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.
LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.If I think something ought to exist, and some clown tells me to "pound sand" does not mean I will acquiesce. I will continue to post an argue my common sense opinions.
Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.
Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.
Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.
All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.
You are a DAMN LIAR
Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
And if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.
Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.
Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.
For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.
For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.
If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.
Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?
Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?
What evidence do you have that laws yet to be passed will not be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of those most of us know should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a firearm?
[BTW you first paragraph states my argument is that our Federal Government's laws are ineffective because they are not enforced: A Straw Man which won't burn since I never stated that nor believe it]
How would you enforce the gun laws "vigourously"?
And if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.
Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.
Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.
For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.
For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.
If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.
Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?
Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?
What evidence do you have that laws yet to be passed will not be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of those most of us know should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a firearm?
[BTW you first paragraph states my argument is that our Federal Government's laws are ineffective because they are not enforced: A Straw Man which won't burn since I never stated that nor believe it]
How would you enforce the gun laws "vigourously"?
the only legal gun law is the 2nd amendment,,,
Have you read the 2nd A.?
Where is the mention of guns in the 2nd A.?
"Arms" shall not be infringed. A very broad array of weapons wouldn't you agree? Are there limits, is it possible that anyone can legally own, possess, market and sell a surface to air missile?
Do you think Mohammed who came as a tourist to the US can legally purchase such a missile and its launcher, and not disclose who has rented an apt. within striking distance to a major airport?
clearly from your comment its you that hasnt read it,,,And if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.
For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.
For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.
If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.
Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?
Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?
What evidence do you have that laws yet to be passed will not be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of those most of us know should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a firearm?
[BTW you first paragraph states my argument is that our Federal Government's laws are ineffective because they are not enforced: A Straw Man which won't burn since I never stated that nor believe it]
How would you enforce the gun laws "vigourously"?
the only legal gun law is the 2nd amendment,,,
Have you read the 2nd A.?
Where is the mention of guns in the 2nd A.?
"Arms" shall not be infringed. A very broad array of weapons wouldn't you agree? Are there limits, is it possible that anyone can legally own, possess, market and sell a surface to air missile?
Do you think Mohammed who came as a tourist to the US can legally purchase such a missile and its launcher, and not disclose who has rented an apt. within striking distance to a major airport?
Have you read the 2nd A.?
Where is the mention of guns in the 2nd A.?
"Arms" shall not be infringed. A very broad array of weapons wouldn't you agree? Are there limits, is it possible that anyone can legally own, possess, market and sell a surface to air missile?
Do you think Mohammed who came as a tourist to the US can legally purchase such a missile and its launcher, and not disclose who has rented an apt. within striking distance to a major airport?
Do you think when they referred to the defense of the free state and a regulated militia in the Second Amendment, they were talking about hunting or sport rifles?
Do you think when they referred to the defense of the free state and a regulated militia in the Second Amendment, they were talking about hunting or sport rifles?
I don't know what ["they"?] each individual who signed off on the Bill of Right's were thinking.
You're not interested in civil debate. You want immediate, unquestioning agreement and endorsement. And you get hyper-emotional when you don't get it.LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.You can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.
Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.
Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.
All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.
You are a DAMN LIAR
Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
Well, you've proved to be an asshole who can't or won't debate civilly and are another uneducated clown whose opinions are dusty cobwebs of NRA propaganda.
Rant away, and feel brave to call me a "little bitch";I put punks like you in cages during my career, and never once fired my service weapon anywhere but on the range.
OH DAMN U RITE FAM NEVER HEARD THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE IMMA GIVE UP ALL MY GUNS NOWAnd if those laws are not enforced how effective are they?Noting here changes - and, indeed, only serves to prove - the fact you can neither soundly demonstrate the necessity for nor the efficacy of the restrictions you seek - thus, you further illustrate there is no sense in them whatsoever.
Keep up the good work.
For the record, you can read words, it seems you can't comprehend what they mean when put together in a paragraph, when in an expository argument.
For the record (which seems too abstract for you to understand) the law CANNOT prevent law breaking, it can punish the law breaker by restricting their liberty and/or assessing a fine.
