Florida Pulse gay club attacked

[Czernobog]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

 

[Iceweasel]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

 

[Czernobog]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

While they look similar, consider this...

M-4 A1 = Caffeinated
AR-15 = De-Caffeinated

simple concept for a simple mind...

 

[Mudda]

Here is the definition for you of assault weapons. If you'd like I can also post the definition of ignorance, since you are ignorant of its meaning.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calling someone ignorant and posting a wikipedia link to prove his case is off the charts ironic.

Merriam-Webster: Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

Happy?

PS there's this thing called Google, try it sometime!

I don't do homework for retards.

Your link was sloppy and defeats your argument. It says:
Definition of assault weapon

1. : any of various automatic or semiautomatic

That's a rather wide range.

You need hunting rifles and home/personal defense weapons like handguns. The rest are for terrorists, mass murderers and dooffuses.

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

 

[Iceweasel]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

 

[Iceweasel]

Calling someone ignorant and posting a wikipedia link to prove his case is off the charts ironic.

Merriam-Webster: Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

Happy?

PS there's this thing called Google, try it sometime!

I don't do homework for retards.

Your link was sloppy and defeats your argument. It says:
Definition of assault weapon

1. : any of various automatic or semiautomatic

That's a rather wide range.

You need hunting rifles and home/personal defense weapons like handguns. The rest are for terrorists, mass murderers and dooffuses.

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

I don't like drunk drivers and if you own a car turn it in. Otherwise you are helping drunk drivers kill people, and they do so in much more abundance.

You can turn in your rifle, when did I say you shouldn't? The economy didn't die but assholes like you will be the first ones robbing people for food if it does. Your feelings trump other people's rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

To a leftists, "assault weapon" is anything that will help you resist their murderous tyranny.

 

[Czernobog]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

And, by the way, how am I "changing my argument". I started out saying that the only difference is the firing rate. I am still maintaining the the only difference is the firing rate. To argue that the firing rate is the "only" issue that matters in designating a weapon as an assault weapon is fallacious.

 

[Iceweasel]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

You can assault people with a baseball bat but that doesn't make it an assault weapon. You stupidly think by labeling a AR an assault weapon it will move us closer to an "assault weapons" ban. The Dems won't touch it because they've burned bridges with that before.

 

[Mudda]

Merriam-Webster: Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON

Happy?

PS there's this thing called Google, try it sometime!

I don't do homework for retards.

Your link was sloppy and defeats your argument. It says:
Definition of assault weapon

1. : any of various automatic or semiautomatic

That's a rather wide range.

You need hunting rifles and home/personal defense weapons like handguns. The rest are for terrorists, mass murderers and dooffuses.

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

I don't like drunk drivers and if you own a car turn it in. Otherwise you are helping drunk drivers kill people, and they do so in much more abundance.

You can turn in your rifle, when did I say you shouldn't? The economy didn't die but assholes like you will be the first ones robbing people for food if it does. Your feelings trump other people's rights.

Not one terrorist drove drunk to kill people. EPIC FAIL number 1.
If I don't have a gun, how am I going to rob people? And the first one at that? EPIC FAIL number2.

And we all noticed that you don't dispute that your stance on easy access to assault weapons is helping terrorists.

You're an EPIC FAIL as an American.

 

[bodecea]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

You can assault people with a baseball bat but that doesn't make it an assault weapon. You stupidly think by labeling a AR an assault weapon it will move us closer to an "assault weapons" ban. The Dems won't touch it because they've burned bridges with that before.

How many in Pulse would have been taken down by a baseball bat before it was over?

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't do homework for retards.

Your link was sloppy and defeats your argument. It says:
Definition of assault weapon

1. : any of various automatic or semiautomatic

That's a rather wide range.

You need hunting rifles and home/personal defense weapons like handguns. The rest are for terrorists, mass murderers and dooffuses.

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

I don't like drunk drivers and if you own a car turn it in. Otherwise you are helping drunk drivers kill people, and they do so in much more abundance.

You can turn in your rifle, when did I say you shouldn't? The economy didn't die but assholes like you will be the first ones robbing people for food if it does. Your feelings trump other people's rights.

Not one terrorist drove drunk to kill people. EPIC FAIL number 1.
If I don't have a gun, how am I going to rob people? EPIC FAIL number2.

And we all noticed that you don't dispute that your stance on easy access to assault weapons is helping terrorists.

You're an EPIC FAIL as an American.

You missed the point patting yourself on the back makes you look even stupider. You don't have a point, you offered us nothing to dispute. We can't dispute your feelings. You've repeated that line at least 20 times from what I've seen, thinking it somehow becomes valid with repetition.

