An honest question on assault rifles.

I would posit that it is the left with their foolish “assault rifle” ban that made the gun so popular.

Prior to the ban, the AR15 was a niche weapon. Now thanks to the Democrat Media Industrial Complex, it has become the poster child for their anti 2nd Amendment impulses.

How do we know that the left is lying about their support for the 2nd Amendment? Simple, right after they say they support it, they follow it up with “we should look to Australia”.

Fuck you
 
rjhenn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So with the supposition of what could have done a better job at Sandy Hook aside ( I deal with the historical fact, not what might have been) essentially, the AR-15 (style) weapons are indeed assault weapons by your descriptions...they are NOT hunting rifles, and as you point out a hand gun does the job of self defense (usually for the home) quite adequately. Your response is apropos to this:

https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/...t-weapons-faq/

Thanks for the honest response.
Click to expand...


Actually, a semi-auto handgun or a pump-action shotgun could have done just as much or more damage at Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're just repeating what I've already addressed.....A SUPPOSITION.
 
I Love America said:
No. I would argue that I would be much effective in a confined area with my .45

Magazine holds thirteen rounds
Much more lethal round
I can carry 15 magazines
I can be more mobile
I am very accurate with my .45 ACP

you aren’t being an honest broker which suspected

So my question to you is what is it about the AR15 that makes you want to get rid of it so badly? Why don’t you want to ban others?
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Superfreak said:
You did lie. The AR15 is not an assault rifle. No matter what it was in the 50's, it is not an assault rifle today. Quit lying.
Click to expand...

Again, you just ignore what you don't like. The information provided shows the original design for the military, the civilian version is so damned versatile that it's the next best thing..so much so that retailers initially marketed it as such

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html

 
Superfreak said:
Posting links to other threads where you are wrong doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. It is not an assault rifle. It is not fully automatic. No matter how much you pretend it is. You are a LIAR.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your insipid stubbornness is of no concern or value:

 
SmarterthanYou said:
you really don't like to read things correctly, do you? I did not say you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment, I said you don't believe that it is about individual rights as citizen militias. and by LAW, one actually CAN OWN a fully automatic. it just has to be one manufactured before May 1st, 1986. The AR15 is modeled after the M16, minus the select fire switch.

My, you danced poorly in your own bullshit. maybe you should try it again.
Click to expand...

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:

 
Cypress said:
And I really do not think these Rambo wannabes are actually part of a "well regulated militia" tasked with defending the country. Really, their pea shooters would be inconsequential and utterly ineffective against an invading army with modern equipment. Wolverines!!
Click to expand...

Gun_Decision.jpg
 
Quote Originally Posted by sear
And the alleged irony as you perceive it is ... ?

"Proceeding to ask a dishonest question." T #121
Click to expand...
How can a question be dishonest?

On my home world (we call it Earth, pay us a visit sometime) dishonesty is an appellation we reserve for replies, not questions.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Someone please explain to me what is so special about the #AR15 (style) assault rifle(s) that can't be done with the myriad of shotguns, hunting rifles, revolvers and semi-automatic handguns that have been available for decades?
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty vague question. Mainly handguns and shotguns shoot non ballistic rounds. Hunting rifles and assault riffles both fire ballistic round which have a far greater range in killing power with assault rifles having a greater rate of fire.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry, but your insipid stubbornness is of no concern or value:

Click to expand...

So tell us should devices such as this or the bump stock be illegal or is your whole vendetta against the AR-15 in general? I put it to you that any semiautomatic rifle that looks like a traditional hunting rifle is just as deadly as an M-16 when modified with things like the bump stock and large capacity clip. I have a feeling your whole argument is you think the AR-15 or other assault weapon lookalikes is, if they look evil they must be evil. Oh btw I don't own any look alike assault rifles.
 
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.

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...

I would argue that is is not the most effective. Those who have committed these atrocities strike me as being as ignorant about guns as you are.

They see dipshits like you make a big deal and think there is something to it

Be honest. You just think it looks scary. You have probably never even shot one
 
Taichiliberal said:
Are you really this fucking stupid? Comparing the Civil Rights movement to this urge to own a weapon? Guess what stupid? if there were no seats in the back of the bus (standing room only) but seats in the front during the Jim Crow/segregation days, Rosa couldn't ride and would have to wait for the next bus? Why, her money was just as good as a white persons. Get the picture, stupid?

You have a right to a weapon, but NOT military grade ones....not full automatics, and for a brief time not semi-auto assault weapons. America got along fine with the AWB....crime didn't go through the roof. Deal with it.

Don't you EVER think to get away with that stupidity again.
Click to expand...

If you weren't such an insufferable sanctimonious fuck, maybe someone would give a fuck what you say.
To claim that military grade weapons are not afforded second amendment protection is just lying out your ass.
FYI ; you are about half as smart as you think you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top