# The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles



## Stormy Daniels (Jun 5, 2022)

The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?

Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.

After they outlaw AR-15s, they'll wait until the next headline catching crime that involves a handgun, and point to the statistics to insist that now we have to outlaw handguns, too. They'll start talking about the "handgun loophole" and saying that they need to close it. They'll tell everyone that _of course_ we have to outlaw handguns, saying that if the relatively small percentage of crime that involves a long gun was worthy of action, then the remaining 90% certainly warrants action.

Democrats aren't coming for your guns. Until they are.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jun 5, 2022)

That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance.  A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons.  They don't even know what AR means.  I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.


----------



## jackflash (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


The statist left is obsessed with only a Marxist g'ment(the lefts god) being able to wield firearms. This of course would turn America into another nazi Germany where nobody but g'ment employees would be safe.


----------



## miketx (Jun 5, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance.  A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons.  They don't even know what AR means.  I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.


Sheer.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 5, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance.  A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons.  They don't even know what AR means.  I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.



  There's a document on the _Violence Policy Center's (VPC)_ web site, from decades ago, pretty much admitting this whole strategy around _“assault weapons”_, admitting that they play little role in crime, but discussing how such issues as the general ignorance of the general public can be exploited to gain support for a ban on _“assault weapons”_ as a stepping stone to further chipping away at the Second Amendment.



			https://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm
		


_“The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”_​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.


----------



## Winston (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance.  A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons.  They don't even know what AR means.  I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.


This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...



You still don't get it.  In the US, the mass murder records all go to one weapon and one weapon alone.  Since the security of the schools started, the handguns and normal weapons no longer can go for the record.  It takes the AR.  While we may not have much control over the lower body counts, we do have control over the higher body counts.  There is an old Military saying.  You fight the Battles you have a chance to win.  We can completely stop the school shootings through common sense actions.  I won't cover them since they have been covered to death but we need to do it.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

jackflash said:


> The statist left is obsessed with only a Marxist g'ment(the lefts god) being able to wield firearms. This of course would turn America into another nazi Germany where nobody but g'ment employees would be safe.



There's a lot of misunderstanding about Nazi gun laws.









						Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 5, 2022)

Terminology
The "*AR*" in *AR*-*15 *stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault...










						AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.


BUT A 9MM WILL BLOW YOUR LUNG OUT LITERALLY ON THE GROUND MAN ITS IRRESPONSIBLE OF YOU NOT TO SUPPORT BANNING SCARY DANGEROUS HANDGUNS


----------



## miketx (Jun 5, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> Terminology
> The "*AR*" in *AR*-*15 *stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault...
> 
> 
> ...


The liars have been told this a 1000 times, but it doesn't fit the commie agenda.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

miketx said:


> The liars have been told this a 1000 times, but it doesn't fit the commie agenda.



Killing school children or church goers ? What?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 5, 2022)

miketx said:


> commie agenda


lol


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.


You and your strawman fallacies.  Get a new shtick already.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 5, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> Terminology
> The "*AR*" in *AR*-*15 *stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault...
> 
> 
> ...



No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> BUT A 9MM WILL BLOW YOUR LUNG OUT LITERALLY ON THE GROUND MAN ITS IRRESPONSIBLE OF YOU NOT TO SUPPORT BANNING SCARY DANGEROUS HANDGUNS


.... and those scary looking steak knives with serrated blades. 

We definitely need an assault steak knife ban.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> BUT A 9MM WILL BLOW YOUR LUNG OUT LITERALLY ON THE GROUND MAN ITS IRRESPONSIBLE OF YOU NOT TO SUPPORT BANNING SCARY DANGEROUS HANDGUNS





daveman said:


> BUT A 9MM WILL BLOW YOUR LUNG OUT LITERALLY ON THE GROUND MAN ITS IRRESPONSIBLE OF YOU NOT TO SUPPORT BANNING SCARY DANGEROUS HANDGUNS


Why did diaper Joe fasten on 9mm when a .357 is way more powerful?


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> .... and those scary looking steak knives with serrated blades.
> 
> We definitely need an assault steak knife ban.



All the more reason to break the Cult AR.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> .... and those scary looking steak knives with serrated blades.
> 
> We definitely need an assault steak knife ban.



  I understand that in some parts of the UK, they are now banning any knives with pointy ends.  Steak knives, kitchen knives, and such, are required to have blunt ends to make it harder to stab anyone with them.

  There's a very good reason why we Americans kicked the British out of our country nearly two and a half centuries ago.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You and your strawman fallacies.  Get a new shtick already.


It's far, far easier to shout STRAWMAN than it is to provide a rational, reasonable reply.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> .... and those scary looking steak knives with serrated blades.
> 
> We definitely need an assault steak knife ban.


OMG I JUST WET MY PANTS A LITTLE THINKING ABOUT STEAK KNIVES


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

EvilCat Breath said:


> Why did diaper Joe fasten on 9mm when a .357 is way more powerful?


Because I'd guess there are more 9mm handguns out there than .357.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.


You're going to have a hard time proving that when you know fuck-all about firearms.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> All the more reason to break the Cult AR.


You have fantasies of putting people in boxcars, don't you?


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Because I'd guess there are more 9mm handguns out there than .357.


jackflash 

BTW, Hitler eased up on gun laws.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> You have fantasies of putting people in boxcars, don't you?











						Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 5, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.



I am aware that we got M-16s in late June 1965 and Colt sent a team to Ft. Benning to demonstrate them.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> jackflash
> 
> BTW, Hitler eased up on gun laws.


Not for Jews, he didn't.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't like being called a Nazi?

Quit demanding Nazi shit.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> You don't like being called a Nazi?
> 
> Quit demanding Nazi shit.


Gun laws were far less strict under Hitler.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Not for Jews, he didn't.


They were 2% of the population. He eased up on gun laws for the average German.


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, Democrats have raised gaslighting to a new artform.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Gun laws were far less strict under Hitler.


I can't for the life of me think why you believe this is a winning argument.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Jun 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.





Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.





Vrenn said:


> You still don't get it.  In the US, the mass murder records all go to one weapon and one weapon alone.  Since the security of the schools started, the handguns and normal weapons no longer can go for the record.  It takes the AR.  While we may not have much control over the lower body counts, we do have control over the higher body counts.  There is an old Military saying.  You fight the Battles you have a chance to win.  We can completely stop the school shootings through common sense actions.  I won't cover them since they have been covered to death but we need to do it.





surada said:


> There's a lot of misunderstanding about Nazi gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> They were 2% of the population. He eased up on gun laws for the average German.


  your point?


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> They were 2% of the population. He eased up on gun laws for the average German.


Oh, well, hey, they were just Jews, right?  Not even human, really.

Or you could stop being retarded.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> I can't for the life of me think why you believe this is a winning argument.


The Hitler argument is a lie. That's the point.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> I can't for the life of me think why you believe this is a winning argument.


   it wins in muslim lands where only  dhimmis are 
   divested of all weapons


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> your point?


I think it's that Hitler wasn't that bad a guy.  Just misunderstood, really.  Did what he had to do.  Can't make an omelet without breaking 10 million eggs, or something like that.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Oh, well, hey, they were just Jews, right?  Not even human, really.
> 
> Or you could stop being retarded.


I didn't say that. What's wrong with you? Conservatives often say Hitler and Nazis took away gun rights, but they didn't. Quite the opposite.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Oh, well, hey, they were just Jews, right?  Not even human, really.
> 
> Or you could stop being retarded.


  d-man  ---divesting  "just jews"  of armaments scores 
  points in shariah cesspits.   If virtually creates a kind 
  of  collusion between christians and muslims


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> it wins in muslim lands where only  dhimmis are
> divested of all weapons


There aren't any more dhimmis.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> The Hitler argument is a lie. That's the point.


Really?  Because all throughout history, governments that disarmed their civilians went on to kill millions of them.

And no, it won't be any different here in America.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> I think it's that Hitler wasn't that bad a guy.  Just misunderstood, really.  Did what he had to do.  Can't make an omelet without breaking 10 million eggs, or something like that.


   so true-----he was being true to the beauty of the 
   koran


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Really?  Because all throughout history, governments that disarmed their civilians went on to kill millions of them.
> 
> And no, it won't be any different here in America.



Quit guessing and look at the facts.









						Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> You have fantasies of putting people in boxcars, don't you?


The man with two big pistols in the air as his avatar accuses others of having fantasies!

Not only that, he slanders them stupidly. He accuses fellow citizens who simply want more gun control as …. communists. This is over the edge, grotesque. Shameful.

I have a semi-automatic rifle, a pistol, a carry license, and I consider myself a responsible citizen. I don’t like having to carry when I go shopping. I want stricter gun controls. I support the 2nd amendment, and I think an “originalist” and proper interpretation of it allows much stricter gun regulations.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> I think it's that Hitler wasn't that bad a guy.  Just misunderstood, really.  Did what he had to do.  Can't make an omelet without breaking 10 million eggs, or something like that.


Is that what you think? That he wasn't a bad guy?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> There aren't any more dhimmis.


   there were in the 1930s -40s-----you seem to have forgotten---my very own hubby was born a dhimmi 
during that time..     Has shariah law been changed? --
<gasp>   THE ETERNAL TRUTH OF ALLAH?????


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> I didn't say that. What's wrong with you?


You're pointing to Hitler and saying he wasn't that bad a guy.  Try to keep up.  


surada said:


> Conservatives often say Hitler and Nazis took away gun rights, but they didn't. Quite the opposite.


Yeah, not really.  

How the Nazis Used Gun Control


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Quit guessing and look at the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just showed you the facts.  You will disagree.  Whoopty shit.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


In case you haven't noticed, mass shootings, especially when they involve children, are much more heinous than the murders that happen throughout the country every day. It's easy to tell yourself  "I'll never be in a position  to become a part of the crime that causes so many deaths" For the vast majority of people that will be true.  However, it's not so easy to watch innocent children die in piles. Most school shootings are done with military style rifles. that has to stop.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> You're pointing to Hitler and saying he wasn't that bad a guy.  Try to keep up.
> 
> Yeah, not really.
> 
> How the Nazis Used Gun Control


I never said he wasn't a bad guy. I said he revoked the German gun laws. He knew how to appeal to the mob.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The man with two big pistols in the air as his avatar accuses others of having fantasies!
> 
> Not only that, he slanders them stupidly. He accuses fellow citizens who simply want more gun control as …. communists. This is over the edge, grotesque. Shameful.
> 
> I have a semi-automatic rifle, a pistol, a carry license, and I consider myself a responsible citizen. I don’t like having to carry when I go shopping. I want stricter gun controls. I support the 2nd amendment, and I think an “originallist” and proper interpretation of it allows much stricter gun regulations.