It's no small coincidence that dumb fucks like you share similar ideologies.

 

[Mudda]

You need hunting rifles and home/personal defense weapons like handguns. The rest are for terrorists, mass murderers and dooffuses.

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

I don't like drunk drivers and if you own a car turn it in. Otherwise you are helping drunk drivers kill people, and they do so in much more abundance.

You can turn in your rifle, when did I say you shouldn't? The economy didn't die but assholes like you will be the first ones robbing people for food if it does. Your feelings trump other people's rights.

Not one terrorist drove drunk to kill people. EPIC FAIL number 1.
If I don't have a gun, how am I going to rob people? EPIC FAIL number2.

And we all noticed that you don't dispute that your stance on easy access to assault weapons is helping terrorists.

You're an EPIC FAIL as an American.

You missed the point patting yourself on the back makes you look even stupider. You don't have a point, you offered us nothing to dispute. We can't dispute your feelings. You've repeated that line at least 20 times from what I've seen, thinking it somehow becomes valid with repetition.

It's no small coincidence that dumb fucks like you share similar ideologies.

Here, just so you have a taste of what being an American is all about.

 

[Czernobog]

And while we're looking at what an AR-15 is, perhaps a little history is in order. You see, we're all told that this is "just a hunting rifle". Except that's not entirely true. Until the late 1950's the military weapon of choice was the M-14. Unfortunately, the M-14 was less than useful against soldiers using helmets. So, the Army asked gun manufacturers to design a weapon that would make two holes with one bullet - entrance, and exit. Now, let's let that soak in for a second: "The army asked..." Not "hunters wanted...", or "sportsmen were requesting...", or even "shooting contest participants needed...", but the ARMY asked. Anyone who wants to tell you that an AR-15 is "just a hunting rifle" need only be reminded of that right there. This was never a "hunting" design; it was a military design. And it was specifically designed to rip through helmets, and bone of the enemy. The military design was the M-4 A1, and was a fully automatic. Colt, then, redesigned a semi-automatic version, dubbed it the AR-15, and sold it for civilian use.

Now, there are going to be peopled who insist that the M-4 A1, and the AR-15 are two completely different weapons, and don't even look similar. Really?

That's all the AR-15 is. It is the M-4 A1, without the full auto function. Tell us again, how it's not a military assault style weapon, and was only made, and meant for hunting?

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

You can assault people with a baseball bat but that doesn't make it an assault weapon. You stupidly think by labeling a AR an assault weapon it will move us closer to an "assault weapons" ban. The Dems won't touch it because they've burned bridges with that before.

"Mounting an assault" is not synonymous with "assaulting someone", and you know it. "Mounting an assault" refers to assaulting a location with multiple targets. Now, could you mount an assault on a facility with a baseball bat? I suppose, if you were stupid enough. But, could you reasonably expect any positive result? No. With an assault weapon, on the other hand...

I'm actually beginning to agree with Mudda. Since you do not deny that the AR-15 is, in fact, a military design, and you acknowledge that the only difference between the M4, and the AR15 is the rate of fire, why do you want to make it easier for terrorists, and nutcakes to get their hands on weapons that make it easier to kill large groups of people?

 

[Iceweasel]

So when your posts are demonstrated to be stupid you simply change the narrative? The AR is a fantastic home defense weapon. Very accurate, the .223 or 5.56 round doesn't penetrate drywall like even a 9mm handgun round.

Plus I have no idea what the future will hold. If the economic system collapses or is disrupted, a possible terrorist attack, anarchy may erupt and scumbags may hit the streets and homes taking what they can. Their luck will run dry at my humble abode.

If it means keeping ARs out of the hands of terrorists and mass murderers, me personally, I'd be willing to give up such a gun or the possibility of buying one. But hey, that's just me, I'll do what it takes to stop terrorists. You on the other hand, are helping them. Everyone has to make a choice in these hard times. You choose to let terrorists buy such weapons.

And as for the economic system collapsing, it already did a few years ago. How useful was your assault weapon? The rest is pure NRA paranoia.

I don't like drunk drivers and if you own a car turn it in. Otherwise you are helping drunk drivers kill people, and they do so in much more abundance.

You can turn in your rifle, when did I say you shouldn't? The economy didn't die but assholes like you will be the first ones robbing people for food if it does. Your feelings trump other people's rights.

Not one terrorist drove drunk to kill people. EPIC FAIL number 1.
If I don't have a gun, how am I going to rob people? EPIC FAIL number2.

