For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[RandallFlagg]

Libs.....Yall want "Weapons of War" banned. Hillary said so.

Let's be honest and discuss.

Is this a weapon of war:

View attachment 78196

Indeed it is - outstanding rifle!!

 

[Old Rocks]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.

That would include every pistol. Right?

Are you that ignorant? Revolvers are not semi-automatics. Six to nine shots, and then considerable time to reload.

 

[Old Rocks]

Libs.....Yall want "Weapons of War" banned. Hillary said so.

Let's be honest and discuss.

Is this a weapon of war:

View attachment 78196

My, my, trying to improve on your record as a dumb fuck? How many people have done mass shootings with a gun like that lately? The choice of the crazies has been semi versions of war guns for the last 20 years.

 

[bucs90]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.

That would include every pistol. Right?

Are you that ignorant? Revolvers are not semi-automatics. Six to nine shots, and then considerable time to reload.

OK GUN FOLKS.....DISCUSS^^^^^^

A liberal just said "a revolver is not a semi-automatic".

Discuss....

 

[bucs90]

Libs.....Yall want "Weapons of War" banned. Hillary said so.

Let's be honest and discuss.

Is this a weapon of war:

View attachment 78196

My, my, trying to improve on your record as a dumb fuck? How many people have done mass shootings with a gun like that lately? The choice of the crazies has been semi versions of war guns for the last 20 years.

You mean aside from the Muslim DC Snipers in 2002???? Or the original mass shooter....the Texas U bell tower sniper? Other than those (there's more)?

Is it a weapon of war...or not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

During the debate over the Assault Weapons ban, the NRA and their paid Republican lackeys debated cosmetics of guns. Flash suppressors, grips, barrel length, general appearances.

Nobody wanted to take on the real danger of the weapons- the semi-automatic firing system and large ammunition capacity clips.

These are the weapons wrecking havoc on our streets. In the hands of gangs, in the hands of terrorists, in the hands of the mentally frazzled.

But those important issues were buried by minutiae. By cosmetics. By the NRA (a wholly irresponsible organization more enthralled by the power and phallic attraction of weapons of war and totally indifferent to gun violence)

Even after Newtown, the NRA failed to take responsible action.

And ‘take responsible action’ doesn’t mean ‘banning’ anything.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Americans are slow to react, but they do react.

Worse, Americans are even slower to take preemptive actions -- and not just in military/security matters. Moreover, when many Americans advocate for proscriptive actions, the actions are often "knee-jerk" and "gut sense" in nature rather than issuing from credible and cogent analysis.

And those many Americans whose actions are often "knee-jerk" and "gut sense" in nature are for the most part conservative.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libs.....Yall want "Weapons of War" banned. Hillary said so.

Let's be honest and discuss.

Is this a weapon of war:

View attachment 78196

My, my, trying to improve on your record as a dumb fuck? How many people have done mass shootings with a gun like that lately? The choice of the crazies has been semi versions of war guns for the last 20 years.

You mean aside from the Muslim DC Snipers in 2002???? Or the original mass shooter....the Texas U bell tower sniper? Other than those (there's more)?

Is it a weapon of war...or not?

The only ignorance we’ve seen has come from the right, particularly with regard to the law, along with the moronic arrogance common to most conservatives – the ridiculous notion that conservatives can ‘education’ anyone about anything.

Again, your thread fails as a composition fallacy.

And again, liberals own guns, know about guns, and enjoy the shooting sports – if anyone needs to be educated it’s conservatives: they need to learn that no one want’s to ‘ban’ guns, that no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns, and that no one believes the inane lies you and other conservatives contrive and attempt to propagate.

 

[OKTexas]

Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.

Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.

Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.

**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.


2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR

View attachment 78100



I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.

Me thinks you're over estimating their capacity to learn, willful ignorance is impossible to overcome.

 

[P@triot]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing. Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Hey Timmy - why do you beat your wife? Do you know how sick that is?!?

Hey Pat, I'm just repeating stuff said by the gun "experts" that started this fucking thread .

Is it so outrageous to say hand guns are designed to kill ?

Yeah. It is. Really outrageous. If guns are "designed to kill" - why does law enforcement carry them? Are police officers and FBI agents actuall paid assassins?