Well, you're wrong, Slappy.  Deal with it.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Is that what you think? That he wasn't a bad guy?


Nope.  But then, I'm not an irrational Jew-hater, so I have no reason to believe he's a swell guy.


----------



## surada (Jun 5, 2022)

daveman said:


> Nope.  But then, I'm not an irrational Jew-hater, so I have no reason to believe he's a swell guy.


You've lost your mind.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> I never said he wasn't a bad guy. I said he revoked the German gun laws. He knew how to appeal to the mob.


He'd have been a good Democrat, wouldn't he?


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> You've lost your mind.


Not at all.  I want people to be free to defend themselves from whatever's threatening them.

You?

Not so much.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> Quit guessing and look at the facts.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naz...any, few,party members and the military.[/URL


http://there are lots of issues


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 5, 2022)

Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.


Ah, yes, the imbecility of the-guns-are-the-problem fallacy mouthed by lefty as he propagates degeneracy and lawlessness in popular culture and the state schools, indeed, as he marches through and tears down the civil and familiar institutions of civilization.


----------



## night_son (Jun 5, 2022)

Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.



Ignorance must be bliss, eh? If other firearms can be used more effectively than "assault" rifles then banning assault weapons makes . . . let us hear it, in your own words . . . zero sense. I love it when a fool publicly identifies himself. Keep up the good work.


----------



## daveman (Jun 5, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> http://there are lots of issues


From surada's link:

"The *Nazi gun control argument* is the claim that gun regulations in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.[1][2][3] Historians and fact-checkers have characterized the argument as dubious or false, and point out that Jews were under 1% of the population and that it would be unrealistic for such a small population to defend themselves or overthrow the state even if they were armed."

So, because Jews were just 1% of the population, it's okay to take away their human rights and murder them.

What's the cutoff, surada?  5%?  10%?  50%?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

surada said:


> I didn't say that. What's wrong with you? Conservatives often say Hitler and Nazis took away gun rights, but they didn't. Quite the opposite.


   right----only from jews and other "untermenchen"
   consistent with Shariah law.   Did anyone mention 
   the symbolic use of the color yellow?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> In case you haven't noticed, mass shootings, especially when they involve children, are much more heinous than the murders that happen throughout the country every day. It's easy to tell yourself  "I'll never be in a position  to become a part of the crime that causes so many deaths" For the vast majority of people that will be true.  However, it's not so easy to watch innocent children die in piles. Most school shootings are done with military style rifles. that has to stop.


   yes---the question is how.    There is no question in
my mind that no law in the USA will prevent criminals
from being criminals.   The issue is the criminals,


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 5, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


They're liars. That's why they do it.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 5, 2022)

Thanks Surada for the link. As usual you provide sober and useful information. We may not always agree on every detail, but your contributions are appreciated.

Can’t say the same about most of your opponents here …


----------



## yidnar (Jun 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.


so  Biden either lied or he didnt know what he was talking about when he said no one needs to own a gun [9mm] that will blow the lung out of the body ? so which is it a lie or ignorance ?


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Thanks Surada for the link. As usual you provide sober and useful information. We may not always agree on every detail, but your contributions are appreciated.
> 
> Can’t say the same about most of your opponents here …


   I missed it-------what was the "useful" information? 
     the Nuremburg Laws circa 1935?.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 5, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> I am aware that we got M-16s in late June 1965 and Colt sent a team to Ft. Benning to demonstrate them.



Those weren't M-16s.  Those were what the AF were using, the AR-15 Model 601.  It wasn't until the Army adopted the AR-15 that it was redesignated the M-16.  In fact, the "M-16" I qualified in the AF on was stamped "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16).  The M-16 stamp was added later sometime in 1968.  The Army had not totally adopted the M-16 until early 1968.  Until then, they were called AR-15 Model 601.  When they were adopted, there were some changes where rails were added and some of the chromium plating was removed making the Model 602 an inferior weapon to the 601.  Later on, the Chromium was readded.  Between the poor powder, removing of some of the chromium plating and the removal of the cleaning kits, you Army types were screwed.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 5, 2022)

You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.








						Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




The *absurdity* of analogies made between Nazi policies and the policies of today’s American liberals who support representative democracy (and more gun regulations) should imo be … self evident.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 5, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Those weren't M-16s.  Those were what the AF were using, the AR-15 Model 601.  It wasn't until the Army adopted the AR-15 that it was redesignated the M-16.  In fact, the "M-16" I qualified in the AF on was stamped "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16).  The M-16 stamp was added later sometime in 1968.  The Army had not totally adopted the M-16 until early 1968.  Until then, they were called AR-15 Model 601.  When they were adopted, there were some changes where rails were added and some of the chromium plating was removed making the Model 602 an inferior weapon to the 601.  Later on, the Chromium was readded.  Between the poor powder, removing of some of the chromium plating and the removal of the cleaning kits, you Army types were screwed.


Friend, the 1st Cavalry Division were issued M-16s in June and July 1965. We left for Vietnam Aug 13 with the M-16. We never had AR 15s. I know the history of both including the reduction of muzzle velocity and addition of a forward assist assembly.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 5, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nope----not facetious----suradie did present the 
nazi policies as somehow  laudable for their time.  
In fact they were eerily consistent with Justinian 
law and Shariah law.  ----of course analogies between shariah/canon weapons law and ----the issues of gun control in the USA   ARE TOO ABSURD for discussion


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> Not for Jews, he didn't.


Wrong.









						PolitiFact - No, gun control regulation in Nazi Germany did not help advance the Holocaust
					

On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent




					www.politifact.com


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie; again, there is no ‘strategy’ to ban handguns.





Correct.  There is a strategy to ban ALL GUNS.

DURRRRRR


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


...shall not be infringed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pololololoitifact.

Oh, brother!

The article even says that Hitler banned Jews from owning weapons of any kind in 1938. That's your role model for sensible gun control. 

.....shall not be infringed


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...




I think what they will do is point out that AR-15s are semi-automatic weapons.......they will then say, since we allowed them to ban and confiscate AR-15s, that means that all semi-automatic weapons....since they all operate the same way, are just as deadly as the AR-15...ipso facto post hoc and other latin words............that means we have to give in when they demand all semi-automatic weapons....shotguns, pistols and the rest of the semi-auto rifles they didn't get when they got the AR-15.....also be banned and confiscated...

Biden already gave away the handgun ban they want.....and it seems they are going to try to use some sort of lie about the damage a 9mm bullet can do.........

Till then, they want the AR-15 because it is the gateway gun they can use to demand banning all semi-automatic weapons.....and then....then they will go after bolt action, pump action and revolver guns...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> That might be the strategy of those at the top like Schumer, et al, but by and large it's shear ignorance.  A lot of people on the left clamoring for a ban on AR-15s have never even seen nor fired one and many think they're automatic weapons.  They don't even know what AR means.  I've seen this play out on social media repeatedly.




They don't care how it operates.......if it is a gun, the want to ban it.....the AR-15 is their gateway gun for getting the rest.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.




Dipshit........this is a lie.....handguns are used more often than these rifles in mass public shootings.......and there is only one mass public shooting where using an AR-15 made the difference in the number of people killed...and that was in Las Vegas where the range was about 400 yards......all of the other mass public shootings could have been done, with the same number of deaths, using a pump action shotgun or pistols...

How do we know?

Virginia Tech....32 killed with 2 pistols

Luby's Cafe....26 killed...two pistols

Russian Polytechnic shooting....20 killed, 70 wounded with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

surada said:


> There's a lot of misunderstanding about Nazi gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No...there is no confusion...

The German government began registering guns in the 1920s.....the national socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies, who they then murdered, while allowing their supporters to own guns...

That is what happened...they armed their supporters...with guns, and took guns away from the 6 million Jews they murdered.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 6, 2022)

Firearms are just another subject the duopoly can use to divide and continue to conquer. No problem, from "guns" to "gender i.d." is being solved as root cures would also lead to ousting the powers that maintain them.
There are measures that could be taken, certainly, but reasonableness left the building long ago.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> You still don't get it.  In the US, the mass murder records all go to one weapon and one weapon alone.  Since the security of the schools started, the handguns and normal weapons no longer can go for the record.  It takes the AR.  While we may not have much control over the lower body counts, we do have control over the higher body counts.  There is an old Military saying.  You fight the Battles you have a chance to win.  We can completely stop the school shootings through common sense actions.  I won't cover them since they have been covered to death but we need to do it.




Wrong........there is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 made a difference....the Las Vegas shooting where the killer was shooting at 22,000 people in a tightly packed concert, from an elevated, fortified and hidden position......it was 400 yards away from him........

And with 22,000 people he only managed to kill 65 people.....while a muslim terrorist in a rental Truck in France murdered 86 people...more people murdered with that truck than the total number of people murdered in the U.S. mass public shootings except for 2 years.......

All the other mass public shooting attacks could have been done with pump action shotguns or pistols...

Virginia tech...32 killed, two pistols

Luby's cafe....26 killed, two pistols

Russian polytechnic shooting....20 killed 70 wounded, 5 shot pump action shotgun

The factor that actually makes the difference?  Time.

The time it takes for someone with a gun to confront the killer...forcing him to stop murdering unarmed people, and commit suicide, run away or surrender....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.




Wrong...dumb ass....

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,”*
*
 one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*
*



Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.




The AR-15 is not the preferred gun.....handguns are...you dumb ass.....and the only reason the AR-15 is popular among these nuts is idiots like you keep telling these idiots that the AR-15 is cool......if you idiots would stop giving the AR-15 a bad reputation, they wouldn't be drawn to it........


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

surada said:


> jackflash
> 
> BTW, Hitler eased up on gun laws.




Why do you idiots keep saying hitler eased up on gun laws?  You have been shown over and over again that hitler let his own people have guns.....and used the gun registration lists created in the 1920s to take guns away from Jews and his political enemies....who he later murdered in the millions.......

That you continue to lie about this shows that you can't be trusted in any way, shape or form...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

surada said:


> They were 2% of the population. He eased up on gun laws for the average German.




