Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[TheDefiantOne]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

It was used in at least one the Austin tower shooting the assailant had a slew of weapons m1 carbine and long guns

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

 

[meaner gene]

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

Please read the opinion. It doesn't say people have a right to any kind of military weapons. What it said is they have a right to "commonly used" civilian weapons. Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

It was used in at least one the Austin tower shooting the assailant had a slew of weapons m1 carbine and long guns

1 example from 55 years ago, as compared to objective review in just the las10 years of so. Were AR-15s Used in These Mass Shootings?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

You should really stop repeating this myopic LaPierre revisionism: For your education: The legal loopholes that let people get automatic guns
And us all regarding the attempt to down play the AR-15, which for mass shooters has lived up to it's advertising...light weight and highly accurate/effective for single/multiple targets.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

Please read the opinion. It doesn't say people have a right to any kind of military weapons. What it said is they have a right to "commonly used" civilian weapons. Don't put the cart before the horse.

read the 39 decision

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the slow and stupid. there is no difference between any semi auto rifle.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

there is a RIGHT to have military relevant weapons as encoded by the 2nd and adjudicated by the Supreme Court. what there is not is an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons or crew served weapons. the ar 15 is nothing more then a semi automatics rifle like any other semi auto available.

You should really stop repeating this myopic LaPierre revisionism: For your education: The legal loopholes that let people get automatic guns
And us all regarding the attempt to down play the AR-15, which for mass shooters has lived up to it's advertising...light weight and highly accurate/effective for single/multiple targets.

Those aren't "loopholes". It's how the law was intentionally written.

AR-15's aren't anymore accurate than any other firearm. That's false advertising on your part, so when some egghead chooses an AR to commit a crime, because he believes it's the most accurate weapon in the market, we can thank uninformed people like you.

Actually, AR's are less accurate than they could be because most are sold with a 1:7, or 1:8 twist and people run 55 grain bullets through them. They have a 18 inch shot group at 100 yards and can't figure out why...lol.

There are other repeating rifles that are the same weight as an AR and are more accurate and just as effective when engaging multiple targets. Shotguns can inflict the same number of casualties as an AR in every known scenario, except one: the Vegas shooting.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Right....so when the next yahoo or nut case buys his AR-15 and blows away a group of innocent people for whatever absurd or insane reason, please dust off all the old excuses and have them ready, because laPierre is having a bit of financial trouble with the IRS, I here.

Oh, and be sure to mail your justifications to the surviving family members. Judge Roger T. Benitez won't give a damn, as it's all academics and ideology to him.

What you wrote makes no sense because the WWII, M-1 carbine is almost identical to the AR-15.
About the same energy, rate of fire, weight, magazine capacity, cost, etc.
So there is nothing new or remotely more dangerous about the AR-15 than any small caliber rifle.
In fact, a person armed with 2 Glock-21 pistols likely is much more dangerous because they have more shots, can fire 2 directions at once, and can reload one while still firing the other.

1. This ain't WWII....the AR-15 design is an easier handle and highly more adaptable for the individual user's varied purposes, as advertised. "about the same" is a misleading statement, unless you can provide proof that the M-1 carbine can have all the attachments and use the lighter weight ammo.

2. If your assertions are true, then explain to the reading audience why gun enthusiasts, nut jobs, basic anti-gov't yahoos prefer the AR-15 ("America's rifle") to a weapon that was NEVER ON THE BAN LIST? We are talking about the original M-1, not it's subsequent models.

3. How many folk in the general population do you know that can accurately shoot two hand guns at the same time, or are ambidextrous?

Bottom line: what you wrote doesn't stand up to close examination.

2.

The M-1 carbine can do everything an AR can do.

Saying it and proving it are two wholly different things. If you can't meet a simple burden of proof as requested in #1 of my previous response, then debating with you further would be he equivalent of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And of course, you don't dare respond to #2 & #3. Carry on.

The proof is in pudding. A .30 Carbine round is as lethal as a .223 Remington. It's as accurate at 100 yds, or less, as a .223. The weight and dimensions are roughly the same as an AR. There's no arguing any of that.

Then you should have no problem providing a valid source documentation to back up your personal assertion. That is "proof"....facts, NOT opinion. Just provide the facts from a reliable source that the .30 Carbine was used in mass shootings, and how many times. The reading audience awaits.

I never said M-1 Carbines were used in mass shootings. I said that an M-1 Carbine is just as effective and lethal as an AR-15 and that's a fact.

If you anti-gun types moronically advertised the M-1, or the Mini-14, or even a pump shotgun with a three round capacity as the most lethal firearm ever, you would see them used more often.

 

[DrLove]

Judge Rules California's ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

California's "assault weapons" ban was ruled unconstitutional Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

www.breitbart.com

Very good news
Xiden lost and safe long guns will be allowed

Many of you are not “gun lovers” …
Barrel-stroking fetishists may be more appropriate.
But as the judge said in his ruling, enjoy those “Swiss army knives”

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?

 

[Flash]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

It shows just how stupid the "weapon of war", "military grade" catch phrases are...lol.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

It shows just how stupid the "weapon of war", "military grade" catch phrases are...lol.

