Hillary says NRA needs a "rival" organization of responsible gun owners

[2aguy]

They are Europeans.....they don't realize you shoot the pilots at the local bar...before they get into the aircraft....moron......and again, they don't have military weapons, do they.......and not in the numbers the Swiss had...with over 435,000 people with fully automatic military weapons ......why? Because they were confiscated.......so a few rifles hidden from the government as opposed to millions of people with guns didn't make a difference...which is why free people need easy access to guns....

Like the fuck head, Trump, NEVER admit you're wrong.......LOL

Spin away (or go play with your precious guns)

Yep.....disarmed and then crushed.....

 

[nat4900]

The AR-15 has never been used in a war.....ever. The M-16 is the military weapon...dipshit, the AR-15 has been the most popular civilain rifle for decades, there are over 13 million of them in private hands......

So, nitwit, if you RENAME a "nuke" and call it "baby boy" its no longer a nuke?

Because the AR-15 was renamed but basically is the same as the M-16, its no longer a military-style, lethal weapon??

What the hell is the matter with you idiots???

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 has never been used in a war.....ever. The M-16 is the military weapon...dipshit, the AR-15 has been the most popular civilain rifle for decades, there are over 13 million of them in private hands......

So, nitwit, is you RENAME a "nuke" and call it "baby boy" its no longer a nuke?

Because the AR-15 was renamed but basically is the same as the M-16, its no longer a military-style, lethal weapon??

What the hell is the matter with you idiots???

It isn't the same as an M-16 moron...the M-16 can fire automatically, the AR-15 can't..... a .22 rifle can kill....and you morons want those too....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...the Hungarians didn't have guns...moron.

Notice the Hungarians shooting at Soviet airplanes??.....Yes or No?

Would that be the equivalent of you morons shooting your "formidable" arsenal at military armed drones back in this country?........Yes or No?

Yeah...the communists banned guns....

Communist Gun Control

Immediately after World War II, Hungary was governed by a coalition of democrats and Communists. Preparing the way for a total Communist takeover Laszlo Rajk, the Communist Minister of the Interior, ordered the dissolution of all pistol and hunting clubs, as well as of other organizations which might prove a threat to government power. Rajk claimed he acted "in order to more efficiently protect the democratic system of the state."

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 has never been used in a war.....ever. The M-16 is the military weapon...dipshit, the AR-15 has been the most popular civilain rifle for decades, there are over 13 million of them in private hands......

So, nitwit, if you RENAME a "nuke" and call it "baby boy" its no longer a nuke?

Because the AR-15 was renamed but basically is the same as the M-16, its no longer a military-style, lethal weapon??

What the hell is the matter with you idiots???

No....you asswipes keep calling it a weapon of war, trying to score emotional points with uninformed people....the AR-15 is a civilian rifle, it has never been used by the military....it has never been used in a war...all the other guns I posted have been military weapons.....used in actual wars.....

 

[nat4900]

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 18576194, member: 50072"]It isn't the same as an M-16 moron...the M-16 can fire automatically, the AR-15 can't..... a .22 rifle can kill....and you morons want those too....[/QUOTE]


Here derp.......

For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire.
And it's perfectly legal. ..

Slide Fire: This simple, legal add-on lets an AR-15 fire 900 rounds per ...

 

[2aguy]

[QUOTE="2aguy, post: 18576194, member: 50072"]It isn't the same as an M-16 moron...the M-16 can fire automatically, the AR-15 can't..... a .22 rifle can kill....and you morons want those too....

Here derp.......

For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire.
And it's perfectly legal. ..

Slide Fire: This simple, legal add-on lets an AR-15 fire 900 rounds per ...
[/QUOTE]


Yeah.....so. As long as you don't use it to commit a crime, where is the problem. You don't have to do anything to a rental truck to murder 89 people and injure over 450.......

And how many of these devices have been sold, and how many have been used by criminals in crimes? Got some numbers on those?

