there was no insurrection on jan 6th !

[Utilitarian]

So when the Capitol police let in protesters, is that storming the Capitol? If you're suggesting that only the ones who forcibly entered the building should be arrested, then ok. However, plenty of them didn't actually enter the building and only entered spaces that the police allowed them to.

lol! are you kidding me? have you ever tried to visit the capital? no one can enter the capital without a prior security background clearance.

any 'cop' that 'let them in' was part of them in spirit.

I have been to the Capitol multiple times, actually. The last time I went was back in 2011, but yes, it is odd how the police let them get past the gates that were set up. If you don't believe me, go back and watch the footage. If you're suggesting that any cop that did that was complicit, then you'll have to blame the entire police presence. It wasn't just 1 or 2 guys doing it behind their backs.

It does present an interesting question though. Why would police do that? You seem to assume that it's because they supported the cause. I think a better explanation is that letting it escalate fits the desired narrative. Since the protesters were able to reach the building and enter it, they became easy scapegoats to drum up false patriotism among the left and the gullible.

some were definetly sympathetic... you don't take a selfie otherwise. soem might have 'let them in' to actuall save themselves given they were out numbered & retreated when necessary.

I don't doubt that some were probably cowardly. Either way, however, the disparity in media response and that of much of the left shows the double standard.

uh-huh. 'cowardly'? the dude that lost an eye - was he cowardly? the cop that got stunned & suffered a heart attack? was he cowardly too?

know who was? donny - who said he was gonna walk with them to the capital.

donny lied. bigley.

where was he? yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............. safe in his bunker watching his seditious little deplorables on TV.

If you're trying to bait me into defending Trump, you're failing. All I'm saying is that some cops are cowards.

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

 

[playtime]

So when the Capitol police let in protesters, is that storming the Capitol? If you're suggesting that only the ones who forcibly entered the building should be arrested, then ok. However, plenty of them didn't actually enter the building and only entered spaces that the police allowed them to.

lol! are you kidding me? have you ever tried to visit the capital? no one can enter the capital without a prior security background clearance.

any 'cop' that 'let them in' was part of them in spirit.

I have been to the Capitol multiple times, actually. The last time I went was back in 2011, but yes, it is odd how the police let them get past the gates that were set up. If you don't believe me, go back and watch the footage. If you're suggesting that any cop that did that was complicit, then you'll have to blame the entire police presence. It wasn't just 1 or 2 guys doing it behind their backs.

It does present an interesting question though. Why would police do that? You seem to assume that it's because they supported the cause. I think a better explanation is that letting it escalate fits the desired narrative. Since the protesters were able to reach the building and enter it, they became easy scapegoats to drum up false patriotism among the left and the gullible.

some were definetly sympathetic... you don't take a selfie otherwise. soem might have 'let them in' to actuall save themselves given they were out numbered & retreated when necessary.

I don't doubt that some were probably cowardly. Either way, however, the disparity in media response and that of much of the left shows the double standard.

uh-huh. 'cowardly'? the dude that lost an eye - was he cowardly? the cop that got stunned & suffered a heart attack? was he cowardly too?

know who was? donny - who said he was gonna walk with them to the capital.

donny lied. bigley.

where was he? yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............. safe in his bunker watching his seditious little deplorables on TV.

If you're trying to bait me into defending Trump, you're failing. All I'm saying is that some cops are cowards.

<pffffft> you seem to be doing pretty well all by yerself.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

Yes
Ban any rifle capable of shooting more than a round per second

Why make it easier to slaughter people

i like chris rock's solution:

Make it expensive enough, and people will just make their own (and sell it on the black market).

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

 

[rightwinger]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

Yes
Ban any rifle capable of shooting more than a round per second

Why make it easier to slaughter people

You're literally calling for a ban on any semiautomatic rifle then. Anyone with a fast trigger finger can fire more than a single round per second, whether they're using a semiauto pistol or a semiauto rifle.

Works for me.

You don’t need the killing capability to shoot more than 60 rounds a minute

I don’t want the batshit crazy asshole down the street to be able to shoot more than that

 

[rightwinger]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

getting rid of multi round mags & drums is also a good idea. if you can't defend yerself & need a larger than a 10 round mag, then you have no biz'nez owning a gun. & unless you are hunting wild boar, then a bushmaster isn't worth shit for hunting or self defense unless you wanna fill yer house full of holes.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

possessed 26904905

Wow. You really are racially possessed, aren't you?

And what made you say that?

