Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There was a time when I would have agreed with that statement.Liberals don't deal in definitions, only emotions.
You have made a definitive statement. That owning an assault rifle is insane that you wish to restrict assault rifles. No one has ever defined an assault rifle. Not even the Government.
Be so kind as to define what you claim it is insane to own. M14's pictures are perfect examples of the failure to define said weapons.
Without a definition how exactly do you plan to RESTRICT them?
I contend there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. I have owned 3 M1 carbines. 2 of them had bayonet lugs, all 3 use detachable magazines. 2 of them had muzzle suppressors. So basically according to the 1994 ban 3 rifles of identical model and make with different aesthetics, 2 fell in the ban.
Same is true of AK-47's, AR-15's Armilite rifles and any other semi automatic rifle out there. You need to define the characteristics of what you claim is an assault weapon.
Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term. I have been through this same discussion 50 times with idiots. It is common sense.
Want to ask again?
What is or is not an assault weapon is not common sense. It needs a specific definition, especially if one is discussing banning such weapons.
Liberals don't deal in definitions, only emotions.
We all know what the glee is about. its about the fact a gun fired by a white person killed a black person. Watch for some Black kids to be killed and the killer claiming that he was defending himself from the knockout game.
That being said you play with fire long enough you get burned. Maybe this will send a loud message to the other fools out there hitting people for fun. Especially women and the elderly.
Typical racist response.
The "glee" would have been exactly the same if the lady was black. The "glee" has nothing to do with race. These feral teens, black or white, need to be shown in a way that they can understand - that their cowardice violence can end with their own life.
60 Year Old Woman Shoots 2 of 7 Knock Out Attackers
Beulah Montgomery had just turned 60 the day before, when she was approached by 7 young punks playing Knock Out. One of them hit her and a second was attempting to hit her, so she reached for her gun. She fired 5 times and two of the young men fell down dead. One was hit in the stomach and one in the chest. The other five ran off after finding out their elderly victim was less than helpless. Montgomery had been mugged before and started carrying a gun for protection. The move paid off.
All I could feel was pain and I said to myself I had made it to 60 and I wanted to at least see 61. Then I started praying and I asked the Lord to guide my hands.
Read more: 60 Year Old Woman Shoots 2 of 7 'Knock Out' Attackers | Restoring Liberty
Knockout Game Turns Deadly? Did A 60-Year Old Woman Kill Two Teens? | U. S. Politics
There we go!
Clearly you aren't paying attention.Not just that, but pictures that speak far more effectively than you ever shall.Oh cool! Pictures!
They do?
What is an assault weapon?
You should hear some of the stuff that was never made public that my grandparents told me about in the South. I cant understand how they survived.
I am amazed there are supposedly educated people in America who have not heard of the Rosewood Massacre. It's an absolute shame that this is not part of the basic education of American citizens.
The number of black people killed in the Rosewood massacre was six. Why do you think it isn't part of anti racist education. Everyone would know that whe entire massacre wasn't even an average Saturday night in Chicago or Detroit.
Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term. I have been through this same discussion 50 times with idiots. It is common sense.
Want to ask again?
What is or is not an assault weapon is not common sense. It needs a specific definition, especially if one is discussing banning such weapons.
Are we discussing banning them? Are we writing legislation here?
We are having a discussion in which several liberals have been accused of supporting gun bans. I have suggested that assault weapons......as we all know them to be.....should be regulated to ensure that homicidal maniacs don't get them.
Now....every nutter knows what is meant by the generic term....assault weapon. It is common sense.
You really want it? Want me to define it for you? I will do so. Then watch the nutters tell us that my definition is nonsense and give a hundred reasons why I have no idea what I am talking about.
Here you go. MY definition.
An assault weapon is a weapon that allows an unskilled fucktard with a mental problem to murder a lot of people really quickly. IOW....one that can fire a shitload of bullets into a crowd of people in a matter of seconds without the douchebag having to stop and reload. It is a weapon that is DESIGNED for military use but can be effectively used by anyone who can pick it up and pull the trigger. but because it is cool as hell....nutters need to have them in their garage.
