An honest question on assault rifles.

SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So you've just admitted that the ONLY reason why you like the AR-15 is because it is a more efficient killing machine of people..
Click to expand...

no, and one last time I will tell you so please read and understand. I, myself PERSONALLY, prefer it NOT because it's a more efficient killing machine, but because of MY FAMILIARITY with it, I am a more efficient killing machine. Now you might find that aberrant, but it matters little. That is what I was trained to do as a marine, FOR YOU. If you don't like it, change the military mindset.


Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
...that is why it's original design was designated as an ASSAULT RIFLE....that is why it is classified as an ASSAULT WEAPON....which is why it and similar weapons have been the choice of mass shooters....like you, they felt it's the best weapon for the job. Finally, an honest answer.
Click to expand...
are you referring to the M16, the AR15, or both?


Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So all you're doing is "prepping" for that civil war/conflict....I've been reading about folk like you in their various forms and titles since the 1980's. Lot of those folks are now in their 60's and 70's. What a sad waste of life and resources, instead of contributing to solving the problems.
Click to expand...

'solving' the problem doesn't include denying me, or those like minded as me, the RIGHT to own and be prepared to USE these weapons, should it ever become necessary. WE hope that it doesn't, but with the libs and cons doing what they are doing, it's not looking good.
Click to expand...

1. No matter who much you thump your chest, your paragraph HAS THE SAME CONCLUSION....the weapon of choice to ASSAULT a group(s) is the AR15 (style) rifle. YOU LIKE IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO MORE DAMAGE WITH IT (aka kill more people in a crowd situation)...JUST LIKE THE JOKERS WHO DID MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS...your alleged marine training non-withstanding. Jeez, I guess the IQ requirement for the USMC has lowered some.

2. Are you fucking stupid? Willfully ignorant/obtuse? Or Both. I've done this dance with you and the other (less honest) yahoos on this thread....rehashing it to try and avoid your obvious blunders isn't going to cut it.

3. Parroting the same old paranoid NRA dreck doesn't cut it anymore, bunky....YOU copped to the fact that you don't NEED that particular weapon for home defense, YOU JUST WANT IT because it's an assault weapon that you think you'll need in that survivalist/prepper/sovereign citizen/separatist "war" that you have all those wet dreams about. I crack up at the "WE" you think is so threatening, because you dummies have been wasting your lives for over 30 years, and in the end, you'll be killing each other if you don't shoot yourselves in the foot. Say hello to Gen. Gritz for me. :laugh:

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need " The Rolling Stones
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
translation: junior here shovels more BS....vague claims that a his internet is a free ride via a "corporation". Hmmm, poor folk can get that via the federal gov't if they qualify. But our anti-gov't oather/threeper, etc., etc. doesn't mind working for and sucking off the teat of a corporation that he alleges to hate when it suits him.

Can you say BS hypocrite boys and girls?

Keep it coming, toodles.....you so mired in your on BS it's laughable.
Click to expand...
you really don't read well, do you?
Click to expand...

Awww, did 'ums run out of "ammo"? :laugh:
 
Taichiliberal said:
You queried " Why would a citizen have a right to any weapon at all, if they can't have one for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment?"

I answered; Because they DO, genius! That is a matter of fact and history. Your problem is that you think the 2nd Amendment is carte blanche to have any type/caliber weapon you want for private citizen ownership/use. It never fully did, as the evolution of militias in America and gun regulation shows.
Now, why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".

Obviously, you need further clarification: the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety gives you the right to own a firearm.....it does NOT give you the right to own anything you please in that regard. Just look at the evolutionary history of what constituted a well regulated militia in relation to weaponry, and the history of weapon regulation for the militia, the military and the civilian. If you're still in the dark (willfully or congenitally), I can provide the links to valid documented history to prove what I'm saying.

As to your second sentence: regurgitated NRA mantras that are all bluster and no substance that has been disproven and disregarded numerous times over the decades. And I notice that you STILL have not answered the question. When and if you have the guts to do so, here it is: why do YOU need an AR-15? The operative word is "need".
Click to expand...

Because people like you exist.
 
Random, anonymous rightwing posters with no legal training or expertise claim a constitutional right to the AR15.

Judges in U.S. Federal Courts have ruled multiple times that there is no constitutional right for owning an assault rifle, AR15 or otherwise.

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons?... Four courts have said no.

Four times in the past decade, federal appeals courts have ruled that assault weapons bans are constitutional.

In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected by the Second amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...said-no/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.577c9f449ec5
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Random, anonymous rightwing posters with no legal training or expertise claim a constitutional right to the AR15.

Judges in U.S. Federal Courts have ruled multiple times that there is no constitutional right for owning an assault rifle, AR15 or otherwise.
Click to expand...

lets posit a question.....Since the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee the citizenry the ability to withstand and put down an oppressive federal government, how is it 'logical' for a court, any court, to say that it doesn't protect 'assault' weapons? Does the court believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea that the citizenry could only use pitchforks and torches? or rocks? bows and arrows?
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. No matter who much you thump your chest, your paragraph HAS THE SAME CONCLUSION....the weapon of choice to ASSAULT a group(s) is the AR15 (style) rifle. YOU LIKE IT BECAUSE YOU CAN DO MORE DAMAGE WITH IT (aka kill more people in a crowd situation)...JUST LIKE THE JOKERS WHO DID MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS...your alleged marine training non-withstanding. Jeez, I guess the IQ requirement for the USMC has lowered some.

2. Are you fucking stupid? Willfully ignorant/obtuse? Or Both. I've done this dance with you and the other (less honest) yahoos on this thread....rehashing it to try and avoid your obvious blunders isn't going to cut it.

