An honest question on assault rifles.

[Minister of Truth]

So you "need" an assault weapon because people disagree with you? How fascist of you. But seriously, I have no criminal record, do not advocate mindless anarchy. And since there is a plethora of weapons available that are just as good (if not better, according to numerous gun enthusiasts) for home protection, Why do you need that particular weapon?

The 2nd Amendment does not exist for home protection. Because people like you exist, that wish to supplant the American position with the British position, confirms the threat to liberty which demands that the people retain their arms.

[SmarterthanYou]

Only in the military context

right of the PEOPLE, moron

[Taichiliberal]

^^^
Not interested in the opinion of an anonymous rightwing poster who believes he has a God given right to assault rifles in preparation for the overthrow of the duly elected U.S. government.

The opinions of courts of law carry greater weight with me than internet Rambos.
The opinions of legal experts, Federal judges no less, have repeatedly found that there is no constitutional right to AR15 or any assault rifle. None. Nada. Zilch.

Once you give up your fantasies of playing Rambo, and having fire fights with the National Guard in an attempt to overthrow our government, you will realize that you can still own all the pistols, hunting rifles, vintage surplus rifles, shotguns, and traditional semi-automatics you want. As for me, I might have my eye out for a vintage British Lee-Enfield!

[Taichiliberal]

Again, up until the Civil War, there were no restrictions on what weapons you could have or where you could carry them. You could even own cannon.

Check your militia acts throughout the history of the country and parallel that with the history of gun control regulations to see our error.

[Taichiliberal]

The history of the weapon contradicts your paranoia. The AR-15 is a civilian, semi-auto only version of the original. It is not the original AR-15.

Didn't say that the full auto version was ever sold to civilians, bunky. At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[Taichiliberal]

The usual ignorant dreck. You can do more damage "in a crowd situation" with a pump shotgun. That's why the Army used them as trench sweepers and that's why they're nicknamed "street sweepers". But, as others have noted, they don't get the same publicity as the ARs get. Yhey also recoil more, which the pussies who commit mass school shootings probably can't handle.

Your first sentence describes the majority of your responses. I was responding to what STY stated as to his personal reason for preference of the AR15.

But riddle me this, joker. You and other brain dead gunners constantly keep harping as to how so many other types of weapons are far more lethal in mass shootings....if that is the case, why the hard on for the AR15 when there are easily all these other weapons ready, legal and available?

You just don't have the intellectual honesty to answer the OP. Soon I will dump your NRA troll butt in the IA.

[Taichiliberal]

You, of course, are reading things into that that aren't there. You should try and get more familiar with the actual history behind the 2nd amendment.
"the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Typical brain dead NRA troll....you ignore the history that belies your beliefs in favor of writings that DID NOT become law and have NO bearing on the history of the National Guard. Again, your opinion is NOT historical, documented fact....and you just don't have the cojones to answer a simple OP question.

[Taichiliberal]

Why do you need a computer? Or a magazine or newspaper subscription? Shouldn't the government be able to restrict your right to information?

Computers or newspapers don't shoot people, stupid. If you're going to pick up the gauntlet for others, try being smarter than they are. Or try honestly answering the OP question for yourself.

[Taichiliberal]

Actually, it's those judges who have the "myopic or revisionist interpretation"s.

Says the NRA troll who has demonstrated his intellectually impotence and dishonesty on this thread time and again.

[Taichiliberal]

Yeah, we've seen how well that logic works with drugs.

Guns are not drugs, you simpleton. Another brain dead straw grasp by a NRA troll who doesn't have the cojones to answer the OP.

[Taichiliberal]

Well, you don't NEED a computer, do you? It just exposes you to identity theft and fraud, so possession needs to be strictly regulated.


Actually, it sounded pretty accurate. You aren't responding rationally, just running around like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off.

Your description doesn't sound anything like what she described.

Seems all you're good for is just being an NRA troll with little improvement on the responses for the fools you're trying to defend. Like you, she didn't answer the OP...just lashed out with schoolyard insults and a wholly erroneous version of a recent event in NYC (my backyard, by the way).

[Taichiliberal]

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 responsible, but no one is at all interested in figuring out what.

Obviously, you can't prove your original claim or have the guts to honestly answer the OP. Your revisionist blathering is just becoming more and more absurd.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
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?

You are clearly obsessed with the AR.

Awww, widdle NRA troll is running out of steam....he can't answer the OP and his response here is so lame it's pathetic.

[Taichiliberal]

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.

You made the state that full auto/machine gun can be purchased by the average civilian if they have a "special license" TODAY. I asked for proof of this, as the link I provided does NOT state such (if you can find the sentence that does, copy and paste it). Clearly, you can't back up what you say, so you bluff and bluster as usual. And your take on bump stocks essentially repeats my point. You simpleton. Answer the OP.

[Taichiliberal]

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?

you're a liar as usual....you made claims regarding ammo strength...I provided the proof that belies what you stated, your denial non-withstanding since anyone can click the link and see your lie.

And since you don't have the guts or intelligence to answer the OP, there is no further reason to make a fool of you further. Adios.