3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[Blues Man]

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

I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.

Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.

First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.

Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.

Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.

Are you really that naive?

You present yourself as one so wise that everyone should just do what you say.

A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.

And here we go again with the USMB morons manufacturing things other people say and then arguing about them

Where did i ever say "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS"?

You want so much to be taken seriously but you won't be until you stop lying about what other people say

 

[Lesh]

A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.

Good argument for banning (future sales of...because you'll pretend I meant confiscation) ANY gun that accepts a detachable mag

 

[Soupnazi630]

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 .

So you fall back to the murder numbers instead of mass shooting numbers. Nice try.

Is your semi automatic rifle's use for fun worth the deaths from their use in mass shootings.

Is the use of your dick for fun worth the victims from the use of other dicks in rape?

 

[Aponi]

And let's not forget that this suicide thing is about as cynically bogus as you can get.

A suicide attempt using a gun is almost always successful. Not so with other methods.

AND..most mass murders ARE suicides.

So now most mass murders are suicides .your a moron

 

[Blues Man]

A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.

Good argument for banning (future sales of...because you'll pretend I meant confiscation) ANY gun that accepts a detachable mag

So why don't you now admit you have lied multiple times about things I have said

I notice you ignored the post where I supported my argument about you being a lying sack of shit

 

[Aponi]

A guy shooting kids will kill just as many with a few 20 round mags.

Good argument for banning (future sales of...because you'll pretend I meant confiscation) ANY gun that accepts a detachable mag

No im not pretending but you tell me the differance between a ar 15 and a glock 17 other then barrel length and caliber

 

[Aponi]

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

I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.

Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.

First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.

Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.

Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.

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

I like the limit of not more than 20, myself. But that's just me and that conflicts with many States and others. It's not the 20 round mags that are doing the mass shootings. It's the 30 and larger. It difficult to justify having a 30 round mag just because you can when those are the tools of the well dressed Mass Shooter. It's called using common sense. Put a limit of 20 rounds and it won't affect ANY decent handgun at all. It really won't even affect any sane AR either. I personally think an AR looks rediculous with a 10 round mag. When Colorado went to the 15 round max, the only mags available for new guns was the 10s. It just didn't look right. Once the 15 round mags were manufactured, the gun looked right. They could have put a 20 round max on it and nothing would have really changed since that was the box stock mag it was sold with in the first place. The 30 and larger were all speical orders.

Step one, and the only step, is to start using common sense. Remove the fear from both sides and do what common sense tells us to do. When you remove the fear, you also remove the hate.

First to the far left. You are NEVER going to gather up all the guns. It just won't happen. Stop spreading the hate and fears trying to get to that end. The only thing you are doing is dividing a Nation.

Now to the far right. If they were coming for your guns, it would have already happened. But there will be gun regulations and always has been from about 1871 forward. For the East and Europe, it goes back a lot further than that. What your job is to do is to work with others to make sure that the gun regs are common sense and not over the top. If you keep saying over and over, "NO REGULATIONS" or "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS", then the hate and fears and dividing of the nation for just the express purpose of causing hate and fear continues.

Now, both of you go back to your rooms and don't come out until you decide to work things out.

You know ive never heard of a 30 or even a 10 round mag killing anyone. And I have never see a news report of a ar 15 ever breaking bad and shoot a person

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

The shopoter used two semi=automatics & they said his gun ownership was legal.

Bullshit.

The "MSSA" as the NZ government called them were prohibited from commoners in 1992.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, an armed lunatic is more dangerous. But the problem is the lunatic. Most mass shooters were known to be lunatics before they murdered.

The most deadly attack used airplanes. The second most deadly attack used a Ryder rental truck.

Those who focus on the tools used to do evil are fools, or more likely agenda driven scum seeking to infringe liberty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 .

So you fall back to the murder numbers instead of mass shooting numbers. Nice try.

Is your semi automatic rifle's use for fun worth the deaths from their use in mass shootings.

