3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[Lesh]

No I’m amazed how dumb shits like you keep going on and on about gun control but know nothing about guns.

What are you claiming he doesn't know that you do?

 

[impuretrash]

White people make up approximately 9% of the global population and our birthrates are declining. When people on your side of the aisle say that Trump tapped into "white fear" you might be onto something. But you want to portray these worries as something malignant that needs to be stamped out. When a community or group becomes more "diverse", it really means less white...doesn't it? Admit it, in practice adding diversity means making something less white.

I'm not exactly sure who "people on your side of the aisle" are. You mean sane non racist people?

OK.

"But you want to portray these worries as something malignant that needs to be stamped out"

Well...yea. Because that "worry" ends up being dead people shot in churches,synagogues, and mosques.

Admit it, in practice adding diversity means making something less white.
You're gonna stay as white as you ever were. If you mean society as a whole? Yea. Big deal. It's a color. I happen to love purple. Unfortunately for me. People aren't ever gonna be purple. I'll survive. Lighten up. Color don't mean shit

Color doesn't mean shit? Is that why ethnic groups band together and develop unique cultures and traditions? Is that why America is so full of divisions along racial lines? Because of something that "dont mean shit"?

 

[Vandalshandle]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

Wrong.the argument over "cosmetic features" was an argument over how to define what is and is not an assault rifle and it began because gun nuts were trying to confuse the issue. They SHOULD have simply banned all magazine fed semi auto rifles. That would have been far more effective and far more "elegant".

Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders

So banning any type of rifle will do nothing to lower the murder rate

True. Oswald could have achieved the same effect with a really long knife. So could the guy in Vegas, and the guy at the Texas Tower...

Still doesn't change the stats does it?

Right, because that is all that matters, the stats. It is not about the innocent lives taken.

 

[Lesh]

Those lives these gun nuts are discounting sure matter a lot to the parents and families of the victims of these shootings

 

[blackhawk]

No I’m amazed how dumb shits like you keep going on and on about gun control but know nothing about guns.

What are you claiming he doesn't know that you do?

I know that you don't classify a gun as an assault weapon based on apperance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The hell they do. And all of Fox DRIPS with anti-immigrant rhetoric

Lying doesn't help your case, scumbag.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whats going to happen if we got rid of the guns? Use trucks more?
You reactionaries are going to want to ban them as well.

Well we can look at countries with good gun control to answer that question. Looks like just less mass killings.

We can also look at cities with good gun control.

Cities don't have walls. Easy to get guns in and out obviously. Funny how you jump around. Fact is mass murder is unique to the US. Places with good gun control don't have a mass murder problem, and yes they have trucks.

New Zealand is an ISLAND, yet it was obviously easy to get a gun in and out.

The gun laws you push have nothing to do with mass shootings, that is not their intent.

You cannot enforce "The Green Raw Deal" on an armed population, THAT is why you Marxists want to disarm America,

Som, yiou have no clue that it is legal to own guns in New Zealand. If you are this uninformed, please shut the fuck up.

Scumbag, I have posted the laws a dozen times in this thread, lying now just further proves what a worthless pile of lying shit you are.

New Zealand outlawed semi-automatic rifles in 1992.

You can own a SHOTGUN, if you have a permit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Som, yiou have no clue that it is legal to own guns in New Zealand. If you are this uninformed, please shut the fuck up.

And unlike here...NZ is going to now BAN these weapons

They BANNED THEM IN 1992, you lying pile of shit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

It's not how it looks. It's how it operates and what it is intended to be used as. If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

Not the "appearance" bullshit.

But lets talk appearance. So, you are having a fucking fit because you might not be able to own a gun that just looks mean? Really

No I’m amazed how dumb shits like you keep going on and on about gun control but know nothing about guns.

Try that aregument with me, cupcake.

 

[Blues Man]

Not this stupid fucking argument again.
Jesus fuck can you get a fucking brain.

So, you are too embarrassed to say why you need to own an assault rifle? You are embarrassed to say what you do with it?
Is it you can;'t shoot? Is it because it makes you feel like a tough guy when you carry it? Are you such an asshole, thousands of people want to attack you?

A semiautomatic rifle is not an assault rifle

How many times do you have to be told this?

And FYI I don't own an AR 15 because I think it's underpowered. I prefer my .308 with hollow point ammo.