Yes.....he took guns away from the people he planned to murder and who he actually did murder..to the number of 6 million....then another 9 million people from the rest of Europe.

But we should give up our guns and trust government....just like the Germans did, and the rest of Europe did...before the governments of Europe handed their citizens over to the national socialists for murder....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

surada said:


> I didn't say that. What's wrong with you? Conservatives often say Hitler and Nazis took away gun rights, but they didn't. Quite the opposite.




No....he did....he took guns away from the people he planned to murder....Jews and his political enemies.......you idiot.......


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Firearms are just another subject the duopoly can use to divide and continue to conquer. No problem, from "guns" to "gender i.d." is being solved as root cures would also lead to ousting the powers that maintain them.
> There are measures that could be taken, certainly, but reasonableness left the building long ago.


With gun nuts, it was never allowed in their building to start with.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....he did....he took guns away from the people he planned to murder....Jews and his political enemies.......you idiot.......


You think somebody is planning to murder you?  You have been paranoid for a long time, haven't you.  I guess that's why you are such a coward.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> In case you haven't noticed, mass shootings, especially when they involve children, are much more heinous than the murders that happen throughout the country every day. It's easy to tell yourself  "I'll never be in a position  to become a part of the crime that causes so many deaths" For the vast majority of people that will be true.  However, it's not so easy to watch innocent children die in piles. Most school shootings are done with military style rifles. that has to stop.




Moron........the weapon doesn't matter when they are used at the distance of a classroom against young children.....the only reason they used the AR-15 is because assholes like you have given the rifle a reputation that draws them to the gun.........these killers could have done just as much killing with shotguns or pistols.....as actual mass public shootings have shown....

It isn't the gun, you moron.....it is Time.   The time the killer has unmolested to shoot unarmed people.......the sooner someone is shooting back at the killer, the sooner the killer stops murdering innocent people and commits suicide, runs away or surrenders....

Actual police doctrine is supposed to be entering immediately, shouting that they are police....this pushes the killer into committing suicide, surrendering or running away.....again, stopping them from shooting unarmed people....

Virginia Tech shooting....32 killed..... 2 pistols

Luby's Cafe shooting.....26 killed....2 pistols

Russian polytechnic shooting....20 killed, 70 wounded, 5 shot, pump action shotgun....

You are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

surada said:


> I never said he wasn't a bad guy. I said he revoked the German gun laws. He knew how to appeal to the mob.




He took guns away from Jews and his political enemies....using the gun registration lists created in the 1920s......then he murdered them.....

You lie by omission....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You think somebody is planning to murder you?  You have been paranoid for a long time, haven't you.  I guess that's why you are such a coward.




Throughout human history governments have gone rogue, and murdered their own citizens in the 10s of millions...not once, not twice...all through history.....that you can know this, and then still demand taking guns away from people shows you don't understand human history or human nature....

You prevent mass murder by having armed citizens........


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You think somebody is planning to murder you?  You have been paranoid for a long time, haven't you.  I guess that's why you are such a coward.




I thought it was hysterically funny watching the Australian police beat citizens and throw them in concentration camps just a few months ago....but keep telling us that the 15 million people the Germans murdered, the 25 million the Russians murdered, the 70 million the Chinese murdered....were just flukes....as the Chinese....right now, as we speak....are murdering 2 million muslim Chinese.......after using them as slave labor.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Those weren't M-16s.  Those were what the AF were using, the AR-15 Model 601.  It wasn't until the Army adopted the AR-15 that it was redesignated the M-16.  In fact, the "M-16" I qualified in the AF on was stamped "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16).  The M-16 stamp was added later sometime in 1968.  The Army had not totally adopted the M-16 until early 1968.  Until then, they were called AR-15 Model 601.  When they were adopted, there were some changes where rails were added and some of the chromium plating was removed making the Model 602 an inferior weapon to the 601.  Later on, the Chromium was readded.  Between the poor powder, removing of some of the chromium plating and the removal of the cleaning kits, you Army types were screwed.




Yes....the AR-15 is a civilian rifle, and has never been used by the U.S. military.....

*The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”*
*
“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*
*



Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You idiots continue to use that....after being shown that hitler used the gun registration lists created in the 1920s to take guns away from Jews and his political enemies.....that is the freaking important part........

The part where he allowed his brownshirts to own, carry and use guns against the Jews and his political enemies is another point that seems to go over your fucking heads.....


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They don't care how it operates.......if it is a gun, the want to ban it.....the AR-15 is their gateway gun for getting the rest.


Sure Q NUT.

Just like "banning" the "Tommy gun" in 1934?
Why aren't you gun nuts crying about that?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

westwall said:


> Correct.  There is a strategy to ban ALL GUNS.
> 
> DURRRRRR




Yep.......

Idiots like clayton think they are so clever....


----------



## Batcat (Jun 6, 2022)

Stormy Daniels said:


> The vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. So why are Democrats targeting so called assault rifles?
> 
> Simple!  Because the vast majority of firearm crimes involve handguns, not anything like an AR-15. It's all about strategy.
> 
> ...


Gun grabbers have been using the same tactic for years. The easiest firearm to ban and confiscate is the AR-15 and other so called “assault weapons.”

I was just talking to a gun owning lady today who said she couldn’t see why anyone need an AR-15. She has a .30-06 rifle and carries a handgun in her purse. 

Now if the gun banners wanted to take her bolt action rifle or her purse pistol away she would be opposed. 

I explained to her that the AR-15 is a highly adaptable rifle that can do many different tasks with modifications that can be done by the owner not  a gunsmith. I also told her that if a tyrant ever took over the country we could fight to take the nation back. 

I don’t believe I changed her mind. She didn’t even buy my argument that we could rebel against a tyrant And the AR-15s would win the day. 

Perhaps if I owned an AR-15 and allowed her to shoot it she would change her mind. Unfortunately I am more of a wheel gunner or as some would say a dinosaur. I like revolvers. I even own a 9mm revolver. They work fine and last a long time. I only own one rifle, a Swedish Mauser and one shotgun, a 12 gauge double barreled coach gun.  

So a significant percentage of gun owners don’t see a reason to own an AR-15. That makes it a logical target for the first gun to be banned and if that ever happens then the gun grabbers will try to ban all semi-auto pistols.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure Q NUT.
> 
> Just like "banning" the "Tommy gun" in 1934?
> Why aren't you gun nuts crying about that?




Hey...dumb fuck....did banning the "Tommy Gun," stop the mob from using those guns?  You really are stupid....


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Throughout human history governments have gone rogue, and murdered their own citizens in the 10s of millions...not once, not twice...all through history.....that you can know this, and then still demand taking guns away from people shows you don't understand human history or human nature....
> 
> You prevent mass murder by having armed citizens........


Like  I said. You are an idiot coward.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I thought it was hysterically funny watching the Australian police beat citizens and throw them in concentration camps just a few months ago....but keep telling us that the 15 million people the Germans murdered, the 25 million the Russians murdered, the 70 million the Chinese murdered....were just flukes....as the Chinese....right now, as we speak....are murdering 2 million muslim Chinese.......after using them as slave labor.....


This isn't China dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dumb fuck....did banning the "Tommy Gun," stop the mob from using those guns?  You really are stupid....


It cut down on criminal use of machine guns drastically.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You idiots continue to use that....after being shown that hitler used the gun registration lists created in the 1920s to take guns away from Jews and his political enemies.....that is the freaking important part........


What seems to fly over Trumptards heads is the armed population of Germany in the 1930's was 1% of the total population.

So, disarming them led to...........................nothing, that wouldn't have happened anyway.


2aguy said:


> The part where he allowed his brownshirts to own, carry and use guns against the Jews and his political enemies is another point that seems to go over your fucking heads.....


Guess what?
Every country Hitler invaded, he disarmed their people too.

It's what dictators do.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> What seems to fly over Trumptards heads is the armed population of Germany in the 1930's was 1% of the total population.
> 
> So, disarming them led to...........................nothing, that wouldn't have happened anyway.
> 
> ...




No.......they disarmed their people before hitler........in the 1920s......

Except for one country......that hitler did not invade.....because they had lots and lots of guns in civilian hands...

THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS

*That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"*
*
The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.

The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.

Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.
*
*While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels. There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.*


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> It cut down on criminal use of machine guns drastically.




No....it didn't......what cut down on criminals was the creation of the FBI.....before the FBI it was only locals facing criminal gangs....in particular bank robbers like Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde...........they would rob banks and go across state lines...where the local police couldn't follow them...the FBI had more money, more resources and could track them across the country.......and organized crime realized that murdering each other drew too much police attention....

Right now, our gangs don't fear the police because the democrat party has handicapped the police, and the democrats won't prosecute them and. release the most dangerous and violent criminals back into the very neighborhoods where they commit their violence...intimidating witnesses into silence...

You dumb ass...


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dumb fuck....did banning the "Tommy Gun," stop the mob from using those guns?  You really are stupid....


Eventually it did, moron, they couldn't get parts to fix them and by the mid 40's they were rarely used.

You really are a dumbass, Q NUT.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.......they disarmed their people before hitler........in the 1920s......


Disarmed 1% of the people, wow, that's like whole country.
Most Germans had no desire for guns except for hunting and they were never taken away.


2aguy said:


> Except for one country......that hitler did not invade.....because they had lots and lots of guns in civilian hands...
> 
> THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS
> 
> ...



No shit.

Did you ignore the part about TRAINED to shoot?

They don't need 500 rounds to wound a sloth.

To this day, they are and.........................no mass shootings in Switzerland.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Disarmed 1% of the people, wow, that's like whole country.
> Most Germans had no desire for guns except for hunting and they were never taken away.
> 
> 
> ...




They murdered 6 million people, you idiot.......

Yet the socialists still took them away from the Jews and their political enemies.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Eventually it did, moron, they couldn't get parts to fix them and by the mid 40's they were rarely used.
> 
> You really are a dumbass, Q NUT.




I know you are an idiot.......the only people who know what qanon is is democrats...right?   The ones who watch rachel maddow and the other fascists on cable news......the Republicans have no idea what you are talking about....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Disarmed 1% of the people, wow, that's like whole country.
> Most Germans had no desire for guns except for hunting and they were never taken away.
> 
> 
> ...




You ignored the part that hitler was told not to invade the country with armed civilians.......while he invaded every other country that took guns away from their people...you dumb ass...


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They murdered 6 million people, you idiot.......


So, how many would have been murdered if they had guns?

6,000,000.

Fucking moron.