Now....lets go nutters. Tell me that my Rossi or my Mossburg ....in the hands of a skilled shooter...can kill a lot of people fast...so they must be assault weapons. Go ahead.
Or....tell me how if we regulate these types of weapons, it is a slippery slope and soon my Rossi and my Mossburg will be taken away. Go ahead.
Idiots.
If this were happening in my city, I would simply not go to those neighborhoods. I would not live in a crime ridden neighborhoood, even if I had to live in a tiny, one room apartment. Many times people make choices that lead to their being placed in harm's way or in dangerous situations. I'm not blaming the victim, but in a way it's no different than choosing to go bunging jumping, mountain climbing, or sky diving: if you make the choice to do something dangerous, you have to expect there may be consequences. If this woman has been mugged a couple of times already, why doesn't she move instead of getting a gun? What is the joy in killing someone? And, she was only lucky, really; she could have just as easily been killed herself. Staying away from a potentially dangerous situation is far safer than going into one armed. I have been in a situation where my life was threatened directly by someone with a gun, so I am not just talking through my hat.
So if you ever get mugged you are going to move?
It's the teenagers that made the situation dangerous, not the sixty year old lady.
I doubt that she had any joy from killing the two she shot.
I have traveled to 40 different countries by myself and never been assaulted in any way. I've lived in four different countries as well as the US and never been mugged. I was threatened with a knife once when I was 19 and learned how to avoid that by not placing myself in a precarious situation. Yes, if my neighborhood was crime ridden, I would move, why not? It is only sensible. In my 30's I used to do a lot of long distance running, on my own. I got a big dog to run with me and no one ever bothered me. Having a big dog also prevented anyone from trying to burglarize my home. In the States, I lived alone, a single woman, for many years, and never felt fearful as I had a big dog in the house with me. I also lived in a decent, non-crime ridden neighborhood. I was not rich, by any means, but I managed to find decent housing in a decent neighborhood. You can use common sense solutions without arming yourself. I have no desire at any level to kill someone; I don't believe in the death penalty and certainly not for anything other than murder. The joy you gun nuts take in potentially blowing away someone who might break into your house is very, very disturbing.
What is or is not an assault weapon is not common sense. It needs a specific definition, especially if one is discussing banning such weapons.
Are we discussing banning them? Are we writing legislation here?
We are having a discussion in which several liberals have been accused of supporting gun bans. I have suggested that assault weapons......as we all know them to be.....should be regulated to ensure that homicidal maniacs don't get them.
Now....every nutter knows what is meant by the generic term....assault weapon. It is common sense.
You really want it? Want me to define it for you? I will do so. Then watch the nutters tell us that my definition is nonsense and give a hundred reasons why I have no idea what I am talking about.
Here you go. MY definition.
An assault weapon is a weapon that allows an unskilled fucktard with a mental problem to murder a lot of people really quickly. IOW....one that can fire a shitload of bullets into a crowd of people in a matter of seconds without the douchebag having to stop and reload. It is a weapon that is DESIGNED for military use but can be effectively used by anyone who can pick it up and pull the trigger. but because it is cool as hell....nutters need to have them in their garage.
Now....lets go nutters. Tell me that my Rossi or my Mossburg ....in the hands of a skilled shooter...can kill a lot of people fast...so they must be assault weapons. Go ahead.
Or....tell me how if we regulate these types of weapons, it is a slippery slope and soon my Rossi and my Mossburg will be taken away. Go ahead.
Idiots.
Countering one bad argument with another is asinine. I'll repeat : what is or is not an assault weapon is NOT common sense. The very fact that you expect argument about the definition you provide is evidence of that.
There is no definition I am aware of that is in common use for what is an assault weapon. The closest I can think of is the expired assault weapons ban. I am confident that, were I to ask a random sample of adults from around the country to define assault weapons, I would get a variety of answers.