You think an AR 15 does damage? You should see what my .308 does

And if you go into a firefight with your 308 you will shoot way too slow due to slow loading and you will die quickly. Your rifle is a long ranged weapon. The closest thing your 308 could be used for would be sniper duty. But up close and near personal, the little black gun is the best of the best at it in a fire fight. And just because it's a semi auto doesn't make it less or more capable as a weapon of war. It's all the other features that your 308 rifle doesn't have that makes the AR the weapon of choice for the Finely Dressed Discernible Mass Murderer or Soldier in a firefight.

I'm not going to be going into a fire fight anytime soon so who the fuck cares? And guess what most people won't be getting into a fire fight either.

And if I do use a .308 with a hollow point at close range in home defense it'll work just fine. But chances are if I do ever need a firearm for home defense I'll grab my 12 gauge or my .40 or my Judge.

Your 308 will penetrate not only the bad guy but your exterior wall, your neighbors exterior wall, one of his interior walls and go all the way through his 3 year old and still keep traveling. The 223 will stop just the other side of your neighbors exterior wall and probably not kill his family as long as they are not directly on the other side of that exterior wall. Rifles of any kind are horrible home defense weapons. The muzzle energy of the 223 at 400 yds is more than your 40 at the muzzle. The 223 is equal at 400 yds to the muzzle energy of a 357 mag at the muzzle. Your choice of alternative weapons pretty well confines the projectiles inside the house. The only time you should use a rifle for home defense is when you have absolutely no other options.

Hollow point

 

[Blues Man]

I always laughed at the idea that the bayonet mount was one of the criteria. Driveby bayonetings were such a problem back in the 90s.

Being able to SAY idiot shit like that was why gun nuts insisted on all that wrangling about how to define an assault weapon

Idiot shit? You are actually defending banning rifles based on whether or not they have a mount for a bayonet? You are afraid someone will be stabbed by a rifle with a bayonet? Yeah, that speaks volumes.

Stop and think about it. Why does the AR have the capability to accept a Bayonet Rail? Why can it accept 20 and 30 round mags? Why does it have all it's other features? Because it was designed specifically to efficiently kill in the speediest way possible in a firefight in a WAR. Let's face it, as a sporting Rifle, it's not very good for the price. You can buy a full fledged Savage Axis II with a Bull Barrel and a 7X40 Scope already mounted on it for a lot less money and shoot rings around an AR all day long using the same ammo. If you need a bit more power, the Axis even comes in a 556 Nato round barrel for 20 bucks more but it won't be any more accurate than the 223 version firing the 223 ammo. It will just shoot a bit further and the cost of the ammo will be a lot higher. If you need more than that, for 399.99, you can get an Axis II in the 6.5 Creedmore caliber and that puppy will reach out touch something out to about 600 yds all day long. The AR is so far down on the list for a sporting rifle that I have no idea why any sane person would call it a sporting rifle unless it's people that are being listed as sporting game.

If a rifle can accept a 5 or 10 round magazine it can accept a 20 or 30 round magazine

And your opinion of the Ar is just that your opinion.

Millions of people own them and it is their opinion that it is perfectly suited for their needs.

It's not up to you to tell anyone what firearm they should use.

And who needs a 30 or 50 round mag for a "Sporting" rifle again? Do you you need the rails to mount the M-203 Grenade Launcher, or a Bayonet among other nasty things. The only real use, outside of showing off to your buddies, is taking down a movie house full of people, concert watchers or school children for 30 round mags. You want to show off to your drunk buddies, drop your pants and show them your fat ass.

And this isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the Voters of Colorado (and other states), the Colorado Legislation and Governor (and other states) and the Federal Courts. IT's the law, cupcake. You don't like it, move to Yemen where they don't have any firearm laws and get back to us just how that works out for you.

Here we go again


It's not up to you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need.

If you don't want to use a magazine bigger than 5 rounds then don't. No one cares what rifles you prefer, what magazine you prefer and it's none of you rbusiness what other people use

 

[Blues Man]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

Not the "appearance" bullshit.

But lets talk appearance. So, you are having a fucking fit because you might not be able to own a gun that just looks mean? Really

No I’m amazed how dumb shits like you keep going on and on about gun control but know nothing about guns.

Try that aregument with me, cupcake.

Another internet tough guy

 

[Blues Man]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

Not the "appearance" bullshit.