2aguy said:


> Yet the socialists still took them away from the Jews and their political enemies.....


That's what dictators do, moron.

Or they poison them, put them in jail, etc.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I know you are an idiot.......the only people who know what qanon is is democrats...right?   The ones who watch rachel maddow and the other fascists on cable news......the Republicans have no idea what you are talking about....


Sure, LYING Q NUT.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You ignored the part that hitler was told not to invade the country with armed civilians.......while he invaded every other country that took guns away from their people...you dumb ass...


Hitler was told?

By who?

Q?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, how many would have been murdered if they had guns?
> 
> 6,000,000.
> 
> ...




Moron.......had the German people had access to guns, the socialist brown shirts....blm/antifa.....I mean the brownshirts of the national socialists.....would not have been able to beat and murder anyone who got in their way to power....as the police did nothing....

This is why a disarmed population is dangerous......a tiny group willing to burn, loot and kill like blm/antifa.........I mean the nazi brown shirts, can intimidate and destroy their political opponents....

When your neighbor is dragged out of his house, beaten and killed......while the police watch, and he doesn't have a gun and you don't have a gun.....you learn to keep your head down....you idiot.....

The democrats understand this because they did this in New York....the gun control laws in New York city were created to protect democrat party thugs....

This means that moderate, rational political groups are destroyed by the blm/antifa.....I mean the national socialists....

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them as_shtarkers_ (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

*Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. *Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: *Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.*

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.


There is a reason that the democrat party brown shirts, blm/antifa were unleashed in black neighborhoods....the democrat party controlled cities have extreme gun control.....so blm/antifa doesn't have to worry as much about their victims, black Americans, fighting back....

Notice they kept walking when that couple in Missouri came out with guns........this is why the leftists disarm their victims first.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, LYING Q NUT.
> 
> View attachment 654503
> 
> View attachment 654504




The ones not photoshopped are democrats.....you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hitler was told?
> 
> By who?
> 
> Q?




By his military command....you idiot.

THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS

*That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"

The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, **and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. **This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.

The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.

Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.

While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels. There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.*


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......had the German people had access to guns, the socialist brown shirts....blm/antifa.....I mean the brownshirts of the national socialists.....would not have been able to beat and murder anyone who got in their way to power....as the police did nothing....


That's because the cult of Trump, I mean Hitler were on board with whatever the lunatic did.

So relevant today.


2aguy said:


> This is why a disarmed population is dangerous......a tiny group willing to burn, loot and kill like blm/antifa.........I mean the nazi brown shirts, can intimidate and destroy their political opponents....


Who is going to do that Q NUT?
The lizard people?


2aguy said:


> When your neighbor is dragged out of his house, beaten and killed......while the police watch, and he doesn't have a gun and you don't have a gun.....you learn to keep your head down....you idiot.....


You watch too much TV.


2aguy said:


> The democrats understand this because they did this in New York....the gun control laws in New York city were created to protect democrat party thugs....
> 
> This means that moderate, rational political groups are destroyed by the blm/antifa.....I mean the national socialists....
> 
> ...


Sure, a total ban on guns, Q NUT.

A 40 year-old lie, gullible, teabaggers believe.

So, when is this going to happen?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> By his military command....you idiot.
> 
> THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS
> 
> ...


You're FOS....................As usual.

Switzerland was Germany's banker.

Switzerland also sold Hitler some weapons.

Switzerland also turned away 60 to 70,000 German refugees.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The ones not photoshopped are democrats.....you idiot.


Sure they are, gullible, Q NUT.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...there is no confusion...
> 
> The German government began registering guns in the 1920s.....the national socialists used those registration lists to take guns away from Jews and their political enemies, who they then murdered, while allowing their supporters to own guns...
> 
> That is what happened...they armed their supporters...with guns, and took guns away from the 6 million Jews they murdered.


   Give Suradie a CHANCE----she has determined that 
the Nuremburg laws have been  MISUNDERSTOOD---
I am fascinated-----over to you Suradie----how have the Nuremburg laws been MISUNDERSTOOD?


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Firearms are just another subject the duopoly can use to divide and continue to conquer. No problem, from "guns" to "gender i.d." is being solved as root cures would also lead to ousting the powers that maintain them.
> There are measures that could be taken, certainly, but reasonableness left the building long ago.





Quit calling them a duopoly.   They aren't.   They are the political class against all of us.

There is no difference between them.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.  It is the simple response to a simple cost benefit analysis.  Assault weapons provide little, if any benefit, to their ownership.  Other guns can be used just as effectively, if not more effectively, than the assault rifle.  Well, except for mass shootings, like children at elementary schools.  The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide.


Wrong on many levels. First off what the left is claiming to be an assault rifle is not. Actual assault rifles have the ability to fire full auto but they are pointing their fingers at simi-auto weapons. Most weapons in the world today are simi-auto. Shotguns are every bit as dangerous as what are claimed to be "assault rifles" not to mention explosives,  fire bombs (which can be quickly made by anyone who wants one), or chemical and/or biological weapons. People who gather together in large groups are simply far more vulnerable. If you want to outlaw something why not outlaw large groups of people? 

_"The cost of their legality far exceeds any benefit they provide."_

Bullspit! Who are you to decide how much benefit anyone else gets from something? Especially rights guaranteed by the US Constitution?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.


Everything your mouths spews about gun rights is a fucking lie. Shut your fucking communist hole.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> Friend, the 1st Cavalry Division were issued M-16s in June and July 1965. We left for Vietnam Aug 13 with the M-16. We never had AR 15s. I know the history of both including the reduction of muzzle velocity and addition of a forward assist assembly.



All M-16s are AR-15s no matter what model.  The Colt Model Numbers for the M-16 and the original 601 was AR-15 Model 601 through 604.  If you were issued something that looked like the M-16 chances are it was the AR-15 Model 601.  That was the model that was used in the tests for the Army but not what was adopted.  If you had the 601 you had the best model of them all.  No money was spared.  The Model that the Army ended up with was the bargain basement Model 602.

The point being is, ALL M-16 are AR-15s in one model or another.  You can't change history nor fact just by wishing it away.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I want stricter gun controls. I support the 2nd amendment,


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

Laugh all you want. But my full comment was short and powerful, and reflects a sentiment most Americans can support.

Responding to “Daveman”:



> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You have fantasies of putting people in boxcars, don't you?
> ...


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.


I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.


The full auto capability is very rarely used on the M16. In the vast number of uses, they are effectively the same gun.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Everything your mouths spews about gun rights is a fucking lie. Shut your fucking communist hole.


A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived and then that lie is attacked, with the person who contrived the lie declaring ‘victory’ in the ‘argument.’

In this case the lie is that Democrats have orchestrated some nefarious ‘conspiracy’ to ‘ban’ handguns.

It’s as idiotic as it is ridiculous and wrong – typical of the dishonest, lying right.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> I think you've got it backwards and that the M-16 was the Father of the AR-15. The M-16 was developed as a military weapon only for use by the military and it could be fired full auto while the AR-15 can only be fired simi-auto and it is most certainly NOT all that powerful or especially deadly. That is the primary difference between the two. They both fire the same ammo. And that is why I would much prefer a good shotgun for most purposes. The only cult I know about is the rabid cult of the gun grabbers.



Funny.  Both the AR-10 and the AR-15 were produced by Armalite up until 1961.  The AR-10 was a nato 7.62 but lost the military bid to the M-14 in 1957 so they redid it and turned out the AR-15 model 601 which they sold to the Maylasian Army in 1959.  Colt bought the rights in 1961.  And they saw a goldmine.  In 1962 they offered a nearly identacle rifle sharing almost all parts with a semi auto called the AR-15 Model 750.  When the AR-15 was adopted by the US Army, it had to be rename and stamped by an M number hence the M-16.  That's why the USAF AR-15 Model 601 had a stamp of (M-16) added just after the original model number.  The AR-15 Model 601 was in service until 1991.

Again, you can't change history just by typing a different ending.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

When I lived in NYC some three decades ago, when city & national violent crime statistics peaked, it was extremely difficult to get a handgun carry license unless you had very good reason (my brother carried cash daily from his business to a bank and got one). Even a non-carry handgun home license *renewal* became very expensive, but handguns were never outlawed. As a city boy who earlier drove a cab, then worked in public transportation, I traveled the city every day — feeling vulnerable.

I myself fought for looser laws to allow vetted city workers in unions to carry. Crime really seemed out of control. But soon violent crime started falling back as laws toughened, more police were hired, and — possibly most important — the effect of legal, available and socially accepted abortion began to manifest itself with fewer unwanted and abused young men reaching the age of (criminal) “manhood.” Some of the drug epidemics also just naturally “burned themselves out.” Perhaps there were other economic reasons as well.

Big city life is very different than rural life. Has been so since early town martials and police forces brought a little peace and order by restricting cowboys from getting drunk and shooting off guns in town. But the basic need for self protection and the craving for “law & order” expresses itself in many ways.

Take for example the “law & order” demand for “locking up” (and throwing away the key) for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. Sounds reasonable, but It too can backfire. In the toughest and poorest neighborhoods of NYC I know for a fact that many hardworking minorities back then would carry (illegally) — just so they could survive. Some would end up attacked and face serious time for defending themselves, as they couldn’t afford expensive lawyers, and cops assumed they were themselves ipso facto criminals.

Not that “free carry” can ever work in cities — my point is that reasonable laws and reasonable law enforcement … and *reasonable discussion of social issues like gun control … is essential*_._


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> You are being facetious, Irosie91. But in any case I was only referring to this link Surada provided, which actually presents many diverse views on German gun laws under Weimar and Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll ask you the same question I asked surada:

What percentage of the population must be involved before it's bad to remove their God-given rights?  This piece of crap Wiki article says it's okay if it's 1%.

What's your upper limit?  5%?  20%?  50%?


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Politifact is bullshit.  But it's bullshit you like the taste of, so you believe it without question.

Run along now.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You think somebody is planning to murder you?  You have been paranoid for a long time, haven't you.  I guess that's why you are such a coward.


He's damn sure not afraid of _you_ murdering him.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived and then that lie is attacked, with the person who contrived the lie declaring ‘victory’ in the ‘argument.’
> 
> In this case the lie is that Democrats have orchestrated some nefarious ‘conspiracy’ to ‘ban’ handguns.
> 
> It’s as idiotic as it is ridiculous and wrong – typical of the dishonest, lying right.



"typical of the dishonest, lying right."