Tell me ass fuck dave the moron is you use of a car worth all the deaths in car wrecks should you not ban cars and ride a jack ass to work

You need to understand, RealDave has never held a job or contributed to society. He doesn't grasp the concept of commuting or needing transportation for work. For those like RealDunce, they plan their day around the bus schedule, it doesn't really matter what time he gets to the corner downtown to start pan handling, it's not like he punches a clock. So he would gladly outlaw all cars, except those for the party bosses.

 

[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

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

If you are saying that it performs the same when you pull the trigger once or even twice or even three times, you are correct. In fact, the AR is substandard to the Savage Axis II as a Varmint Rifle when you are using a single trigger pull using the same ammo. In fact, the Savage Axis II is 150 bucks cheaper and has ALL the features you need to varmint hunt at almost any range.

But if you are talking about burning through 120 rounds of ammo in a matter of a few seconds then the AR is king of the hill. If you are talking about something that is designed specifically for a firefight in battle, the AR is king of the hill. Spooner got that right from day one. There is a reason why the design has not changed in over 60 years. It was made for war the right way the first time. It was perfect using the technology that has been available for the last 50 years. Today, they are talking about keeping the same AR (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 and M-4 are also ARs) and just increasing the caliber from 556 to 6.8spc. They aren't changing a thing except the barrel inside diameter, the combustion chamber and the mag to accept the fatter cartridge. The fatter cartridge is the same weight as the 556 that uses brass. The new Cartridge uses a composite to stay the same weight. In the end, they can easily and cheaply convert the M-16s and M-4s (and by definition the AR-15s) from 556 to 6.8spc in the field. In fact, almost any shooter that can field strip and clean an AR can do the upgrade as well. That way, it's even better suited for WAR.

It's not to you nor me to determine whether an AR is allowed or not. It's up to the community, itself. I don't stand on a soap box and scream one way or another like you and other do. In my area, the AR has fallen out of it's cult status and it's jamming up the shelves unsold in gun shops these days. Those that were wanted have already been sold. Even used ones aren't moving in the Pawn Shops these days. You seem to want to make us all believe that the Cult isn't a cult at all. EVERYONE must have an AR. It's a life and death situation. Well, cupcake, it's not.

Do I need a weapon of war versus a really decent sporting rifle? No. What can the AR do that a good Savage 223 Axis II can't do? But I can think of a few things that the Axis II can do much better than the AR for a lot less money. If you are talking about a Ranged Weapon for the Range, the AR is a piece of junk. There are so many others that blow it away that it's not even worth mentioning. The only thing that the AR can do better than the others is burn through 120 or more rounds faster than any other gun and hit almost nothing down range in the process. But if I needed a gun to mow down turkeys in cages as quickly as possible then the AR would be the weapon of choice. Or an auditorium of people, same difference.

For those communities that don't want the mowing down in the auditoriums, they will probably ban the AR and it's various clones. Or at least ban the larger capacity mags. At the same time, they will change their way of operating so that the shooter will have a harder time to get in place to start his carnage. My opinion and your opinion really doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's the Community's opinion that counts. You want to be a real hero, work with the Community to have sane gun regs instead of bans. Spread the Love, not the Hate.

 

[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

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

If you are saying that it performs the same when you pull the trigger once or even twice or even three times, you are correct. In fact, the AR is substandard to the Savage Axis II as a Varmint Rifle when you are using a single trigger pull using the same ammo. In fact, the Savage Axis II is 150 bucks cheaper and has ALL the features you need to varmint hunt at almost any range.

But if you are talking about burning through 120 rounds of ammo in a matter of a few seconds then the AR is king of the hill. If you are talking about something that is designed specifically for a firefight in battle, the AR is king of the hill. Spooner got that right from day one. There is a reason why the design has not changed in over 60 years. It was made for war the right way the first time. It was perfect using the technology that has been available for the last 50 years. Today, they are talking about keeping the same AR (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 and M-4 are also ARs) and just increasing the caliber from 556 to 6.8spc. They aren't changing a thing except the barrel inside diameter, the combustion chamber and the mag to accept the fatter cartridge. The fatter cartridge is the same weight as the 556 that uses brass. The new Cartridge uses a composite to stay the same weight. In the end, they can easily and cheaply convert the M-16s and M-4s (and by definition the AR-15s) from 556 to 6.8spc in the field. In fact, almost any shooter that can field strip and clean an AR can do the upgrade as well. That way, it's even better suited for WAR.