You are a veteran here? What does that mean exactly? You got some kind of certificate for that?
A veteran!
LO Fucking L, what a tool.
LOL. You know exactly what that means. Means I garner more respect on these boards than you do. Or ever did. That's not bragging, that's a fact.
You do?
From who?
So if you ever get mugged you are going to move?
It's the teenagers that made the situation dangerous, not the sixty year old lady.
I doubt that she had any joy from killing the two she shot.
I have traveled to 40 different countries by myself and never been assaulted in any way. I've lived in four different countries as well as the US and never been mugged. I was threatened with a knife once when I was 19 and learned how to avoid that by not placing myself in a precarious situation. Yes, if my neighborhood was crime ridden, I would move, why not? It is only sensible. In my 30's I used to do a lot of long distance running, on my own. I got a big dog to run with me and no one ever bothered me. Having a big dog also prevented anyone from trying to burglarize my home. In the States, I lived alone, a single woman, for many years, and never felt fearful as I had a big dog in the house with me. I also lived in a decent, non-crime ridden neighborhood. I was not rich, by any means, but I managed to find decent housing in a decent neighborhood. You can use common sense solutions without arming yourself. I have no desire at any level to kill someone; I don't believe in the death penalty and certainly not for anything other than murder. The joy you gun nuts take in potentially blowing away someone who might break into your house is very, very disturbing.
If you don't want to arm yourself, you have that right. If you also want to live your life in fear, then that too is your right. You don't have a right to tell others that they need to live their lives in fear. It is the 2nd Amendment which tells me that I can arm myself to protect myself & not have to live life in fear. You libs & gun grabbers never cease to amaze me for such ridiculous positions you take. If someone comes into my house & threatens me or my family, I will defend myself. If I choose to walk down a certain street, guess what, that is my right. I don't look for situations, but I shouldn't have to worry about some punk kid sucker punching me either. I guess it never dawned on to you that this lady might not have the option to move, or better yet, that she doesn't want to. Perhaps she lived there all her life & starting over at 60 isn't an option. If the thug didn't want to end up dead, then guess what, perhaps he should have thought of that ahead of time.
This is a lie.Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term.
This is a lie.Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term.
As you have refused to give us your definition of an 'assault weapon', refused to define what "restrictions" you wish to place on 'assault weapons', and refused to provide a sound argument for thise positions, we know nothing about that position.
Until you clarify those points, there's no reason to pay any attention to you.
As you refuse to describe the further restrictions you wish to place on 'assault weapons', the only person that can answer that question is you.Are we discussing banning them? Are we writing legislation here?Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term. I have been through this same discussion 50 times with idiots. It is common sense.
Want to ask again?
What is or is not an assault weapon is not common sense. It needs a specific definition, especially if one is discussing banning such weapons.
Why do you choose to be irrelevant?This is a lie.Fuck you and your bullshit. You know what an assault weapon is. You know what I mean when I use that term.
As you have refused to give us your definition of an 'assault weapon', refused to define what "restrictions" you wish to place on 'assault weapons', and refused to provide a sound argument for thise positions, we know nothing about that position.
Until you clarify those points, there's no reason to pay any attention to you.
And....obviously...you ain't payin' attention. Shocking!
I can not get to page 17 of this thread. Any idea why? Gonna have to tell me other then here as I can not get to the next page.
Why do you choose to be irrelevant?This is a lie.
As you have refused to give us your definition of an 'assault weapon', refused to define what "restrictions" you wish to place on 'assault weapons', and refused to provide a sound argument for thise positions, we know nothing about that position.
Until you clarify those points, there's no reason to pay any attention to you.
And....obviously...you ain't payin' attention. Shocking!
Why do you choose to help prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty?
I can not get to page 17 of this thread. Any idea why? Gonna have to tell me other then here as I can not get to the next page.
Well I can access 18 but not 17.