Doesn't this fall as a hasty generalization fallacy?


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Like  I said. You are an idiot coward.


Why do you want women to be defenseless against their attackers?


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Laugh all you want. But my full comment was short and powerful, and reflects a sentiment most Americans can support.
> 
> Responding to “Daveman”:


Repetition of bullshit doesn't make it smell any better.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> I'll ask you the same question I asked surada:
> What percentage of the population must be involved before it's bad to remove their God-given rights?  This piece of crap Wiki article says it's okay if it's 1%.
> What's your upper limit?  5%?  20%?  50%?


Put your guns away, cowboy, stop drinking the cool aid, ask a sensible and respectful question, then *maybe* I will take you seriously.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> "typical of the dishonest, lying right."
> 
> Doesn't this fall as a hasty generalization fallacy?


Yes, but it's okay when he does it.  Just ask him.


----------



## daveman (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Put your guns away, cowboy, stop drinking the cool aid, ask a sensible and respectful question, then *maybe* I will take you seriously.


You talk like being taken seriously by you is a thing to be desired.

Hint:  It's not.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> He's damn sure not afraid of _you_ murdering him.


He's afraid of everything. He can't find the courage to go outside without being armed.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.


No military in the world uses an AR-15.  Hardly a weapon of war. 

I have ARs and I have a M-16.  There is a difference.

Most, by far, of the thousands of gun crime in the US are committed with cheap or stolen hand guns by inner city street thugs, gang bangers and druggies in Democrat controlled big cities. 

About 400 gun crimes a year are with long guns and ARs are a subset of that.. In reality not very many gun crimes are committed by the 20 million or so of ARs in the hands of American citizens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hitler only disarmed the people he wanted to exterminate, that's sensible gun control, right?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> Why do you want women to be defenseless against their attackers?


What a stupid question.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> No military in the world uses an AR-15.  Hardly a weapon of war.
> 
> I have ARs and I have a M-16.  There is a difference.
> 
> ...


Other than full auto capability, which is rarely used, what is the effective difference beween an AR15 and an M16?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie, it fails as a strawman fallacy.


MINDLESS MAGA lies with such ease....just like their King trump.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Other than full auto capability, which is rarely used, what is the effective difference beween an AR15 and an M16?




You can put a whole more bullets down range with a M-16 than with an AR.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 6, 2022)

Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
					

No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...




					www.cnn.com
				




I am pretty sure it is a size thing....😂


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> You can put a whole more bullets down range with a M-16 than with an AR.


We,ve already agreed the rarely used full auto capability of an M16  is faster. What else makes the M16 capable of more bullets down range? The cycle times are identicle.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> We,ve already agreed the rarely used full auto capability of an M16  is faster. What else makes the M16 capable of more bullets down range? The cycle times are identicle.


No there are not identical.  You are confused.

Once you pull the trigger on the M-16 it cycles at 600 - 800 RPM, depending on how it is gassed.  Once you pull the trigger on an AR it won't cycle again until the trigger is reset and the trigger is manually pulled again.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Funny.  Both the AR-10 and the AR-15 were produced by Armalite up until 1961.  The AR-10 was a nato 7.62 but lost the military bid to the M-14 in 1957 so they redid it and turned out the AR-15 model 601 which they sold to the Maylasian Army in 1959.  Colt bought the rights in 1961.  And they saw a goldmine.  In 1962 they offered a nearly identacle rifle sharing almost all parts with a semi auto called the AR-15 Model 750.  When the AR-15 was adopted by the US Army, it had to be rename and stamped by an M number hence the M-16.  That's why the USAF AR-15 Model 601 had a stamp of (M-16) added just after the original model number.  The AR-15 Model 601 was in service until 1991.
> 
> Again, you can't change history just by typing a different ending.


Like you just said the Army adopted the M-16 which had full auto capability. Do you know any AR-15 that had that capability? In any case your point is moot. The .223 AKA 5.56mm is by no means an especially deadly round. The bullet itself is small but high velocity and tends to deflect wildly or just come apart on striking even light vegetation and there was lots of vegetation in Vietnam. That round is also bad about wind drift. I carried the M-16A1 in Vietnam and was not especially impressed with it. I would have gratefully and immediately swapped for a good 12Ga. I knew guys who preferred to carry captured AK-47s even with the increased likelihood of friendly fire.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> No there are not identical.  You are confused.
> 
> Once you pull the trigger on the M-16 it cycles at 600 - 800 RPM, depending on how it is gassed.  Once you pull the trigger on an AR it won't cycle again until the trigger is reset and the trigger is manually pulled again.


Yes. That is the full auto capability we already discussed several times. The full auto capability that is rarely used. Our military is even taught to not use the full auto capability except in a very few specific cases. I'll ask again. Hopefully you will understand the question this time.  Other than the fully auto capability of the M16, what is the difference between it and the AR15? Again, their non-automatic cycle time is identicle.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> We,ve already agreed the rarely used full auto capability of an M16  is faster. What else makes the M16 capable of more bullets down range? The cycle times are identicle.


Somebody told you the full-auto capability was rarely used? Seriously? With a straight face? Cute.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes. That is the full auto capability we already discussed several times. The full auto capability that is rarely used. Our military is even taught to not use the full auto capability except in a very few specific cases. I'll ask again. Hopefully you will understand the question this time.  Other than the fully auto capability of the M16, what is the difference between it and the AR15? Again, their non-automatic cycle time is identicle.


I've told you the difference but you don't want to hear it.  The M-16 puts out a lot more firepower.

It that confusing to you?

I sure as hell used the F-A on my M-16 in Vietnam.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> Like you just said the Army adopted the M-16 which had full auto capability. Do you know any AR-15 that had that capability? In any case your point is moot. The .223 AKA 5.56mm is by no means an especially deadly round. The bullet itself is small but high velocity and tends to deflect wildly or just come apart on striking even light vegetation and there was lots of vegetation in Vietnam. That round is also bad about wind drift. I carried the M-16A1 in Vietnam and was not especially impressed with it. I would have gratefully and immediately swapped for a good 12Ga. I knew guys who preferred to carry captured AK-47s even with the increased likelihood of friendly fire.


How often did you use the full auto capability? Were you trained to not use it other than in very specific cases?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> I've told you the difference but you don't want to hear it.  The M-16 puts out a lot more firepower.
> 
> It that confusing to you?
> 
> I sure as hell used the F-A on my M-16 in Vietnam.


Ok lady. It's your deer. Just let me get my saddle off of it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Yes I used it frequently but mostly only in 2-4 rd. bursts not because of any training but because it is embarrassing to run out of ammo in the middle of a firefight.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> Like you just said the Army adopted the M-16 which had full auto capability. Do you know any AR-15 that had that capability? In any case your point is moot. The .223 AKA 5.56mm is by no means an especially deadly round. The bullet itself is small but high velocity and tends to deflect wildly or just come apart on striking even light vegetation and there was lots of vegetation in Vietnam. That round is also bad about wind drift. I carried the M-16A1 in Vietnam and was not especially impressed with it. I would have gratefully and immediately swapped for a good 12Ga. I knew guys who preferred to carry captured AK-47s even with the increased likelihood of friendly fire.



Sure do.  I qualified in Basic Training on one, the AR-15 Model 601, later to be known as the M-16A1.  Just like you qualified on one, the Colt Model AR-15 602, also known as the M-16A2.  Both were full auto.  

Are you trying to tell me that the M-16A4 isn't an assault rifle since it can't be used in full auto (3 shot burst only)?  The normal Grunt should NEVER have a full auto anything.  The 11th commandment comes into play.  Thou shalt not fire on full auto lest you run out of ammo lest you die.  There isn't enough difference between the performance of the M-16A4 and the AR-15 to even worry about.  If you ever fired an A4, you know that the first round hits dead center while the 2nd round is slightly off and the 3 round is a clear miss.  Even in the 601 and 602 the first few shots in full auto were misses after the first round until it got stabilized.  The spray and pray looked good in the movies but had little to do with reality.  That's what the M-60 was there for.  

If you carried a M-16A1 then you were actually carrying a restamped AR-15 Model 601 left over from the USAF days.  Here is a test.  Without looking it up and using your own memory, what shape was the handle on the cocking handle?  Simple test.  It surprised me when I noticed that years after I retired.  I thought like you do.  Just tell me the shape without researching it.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> Yes I used it frequently but mostly only in 2-4 rd. bursts not because of any training but because it is embarrassing to run out of ammo in the middle of a firefight.



Ah, the 11th commandment.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What a stupid question.




No...it is an accurate question.......

For example...in Britain...

A woman wants to have a gun to prevent being kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered........according to the British police, this is not a valid reason to own a gun, let alone carry it in public.

A member of the House of Lords wants to take his cronies out to one of his private estates to do a little bird hunting......according to the British police, this is a valid reason to own a gun.

This is what you support, you fascist asshat....


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> Like you just said the Army adopted the M-16 which had full auto capability. Do you know any AR-15 that had that capability? In any case your point is moot. The .223 AKA 5.56mm is by no means an especially deadly round. The bullet itself is small but high velocity and tends to deflect wildly or just come apart on striking even light vegetation and there was lots of vegetation in Vietnam. That round is also bad about wind drift. I carried the M-16A1 in Vietnam and was not especially impressed with it. I would have gratefully and immediately swapped for a good 12Ga. I knew guys who preferred to carry captured AK-47s even with the increased likelihood of friendly fire.


When I first got to Vietnam in 1967 my detachment was issued M-14s.

A few weeks later we were issued the M-16-A1s.

I was impressed with it.  

We very seldom saw who the hell we were shooting at.  Most often sound or flashes or movement.  The "spray and pray" F-A was a good thing to have.  Never had a problem with it not functioning.

Nowadays I have almost 30 ARs and one M-16. However, if the zombies came tonight I would probably chose my Colt 6920 semi auto over my Colt 601 full auto.  The reason is because in a SHTF scenario it is good to conserve ammo.  You eat up a lot of ammo real quick on F-A.

My son was a Cav Scout in Iraq.  I asked him if he ever used the burst function on his M-4.  He said no.  The reason is that his squad had two M-249s  and that is what was used to put out suppressing fire.  Sometimes they carried a M-240.  Much better machine guns than the Hog we carried in Vietnam.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> Ah yes, the good old slippery slope fallacy.  Again, this is really simple so pay attention.  The drive to ban the assault weapon is not an attempt to stop crime or even the use of guns in crimes.  It is merely an attempt to mitigate the damage from mass shootings, and perhaps cut down on their frequency.


