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.
actually stupid, 100 round magazines are useless they are to heavy and jam too easy. you should hope some one tries to use them they will spend all their time unjamming the firearm.I never said I did.
But you missed the point that magazine size is irrelevant to anyone hell bent on killing people
But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.
With a 100 round magazine you can look like a badass at the shooting range
But it serves you no practical purpose
It is highly desired by someone who wants to slaughter small children in an elementary school or shoot up a church
If that is the case, you should have no issue with banning them
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
30 round magazines have been the standard for years.
only recently have 30 round magazine been called high capacity.
Military assault rifles are also capable of fully automatic and burst firing
Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?
And only media fed MORONS talk about banning them.I can see the case where someone who belongs to a well regulated militia has a need for a large capacity magazine. It could be necessary to the security of a free state
But a private gun owner has no use for one other than playing Rambo at the local gun range
Again, in most of these crimes the perp could have done just as much damage with 10 round mags and a few hours practice swapping them out.
Actually, no
Having to carry multiple small capacity magazines and efficiently swap them out under extreme stress is no easy task.
If it was just as easy......Mass killers would use smaller capacity magazines....They don't
For a trained person it's a matter of convenience only.
Its more than convenience. It is efficiency in killing
No....100 round magazine jam the weapon......only silly people use them.
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
i oppose banning anything that you think should be banned because you are dishonest about your intentions.actually stupid, 100 round magazines are useless they are to heavy and jam too easy. you should hope some one tries to use them they will spend all their time unjamming the firearm.But only people intent on killing lots of people want a 100 round magazine.
With a 100 round magazine you can look like a badass at the shooting range
But it serves you no practical purpose
It is highly desired by someone who wants to slaughter small children in an elementary school or shoot up a church
If that is the case, you should have no issue with banning them
My intentions are clear
I do not want evil sons of bitches who want to shoot up a church or a school to have access to weaponry that gives them military-like firepower. And that goes for body armor also
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
30 round magazines have been the standard for years.
only recently have 30 round magazine been called high capacity.
Military assault rifles are also capable of fully automatic and burst firing
Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?
That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
30 round magazines have been the standard for years.
only recently have 30 round magazine been called high capacity.
Military assault rifles are also capable of fully automatic and burst firing
Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?
That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...
A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat
Now, suppose I want to shoot up a concert in Las Vegas
Ten rounds just doesn't cut it when I can get 45 rounds and a bump stock
Die suckers....Die
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
No...it isn't....that is the lie you guys keep telling. The 30 round magazine is a standard magazine...and of course, you also want the 15-19 round magazines too......and then, the 10 round magazines...and then the 6 shot revolvers.......
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
No...it isn't....that is the lie you guys keep telling. The 30 round magazine is a standard magazine...and of course, you also want the 15-19 round magazines too......and then, the 10 round magazines...and then the 6 shot revolvers.......
Yes, and then we will ban toenail clippers because they might be used as a weapon-------------silly
more effective than asking them to stop killing us.I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?
So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.
FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.
How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.
30 round magazines have been the standard for years.If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
only recently have 30 round magazine been called high capacity.
Military assault rifles are also capable of fully automatic and burst firing
Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?
That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...
A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat
No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......
If it doesn't make a difference, why does the military ALWAYS use high capacity magazines in combat?
They don't use high capactiy magazines...they use standard 30 round magazines that are standard for the weapon........please...do some research...it will make your posts more accurate.
30 rounds is high capacity.
No...it isn't....that is the lie you guys keep telling. The 30 round magazine is a standard magazine...and of course, you also want the 15-19 round magazines too......and then, the 10 round magazines...and then the 6 shot revolvers.......
Yes, and then we will ban toenail clippers because they might be used as a weapon-------------silly
They are trying to ban knives in Britain......and you aren't allowed to use Pepper spray there either....
more effective than asking them to stop killing us.I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?
So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.
FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.
How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.
well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.more effective than asking them to stop killing us.I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?
So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.
FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.
How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.
Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?
well since you're entire premise of *needing* an effective defense would be useless against our government, i was going on the presumption of continuing that thought, not starting a new one.more effective than asking them to stop killing us.I do. The point of the 2nd was to have a well armed citizenry to keep the government in check, and be able to resist if said government became tyrannical. Is there any threat of our government becoming tyrannical today? No, of course not. The same was once true of pre-American revolution England too though, so that argument rings pretty hollow for most pro-2nd students of history. There is, and cannot be, a law(s) that would permanently prevent a government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical, therefore we MUST have the option of being able to mount an effective resistance to such oppression and tyranny.Do you think full auto's and armed Abrams tanks should be legal for me to purchase?
So, as long as the military has full autos and tanks, we should maintain the RIGHT to acquire and possess them as well.
FWIW, I draw the line at nukes. It is my opinion that nukes should remain a purely strategic weapon, and NEVER be used. I wish we could live in a world without them, unfortunately that is impossible. However, there is no reasonable use for such weapons in a government resistance scenario for either side, therefore there is no reasonable reason for civilians to acquire or possess them. There MAY be other weapons systems too, such as a "Strategic Missile Defense" system that would be impractical for civilians.
How much of an effective resistance do you think a few rifles and handguns will be against our military? Admit that your silly fantasy about resisting the government has no relation to reality, and gun nuts are just doing what gun nuts do.
Have you had a problem with the government killing you. Do you expect the government to kill you in the near future?
you are the one who said the guns wouldn't do any good against the gov. i'm just saying IF we should EVER GET TO that situation, i'd rather have them than not.
30 round magazines have been the standard for years.
only recently have 30 round magazine been called high capacity.
Military assault rifles are also capable of fully automatic and burst firing
Other than being being capable of fully automatic and burst firing, and the seer and bolt carrier differences that allow that, what is the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15?
That is the difference...the only one that counts. There are 13 million AR-15 civilian rifles, none of them are capable of firing in burst or fully automatic mode.......they are civilian self defense rifles that are now the most popular hunting rifle...they are also used by civilian police...
A weapon designed specifically for military combat that has it's full auto capability removed is still a weapon designed specifically for military combat
No....when you remove the select fire, fully automatic fire ability....it is no longer a military rifle...it becomes a civilian and police rifle.......
So if I take a 22 rimfire simi-auto and convert it to full auto, that would make it a military grade combat weapon? Full auto and select fire are the only determinations of what is used in combat?