 

[P@triot]

Nice deflection. Too bad it's wrong . Libs have been fighting for gun control because of all those shootings you speak of.

So you admit that liberals have been "fighting" to destroy the U.S. Constitution? Awesome...

 

[P@triot]

And again, liberals own guns, know about guns, and enjoy the shooting sports – if anyone needs to be educated it’s conservatives: they need to learn that no one want’s to ‘ban’ guns, that no one wants to ‘confiscate’ guns, and that no one believes the inane lies you and other conservatives contrive and attempt to propagate.

Nobody does uninformed and ignorant quite like CCJ....

 

[P@triot]

In fact, you’re ignorant about most everything, and consistently wrong – you’re in no position to ‘educate’ anyone about anything, including guns.

Oh the irony....the queen of ignorance wants to accuse others of that. I've exposed your astounding ignorance on the U.S. Constitution, our structure of government, economics, taxes, politicians, history, national security, and now firearms...

 

[Divine Wind]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.

Damn, another God Damned liar.

Fucking liberals always claim they don't "take away from the Second Amendment" but all the while, they are chipping away at it. If they had their way, wouldn't they interpret it to mean "one musket, one powder horn and one bag of round ball"?

 

[Divine Wind]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

I did not say take away the Second Amendment. All I said was to extend the rules that govern the fully automatic guns that to the semi's that have rapid change magazines. The rules that the Supreme Court has already ruled as Constitutional.

That would include every pistol. Right?

Are you that ignorant? Revolvers are not semi-automatics. Six to nine shots, and then considerable time to reload.

OK GUN FOLKS.....DISCUSS^^^^^^

A liberal just said "a revolver is not a semi-automatic".

Discuss....

You said "a liberal". That usuallly explains it all, doesn't it?

In his case, he calls others "Damn, another God Damned liar" but doesn't explain why. I think he just likes blather, rant and rave. Typical lying liberal. All emotion, very little reason or fact.

 

[Divine Wind]

Libs.....Yall want "Weapons of War" banned. Hillary said so.

Let's be honest and discuss.

Is this a weapon of war:

View attachment 78196

My, my, trying to improve on your record as a dumb fuck? How many people have done mass shootings with a gun like that lately? The choice of the crazies has been semi versions of war guns for the last 20 years.

Damn, another God Damned liar.

Hillary and Obama bitch about "weapons of war" of which many existing bolt action rifles were.

Which of these two are a weapon of war? (Hint, only one of them is one). Yet the dumb fuck liars on this thread want ban the "scary looking" gun first (or make it a felony to carry it outside your house) and then, as they keep saying, they'll move onto the "weapon of war".

 

[Divine Wind]

And those many Americans whose actions are often "knee-jerk" and "gut sense" in nature are for the most part conservative.

Disagreed since it's the liberals having the knee-jerk reaction in this case.

The gun laws are adequate, but need enforcement. All the mass shooters had mental conditions. Fix that. The San Bernardino and Orlando terrorist mass shootings involved radical Islamic terrorists. Fix that. The terrorist no-fly doesn't conform to the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. Make the list conform to the Constitution by Due Process, then let's talk about how to add this to background checks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.

Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.

Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.

**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.


2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR

View attachment 78100



I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.

the Second Amendment specifically covers "weapons of war" what a fucking asshole and too think he was once from South Dakota

 

[Skull Pilot]

"I have no doubt"? So, the evidence must be very powerful. Post it so all of us can be sure the first gun control law will lead to a slippery slope and soon local law enforcement personnel will be assigned to confiscate every gun in America.

Dude, it's up to the lying pricks who say "Trust us, we only want this" to prove to me they won't want more. My 60 years of experience is exactly as I stated; more and more encroachment on Constitutional rights.

Can't prove it? Fine. I'm happy support the status quo. The gun laws are perfectly adequate now. We don't need more laws or more restrictions. What we can do is enforce present law. Happy now?

No fly, no buy. It's a very simple concept. I won't argue that more gun laws are a panacea, but having a moment of silence and then going back to their office to raise money for their next campaign, or to figure out a way to repeal (never repair parts that may need repair) the PPACA for 51st time ain't what I won't my tax dollars to support.

What are the legal requirements to strip a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

If you want to deny anyone any right that procedure must be followed