And when you use just the gun in a crime, we can already arrest you.....if you use the gun with a bump fire stock for a crime, we can arrest you too.......

The problem isn't the bump fire stock, the problem is people like you keep letting actual criminals out of jail, over and over again...stop doing that, and lock them up for 30 years, and you would lower the gun crime rate even lower than it has been lowered the last 20 years....

 

[hunarcy]

Very true 9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want background, mental health background checks, etc. They don't want themselves or families to be shot and killed by crazies either.

The possible answer to that logical question is that the NRA is mostly a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers....They want for ANYONE who wants to buy a gun to be able to buy it (them)......Simple as that....business and profits.

Again, you'll have people that will argue and who don't want any background checks, and more than likely it's because they can't pass one.

Then the second argurment is well, what if we have to defend ourselves against our own government. Well, they have tanks, and predator droners, so your automatic military style weapon is not going to protect you from that anyway.

Just stupidity all around.

Our forefathers never intended this blood bath of innocents when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Isn't it odd that the same people who cheered the Iraqi resistance and their dependence on the small arms passed out by Saddam now say a resistance based on small arms would not be successful here?

I don't see such a resistance growing here in the US, but I am struck by the 180 switch.

Well again, what are you going to do against the U.S. miltary--that is armed with predator drones and tanks? That's why Iraq fell so easily when first invaded. They're no match for the U.S. Military.

No one needs an AK-47 or other assault type weapon to defend themselves in this country. There is no hip holser, you're not going to be able to conceal it for a concealed weapons permit--and if you can't use a pistol, shotgun or hunting rifle to defend yourself--then you've got some serious issues with your shooting accuracy, and need to head out to a gun range for practice.

And no one needs your opinion about how to exercise their rights. As long as the person uses their firearm in a legal and responsible manner, what they own or don't own is none of your business. The ones who do not should be imprisoned or hospitalized.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The exact same can be said of the left with regard to abortion. The difference: one has supporters who believe in the choice to defend against a “criminal” on a rampage, while the other believes in the choice to kill another unable to defend themselves.

what a "brilliant" conclusion.........You must be a hero looking for a chance to show just how heroic you are...I mean,just look at your little avatar.....LOL

... and you’re an idiot if that’s meant to be the best reply you got. Don’t think too hard next time, you made it too easy for me.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The possible answer to that logical question is that the NRA is mostly a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers....They want for ANYONE who wants to buy a gun to be able to buy it (them)......Simple as that....business and profits.

Again, you'll have people that will argue and who don't want any background checks, and more than likely it's because they can't pass one.

Then the second argurment is well, what if we have to defend ourselves against our own government. Well, they have tanks, and predator droners, so your automatic military style weapon is not going to protect you from that anyway.

Just stupidity all around.

Our forefathers never intended this blood bath of innocents when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

/—-/ Please site the Federalist Papers where the FF State their intentions on this. TIA

You think they did intend a bloodbath of innocents?

/—-/ Since there were crazy psychotic killers in the 1770s I’m sure they did consider it and knew they could be stopped with another gun.

10 mass shootings so far this year in the US with 112 dead and 531 wounded. How many in the 1770s?

You mean after considering their unsanitary medical practices, amputations where the best pain management is sticking something in your mouth, then if you surpass that the possibility of lead poisoning or the threat of pneumonia? I’m sure they have seen more horrors from bullet wounds and death associated with guns than we face today. Yet the Founders decided the subject was important enough to debate about and to include into the writing of the second amendment of our Constitution.

 

[oreo]

Again, you'll have people that will argue and who don't want any background checks, and more than likely it's because they can't pass one.

Then the second argurment is well, what if we have to defend ourselves against our own government. Well, they have tanks, and predator droners, so your automatic military style weapon is not going to protect you from that anyway.

Just stupidity all around.

Our forefathers never intended this blood bath of innocents when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

/—-/ Please site the Federalist Papers where the FF State their intentions on this. TIA

You think they did intend a bloodbath of innocents?

