guns..
As typical of a stupid liberal(redundant statement)you have no clue about Assault weapons.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

You guys are so predictable. Start quibbling over the definition of an assault weapon. If Clinton and Obama and commentators on Fox News can use the term "assault weapons," so can I. You know what we're talking about.

They don't even know what they are talking about. And I mean people on the left and the right who are using the terms assault weapons and assault rifles interchangeably when they are not the same thing. PERIOD.

You're continuing to quibble over semantics. You know what we mean. Talk about the real issue, which is why anyone needs them. They are overkill for civilians in a civilized country. Pun noted.

Also, what you refer to semantics? Yeah that's actually what the rest of us call words.


ALL assault rifles are assault weapons, but not all assault weapons are assault rifles. Assault RIFLES are so heavily regulated and even the most ardent 2nd amendment guys on this site don't argue that they shouldn't be.

What do you want me to call them? I'll do that if it will shut you up, which it won't, so what's the difference? Semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines need to be banned. Period.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Do you even know what an Assault weapon is?
Because it has a clip that carries over 30 rounds is that what makes it an Assault weapon?
Because it has a pistol grip does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
Because it looks like an M-16/M-4 does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
AR-15, is a single shot, semi automatic loading rifle, not selective fire assault weapon. That means you have to pull the trigger for each round to come out. Oh my it is soo scary, save me, Obama from the evil guns..
As typical of a stupid liberal(redundant statement)you have no clue about Assault weapons.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys are so predictable. Start quibbling over the definition of an assault weapon. If Clinton and Obama and commentators on Fox News can use the term "assault weapons," so can I. You know what we're talking about.

They don't even know what they are talking about. And I mean people on the left and the right who are using the terms assault weapons and assault rifles interchangeably when they are not the same thing. PERIOD.

You're continuing to quibble over semantics. You know what we mean. Talk about the real issue, which is why anyone needs them. They are overkill for civilians in a civilized country. Pun noted.

It's not semantics? Why do I need a semi automatic 5.56 caliber rifle? Why do you need the right to remain silent? I mean other people have misused their right to remain silent, so unless you can tell me why you need yours I think we should remove that right. See how silly that sounds? I don't have to justify myself to you.

Now, if you ask why I WANT them, we can have that conversation. As to why I NEED them, in terms of why I should have the right to them, that's irrelevant.

Why do you need them? It is not irrelevant at all.

It IS pointless, since nowhere in the COTUS does it say "you must be able to clearly delineate WHY you want your rights" In fact , quite the ******* opposite the COTUS specifically says that YOU must clearly delineate why you want to remove MY rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.

I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.

Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.

That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.

Tell me Comrade, what are your thoughts on the "Assault Speech Ban?" No one really needs to criticize Islam. Words that might be used against Hillary MUST be restricted to trained personnel at MSNBC and DailyKOS, da?

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, I can surely believe that you have no idea the advantages provided by certain gun features for personal defense. My bet is you've never fired a gun in your life.

You'd lose that bet. 32nd Mechanized Battalion, 1st infantry. See, I don't hate guns. I happen to like guns. I just recognise that some guns simply have no civilian uses. They are designed to kill people. Period. So, all of these hunting, and sporting arguments for assault rifles is just so much bullshit. At least, you don't try try to suggest it is for hunting. But, here's the thing. The only reason you need an asssault rifle for personal protection is because the other guy has an assault weapon. Get the assault weapons off the street, and you don't need it anymore.

You also don't seem to understand that the assault weapon ban would NOT do shit about the assault weapons already in private hands. They were grand fathered in then, they would be grand fathered in now.

Actually, I do understand that, which is why I wouldn't support any assault weapon ban with a grandfather clause. Because the market was flooded with these damned things after the original ban lapsed, any legislation that included a grandfather clause would just be a toothless piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing except making ***** liberals feel like they accomplished something. The only way assault weapons ban works is to ban them all. I'm sorry that, when you bought that military weapon of killing, it was legal. it shouldn't have been, and now you have to give it up. You wanna play with military ordinance? Join the fuckin military

Well, good luck with that, I'm sure that law will be passed right after the law making abortion illegal under any circumstances is.

Thanks for admitting though that the AWB was stupid and pointless.