It's not to you nor me to determine whether an AR is allowed or not. It's up to the community, itself. I don't stand on a soap box and scream one way or another like you and other do. In my area, the AR has fallen out of it's cult status and it's jamming up the shelves unsold in gun shops these days. Those that were wanted have already been sold. Even used ones aren't moving in the Pawn Shops these days. You seem to want to make us all believe that the Cult isn't a cult at all. EVERYONE must have an AR. It's a life and death situation. Well, cupcake, it's not.

Do I need a weapon of war versus a really decent sporting rifle? No. What can the AR do that a good Savage 223 Axis II can't do? But I can think of a few things that the Axis II can do much better than the AR for a lot less money. If you are talking about a Ranged Weapon for the Range, the AR is a piece of junk. There are so many others that blow it away that it's not even worth mentioning. The only thing that the AR can do better than the others is burn through 120 or more rounds faster than any other gun and hit almost nothing down range in the process. But if I needed a gun to mow down turkeys in cages as quickly as possible then the AR would be the weapon of choice. Or an auditorium of people, same difference.

For those communities that don't want the mowing down in the auditoriums, they will probably ban the AR and it's various clones. Or at least ban the larger capacity mags. At the same time, they will change their way of operating so that the shooter will have a harder time to get in place to start his carnage. My opinion and your opinion really doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's the Community's opinion that counts. You want to be a real hero, work with the Community to have sane gun regs instead of bans. Spread the Love, not the Hate.

And once again that entire post is all your opinion and it does nothing to invalidate the opinion of millions of other people who like the Ar 15 and think it suits their needs.

 

[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.

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.

I suggest you handle a Mini-14 and try and do a speed mag change. Hell run through a mag change of 4. Then do the same with an AR. Then tell me which is faster, easier, etc.. Spooner designed the AR for firefights where you are being shot at, where you are adrenilined up, where you are scared shitless and prone to make mistakes. The only reason the 556 Nato was chosen was because of weight, not lethality. And the AR does it's job extremely well. Better than any other rifle out there today.

Meanwhile, the Mini-14 is downright cumbersome when changing out the mags on a reload. That same scared shitless kid pumped up on adreniline is more likely to drop the mag hes wanting to load into his Mini-14 as not. And it takes both hands and coordination. Something you may not have a lot of in a firefight. This is one of the reasons the M-14 and M-1 went by the way to the M-16. That and weight. I prefer a M-14 over a M-16 but that's just me but I know in a down and dirty firefight I would be better off with a M-16 with lots and lots of extra mags.

On the plus side of the AR, you never know when a bunch of armed Ground Hogs are going to corner you in a warehouse and you are going to need all those extra rounds. You know how dangerous a Ground Hog is carrying a AK?

 

[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.

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.

I suggest you handle a Mini-14 and try and do a speed mag change. Hell run through a mag change of 4. Then do the same with an AR. Then tell me which is faster, easier, etc.. Spooner designed the AR for firefights where you are being shot at, where you are adrenilined up, where you are scared shitless and prone to make mistakes. The only reason the 556 Nato was chosen was because of weight, not lethality. And the AR does it's job extremely well. Better than any other rifle out there today.

Meanwhile, the Mini-14 is downright cumbersome when changing out the mags on a reload. That same scared shitless kid pumped up on adreniline is more likely to drop the mag hes wanting to load into his Mini-14 as not. And it takes both hands and coordination. Something you may not have a lot of in a firefight. This is one of the reasons the M-14 and M-1 went by the way to the M-16. That and weight. I prefer a M-14 over a M-16 but that's just me but I know in a down and dirty firefight I would be better off with a M-16 with lots and lots of extra mags.