But lets talk appearance. So, you are having a fucking fit because you might not be able to own a gun that just looks mean? Really

What does it matter what a rifle looks like if it performs the same as other rifles of the same caliber?

 

[Blues Man]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

It's not how it looks. It's how it operates and what it is intended to be used as. If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.

It doesn't operate any differently than any other semiautomatic.

And it's the user that defines the intent

 

[Blues Man]

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

Wrong.the argument over "cosmetic features" was an argument over how to define what is and is not an assault rifle and it began because gun nuts were trying to confuse the issue. They SHOULD have simply banned all magazine fed semi auto rifles. That would have been far more effective and far more "elegant".

Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders

So banning any type of rifle will do nothing to lower the murder rate

True. Oswald could have achieved the same effect with a really long knife. So could the guy in Vegas, and the guy at the Texas Tower...

Still doesn't change the stats does it?

Right, because that is all that matters, the stats. It is not about the innocent lives taken.

YEs the stats matter because that's how you identify the extent of the problem

It's best not to legislate with emotion

 

[Aponi]

The last three whack jobs that went on a shooting spree used semi automatic rifles. The last two wore tactical gear.

Background checks?

If all these nutsos want them then I suggest that the idea some one wants them is a sign they are mentally off.

The more they assault type rifles want, the more whacked they are. Probably at least at by the square of that number.

Have two, 4 times as as crazy. Have 4, 16 times as crazy.

Next, add another factor of ten for every piece of "tactical gear" they own.

Really, you are way off the deep end if you have to dress up in this tactical gear.

Real sane gun owners wouldn't own an assault type rifle. Not good for hunting, not good for self defense. They would be safe.

Just those crazy fucks running around in tactical gear toting their AR-15, round them up & send them to the psycho ward.

We own several guns those you can buy after a back round check and class 2 weapons and devices that take ATF approval.
I have a sucessfull business and my boy freind works in areo space . we have 2 kids im bi racial hes white.
We have a hidden gun safe in our home. Were both very same. We enjoys our firearms when we have time. We both have conceled carry permits.

Millions of Americans own semi auto guns .the percentige of gun deaths in the united states that are done with a rifle are slightly over 1 percent.

Your a radical.
Our constitution assures us the right to bear arms .
Not just for our private safety and hunting and recreation but aginst our own goverment .
Your a moron .

 

[Soupnazi630]

So do rental trucks

Yes you want as many options available. Seems guns are used a whole lot more.

Whats going to happen if we got rid of the guns? Use trucks more?
You reactionaries are going to want to ban them as well.

Well we can look at countries with good gun control to answer that question. Looks like just less mass killings.

We can also look at cities with good gun control.

Cities don't have walls. Easy to get guns in and out obviously. Funny how you jump around. Fact is mass murder is unique to the US. Places with good gun control don't have a mass murder problem, and yes they have trucks.

You massively fail the logic test.

New Zealand has a mass murder problem and massive gun control.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those lives these gun nuts are discounting sure matter a lot to the parents and families of the victims of these shootings

They only matter to you when the numbers reach a certain level. Kill 6? No biggie. Kill 15, we must do something!

 

[WinterBorn]

You guys do know a semi automatic and an assault rifle are not the same thing right?

You assfucks know we had an assault rifle ban. & do you know what as banned?

Do we really need to say assault type rifles?

Everyone knows what is bseuinbg discussed.

The idea you God damn gun nuts think your right to own assault type rifles so you can get all beered up & shoot bottles outweighs the right of children not to be slaughtered in school is just plain ridiculous.

That ban was a ban of cosmetic features that do nothing to increase the lethality of a rifle

It also had nothing to do with the validity of the ‘ban.’

The people determine what is or isn’t an assault weapon, predicated on whatever criteria they see fit, including cosmetic features.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that a semi-auto AR platform rifle or carbine shouldn’t be subject to an AWB fails as being ignorant and ridiculous, completely devoid of legal merit.

If you deciding rather or not a gun should be banned or declared an assault weapon based on it's apperance then you are the one being ignorant and showing a total lack of knowledege and common sense.

It's not how it looks. It's how it operates and what it is intended to be used as. If you change the looks you also change the features and the use and the intent. Simple as that.

Really? Look at a Ruger Mini14 and at an AR. The AR gives people nightmares. The Ruger is just an old style, wood stocked rifle.

But other than the modular build of the AR, there is not much difference as far as features and use. The intent has nothing to do with the rifle. The intent is with the shooter.