/—-/ Since there were crazy psychotic killers in the 1770s I’m sure they did consider it and knew they could be stopped with another gun.

10 mass shootings so far this year in the US with 112 dead and 531 wounded. How many in the 1770s?

You mean after considering their unsanitary medical practices, amputations where the best pain management is sticking something in your mouth, then if you surpass that the possibility of lead poisoning or the threat of pneumonia? I’m sure they have seen more horrors from bullet wounds and death associated with guns than we face today. Yet the Founders decided the subject was important enough to debate about and to include into the writing of the second amendment of our Constitution.

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent American citizens.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Please site the Federalist Papers where the FF State their intentions on this. TIA

You think they did intend a bloodbath of innocents?

/—-/ Since there were crazy psychotic killers in the 1770s I’m sure they did consider it and knew they could be stopped with another gun.

10 mass shootings so far this year in the US with 112 dead and 531 wounded. How many in the 1770s?

You mean after considering their unsanitary medical practices, amputations where the best pain management is sticking something in your mouth, then if you surpass that the possibility of lead poisoning or the threat of pneumonia? I’m sure they have seen more horrors from bullet wounds and death associated with guns than we face today. Yet the Founders decided the subject was important enough to debate about and to include into the writing of the second amendment of our Constitution.

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent American citizens.

/----/ Did the Founding Fathers intend the 1st Amendment to be used for idiotic posts like yours?
Did GM intend their trucks be used for mowing people down?
Did Farberware intend their pressure cookers to be used to blow people up?
Did Curious Chef intend their kitchen carving knives be used to behead people?
Did the pharma company intend their Fentanyl be used to spike Cocaine for addicts?
Will did they punk?
Are you gonna call the ban of everything that can be used as a weapon?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

/—-/ Please site the Federalist Papers where the FF State their intentions on this. TIA

You think they did intend a bloodbath of innocents?

/—-/ Since there were crazy psychotic killers in the 1770s I’m sure they did consider it and knew they could be stopped with another gun.

10 mass shootings so far this year in the US with 112 dead and 531 wounded. How many in the 1770s?

You mean after considering their unsanitary medical practices, amputations where the best pain management is sticking something in your mouth, then if you surpass that the possibility of lead poisoning or the threat of pneumonia? I’m sure they have seen more horrors from bullet wounds and death associated with guns than we face today. Yet the Founders decided the subject was important enough to debate about and to include into the writing of the second amendment of our Constitution.

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent American citizens.

From responsible gun owners or criminals?

You see, the problem is you and those from the left engage on these same typical threads, but none of you are able to comprehend nor do your responses reflect a knowledge between the two.

With regard to the Founders, you honestly don’t think the colonists had to defend themselves, protect innocent American families, as they ventured to expand beyond the 13 colonies? So if such confrontation erupted between the French, or an assault by native Americans that resulted in innocent casualties (as it often did), your resolution would be to go unarmed against such threats of aggression? What can you provide that makes you think the Founders intended our nation’s citizens to be unarmed?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The AR-15 has never been used in a war.....ever. The M-16 is the military weapon...dipshit, the AR-15 has been the most popular civilain rifle for decades, there are over 13 million of them in private hands......

So, nitwit, if you RENAME a "nuke" and call it "baby boy" its no longer a nuke?

Because the AR-15 was renamed but basically is the same as the M-16, its no longer a military-style, lethal weapon??

What the hell is the matter with you idiots???

/----/ Well Gomer, should used MILITARY grade trucks be allowed to be used as civilian trucks?
Ex-Military Trucks Find Duties with Civilian Operators - Articles ...
www.truckinginfo.com/.../ex-military-trucks-find-duties-with-civilian-operators.aspx
May 13, 2016 - Need a stout go-anywhere truck for off-road work, and for not a lot of money? An ex-military 6x6 might be just the ticket. It is for Bob Eggar, who ...