If there was any validity to the gun grabber's position there would be no need to change the meaning of a word.
There would be no need to hide what you want to do.

 

[Flash]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

It shows just how stupid the "weapon of war", "military grade" catch phrases are...lol.

A firearm is only a "weapon of war" if a person is using it for war.

My AR-15s are not weapons of war because I have never used them for war. Mostly just shooting holes in paper.

These stupid Moon Bats don't understand things like that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

another weapon of war

 

[Flash]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

another weapon of war

Is my Springfield M1903 a weapon of war? I have only ever used it to shoot holes in paper.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

another weapon of war

Is my Springfield M1903 a weapon of war? I have only ever used it to shoot holes in paper.

clubs at one time were weapons of war

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

i

There is no reason for anyone to own a AR-15.

You moron. I already explained to you the reasons to own an AR-15

1. To use for recreational purposes

2. To use for self defense

3. To have for the "necessary for the security of a free state".

Just because pathetic little pussies like you don't have a use for one don't meant the rest of of don't.

4. Firepower superiority.

If you couldn't defend your home or self with the plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994 ban, then I'd say you're just a bad shot or have some serious psychological issues.

You obviously don't understand what "firepower superiority" means.

List the weapons that can outgun an AR-15/AK-47/FN-FAL/or like firearms. I double dog dare ya to tackle that argument.

Again, you can't defend your home with a .45 caliber semi-automatic? Or a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? Last time I checked, the distance from one end of a standard living room is a hell of a lot shorter than the average distance from a hunter to a deer... so you have a good chance of blowing a perp off their feet in addition to possibly killing them outright. A .45 caliber ain't no pea shooter, and a shotgun (single barrell, pump action or double barrell) let loose in a house is serious nasty damage to man and walls/furniture/fridge, etc.

As to your absurd challenge, here are some official stats that should (hopefully) set you straight as to alluding to what is needed to defend a home....pay particular attention to page #2 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you regarding of what the Afghan's had against the Russians back in the day

List of military equipment used by the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If AR's are rarely used in crimes, then they're no danger to society and there's no need to ban them. Right?

Were you asleep or out of the country in a place with no international news in the last 20 years or so? Because that's the only reason to try to weasel pass the FACT of the AR-15 showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Yep, the weapon of choice for a LOT of yahoos and nut cases that did EXACTLY as it advertisement said.

That's why they were on the 1994 AWB list. And only a fool would try to minimize the damage they have caused since re-introduced to the general public. Right?

So called assault rifles are used in a minority of mass shootings.

The weapon isn't the problem. The people carrying out these attacks are the problem. The semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle has been on the civilian market since 1904. Looooong before mass shootings became en vogue.

If you want to blame someone for AR style rifles being used in mass shootings, you can blame you and the rest of the anti-gun idiots for advertising it as the most efficient killing tool ever invented. It's you people that perpetuate moronic myths like the "tumbling bullet", or stupid shit like, "an AR bullet is going to travel all through the body causing more damage". The latter is my favorite moronic myth, BTW...lol.

People like you are the best advertisement the AR-15 ever had. Good job!

OMG! Did you just dust off that old bullhorn, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? No kidding? The thing is, unlike a Warner Bros. cartoon, the assault weapons (yeah, that's how the military, police, and federal law enforcement categorzies them) in question don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around while blazing away. PEOPLE USE THE WEAPONS TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. And the AR-15 was among the top choice for that purpose in the last 20 years or so. That you can't/won't deal with that reality is pretty pathetic, because it shows a total disregard for fellow human beings lives...."colateral damage" to keep your psychological gun safety zone.

less then 400 murders a year are committed using any rifle that includes all other rifles. so explain to me the dire threat of the AR15?

Why not ask the surviving family members of that 400? I'm just speaking out as a concerned citizen with empathy.

it is sad for them but 100's of millions do not lose rights because of 400 or even 10000 people

But what "rights" are you talking about exactly? Before and after the 1994 AWB, any law abiding citizen had the "right" to a slew of various handguns (revolver or semi-auto), rifles (bolt, semi-auto), shotguns (double barreled, pump action). BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN THE LAW EXISTED THAT PROHIBITED MILITARY GRADE WEAPONRY IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. That means you couldn't and can't mount a .50 caliber machine gun on your roof, or stroll the streets strapped with an Uzi. That a law was passed that added a relative small portion of weapons to that list is NOT a denial of your rights, as you NEVER had the "right" to anything you want regarding civilian weaponry.

I've asked at least 2 of your like minded brethren as to whether they are saying that they couldn't adequately defend themselves and/or home & family with a large caliber revolver, or a hunting rifle or shotgun, much less a semi-auto handgun (all available before and after the 1994 AWB. To date, no answer. Also, I asked if they just considered all the people killed by formerly banned assault rifles/weapons like the AR-15 (when it was reinstated on the open market upon the 1994 AWB sunset) in mass shootings acceptable collateral damage for their perceived comfort zone of accessibility to these weapons. Again, no answer.

Can you give an answer?

Should this rifle be outlawed?View attachment 503686

That is definitely a weapon of war!

another weapon of war

It's capable of afixing a bayonet, so that makes it illegal according to the banneroids.