And we all noticed that you don't dispute that your stance on easy access to assault weapons is helping terrorists.

You're an EPIC FAIL as an American.

You missed the point patting yourself on the back makes you look even stupider. You don't have a point, you offered us nothing to dispute. We can't dispute your feelings. You've repeated that line at least 20 times from what I've seen, thinking it somehow becomes valid with repetition.

It's no small coincidence that dumb fucks like you share similar ideologies.

Here, just so you have a taste of what being an American is all about.

You post bullshit then think a video makes it go away?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

You can assault people with a baseball bat but that doesn't make it an assault weapon. You stupidly think by labeling a AR an assault weapon it will move us closer to an "assault weapons" ban. The Dems won't touch it because they've burned bridges with that before.

"Mounting an assault" is not synonymous with "assaulting someone", and you know it. "Mounting an assault" refers to assaulting a location with multiple targets. Now, would you mount an assault on a facility with a baseball bat? I suppose if you were stupid enough. But, could you reasonably expect any positive result? No. With an assault weapon, on the other hand...

I'm actually beginning to agree with Mudda. Since you do not deny that the AR-15 is, in fact, a military design, and you acknowledge that the only difference between the M4, and the AR15 is the rate of fire, why do you want to make it easier for terrorists, and nutcakes to get their hands on weapons that make it easier to kill large groups of people?

"Rate of fire" means everything

 

[Iceweasel]

The M4 shoots three round bursts, not full auto. That's considered an assault weapon, for war. The AR does not have that function unless some illegally turns it into am assault rifle. How many more times are you going to demonstrate your ignorance here?

So, it has the same muzzle velocity. Can use the same clips, has the same force, but because it can't fire burst rounds that should make all the difference? That's what you're saying? At least you're not trying to deny that it is a military weapon, by design, not a hunting weapon.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now you are trying to shift the conversation again. It's a pattern with you. Shoot of your big mouth, make a fool of yourself then pretend the conversation was about something else in your victory dance.

They use magazines, not clips. Like I said the three round burst or full auto makes it an assault rifle. Semi-autos are not assault weapons.

Well, I think the people who use them to mount assaults - San Bernadino, Sandy Hook, Orlando - would disagree with you. They seem to make excellent assault weapons.

You can assault people with a baseball bat but that doesn't make it an assault weapon. You stupidly think by labeling a AR an assault weapon it will move us closer to an "assault weapons" ban. The Dems won't touch it because they've burned bridges with that before.

"Mounting an assault" is not synonymous with "assaulting someone", and you know it. "Mounting an assault" refers to assaulting a location with multiple targets. Now, would you mount an assault on a facility with a baseball bat? I suppose if you were stupid enough. But, could you reasonably expect any positive result? No. With an assault weapon, on the other hand...

I'm actually beginning to agree with Mudda. Since you do not deny that the AR-15 is, in fact, a military design, and you acknowledge that the only difference between the M4, and the AR15 is the rate of fire, why do you want to make it easier for terrorists, and nutcakes to get their hands on weapons that make it easier to kill large groups of people?

You can double down on retard, your call not mine. I don't want terrorists in the country. Trump is right and we should have had a plan in place to check the background of anyone coming in. The shooter wouldn't even have been here.

So it's you two retards that want to make it easier for terrorists to commit murder and since guns make you pee your diapers you try to blame them instead. You are the problem, not me.

 

[Indofred]

Orlando gay nightclub shooting: Who was Omar Mateen? - BBC News

It seems he was a mentally ill lone wolf gunman.

How does he seem mentally ill? He meticulously planned this attack. He had been in contact with radical Islamics and had visited Saudi Arabia twice. He held down a regular job. Killing people does not make him mentally ill.

So the right wing papers tell us,
Another news source has let out more.

He was a gay customer of the club for at least three years.

Orlando killer Omar Mateen 'visited Pulse gay club' - BBC News

Chris Callen, a performer at Pulse in Orlando, Florida, told the New York Daily News that Omar Mateen had visited the venue over the past three years.

The story is turning from an ISIS radical Muslim mass murder to a poof with a legal gun shooting up his bitches.
Maybe one of them bit whilst sucking him off.

The Trump version of the story is falling apart as the truth comes out.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is proof positive of how deranged liberals really are. Hillary wants to increase obama's reckless immigration policy, including terrorist hot spots like Syria. That WILL bring in more terrorists. But the liberal thinks if only we had tougher gun laws we'd all be safer.

Vote for a liberal and you are part of the problem.