 

[LeftofLeft]

/—-/ Please site the Federalist Papers where the FF State their intentions on this. TIA

You think they did intend a bloodbath of innocents?

/—-/ Since there were crazy psychotic killers in the 1770s I’m sure they did consider it and knew they could be stopped with another gun.

10 mass shootings so far this year in the US with 112 dead and 531 wounded. How many in the 1770s?

You mean after considering their unsanitary medical practices, amputations where the best pain management is sticking something in your mouth, then if you surpass that the possibility of lead poisoning or the threat of pneumonia? I’m sure they have seen more horrors from bullet wounds and death associated with guns than we face today. Yet the Founders decided the subject was important enough to debate about and to include into the writing of the second amendment of our Constitution.

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent American citizens.

That was not a concern until 50 years ago. Go back before that. Any history of mass shootings? Anyone who tried was most likely gunned down or STOPPED by a lawful gun owner protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ultimately, I don't think you're going to have a choice in the matter... Public Safety is going to end-up overwhelming legal concerns.

Sadly, our tyrannical govt is moving in that direction quickly. Hundreds of millions won't play along though.

Hundreds of millions? More like a few thousand, scattered across the country, I'm afraid.

I meant tens of millions. There are approximately 55 million gun owners who own 150 million guns. Id have to say most of those 10's of millions won't give it up. The people that do will be mostly from the NE.

If you are an American citizen, living within its boundaries, then you will submit to American Law - no exceptions - and 99.99999% of Americans will do just that. Sorry.

It’s just great to know we have a second mmendmwnt that makes it very difficult for government to create a strict ban that takes firearms away from resoonsible citizens. I’s Like to see how far Democrats think they can get, without the clear written constitutional process of repealing the second annendment.

Had Hillary been elected, the second (and first) Amendment would already be part of past never to return.

The Stalinists use judicial activism to repeal the Constitution. One more Elena Kagan on the court and the Constitution is done, over, gone forever. This is the goal of the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

So, nitwit, if you RENAME a "nuke" and call it "baby boy" its no longer a nuke?

Because the AR-15 was renamed but basically is the same as the M-16, its no longer a military-style, lethal weapon??

What the hell is the matter with you idiots???

Not at all true, Gnat.

Try being honest for once.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sadly, our tyrannical govt is moving in that direction quickly. Hundreds of millions won't play along though.

Hundreds of millions? More like a few thousand, scattered across the country, I'm afraid.

I meant tens of millions. There are approximately 55 million gun owners who own 150 million guns. Id have to say most of those 10's of millions won't give it up. The people that do will be mostly from the NE.

If you are an American citizen, living within its boundaries, then you will submit to American Law - no exceptions - and 99.99999% of Americans will do just that. Sorry.

It’s just great to know we have a second mmendmwnt that makes it very difficult for government to create a strict ban that takes firearms away from resoonsible citizens. I’s Like to see how far Democrats think they can get, without the clear written constitutional process of repealing the second annendment.

Had Hillary been elected, the second (and first) Amendment would already be part of past never to return.

The Stalinists use judicial activism to repeal the Constitution. One more Elena Kagan on the court and the Constitution is done, over, gone forever. This is the goal of the left.

Your post is the raving of a right wing nut. No reason to believe any of it unless you believe Alex Jones et.al

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent American citizens.

Our forefathers never intended that the 1st amendment be used to foment treason as you use it to do.

Yet the only ones seeking to end the 1st Amendment are you Maoist democrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your post is the raving of a right wing nut. No reason to believe any of it unless you believe Alex Jones et.al

Are you and your fellow Stalinists not here in this thread calling for the end to civil rights? Repeal of the 2nd amendment as you attack the 1st amendment through extreme regulation of speech and the outlawing of religion? (Religious tests in the Senate for judges, ala Feinstein)

You leftists are fighting a civil war to end the rights and liberties of Americans. You sought a crooked president to name yet another radical leftist to the SCOTUS in hopes that the majority on the court would put an end to the Constitution once and for all.