3. Parroting the same old paranoid NRA dreck doesn't cut it anymore, bunky....YOU copped to the fact that you don't NEED that particular weapon for home defense, YOU JUST WANT IT because it's an assault weapon that you think you'll need in that survivalist/prepper/sovereign citizen/separatist "war" that you have all those wet dreams about. I crack up at the "WE" you think is so threatening, because you dummies have been wasting your lives for over 30 years, and in the end, you'll be killing each other if you don't shoot yourselves in the foot. Say hello to Gen. Gritz for me. :laugh:

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need " The Rolling Stones
Click to expand...

you do this alot, it's pretty funny. when shown the actual facts or told things that don't jive at all with your rationale, you simply ignore them and pretend people said exactly what you wanted....and you laugh and laugh like you won some major argument. its funny, but sad. oh well.
 
sear said:
You flatter me sir!

- piffle -

"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
Yes we have 2nd Amendment rights.
No, our 2nd Amendment rights do not include anti-aircraft artillery, machine guns etc.
And weapons are ROUTINELY banned:
- in public schools
- courts of law
- airports
- aboard commercial airliners
- U.S. post offices
- etc.
Click to expand...

Of course, no weapons were banned by type or by location until the last century, when the 2nd had already been eroded by the 'need' to disarm blacks.
 
sear said:
PS
And whether he could have tallied as many corpses with a Winchester pump, many could not. That's the distinction. The AR-15 make such massacres easy, even for those with limited training or experience.
Click to expand...
A 12-gauge pump would also make such massacres easy. You're only demonstrating your own ignorance and lack of experience.

They can, when they're the size of a school building.
Click to expand...
Admitting that they accomplish nothing?

BUT !!

When such "gun free zones" are the size of Canada, or Australia, it seems to be a different story.
Click to expand...
Canada and Australia are not gun free zones. Again, note that Brazil, for one example, has far stricter gun laws than either, and a much worse problem with gun violence than we do.

So one might imagine.
But smuggling gasoline into a school in a hip-flask might only bring enough to cause a small disturbance, potentially undetected at the time (discovered only later by the scorch marks).
Smuggling in enough gasoline to kill a room full of agile children before they could escape would I suspect, be a nearly impossible logistical obstacle (thank goodness).
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea about how arson is done.

The truck-bomb is quite an able weapon. President Reagan proved that.
Click to expand...
??? What does Reagan have to do with truck bombs?

But these school shooters seem to have skipped a cog. They seem to be as enmeshed in their choice of weapon, as their lethal objective.

McVeigh was an exception. McVeigh's motive seems to be vengeance for the Branch Davidian genocide. What was Dylan Kleebold's motive?
Click to expand...
No one seems at all interested in his, or any mass shooter's, motive. It's all about "guns, Guns, GUNS!!!!!".
 
sear said:
Isn't that marvelous.
I never asserted or implied the AR-15 was the only weapon in the multiverse capable of such atrocity.
To the contrary. I've observed that a highly skilled martial artist could score the same corpse count with a samurai sword.
So far as I know, there's no major political pressure to ban or restrict the samurai sword. Your point?

Not so slow BD.
I'm a life-long New Yorker.
In New York there's a law on the books called the "SAFE Act".
United States Constitution Art.1 Sect.9-3 to the contrary notwithstanding,
for non-police:
magazine capacity is limited to 10 rnd @ range, and 7 rnd @ concealed carry (CC).
That applies to such firearms as the Glock 17, and others with mag. capacities exceeding these new statutory limits.

Therefore your:

rhetoric is misleading, and possibly ill-informed.

In New York State, which believe it or not is within United States jurisdiction, ALREADY restricts such weapons.

Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, our United States federal government, our Republican lead government
treats the United States Constitution, and Art.1 Sect.9-3 and our 2nd Amendment as guidelines, as suggestions.

NOT as "the supreme law of the land" as Art.6 Sect.2 requires.
Click to expand...

Which, as usual, only restricts law-abiding citizens, not anyone contemplating a crime.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, you're just repeating what I've already addressed.....A SUPPOSITION.
Click to expand...

It's hardly a supposition. That you think it is only cements your ignorance on the subject. The two articles you posted in support of my arguments clearly document that semi-auto handguns have been used in mass shootings in the past, and have killed many people in such an event. And it's quite clear how much damage a pump action shotgun could do. There was a reason the U.S. Army used them as "trench sweepers".
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahh, but I am not dealing with your personal supposition and conjecture, I'm dealing with matter of facts and history regarding mass school shootings. Like it or not the AR15 (style) was the weapon of choice because the shooter found it most effective...given that's what it was designed for.
Click to expand...
You clearly didn't bother to read the two articles that you posted that only supported my position. Big surprise there.

So your evaluation of my honesty is worthless. As to your question; it's an assault weapon, as described by earlier retailers, the original designer....it was part of the AWB of 1994, which I found sufficient. You can't ban all weapons, but you can put a dent in what is the closest thing to a military full auto, and thus keep it out of the hands of the potential terrorists and nut jobs.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, it won't do. Again, your ignorance is showing, and your wishful thinking. Isn't that what background checks were supposed to accomplish? How did the Parkland shooter manage to get, and keep, a weapon? There were copious signs that he was a real threat, yet no one did anything.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Post the law that says you can purchase a full automatic rifle TODAY. I believe you are confusing ownership that predates the ban law for such. I'll wait.

As for the AR-15 and why it's so popular with clowns like you:

Click to expand...

More ignorance on display. You have to get a special license from the BATF and pay some hefty taxes, but you can own a fully automatic rifle. That's been true since the '30s. And bump stocks are legal and unregulated because of how the law defines an automatic weapon. Since a bump stock only allows you to pull the trigger really fast, you're not firing multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, which is what's required by the legal definition of automatic weapon. Won't do much good to ban them anyway. Anyone with a 3D printer can make one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top