An honest question on assault rifles.

rjhenn said:
Exactly, "36 years". If guns are the problem, then why weren't mass shootings common before that, when there were few, if any, restrictions on guns or who could purchase them. Even children could lagally buy guns. Gun free zones were virtually unknown back then. The increase in mass shootings correlates with increasing restrictions. Obviously, something besides guns is responsiblr, but no one is at all interested in figuring out what.
Click to expand...

I asked for proof, not more of your personal supposition and conjecture. if you can't provide such, don't waste time regurgitating your BS.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Stop lying....all one has to do is read the info from both sites, then ask the question....what weapon type was used in the last 30 years that had the most victims for MASS shootings.

2. You're missing the point or are just being stubborn. If the AR-15 (style) weapon was NOT on the market, then the Parkland shooter would not have that weapon. He could have chosen ANY weapon, but he CHOSE THAT ONE BECAUSE HE FOUND IT MOST EFFICIENT FOR HIS PURPOSE.

Now, why do YOU need such a weapon?
Click to expand...
You are clearly obsessed with the AR.
 
rjhenn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
But here's the thing; the basic defense people put forth for AR-15 (style) ownership is either "self defense" or "hunting". Well, all that you've mentioned can kill ya just as dead as an AR-15 in a home invasion, and no hunter I know of worth his salt wants to pepper the carcass with holes, whether he's going to eat it or not. I always remember the father of a friend of mine who was a duck hunter. The man was EXTREMELY careful with his weapon, because as he explained to me "The ammo is geared to take down a duck flying above you...imagine what that would do to a man less than 10 yards away. May not kill him, but he won't be happy!"
Click to expand...

You're always supposed to be extremely careful with any firearm. Just because you can "pepper the carcass with holes" doesn't mean you're going to. But there are times when you want a quick second shot. And the 5.56 NATO round is perfectly adequate for a lot of hunting, for animals smaller than deer.
Click to expand...

I've provided some facts regarding the ammo capability of the AR15. The whole rapid fire trigger pull of the AR15 is it's big selling point....couple that with ammo as powerful as some of the bolt action hunting rifles out there, and you have an assault rifle. It's shorter barrel length does not match with standard hunting rifles...very telling.

Now, answer the OP, please.
 
rjhenn said:
And you do have any interest in an honest discussion?
Click to expand...

YOU have picked up the gauntlet for every idiotic right wing troll on this thread. If you don't like what I post or how I respond, why not just ignore or block me. What is your problem? Can't honestly answer a simple OP question?
 
rjhenn said:
So, what, there should only be one model of handgun, shotgun and rifle available to civilians?
Click to expand...

YOU have picked up the gauntlet for every idiotic right wing troll on this thread. If you don't like what I post or how I respond, why not just ignore or block me. What is your problem? Can't honestly answer a simple OP question? Because this last retort of yours is just lame....creating a question that NOHING I posted would elicit.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Please provide valid proof as to what exactly is this "special license" that a CIVILIAN can purchase/acquire to get a fully automatic weapon. in the meantime, please note that the law states that anyone owning a full automatic https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

As to your take on the 3d printer thing on bump stocks....if bump stocks are made illegal, selling/distributing those specs on the net will be illegal, as will be the software for it.

Now, quit stalling and answer the OP question.
Click to expand...
You're hilarious. You ask me for information, then you post a link to the very information that you were asking me for. Don't you read your own links?
As for the 3D printer issue, "selling/distributing those specs on the net will be illegal, as will be the software for it." only if the law making bump stocks illegal makes the plans also illegal. Besides, there's nothing particularly complicated about a bump stock.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You're quick to call people ignorant, yet you keep making fatal errors in your assertions. A great selling point about the AR-15 is its versatility on many levels, such as

https://www.ammoforsale.com/ammo-ar15

so much for your lame attempt to downplay the assault aspect of this weapon. So, care to answer the OP?
Click to expand...

As usual, your link does nothing to support your argument, further showcasing how deep in delusion you are on the topic. As to the OP, it's a meaningless question. Why does there have to be an answer?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Try following the chronology of the posts, stupid. This little exchange was based on the poster "Body Double". If you're too damned lazy or intellectually dishonest to click back, then just STFU and stop making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...
Says the one who makes a fool of himself with every post. But is too mired in dogma to see that.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Thanks to loop holes and retailer/manufacturer slight of hand to get around the law. Remember, jokers like you rallied to prevent a full out ban....and then there are the dumbasses who owned such pre-ban and didn't give a damn who they sold them to.

Now, care to answer the OP?
Click to expand...
Again, the OP is just more of your meaningless drivel.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I'm basing that on this little tidbit the poster provided "I like my GI spec. 1911 as well. " Since all you gunners love to provide your "expertise" on various weapons, I gambled he was telling the truth as he saw fit.

Now, can YOU answer the OP?
Click to expand...
Of course, reading what you want to believe into what he said.
 
Taichiliberal said:
the original design was for the military, genius. It didn't sell well, and then they produced the version we have today.....it's still an assault weapon....as designed, as originally marketed, whether you like it or not. The rest of your moot point, pure opinion and hole filled history lesson non-withstanding.
Click to expand...
Actually, the original sold very well, becoming our standard military weapon. You, again, demonstrate your obsession with what you want to believe, and your susceptability to marketing hype. Reality apparently doesn't agree with you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Given your performance on this thread, your opinion of me is worthless. Now, care to grow a pair and answer the OP?
Click to expand...
Between your performance on this thread and your piss-poor OP, no answer is necessary. The whole thread is worthless, except to demonstrate your worthlessness.
 
Taichiliberal said:
For your education: http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

And the rest of your screed has been answered throughout this thread. One thing is for certain, you were projecting with your first sentence. No one gives a damn about your NRA laden opinion, as you clearly cannot provide bullet proof facts to support it. Just grow a pair and answer the OP.
Click to expand...
Funny, your link only supports what I stated. You have been unable to "answer" anything. Every link you've posted in support of your position has only supported mine. I don't know what's wrong with your mental processes. You remind me of so many religious believers who insist the the Bible means something other than what it clearly states because that's what they want to believe. I don't need to provide any facts to support my position. You've been doing that for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top