I care about poor people including black people at high risk of dying during the COVID19 pandemic because a large segment of the more secure and affluent society thinks keeping the businesses and schools open is more important than worrying about human life and the strain on the healthcare system.

This is what I was responding to:

polite white protest26903513

I 100% support peaceful protests. My kids and I along with numerous families peacefully protested the shut down of sports this past winter. We stood in the cold with signs in the center of town. We didn’t interrupt traffic we didn’t yell in people’s faces. We didn’t confront anyone. That is peaceful. Yelling shit in little kids faces is not remotely peaceful. Yelling defund the police is not remotely peaceful.

This isn’t peaceful, leftist. Not remotely.

AzogtheDefiler linked to a video showing about as peaceful a protest as they come.

Did you watch it? What do you think? Azo is in favor of shooting violent protesters if you read his extreme opinions on race.

I’m curious to know why you were not concerned about Azo being racially possessed.

This is what touched you off:

There is not an ounce of violence in that video? You are snowflake if you think that us violence.

DO you have a video of you and your kids ‘polite white protest? Such a pro-death anti-science cause that you are teaching your kids. what a shame! Do you know the black population is more susceptible to death from COVID19. A lot of black athletes live with elderly relatives and playing sports in a pandemic could kill them. Is that what you teach your kids - the value of genocide during a pandemic. So violent you are. So nasty you are to people saying Black Lives Matter while teaching your kids that Black Lives Don’t MATTER during a pandemic .

You went on to say:

Shutdowns have no appreciable effect 26904905

Do you realize that shutdowns have shown no appreciable effect in stopping the spread?

The discussion was about shutting down schools and team sports. Subsequent comments tell me shutting down the team sports is probably OK with you. Knowing that, please explain why you think I have some kind of character flaw or mental issues with regard to race.

And you’re absolutely wrong about the shut downs not having that much of an effect on preventing deaths in the black community. But we can deal with that subject as well.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

Yes
Ban any rifle capable of shooting more than a round per second

Why make it easier to slaughter people

You're literally calling for a ban on any semiautomatic rifle then. Anyone with a fast trigger finger can fire more than a single round per second, whether they're using a semiauto pistol or a semiauto rifle.

Works for me.

You don’t need the killing capability to shoot more than 60 rounds a minute

I don’t want the batshit crazy asshole down the street to be able to shoot more than that

So, again, why should the state have that power? Being a cop or soldier doesn't make you morally superior to a regular citizen. As we've seen in many situations, it doesn't make you saner either.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

'you' people? LOL! i have several firearms in my home, jr.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

getting rid of multi round mags & drums is also a good idea. if you can't defend yerself & need a larger than a 10 round mag, then you have no biz'nez owning a gun. & unless you are hunting wild boar, then a bushmaster isn't worth shit for hunting or self defense unless you wanna fill yer house full of holes.

Banning magazine sizes doesn't accomplish much when they are easy to make. Of all the components of a gun, the magazine is one of the simplest. 3D printers can make them rather easily.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

'you' people? LOL! i have several firearms in my home, jr.

Are any of them semiauto rifles?

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

getting rid of multi round mags & drums is also a good idea. if you can't defend yerself & need a larger than a 10 round mag, then you have no biz'nez owning a gun. & unless you are hunting wild boar, then a bushmaster isn't worth shit for hunting or self defense unless you wanna fill yer house full of holes.

Banning magazine sizes doesn't accomplish much when they are easy to make. Of all the components of a gun, the magazine is one of the simplest. 3D printers can make them rather easily.

it doesn't? really? making them illegal may not stop everyone, but it won't hurt & jack up the fines & time served if caught.

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

'you' people? LOL! i have several firearms in my home, jr.

Are any of them semiauto rifles?

yes. the only ammo we have is .22 - nothing higher.

 

[Utilitarian]

possessed 26904905

Wow. You really are racially possessed, aren't you?

And what made you say that?

I care about poor people including black people at high risk of dying during the COVID19 pandemic because a large segment of the more secure and affluent society thinks keeping the business and school open is more important than worrying about human life and The strain on the healthcare system.

This is what I was responding to:

polite white protest26903513

I 100% support peaceful protests. My kids and I along with numerous families peacefully protested the shut down of sports this past winter. We stood in the cold with signs in the center of town. We didn’t interrupt traffic we didn’t yell in people’s faces. We didn’t confront anyone. That is peaceful. Yelling shit in little kids faces is not remotely peaceful. Yelling defund the police is not remotely peaceful.

This isn’t peaceful, leftist. Not remotely.