On the plus side of the AR, you never know when a bunch of armed Ground Hogs are going to corner you in a warehouse and you are going to need all those extra rounds. You know how dangerous a Ground Hog is carrying a AK?

Your opinion

You know I really don't give a shit what rifle anyone owns or why they own it.

Why you seem to is beyond me.

And I already told you I don't own any 5.56 rifles so your opinion is even more meaningless to me than it is to anyone else who owns any rifles chambered for 5.56 rounds.

PEople like what they like and it's none of your fucking business

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So we shouldn't worry about our kids surviving the day in school or the mall or a movie or church without being gunned down.
We shouldn't notice when a gun nut shoots Six HUNDRED people at a concert

Right

Ok moron name a concert where 600 people were killed you lying twat.
59 people were killed in mass shootings this year.
You have lost your mind . i have kids you dumb bitch.
I carry a gun and if were at the movies guess what ill shot anyone who indangers my kid.
You actually think you can confiscate all the semo auto gun in america you must be the dumbest bith in america

I have NEVER advocated confiscating ANY guns you lying piece of shit

Read what I posted liar. Paduch gunned down SIX HUNDRED people in Vegas.
Here's my EXACT quote. "We shouldn't notice when a gun nut shoots Six HUNDRED people at a concert"
as far as you protecting your kids. You ain't with them 24/7. And no one was in any position to do much of anything about that Vegas killer

Any other lies you feel the need to tell?

He did not shoot 600 people, it was 400, the muslim terrorist with his rental truck killed 86, and injured 435...the Vegas shooter killed 58.....

We obviously need to ban rental trucks.....

the bomber in Oklahoma...using another rental truck, killed 168 and injured over 680....so again, according to you, we really need to ban rental trucks...which are deadlier than rifles....

You conveniently leave out that the truck bombings have stopped completely in the United States. How? Again, you leave out the facts that we now look at the large purchases of the chemicals that makes them possible in the first place. A Rental Van full of Diesel Fuel only Burns. Now, mix in the Nitrogen Fertilizer and a few other chemicals and you have a HUGE boom. They restricted the amount of Nitrogen type chemicals you can buy. Even a Farmer has to hire a reputable company to come spread it on their acreage.

BTW, are you aware that Nitrogen is used in the powder that you fire in your gun as well? Think about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, an armed lunatic is more dangerous. But the problem is the lunatic. Most mass shooters were known to be lunatics before they murdered.

The most deadly attack used airplanes. The second most deadly attack used a Ryder rental truck.

Those who focus on the tools used to do evil are fools, or more likely agenda driven scum seeking to infringe liberty.

When I read your response, I read "Hate, Fear, Hate Fear". Nothing more.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

I understand that "compassion"is not the NRA strongpoint. But, as long as we are not legislating based on emotion, someone should mention this concept to those that refer to abortion as "murder".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

If you are saying that it performs the same when you pull the trigger once or even twice or even three times, you are correct. In fact, the AR is substandard to the Savage Axis II as a Varmint Rifle when you are using a single trigger pull using the same ammo. In fact, the Savage Axis II is 150 bucks cheaper and has ALL the features you need to varmint hunt at almost any range.

But if you are talking about burning through 120 rounds of ammo in a matter of a few seconds then the AR is king of the hill. If you are talking about something that is designed specifically for a firefight in battle, the AR is king of the hill. Spooner got that right from day one. There is a reason why the design has not changed in over 60 years. It was made for war the right way the first time. It was perfect using the technology that has been available for the last 50 years. Today, they are talking about keeping the same AR (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 and M-4 are also ARs) and just increasing the caliber from 556 to 6.8spc. They aren't changing a thing except the barrel inside diameter, the combustion chamber and the mag to accept the fatter cartridge. The fatter cartridge is the same weight as the 556 that uses brass. The new Cartridge uses a composite to stay the same weight. In the end, they can easily and cheaply convert the M-16s and M-4s (and by definition the AR-15s) from 556 to 6.8spc in the field. In fact, almost any shooter that can field strip and clean an AR can do the upgrade as well. That way, it's even better suited for WAR.