And therein is the problem. Gun nuts are, and will forever be, opposed to common sense gun regulation to make us safer, and more civilized. You'll notice, I'm not advocating coming in, and taking every gun that every American owns. Just the military assault weapons. And no one has yet given me a valid reason why anyone should own them. Like I said, even your "personal security" argument fails. The only reason you need an assault weapon for "personal security" is because I have an assault weapon. But, when no one is legally allowed to have an assault weapon, then you don't really need that assault weapon, do you?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Do you even know what an Assault weapon is?
Because it has a clip that carries over 30 rounds is that what makes it an Assault weapon?
Because it has a pistol grip does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
Because it looks like an M-16/M-4 does that mean it is an Assault weapon?
AR-15, is a single shot, semi automatic loading rifle, not selective fire assault weapon. That means you have to pull the trigger for each round to come out. Oh my it is soo scary, save me, Obama from the evil guns..
As typical of a stupid liberal(redundant statement)you have no clue about Assault weapons.

Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys are so predictable. Start quibbling over the definition of an assault weapon. If Clinton and Obama and commentators on Fox News can use the term "assault weapons," so can I. You know what we're talking about.

They don't even know what they are talking about. And I mean people on the left and the right who are using the terms assault weapons and assault rifles interchangeably when they are not the same thing. PERIOD.

You're continuing to quibble over semantics. You know what we mean. Talk about the real issue, which is why anyone needs them. They are overkill for civilians in a civilized country. Pun noted.

Also, what you refer to semantics? Yeah that's actually what the rest of us call words.


ALL assault rifles are assault weapons, but not all assault weapons are assault rifles. Assault RIFLES are so heavily regulated and even the most ardent 2nd amendment guys on this site don't argue that they shouldn't be.

What do you want me to call them? I'll do that if it will shut you up, which it won't, so what's the difference? Semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines need to be banned. Period.

Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.

If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?

See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.

Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.

Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

the 2nd amendment right for 'the people' to bear arms presupposes what is "necessary to the security of" a FREE state.

totalitarian government my ass, we live by constitutional RULE OF LAW governed by the people for the people!

Yes, because you are just certain the armed forces will violate their oaths and fire on freinds and family to support your war to end the US Constitution.

You've got it all figured out, Rati.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.

I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.

Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.

That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.

Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon. You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Oh, I can surely believe that you have no idea the advantages provided by certain gun features for personal defense. My bet is you've never fired a gun in your life.

You'd lose that bet. 32nd Mechanized Battalion, 1st infantry. See, I don't hate guns. I happen to like guns. I just recognise that some guns simply have no civilian uses. They are designed to kill people. Period. So, all of these hunting, and sporting arguments for assault rifles is just so much bullshit. At least, you don't try try to suggest it is for hunting. But, here's the thing. The only reason you need an asssault rifle for personal protection is because the other guy has an assault weapon. Get the assault weapons off the street, and you don't need it anymore.

You also don't seem to understand that the assault weapon ban would NOT do shit about the assault weapons already in private hands. They were grand fathered in then, they would be grand fathered in now.

Actually, I do understand that, which is why I wouldn't support any assault weapon ban with a grandfather clause. Because the market was flooded with these damned things after the original ban lapsed, any legislation that included a grandfather clause would just be a toothless piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing except making ***** liberals feel like they accomplished something. The only way assault weapons ban works is to ban them all. I'm sorry that, when you bought that military weapon of killing, it was legal. it shouldn't have been, and now you have to give it up. You wanna play with military ordinance? Join the fuckin military

Well, good luck with that, I'm sure that law will be passed right after the law making abortion illegal under any circumstances is.

Thanks for admitting though that the AWB was stupid and pointless.

And therein is the problem. Gun nuts are, and will forever be, opposed to common sense gun regulation to make us safer, and more civilized. You'll notice, I'm not advocating coming in, and taking every gun that every American owns. Just the military assault weapons. And no one has yet given me a valid reason why anyone should own them. Like I said, even your "personal security" argument fails. The only reason you need an assault weapon for "personal security" is because I have an assault weapon. But, when no one is legally allowed to have an assault weapon, then you don't really need that assault weapon, do you?

And again, you wanting to take away my right because you feel like I don't NEED it, is not reasonable.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.

I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.

Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.

That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.

Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon. You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?

Another example of stupidity.

There certainly are shot guns that qualify as ASSAULT WEAPONS under the law.

 

[mudwhistle]

there is no civilian lawful purpose for this 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

Obviously he wasn't using a suppressed weapon.

 

[Czernobog]

Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.

If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?

See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.

Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.

Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.

Actually, not nearly as many. While you're changing magazines, we're getting the **** away, and, maybe, someone is taking you down, before you get that next magazine loaded. It makes a demonstrable difference. Also, 20 5 round magazines are a whole lot bulkier, and harder to hide, than a single 100 round magazine - it makes it more likely you'll be noticed before you even get to fire your first round.

Sorry, the large magazine "myth" isn't so much...

 

[Czernobog]

Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.

I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.

Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.

That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.

Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon. You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?

Another example of stupidity.

There certainly are shot guns that qualify as ASSAULT WEAPONS under the law.

But a standard Winchester 12-gauge certainly isn't one of them...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.

If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?

See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.

Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.

Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.

Actually, not nearly as many. While you're changing magazines, we're getting the **** away, and, maybe, someone is taking you down, before you get that next magazine loaded. It makes a demonstrable difference. Also, 20 5 round magazines are a whole lot bulkier, and harder to hide, than a single 100 round magazine - it makes it more likely you'll be noticed before you even get to fire your first round.

Sorry, the large magazine "myth" isn't so much...

of course it is a myth. Not as bulky? More likely to be noticed? You ******* fool he wandered in that place with a rifle and no one noticed.You really think they would have noticed a bag full of magazines? LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

And therein is the problem. Gun nuts are, and will forever be, opposed to common sense gun regulation to make us safer, and more civilized.

Even worse, what about those speech nuts who oppose common sense restrictions on words that oppose or harm the goals of the party?

You'll notice, I'm not advocating coming in, and taking every gun that every American owns.

You'll notice that I'm not advocating the prohibition of every word that every American says.

Just the military assault weapons.

Just the ones that conflict with the goals of the GLORIOUS peoples democratic - socialist party.

And no one has yet given me a valid reason why anyone should own them.

And no one has yet given me a valid reason why anyone should be allowed to say words that go against the goals of the party.

Like I said, even your "personal security" argument fails.

Like you said, Liberty shall be crushed.

The only reason you need an assault weapon for "personal security" is because I have an assault weapon. But, when no one is legally allowed to have an assault weapon, then you don't really need that assault weapon, do you?

The only reason you need to speak against the party is that you have not fully submitted and obeyed the party.

You Stalinists have a better way, da Comrade?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

OldLady I notice you haven't as of yet posted that portion of the COTUS which requires me to justify my need to have my rights.....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why do those on the left oppose the sensible precaution of stopping Muslim immigration until we can screen Muslims? There is no right to immigrate to the US.

******* moron hypocrites.

 

[Czernobog]

Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.

If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?

See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.

Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.

Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.

Actually, not nearly as many. While you're changing magazines, we're getting the **** away, and, maybe, someone is taking you down, before you get that next magazine loaded. It makes a demonstrable difference. Also, 20 5 round magazines are a whole lot bulkier, and harder to hide, than a single 100 round magazine - it makes it more likely you'll be noticed before you even get to fire your first round.

Sorry, the large magazine "myth" isn't so much...

of course it is a myth. Not as bulky? More likely to be noticed? You ******* fool he wandered in that place with a rifle and no one noticed.You really think they would have noticed a bag full of magazines? LOL

Yeah. A rifle with a collapsible stock, making it easy to hide under his coat. That's kinda the point of why the weapon is a problem. It's not like he just walked in, Rambo style, with the rifle being carried for everyone to see.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

OldLady I have a theoretical for you.

Let's say we passed a law that said "all black people have to live in Mississippi" there is ZERO doubt that in every state but Mississippi crime would drop. I mean statistics bear that out, would that be reasonable to do?

OF COURSE IT WOULDN'T BE REASONABLE

 

[Czernobog]

Why do those on the left oppose the sensible precaution of stopping Muslim immigration until we can screen Muslims? There is no right to immigrate to the US.

******* moron hypocrites.

We should really do something about Christians, shouldn't we? And don't give me your bullshit about "refugees". You didn't say refugees", you said "Muslim immigration", implying any Muslims immigrating from anywhere.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.

If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?

See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.

Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.

Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.

Actually, not nearly as many. While you're changing magazines, we're getting the **** away, and, maybe, someone is taking you down, before you get that next magazine loaded. It makes a demonstrable difference. Also, 20 5 round magazines are a whole lot bulkier, and harder to hide, than a single 100 round magazine - it makes it more likely you'll be noticed before you even get to fire your first round.

Sorry, the large magazine "myth" isn't so much...

of course it is a myth. Not as bulky? More likely to be noticed? You ******* fool he wandered in that place with a rifle and no one noticed.You really think they would have noticed a bag full of magazines? LOL

Yeah. A rifle with a collapsible stock, making it easy to hide under his coat. That's kinda the point of why the weapon is a problem. It's not like he just walked in, Rambo style, with the rifle being carried for everyone to see.

In actuality, you have no IDEA how he went into the place, BUT let's suppose your theory is right. It's like a hundred degrees in Orlando and a guy walks in with a trench coat and no one thinks that's suspicious, but you believe they would have noticed a nap sack full of magazines? LOL