Really.
See below.
Demonstrate how a ban on 'assault weapons' will have --any-- effect on mass shootings.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> When I first got to Vietnam in 1967 …
> Nowadays I have almost 30 ARs and one M-16. However, if the zombies came tonight I would probably chose my Colt 6920 semi auto over my Colt 601 full auto.  The reason is …


With all respect for your sacrifices in Vietnam and obvious knowledge of these firearms for use in warfare …

I wonder if you can you give us ordinary “city folks” some insight into why you have an armory of “almost 30 ARs and one M-16,” plus other semi-automatic and apparently at least one fully automatic weapon. I assume you were joking about the “zombies” coming for you, and do not suffer PTST.

I ask seriously. I guess / hope your arms cache is legal, is carefully stored, and not likely to be stolen. Perhaps you live in a rural area? Are you preparing for “civil war”? Are you part of a militia? Are you the head of a big family living in an area surrounded by criminal drug gangs? Do you hunt? Do you often use many different weapons for target practice with friends?

I have one rifle and one revolver (and a carry license), and my brother is an avid hunter, but neither of us ever felt the urge to assemble such an arsenal. I ask these personal questions out of general curiosity only. No need to reply if you would rather not.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> With all respect for your sacrifices in Vietnam and obvious knowledge of these firearms for use in warfare …
> 
> I wonder if you can you give us ordinary “city folks” some insight into why you have an armory of “almost 30 ARs and one M-16,” plus other semi-automatic and apparently at least one fully automatic weapon. I assume you were joking about the “zombies” coming for you, and do not suffer PTST.
> 
> ...



Some people collect Star Wars Figures or Classic cars....he collects guns...

So?

He doesn't use them for crime, so it is none of your fucking business......


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> Sure do.  I qualified in Basic Training on one, the AR-15 Model 601, later to be known as the M-16A1.  Just like you qualified on one, the Colt Model AR-15 602, also known as the M-16A2.  Both were full auto.
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that the M-16A4 isn't an assault rifle since it can't be used in full auto (3 shot burst only)?  The normal Grunt should NEVER have a full auto anything.  The 11th commandment comes into play.  Thou shalt not fire on full auto lest you run out of ammo lest you die.  There isn't enough difference between the performance of the M-16A4 and the AR-15 to even worry about.  If you ever fired an A4, you know that the first round hits dead center while the 2nd round is slightly off and the 3 round is a clear miss.  Even in the 601 and 602 the first few shots in full auto were misses after the first round until it got stabilized.  The spray and pray looked good in the movies but had little to do with reality.  That's what the M-60 was there for.
> 
> If you carried a M-16A1 then you were actually carrying a restamped AR-15 Model 601 left over from the USAF days.  Here is a test.  Without looking it up and using your own memory, what shape was the handle on the cocking handle?  Simple test.  It surprised me when I noticed that years after I retired.  I thought like you do.  Just tell me the shape without researching it.


I don't know or care what Zoomies played with. The first M-16s the Army got were a disaster and god a lot of good guys killed because the government cut corners and didn't want to pay for the chromed chambers that they were tested with and left them without. They jamed; AK's almost never did. The m-16A1s came with all the bells and whistles which cured most of the problems. I (thankfully) never had a jam in combat. But I would have preferred the M-14 I trained with in basic. I have never fired an m-16A4 and know nothing about it. I qualified "Expert" several times with the M-16A1 and once firing the .22LR.  I also used the M-79, the M60, the M2 .50Cal. machine gun. and the .45 Cal. 1911A1 pistol (doesn't compete well with enemy machine guns). So what weapons have you made use of in combat?

_"The normal Grunt should NEVER have a full auto anything."_

Ever hear of of machineguns? Or that they are used by Grunts to good effect?


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> With all respect for your sacrifices in Vietnam and obvious knowledge of these firearms for use in warfare …
> 
> I wonder if you can you give us ordinary “city folks” some insight into why you have an armory of “almost 30 ARs and one M-16,” plus other semi-automatic and apparently at least one fully automatic weapon. I assume you were joking about the “zombies” coming for you, and do not suffer PTST.
> 
> ...


I enjoy building, collecting and shooting them.

Firearms is my main hobby.  I am also a certified firearms instructor and range officer.

Yes, I was joking about zombies.

These are the only zombies we have to worry about:


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He doesn't use them for crime, so it is none of your fucking business......



The question wasn’t addressed to you. I’m sure Flash can speak for himself.

Re. The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The question wasn’t addressed to you. I’m sure Flash can speak for himself.
> 
> Re. The reason Democrats are targeting "assault" rifles




Public thread doofus......


----------



## Tom Paine 1949 (Jun 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> I enjoy building, collecting and shooting them.
> 
> Firearms is my main hobby.  I am also a certified firearms instructor and range officer.
> 
> ...


Thanks Flash. A fine and welcome answer. Very amusing video too!


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> I don't know or care what Zoomies played with. The first M-16s the Army got were a disaster and god a lot of good guys killed because the government cut corners and didn't want to pay for the chromed chambers that they were tested with and left them without. They jamed; AK's almost never did. The m-16A1s came with all the bells and whistles which cured most of the problems. I (thankfully) never had a jam in combat. But I would have preferred the M-14 I trained with in basic. I have never fired an m-16A4 and know nothing about it. I qualified "Expert" several times with the M-16A1 and once firing the .22LR.  I also used the M-79, the M60, the M2 .50Cal. machine gun. and the .45 Cal. 1911A1 pistol (doesn't compete well with enemy machine guns). So what weapons have you made use of in combat?
> 
> _"The normal Grunt should NEVER have a full auto anything."_
> 
> Ever hear of of machineguns? Or that they are used by Grunts to good effect?



I am still waiting to hear from you about the shape of the charging handle on  your M-16.  Until then, we have nothing to discuss.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...it is an accurate question.......
> 
> For example...in Britain...
> 
> ...


I hope nothing I said gave you the impression that anyone in Great Britian cares what I think about their gun laws, or that I have had anything to do with the choices they made. dumb ass.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 6, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> I am still waiting to hear from you about the shape of the charging handle on  your M-16.  Until then, we have nothing to discuss.


A"T" shaped handle at the rear of the action connects to a rod that is used to retract the bolt against spring pressure and locks it to the rear.  Now what weapons have you actually used in combat?


----------



## Winston (Jun 6, 2022)

daveman said:


> You're pointing to Hitler and saying he wasn't that bad a guy.  Try to keep up.
> 
> Yeah, not really.
> 
> How the Nazis Used Gun Control


Your article is from the National Review, so it's bullshit.  But I got to ask, some Republicans have made the claim that they don't want to attack the second amendment, they just want to make sure that guns don't fall into the hands of people that are dangerous, or could be dangerous.  Is that not precisely what Hitler did?  He didn't take away all the guns, he only took away the guns from people he considered "dangerous".


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 6, 2022)

9thIDdoc said:


> A"T" shaped handle at the rear of the action connects to a rod that is used to retract the bolt against spring pressure and locks it to the rear.  Now what weapons have you actually used in combat?



The one I used wasn't a T.  It was a triangle.  And that was the only difference between the 601 and the 602 outside of the model number and the stamping.  Well, that and the chromium is more on the 601, that is.  And I told you to do it from memory.  You didn't.  You googled it.

As for weapons in Combat, I primarily used the AR-15 Model 601 which was used to keep everyone off the M-60 which did the bulk of the killing.  Okay, I am waiting for you to play your Gotcha now.


----------



## Winston (Jun 6, 2022)

night_son said:


> Ignorance must be bliss, eh? If other firearms can be used more effectively than "assault" rifles then banning assault weapons makes . . . let us hear it, in your own words . . . zero sense. I love it when a fool publicly identifies himself. Keep up the good work.


Not banning assault rifles makes zero sense.  They provide no tactical advantage for normal use, rather it is self-defense, and certainly not for hunting.  Again, several threads, literally dozens of participants, and not a single one wants to take on the cost-benefit analysis of continuing to have legal assault rifles.  One can easily substitute a legal arm to replace that AR-15, that provides little advantage.  But the cost has continued to climb, and we seem to pay it now every single week with another mass shooting event where that AR-15 is used.  Nope, no argument instead we get.

HITLER, HITLER, HITLER.

Want to take all the arms away.

Communist.

I mean you guys are stupid.  Knuckle dragging idiots that couldn't put a real argument together if your life depended on it.  Your obsession with the AR-15 brings you to just about the same level as those mentally ill people that stroll on to an elementary school campus and start shooting.  In fact, you guys are just one bad day away from doing the very same thing.  That is how sick you are.


----------



## Flash (Jun 6, 2022)




----------



## Winston (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron........the weapon doesn't matter when they are used at the distance of a classroom against young children.....the only reason they used the AR-15 is because assholes like you have given the rifle a reputation that draws them to the gun.........these killers could have done just as much killing with shotguns or pistols.....as actual mass public shootings have shown....
> 
> It isn't the gun, you moron.....it is Time.   The time the killer has unmolested to shoot unarmed people.......the sooner someone is shooting back at the killer, the sooner the killer stops murdering innocent people and commits suicide, runs away or surrenders....
> 
> ...


A mentally disturbed 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop in Texas and purchase two AR-15's.  That is a fawking problem.  Your solution to the problem--well, let's just make sure we can get a "good guy with a gun", to him quick after he starts KILLING CHILDREN.  And yet, in this case, we had dozens of "good guys with a gun" on the scene, and it took them an hour to work up enough nerve to breech the door.

If we have learned anything from this it is that the good guy with a gun concept falls flat on it's face, because in order for the good guy with a gun to be effective he has to have a set of balls.  Most good guys with guns, those that carry in public, don't have a set of balls, that is why they carry the gun.


----------



## Winston (Jun 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dumb fuck....did banning the "Tommy Gun," stop the mob from using those guns?  You really are stupid....


Well I am interested to know the last time a functioning automatic Tommy gun was used in a crime.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> A mentally disturbed 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop in Texas and purchase two AR-15's.  That is a fawking problem.  Your solution to the problem--well, let's just make sure we can get a "good guy with a gun", to him quick after he starts KILLING CHILDREN.  And yet, in this case, we had dozens of "good guys with a gun" on the scene, and it took them an hour to work up enough nerve to breech the door.
> 
> If we have learned anything from this it is that the good guy with a gun concept falls flat on it's face, because in order for the good guy with a gun to be effective he has to have a set of balls.  Most good guys with guns, those that carry in public, don't have a set of balls, that is why they carry the gun.