It's not to you nor me to determine whether an AR is allowed or not. It's up to the community, itself. I don't stand on a soap box and scream one way or another like you and other do. In my area, the AR has fallen out of it's cult status and it's jamming up the shelves unsold in gun shops these days. Those that were wanted have already been sold. Even used ones aren't moving in the Pawn Shops these days. You seem to want to make us all believe that the Cult isn't a cult at all. EVERYONE must have an AR. It's a life and death situation. Well, cupcake, it's not.

Do I need a weapon of war versus a really decent sporting rifle? No. What can the AR do that a good Savage 223 Axis II can't do? But I can think of a few things that the Axis II can do much better than the AR for a lot less money. If you are talking about a Ranged Weapon for the Range, the AR is a piece of junk. There are so many others that blow it away that it's not even worth mentioning. The only thing that the AR can do better than the others is burn through 120 or more rounds faster than any other gun and hit almost nothing down range in the process. But if I needed a gun to mow down turkeys in cages as quickly as possible then the AR would be the weapon of choice. Or an auditorium of people, same difference.

For those communities that don't want the mowing down in the auditoriums, they will probably ban the AR and it's various clones. Or at least ban the larger capacity mags. At the same time, they will change their way of operating so that the shooter will have a harder time to get in place to start his carnage. My opinion and your opinion really doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's the Community's opinion that counts. You want to be a real hero, work with the Community to have sane gun regs instead of bans. Spread the Love, not the Hate.

And once again that entire post is all your opinion and it does nothing to invalidate the opinion of millions of other people who like the Ar 15 and think it suits their needs.

There are apprx 5 million AR-15s and clones out there at any given time. Many own more than one. That doesn't mean there are 5 million AR owners. It only means there are 5 million ARs at any given time. Chances are, because many will own more than one, the actual number AR owners will be less, far less, than 1 million. But we have absolutely no way of knowing. You may claim that you know but that would be a lie.

My opinion is for both sides to look at it and make common sense decisions. You just want to spread hate and fear. Fine. But I want to put out the information to help the majority to make those common sense decisions that you fear and hate so much.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

I suggest you handle a Mini-14 and try and do a speed mag change. Hell run through a mag change of 4. Then do the same with an AR. Then tell me which is faster, easier, etc.. Spooner designed the AR for firefights where you are being shot at, where you are adrenilined up, where you are scared shitless and prone to make mistakes. The only reason the 556 Nato was chosen was because of weight, not lethality. And the AR does it's job extremely well. Better than any other rifle out there today.

Meanwhile, the Mini-14 is downright cumbersome when changing out the mags on a reload. That same scared shitless kid pumped up on adreniline is more likely to drop the mag hes wanting to load into his Mini-14 as not. And it takes both hands and coordination. Something you may not have a lot of in a firefight. This is one of the reasons the M-14 and M-1 went by the way to the M-16. That and weight. I prefer a M-14 over a M-16 but that's just me but I know in a down and dirty firefight I would be better off with a M-16 with lots and lots of extra mags.

On the plus side of the AR, you never know when a bunch of armed Ground Hogs are going to corner you in a warehouse and you are going to need all those extra rounds. You know how dangerous a Ground Hog is carrying a AK?

Your opinion

You know I really don't give a shit what rifle anyone owns or why they own it.

Why you seem to is beyond me.

And I already told you I don't own any 5.56 rifles so your opinion is even more meaningless to me than it is to anyone else who owns any rifles chambered for 5.56 rounds.

PEople like what they like and it's none of your fucking business

When they were using Dynamite to blow up houses, safes, schools, etc. was it wrong to regulate Dynamite? Or should we have done nothing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, an armed lunatic is more dangerous. But the problem is the lunatic. Most mass shooters were known to be lunatics before they murdered.

The most deadly attack used airplanes. The second most deadly attack used a Ryder rental truck.

Those who focus on the tools used to do evil are fools, or more likely agenda driven scum seeking to infringe liberty.

When I read your response, I read "Hate, Fear, Hate Fear". Nothing more.

I can help;

Hooked on Phonics | Learn to read