If your State required a license to own, possess or have in your custody and control a gun, and you had said license, you right to own your gun(s) is not infringed; no more so than a surgeon must be licensed or a driver to drive a car.
Your own argument is that our federal gun laws are ineffoective because they are not enforced so how would any new laws be more effective if they are not enforced?
Don't you think we should vigorously enforce the gun laws we do have before we pass more laws?
What evidence do you have that laws yet to be passed will not be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of those most of us know should not own, possess or ever have in their custody and control a firearm?
[BTW you first paragraph states my argument is that our Federal Government's laws are ineffective because they are not enforced: A Straw Man which won't burn since I never stated that nor believe it]
How would you enforce the gun laws "vigourously"?
the only legal gun law is the 2nd amendment,,,
Have you read the 2nd A.?
Where is the mention of guns in the 2nd A.?
"Arms" shall not be infringed. A very broad array of weapons wouldn't you agree? Are there limits, is it possible that anyone can legally own, possess, market and sell a surface to air missile?
Do you think Mohammed who came as a tourist to the US can legally purchase such a missile and its launcher, and not disclose he has rented an apt. within striking distance of a major airport?
Do you think when they referred to the defense of the free state and a regulated militia in the Second Amendment, they were talking about hunting or sport rifles?
I don't know what ["they"?] each individual who signed off on the Bill of Right's were thinking.
I didn't ask you what they were thinking, I asked you what you thought they were talking about, dumbass.
It doesn't require you to know what they were thinking, just what you think they could have been talking about in regards to what they wrote, and the parameters I presented.
You're not interested in civil debate. You want immediate, unquestioning agreement and endorsement. And you get hyper-emotional when you don't get it.LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.Consider this: There is no efficacy to have speed limits, stop signs or Red Light restrictions;no need to license medical doctors, lawyers, or teachers; no law to prevent murder, kidnapping for ransom or lying under oath if your logic made sense.
Your logic suggests your doctor has a degree in basket weaving, on his way to treat your burst appendix, he ran two red lights and four stop signs and lied to you that you won't need anesthesia for this minor surgery.
Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.
All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.
You are a DAMN LIAR
Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
Well, you've proved to be an asshole who can't or won't debate civilly and are another uneducated clown whose opinions are dusty cobwebs of NRA propaganda.
Rant away, and feel brave to call me a "little bitch";I put punks like you in cages during my career, and never once fired my service weapon anywhere but on the range.
You put punks like me in cages? What crime have I committed, other that Not Bowing Down Before Fly Catcher?
Do you think when they referred to the defense of the free state and a regulated militia in the Second Amendment, they were talking about hunting or sport rifles?
I don't know what ["they"?] each individual who signed off on the Bill of Right's were thinking.
I didn't ask you what they were thinking, I asked you what you thought they were talking about, dumbass.
It doesn't require you to know what they were thinking, just what you think they could have been talking about in regards to what they wrote, and the parameters I presented.
You asked: Do you think when they referred to the defense of the free state and a regulated militia in the Second Amendment, they were talking about hunting or sport rifles
I wouldn't know. First of all the 2nd A. was not part of the Constitution when ratified:
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Article 2 concerning “varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives” was finally ratified on May 7, 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative, was never ratified.
Bill of Rights (1791) (print-friendly version)
I'm reasonably certain that those who signed off on the 2nd A. never imagined a time where a citizen with an "arm" would enter a school room and murder a dozen and a half 5 year old boys and girls.
Most it seems were concerned that the "Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government", thus having the ability of a State Militia to provide some protections as suggested in Art I, Sec 8, clause 16.
Predicated upon the wording in Clauses 12, 13, 14, 15; considering in particular the 16th clause, to wit:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
I wouldn't call you a bitch if you didn't act like a bitch. Don't like it? Stop being a bitch.You're not interested in civil debate. You want immediate, unquestioning agreement and endorsement. And you get hyper-emotional when you don't get it.LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.Uh huh. Meanwhile, in reality, criminals don't obey the law. Not even your "common sense" laws.
All your laws will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves and their families.
You are a DAMN LIAR
Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
Well, you've proved to be an asshole who can't or won't debate civilly and are another uneducated clown whose opinions are dusty cobwebs of NRA propaganda.