AzogtheDefiler linked to a video showing about as peaceful a protest as they come.

Did you watch it? What do you think? Azo is in favor of shooting violent protesters if you read his extreme opinions on race.

i’m curious to know why you were not concerned about Azo being racially possessed.

This is what touched you off:

There is not an ounce of violence in that video? You are snowflake if you think that us violence.

DO you have a video of you and your kids ‘polite white protest? Such a pro-death anti-science cause that you are teaching your kids. what a shame! Do you know the black population is more susceptible to death from COVID19. A lot of black athletes live with elderly relatives and playing sports in a pandemic could kill them. Is that what you teach your kids - the value of genocide during a pandemic. So violent you are. So nasty you are to people saying Black Lives Matter while teaching your kids that Black Lives Don’t MATTER during a pandemic .

You went on to say:

Do you realize that shutdowns have shown no appreciable effect in stopping the spread?

Discussion was about shutting down schools in team sports. Subsequent comments tell me shutting down the team sports is probably OK. Knowing that explain please explain why you think I have some kind of character flaw or mental issues with regard to race. And you’re absolutely wrong about the shut downs not having that much of an effect on preventing deaths in the black community.But we can deal with that subject as well.

It's because you were repeating racial talking points that I've seen the media parrot over and over again. As with nearly any issue, the mainstream media wants to make things about race. It's nothing short of manipulation and pandering.

If they were more honest, they'd keep the conversation on class. That's really all that matters. If you have money, you'll do well regardless of race.

But this is exactly why the closure of so many small businesses is a problem that is much longer lasting than the deaths in hospitals and such. Most of the deaths have involved people that were close to death already. The longer term problems have to do with people out of work and in poverty. I care more about those people than those close to death already. The fate of the healthy has longer term economic implications.

 

[Utilitarian]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

'you' people? LOL! i have several firearms in my home, jr.

Are any of them semiauto rifles?

yes. the only ammo we have is .22 - nothing higher.

Then I guess you only hunt small game.

 

[playtime]

But if these "assault rifles" are so bad, why should the state have them?

Because the state gives them to people who have been trained and use them to protect We the People

And yet we train police with them as well and that doesn't always work out, eh?

Allowing a mental moron to go out and buy an AR 15 with a 50 round magazine and as much ammo as he wants does not “work out”

I guess that depends on how you're defining "mental moron." Any moron with a violent criminal record isn't legally allowed to have a gun.

Let’s look at the people who use those AR15s to slaughter innocent people.

Interviewing people who knew them is always the same......He always scared me, something wasn’t right, nobody would do anything about him.

The NRA protects his right to buy whatever weapon he chooses to conduct a massacre.

So your solution to the problem is to ban everyone from having "assault" rifles? Seems like a bit of an overreaction, especially when considering that most mass shootings involve handguns.

high velocity bullets from large capacity mags & drums turn people into swiss cheese & any surgeon will tell you that - the odds of surviving a gunshot wound from a glock is far better than a bushmaster.

Depends on the range of the shot. Most shootings occur at close range, where a handgun can be on par in lethality. One of the only mass shootings where a rifle really made a difference is the Vegas shooting. That guy couldn't have been as deadly at that range with handguns. The vast majority of mass shootings happen indoors and at a close enough range that handguns are comparably lethal. It's why most mass shooters use handguns to begin with. They're also much easier to conceal.

with a handgun, you hafta change & reload a lot more, giving people a chance to run. AND an AR-15 is designed so you don't hafta be accurate in yer aim.

That all depends on the magazine size. There are high capacity handgun mags. As for aiming, the only difference with a rifle is that aiming is generally easier. You still have to be accurate. Now, shotguns don't require much accuracy.

You seem to be making the argument to ban high rate of fire handguns too

Wont get an argument from me

My argument is that you people don't know much of anything about guns in general, which is probably most of why you fear them so much.

'you' people? LOL! i have several firearms in my home, jr.

Are any of them semiauto rifles?

yes. the only ammo we have is .22 - nothing higher.

Then I guess you only hunt small game.

me personally? i don't hunt - that's hubby's deal. but i am real good with a BB gun & ending squirrels when they go after my feeders.

 

[Utilitarian]

Banning magazine sizes doesn't accomplish much when they are easy to make. Of all the components of a gun, the magazine is one of the simplest. 3D printers can make them rather easily.

it doesn't? really? making them illegal may not stop everyone, but it won't hurt & jack up the fines & time served if caught.

Did you also know that most mass shootings haven't involved the use of high capacity magazines?