Yes...it is a problem because of his family, his friends, his school, the local police knew he was batshit crazy.....the sack filled with tortured and dead cats that he carried around was the first clue, the threats of raping girls he posted to on the internet was another, as was the facial cutting, the various fights at school, the domestic violence with police showing up, and shooting people with a BB gun which is an actual crime and would have allowed the police to arrest him..........and they didn't do anything to deal with him......

That isn't the problem of any normal gun owner, it isn't the problem of the gun store that ran a full, federally mandated background check...but because all those other people failed to intervene with him...he didn't have a criminal record, or a mental health comittment, either of which would have popped on his background check.



Let's see....you dumb ass.......you had lots of police standing outside the school...government agents....who did nothing....for upwards of 90 minutes...violating all known protocols for dealing with an active shooter in a school......

But you don't want someone in the building, a teacher, and administrator, support staff....to have a gun...a gun that likely would have kept him from attacking in the first place, a gun that might have kept him from killing those kids and teachers....

The government failed.......remember that dipshit.......the government that you want to be the only ones with the guns failed......

Meanwhile, you idiot......in West Virginia, the same week....a woman with a concealed carry gun shot and killed another mass public shooter who was also armed with an AR-15 rifle...

Number of killed when the good guy with the gun shot the mass public shooter?

0

You dumb ass...

*CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people that had gathered for a party, authorities said.*
*
Dennis Butler, 37, was killed Wednesday night after he pulled out the rifle and began shooting at dozens of people attending the birthday-graduation party outside an apartment complex in the city of Charleston, police said in a statement.

The woman, who was attending the party, drew a pistol and fired, killing Butler, the statement said. *

*No one at the party was injured.*

*"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett told news outlets Thursday.*









						Woman legally carrying gun kills man who shot into crowd, police say
					

CHARLESTON, W. Va. (AP) — A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people that had gathered for a party, authorities said. Dennis Butler, 37, was killed Wednesday night after he pulled out the rifle and began shooting at dozens of people...




					wpde.com
				




Actual experience, actual training shows that the key to saving lives in a mass public shooting event is to get someone shooting back at the attacker.....this forces them...

1) to stop fucking shooting innocent people in order to deal with the good guy shooting at him or them....

2) The good guy approaching or attacking the guy, besides doing #1......results in suicide, running away or surrender by the attacker...rarely do they actually fight back...

Soooo...you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> Well I am interested to know the last time a functioning automatic Tommy gun was used in a crime.



Don't know.....look it up.


----------



## night_son (Jun 6, 2022)

Winston said:


> Not banning assault rifles makes zero sense.  They provide no tactical advantage for normal use, rather it is self-defense, and certainly not for hunting.  Again, several threads, literally dozens of participants, and not a single one wants to take on the cost-benefit analysis of continuing to have legal assault rifles.  One can easily substitute a legal arm to replace that AR-15, that provides little advantage.  But the cost has continued to climb, and we seem to pay it now every single week with another mass shooting event where that AR-15 is used.  Nope, no argument instead we get.
> 
> HITLER, HITLER, HITLER.
> 
> ...



Consider: your obsession with medical abortion tools vs. my so-called obsession with the AR platform. Your obsession has murdered by dismemberment at least *60 million* American children. America's obsession with the AR rifle platform has killed something like *less than 100* American children. Tell me again, fool, which obsession should be banned. 

We can do this all year if you like . . . make you look the fool you are.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 7, 2022)

night_son said:


> Consider: your obsession with medical abortion tools vs. my so-called obsession with the AR platform. Your obsession has murdered by dismemberment at least *60 million* American children. America's obsession with the AR rifle platform has killed something like *less than 100* American children. Tell me again, fool, which obsession should be banned.
> 
> We can do this all year if you like . . . make you look the fool you are.



You have absolutely nothing to say on this subject.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> Not banning assault rifles makes zero sense.


The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of  banning them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> A mentally disturbed 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop in Texas and purchase two AR-15's.  That is a fawking problem.


It was legal for him to buy any long gin because he was not a prohibited person.
He was not a prohibited person because he had not been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally infirm.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 7, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> You still don't get it.  In the US, the mass murder records all go to one weapon and one weapon alone.  Since the security of the schools started, the handguns and normal weapons no longer can go for the record.  It takes the AR.  While we may not have much control over the lower body counts, we do have control over the higher body counts.  There is an old Military saying.  You fight the Battles you have a chance to win.  We can completely stop the school shootings through common sense actions.  I won't cover them since they have been covered to death but we need to do it.


That's wrong.


Vrenn said:


> No one is arguing that point except for you.  Are you aware that the AR-15 is the father of the M-16?  The Original AR was produced so that a scared 18 year old in a firefight could throw more firepower than his enemy.  Nothing has changed.  It's still the fastest, most powerful and deadly firearm that is portable that is made today.  What's worse, there is a Cult AR going on and it's the preferred weapon for mass shootings.  We need to break that cult.



That's the stupidest thing I've seen in weeks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 7, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> That's the stupidest thing I've seen in weeks.


Something he excells at.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Dipshit........this is a lie.....handguns are used more often than these rifles in mass public shootings.......and there is only one mass public shooting where using an AR-15 made the difference in the number of people killed...and that was in Las Vegas where the range was about 400 yards......all of the other mass public shootings could have been done, with the same number of deaths, using a pump action shotgun or pistols...
> 
> How do we know?
> 
> ...


Navy Yard shooter used a pump shotgun, IIRC.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 7, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Navy Yard shooter used a pump shotgun, IIRC.




As did the Russian, Polytechnic school shooter.....5 shot pump action shotgun, killed 20 wounded 70 with the local police station about 100 yards down the road...


----------



## Flash (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> A mentally disturbed 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop in Texas and purchase two AR-15's.  That is a fawking problem.  Your solution to the problem--well, let's just make sure we can get a "good guy with a gun", to him quick after he starts KILLING CHILDREN.  And yet, in this case, we had dozens of "good guys with a gun" on the scene, and it took them an hour to work up enough nerve to breech the door.
> 
> If we have learned anything from this it is that the good guy with a gun concept falls flat on it's face, because in order for the good guy with a gun to be effective he has to have a set of balls.  Most good guys with guns, those that carry in public, don't have a set of balls, that is why they carry the gun.


In a country with 330 million people we are going to have our share of mentality disturbed people.  

They come in all ages.

Unfortunately sometimes these mentality disturbed people will do terrible things.

The fact that we have these nutcases is no reason to deprive normal people of their Constitutional rights.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

night_son said:


> Consider: your obsession with medical abortion tools vs. my so-called obsession with the AR platform. Your obsession has murdered by dismemberment at least *60 million* American children. America's obsession with the AR rifle platform has killed something like *less than 100* American children. Tell me again, fool, which obsession should be banned.
> 
> We can do this all year if you like . . . make you look the fool you are.


And what the fawk would you do if we had 60 million more American children?  You bitch and moan about a few million immigrants, talk about being a fool.  Ane there is that definition of stupid again.  You gain absolutely nothing by outlawing abortion, but then there are all those millions of children that the state is going to have to support.  Afterall, finances are the number one reason given for abortion.  Most abortions are had by women that already have children.  Think of the additional schools that would be required, financed by your property taxes.  More teachers, not like we aren't struggling to have enough now.  And again, financed with your property taxes.

Look, you want to ban abortion after viability, I am willing to support that.  In fact, the historical record reflects just such an attitude by the founders.  But these heartbeat rules, or the outright banning of abortion, is just stupid.  I mean hell, use the old gun advocates argument.  You think outlawing abortion is going to stop them?  Did it before?  You are only going to drive it underground, give organized crime another means of making money.  And endanger the lives of countless women in the process.

Come to think of it though, it might bring us full circle.  Laws against abortion were conceived for the sole purpose of wresting control of female pregnancy treatment from the midwives, mostly minorities, and delivering it to the male doctors, almost all white.  Now we can ban abortion and return control of female pregnancies back to the midwives, who are better suited for that job anyway.

But back to that AR.  I don't care if it has only killed a dozen children, it provides no distinct advantage that warrants the death of even one child.  It is a piece of shit gun designed for one thing and one thing only, KILLING PEOPLE, and not very effective at that.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
> The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of  banning them.


So, all "bearable arms" are protected by the Constitution?  Sawed off shotguns, fully automatic weapons--they are bearable arms.  Rocket launchers, RPG's, Javelins, are they not bearable arms?  How about a flare gun equipped with a slug, that is a bearable arm, but it is considered a weapon of mass destruction.  Shoot one off in your backyard and see how fast the SWAT team arrives.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

2aguy said:


> As did the Russian, Polytechnic school shooter.....5 shot pump action shotgun, killed 20 wounded 70 with the local police station about 100 yards down the road...


How screwed up is it that you take that five shot pump shotgun hunting without a plug and the game warden catches you you lose the gun and get fined in the four figures.  But you can stroll onto a school campus without that plug and not violate a single law until you start shooting people.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> He's afraid of everything. He can't find the courage to go outside without being armed.


Is that why you want other men with guns to take his guns away from him?  Because you're so courageous?


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What a stupid question.


No, it's not.  You want women disarmed.  Why?


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> Your article is from the National Review, so it's bullshit.


No, you're just a pansy.


Winston said:


> But I got to ask, some Republicans have made the claim that they don't want to attack the second amendment, they just want to make sure that guns don't fall into the hands of people that are dangerous, or could be dangerous.  Is that not precisely what Hitler did?  He didn't take away all the guns, he only took away the guns from people he considered "dangerous".


Wow.

Just.  Fucking.  Wow.  

If you morons couldn't say CONSERVATIVES ARE ALL NAZIS, you wouldn't have a fucking thing to say, would you?

Meanwhile, the left's doing the exact same thing, only the people you want disarmed are law-abiding gun owners.  You see them as dangerous because they can resist leftist tyranny.  Simultaneously, you don't even make a pretense of disarming criminals, because you WANT crime.  You WANT people to be victims of crime -- so you can swoop in and save everyone.  