Rant away, and feel brave to call me a "little bitch";I put punks like you in cages during my career, and never once fired my service weapon anywhere but on the range.
You put punks like me in cages? What crime have I committed, other that Not Bowing Down Before Fly Catcher?
You need to get some lead foil and place it in a hat, your imagination is being sent by radio waves from the outer limits.
Punks are cowards who use inflammatory language and rant when being arrested and detained. You rant because you cannot post a concise, clear and cognizant response to anything I've posted, and when frustrated by your lack of skills, you default and call me a little bitch.
I'm not little, I'm not a female dog and you're a sad little punk hiding behind a keyboard.
I wouldn't call you a bitch if you didn't act like a bitch. Don't like it? Stop being a bitch.You're not interested in civil debate. You want immediate, unquestioning agreement and endorsement. And you get hyper-emotional when you don't get it.LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.You are a DAMN LIAR
Tell me and the readers what part of my common sense suggestions will deprive a sober, sane, law abiding citizen the ability to defend him/herself and their family or property?
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
Well, you've proved to be an asshole who can't or won't debate civilly and are another uneducated clown whose opinions are dusty cobwebs of NRA propaganda.
Rant away, and feel brave to call me a "little bitch";I put punks like you in cages during my career, and never once fired my service weapon anywhere but on the range.
You put punks like me in cages? What crime have I committed, other that Not Bowing Down Before Fly Catcher?
You need to get some lead foil and place it in a hat, your imagination is being sent by radio waves from the outer limits.
Punks are cowards who use inflammatory language and rant when being arrested and detained. You rant because you cannot post a concise, clear and cognizant response to anything I've posted, and when frustrated by your lack of skills, you default and call me a little bitch.
I'm not little, I'm not a female dog and you're a sad little punk hiding behind a keyboard.
I've posted many concise, clear, and cognizant responses to your posts over the years.
You don't accept them as such because they don't reaffirm your own views. And you, as you've repeatedly shown, don't handle disagreement well.
And your pompous assertion that I'm a punk hiding behind a keyboard is especially amusing, since you're hiding behind a keyboard yourself. Your implication is, of course, that in person, you'd get physically violent. Leftists are like that. You lot are unhinged.
So I'm going to continue to say what I want, and your permission is neither sought nor required. And it looks like there ain't shit you can do about it, Tough Guy. Well, you could put me on Ignore, but your ego won't let you do that, will it?
Bitch.
Common sense gun regulations are not about taking guns away from everyone
NRA and supporters say common sense gun regulations are the government attempting to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Bull Shit - it is an evil attempt to confuse logical arguments for gun control. Those who confuse the discussion with lies all have blood on their hands.
What function?and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.
.
You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.
The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.
Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.
The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?
It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.
I don't know why. You never explained why.
You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the fuck that means). That is not the fucking job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.
We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.
.
I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.
I went to the gun range with my 1911 45 Ruger. Fun stuffWhat function?and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.
.
You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.
The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.
Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.
The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?
It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.
I don't know why. You never explained why.
You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the fuck that means). That is not the fucking job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.
We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.
.
I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.
cupcake.
.
I wouldn't call you a bitch if you didn't act like a bitch. Don't like it? Stop being a bitch.You're not interested in civil debate. You want immediate, unquestioning agreement and endorsement. And you get hyper-emotional when you don't get it.LOL! No, Fly Catcher, I will NOT kiss your ass, no matter how much you think you're entitled to it.
Your laws might not deprive normal people from defending themselves.
But the left -- the left is never satisfied with "just a few more laws".
The left's goal is confiscation, and always has been.
The additional laws you want will prove useless against criminals (because, as has repeatedly pointed out, criminals don't obey the law).
Once your laws are shown to have no effect, you will stamp your feet and emotionally insist on more laws. You'll call them "common sense", too.
That's the way every gun law has been passed. That's the way Americans' Second Amendment rights have eroded over the years -- because we need "just a few more laws" to make us safe.
Thing is -- the left doesn't want us safe.
You want us disarmed.
That is undeniable history.
Now throw another little bitch fit. It changes nothing.
Well, you've proved to be an asshole who can't or won't debate civilly and are another uneducated clown whose opinions are dusty cobwebs of NRA propaganda.
Rant away, and feel brave to call me a "little bitch";I put punks like you in cages during my career, and never once fired my service weapon anywhere but on the range.
You put punks like me in cages? What crime have I committed, other that Not Bowing Down Before Fly Catcher?
You need to get some lead foil and place it in a hat, your imagination is being sent by radio waves from the outer limits.
Punks are cowards who use inflammatory language and rant when being arrested and detained. You rant because you cannot post a concise, clear and cognizant response to anything I've posted, and when frustrated by your lack of skills, you default and call me a little bitch.
I'm not little, I'm not a female dog and you're a sad little punk hiding behind a keyboard.
I've posted many concise, clear, and cognizant responses to your posts over the years.
You don't accept them as such because they don't reaffirm your own views. And you, as you've repeatedly shown, don't handle disagreement well.
And your pompous assertion that I'm a punk hiding behind a keyboard is especially amusing, since you're hiding behind a keyboard yourself. Your implication is, of course, that in person, you'd get physically violent. Leftists are like that. You lot are unhinged.
So I'm going to continue to say what I want, and your permission is neither sought nor required. And it looks like there ain't shit you can do about it, Tough Guy. Well, you could put me on Ignore, but your ego won't let you do that, will it?
Bitch.
Punk,
Post anything on the issue in question which was, "Clear, Concise and Cognizant". And BTW, your personal attack is like water off the back of a duck. Childish and Cowardly.
What function?and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.What is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.
.
You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.
The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.
Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.
The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?
It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.
I don't know why. You never explained why.
You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the fuck that means). That is not the fucking job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.
We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.
.
I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.
cupcake.
.
What function?and the function that the AR system has is the same function that every other system has.There is at least a 50/50 split on this issue, mainly because there is no way to define a "military-style assault weapon" without banning 75% of all firearms. This is a cosmetic issue at the absolute best.
.
You still on that tired old Assault Rifle kick? There is a way and some states and cities have found a way and made it stick. You are right, assault rifle by broad description catches a large percentage of modern rifles including the venerable Savage Model 60 that most of us learned to shoot on. The Model 60 is the most numerous rifle in the United States (sorry, AR fans). More people own the Savage as well. But the Assault description catches it. So they came up with new wording. "Ar-15 and it's various Clones" does the job. It's very specific and only catches one rifle and it's various copies. And it stuck in the Courts as legal. Oregon just passed an assault ban and it's going to last about 10 minutes in court until they change it to read like the successful states.
The AR-15 just isn't cosmetics. It looks like it does because of function. There has been no attempt at adding anything cosmetic to it. It's downright homely because anything built with strict function in mind will be ugly. It was designed as a battle rifle so that a scare shitless kid of 18 or 19 can operate it, shoot hundreds of bullets quickly while pumped up on heavy adrenaline. There is no weapon that does it better as cheaply as the AR style rifle. No cosmetics, just function.
Pulling the trigger of an AR15 produces the same number of shots of any other semi automatic weapon produces with one pull of the trigger.
The only real advantage of the AR system is its customizability. That should not be a bad thing. An AR platform customized and design for a small body woman to use is ideal and more safe. The AR is not a one size fits all. It can be adjusted. Somehow you believe that a bad thing?
It is just a cosmetic issue for you. It looks scary.
I don't know why. You never explained why.
You once said in another thread that banning the AR system ends the gun cult (whatever the fuck that means). That is not the fucking job of government. That is, in fact, a first amendment issue.
We are not going to agree to ban the AR system. If anything, we are going to expand rights like we have been doing with concealed carry.
.
I've covered this at least 5 times in detail. You refuse to listen and then you bring up the same BS all over again and expect me to cover it once again. Not this time, cupcake, and the States, Counties and Cities agree with me more each day. If it were just cosmetics, the AR would at least not be so damned homely. It's all function.
cupcake.
.
If you have to ask......it makes great cupcakes, cupcake.[/QUOTE/]
You really believe that people would turn over their semi-automatics to little commie fucks like yourself? Fream on, dickhead.