It will be amusing watching you sputter and fume, lying that that isn't your goal.  Amusing -- and completely unbelievable.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> Not banning assault rifles makes zero sense.  They provide no tactical advantage for normal use, rather it is self-defense, and certainly not for hunting.  Again, several threads, literally dozens of participants, and not a single one wants to take on the cost-benefit analysis of continuing to have legal assault rifles.  One can easily substitute a legal arm to replace that AR-15, that provides little advantage.  But the cost has continued to climb, and we seem to pay it now every single week with another mass shooting event where that AR-15 is used.  Nope, no argument instead we get.
> 
> HITLER, HITLER, HITLER.
> 
> ...


So, you're afraid of the scary black rifles -- it's because they're black, isn't it? -- so nobody should be allowed to have them.

This is America.  We don't remove people's rights because some leftists are afraid.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> A mentally disturbed 18 year old can stroll into a gun shop in Texas and purchase two AR-15's.  That is a fawking problem.  Your solution to the problem--well, let's just make sure we can get a "good guy with a gun", to him quick after he starts KILLING CHILDREN.  And yet, in this case, we had dozens of "good guys with a gun" on the scene, and it took them an hour to work up enough nerve to breech the door.
> 
> If we have learned anything from this it is that the good guy with a gun concept falls flat on it's face, because in order for the good guy with a gun to be effective he has to have a set of balls.  Most good guys with guns, those that carry in public, don't have a set of balls, that is why they carry the gun.


"Excuse me, sir, are you carrying a firearm?...You are?  May I see your balls?"

Leftists have a bizarre fascination with everyone's genitals.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Vrenn said:


> You have absolutely nothing to say on this subject.


Feeling your toes stepped on?

You should.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> And what the fawk would you do if we had 60 million more American children?  You bitch and moan about a few million immigrants, talk about being a fool.  Ane there is that definition of stupid again.  You gain absolutely nothing by outlawing abortion, but then there are all those millions of children that the state is going to have to support.  Afterall, finances are the number one reason given for abortion.  Most abortions are had by women that already have children.  Think of the additional schools that would be required, financed by your property taxes.  More teachers, not like we aren't struggling to have enough now.  And again, financed with your property taxes.
> 
> Look, you want to ban abortion after viability, I am willing to support that.  In fact, the historical record reflects just such an attitude by the founders.  But these heartbeat rules, or the outright banning of abortion, is just stupid.  I mean hell, use the old gun advocates argument.  You think outlawing abortion is going to stop them?  Did it before?  You are only going to drive it underground, give organized crime another means of making money.  And endanger the lives of countless women in the process.
> 
> ...


So, you're glad children are killed by abortion.

But you're angry children are killed by firearms.

You have no concern about children; you just want people who can resist leftist tyranny disarmed.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, you're just a pansy.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...


Nobody is wanting to disarm anyone.  You can have all the guns you want, you just can't have assault rifles.  Why is it you damn gun nuts want to fabricate your own argument.  Can you not defend the AR on it's own?  The whole resist tyranny bullshit is absolutely comical, as if AR-15's can deter a fully equipped army.  Thank goodness Ukraine has not depended on the AR-15.  You morons live in a fantasy land.

And I hate to break the news to you, the second amendment was never about arming the population to overthrow a government.  I mean if that was the case there would not have been an Article 3, Section 3 in the US Constitution.

*“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.*

The primary basis of the second amendment is the fact that the founders never intended for us to have a standing army.  They wanted the population armed so that they could defend the United States, not attack it.  And to be brutally honest, anyone that has actually read the Constitution would understand that.

Like I said, you morons live in a fantasy world.  You actually believe that with your glorified plinking gun you are going to save America.  The reality is that, if push comes to shove, you will be clutching that AR while quivering under your bed.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> Is that why you want other men with guns to take his guns away from him?  Because you're so courageous?


I have never supported confiscating guns from reasonable citizens. I would make an exception in his particular case. He's nuts.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, it's not.  You want women disarmed.  Why?


So you're another nut bag who thinks he knows more about what I want than I do. Not surprising.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> So, you're afraid of the scary black rifles -- it's because they're black, isn't it? -- so nobody should be allowed to have them.
> 
> This is America.  We don't remove people's rights because some leftists are afraid.


Piss off you stupid shit.  You don't have the right to carry any gun, anywhere, any time.  The great Scalia said as much in his opinion under Heller.  I am not afraid.  Your pansy ass is the one afraid, you need a gun to feel safe.  I don't need a gun.  Matter of fact, pull a gun on me, especially an assault rifle, and I am just as likely to shove that gun up your ass as you are to shoot me.


----------



## Winston (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> So, you're glad children are killed by abortion.
> 
> But you're angry children are killed by firearms.
> 
> You have no concern about children; you just want people who can resist leftist tyranny disarmed.


You ain't going to resist jackshit.  I swear, you fuckers are morons.  You going to make a stand with a pussy ass AR-15 chambered in a .223?  Where, in your house that is pissing distance from your next door neighbor.  Bring it dumbshit.  I live a mile down a private dirt road with 200 yards of clearance between my house and anything else.  I be damned if I have an pussy ass AR-15.  I have an FAL at 7.65 mm, Appleseed qualified.  You step out of the woods and in that open area and I am popping your ass in the head.  Every single member of my family, or my "army" as Dad calls it, can do the same.  They were raised that way, not because they might have to overthrow the government, but because they might have to put down stupid dickshits like you.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> Nobody is wanting to disarm anyone.  You can have all the guns you want, you just can't have assault rifles.


If an AR is the only firearm someone owns, and you take it away, you've disarmed him or her.

You're really not a smart person.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I have never supported confiscating guns from reasonable citizens. I would make an exception in his particular case. He's nuts.


No, he just says things you don't like.  But you want him disarmed for that.  

Winston says nobody wants to disarm anybody.  But there you are.  You need to tell him he's wrong.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> So you're another nut bag who thinks he knows more about what I want than I do. Not surprising.


It's pretty obvious, dude.


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> Piss off you stupid shit.  You don't have the right to carry any gun, anywhere, any time.  The great Scalia said as much in his opinion under Heller.  I am not afraid.  Your pansy ass is the one afraid, you need a gun to feel safe.  I don't need a gun.  Matter of fact, pull a gun on me, especially an assault rifle, and I am just as likely to shove that gun up your ass as you are to shoot me.


Ooooh, tough guy.  Okay, show of hands, who's intimidated?

Odd.  I count zero.  How about you?


----------



## daveman (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> You ain't going to resist jackshit.  I swear, you fuckers are morons.  You going to make a stand with a pussy ass AR-15 chambered in a .223?  Where, in your house that is pissing distance from your next door neighbor.  Bring it dumbshit.  I live a mile down a private dirt road with 200 yards of clearance between my house and anything else.  I be damned if I have an pussy ass AR-15.  I have an FAL at 7.65 mm, Appleseed qualified.  You step out of the woods and in that open area and I am popping your ass in the head.  Every single member of my family, or my "army" as Dad calls it, can do the same.  They were raised that way, not because they might have to overthrow the government, but because they might have to put down stupid dickshits like you.


Yeah, yeah, we get it.  You like the taste of government bootleather.  No, no matter how much you stamp your feet and pout, I will not be joining you in licking boots.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 7, 2022)

daveman said:


> It's pretty obvious, dude.


You bet. I'll bet those voices in your head agree with you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 7, 2022)

Winston said:


> So, all "bearable arms" are protected by the Constitution?  Sawed off shotguns, fully automatic weapons--they are bearable arms.


Ah.   You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
"Bearable arms" are those weapons  "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
So...
The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of  banning them.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 7, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.   You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
> "Bearable arms" are those weapons  "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
> So...
> The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
> The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of  banning them.



The Thompson M1921 was also a bearable arm.  The BAR was not.  But the criminals using the Thompson made it damned dangerous just to go out to get a meal.  While the mobsters were wiping out each other there were too many civilian being killed and maimed at the same time.  So don't tell me that the Feds can't include the AR-15 into the National Fire Arms Act.


----------



## Pellinore (Jun 8, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.   You;re ignorant of the jurisprudence.
> "Bearable arms" are those weapons  "in common use" for "traditionally legal purposes".
> So...
> The AR15 is not an assault rifle.
> The AR15 IS a "bearable arm" and thus protected by the constitution; it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of  banning them.


I think you're conflating two separate Second Amendment ideas, but I get what you're talking about.

Justice Scalia often pointed out that because the Second Amendment used the term "to ... bear arms," their intent was that the Amendment didn't apply to weapons that could not be borne—battleships, cannons, and so on.  

Separate from that, one of the points he made writing for the majority in _Heller vs. DC_ was that it was their intention for the Second Amendment to apply to weapons that were in common use at the time, meaning the musket or long rifle that was hanging over each family's mantelpiece.  He then applied that to modern times, and deduced that, if they were aware of modern technology, they would have been referring to semi-automatic rifles, which, he argued, were in common use in 2008.

That does not mean that he, or any other originalist or pro-gun advocate, thought that all bearable arms were declared in common use.  It boggles the mind to imagine him thinking that a javelin or a Stinger missile, not to mention any of the weapons expressly included in the National Firearms Acts, were considered in common use simply because they could be picked up and carried.  

BUT
I see what you mean.  The AR-15 does not meet the definition of an assault rifle, because it lacks a selector switch and therefore full-auto capability.  Also, regardless of who does and does not agree with him, Justice Scalia was specifically writing about firearms like the AR-15 when he was defining "common use" weapons in _Heller_.


----------



## Vrenn (Jun 8, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> I think you're conflating two separate Second Amendment ideas, but I get what you're talking about.
> 
> Justice Scalia often pointed out that because the Second Amendment used the term "to ... bear arms," their intent was that the Amendment didn't apply to weapons that could not be borne—battleships, cannons, and so on.
> 
> ...



Full auto settings doesn't get in the way of Heller V either.  In 1929, the Thompson M1921 fit the role that you believe the AR does now.  They specifically wrote the NFA to deal with it in 1934.    And it was done by no confiscations other than confiscating them when used in criminal acts.  It took about 10 years and the 1921 was all but gone.    There has been a couple of laws passed that tightens it up a bit more but the 1934 National Firearms Act shows that it can be done if a weapon is deemed a public healthy hazard.


----------



## daveman (Jun 8, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You bet. I'll bet those voices in your head agree with you.


I have no mental issues.  I am not a leftist.


----------



## daveman (Jun 8, 2022)

Winston said:


> I have an FAL at 7.65 mm...


You obviously have no need for that weapon.  And you damn sure wouldn't pass a psych eval, you nutcase.


----------

