Huge win for long gun lovers !!!!

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya I mean we really gotta do something about all those drive by bayonetting's and random ones as well.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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.

The AR style rifle is a commonly used civilian weapon.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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.

They say "weapon of war" to prey upon people's ignorance and scare them so they'll support idiotic gun control laws.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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.

*sigh* A loophole is a part of the original set of laws and regulations that can be applied to negate an inaction of a law. It may not be "intentional" by the authors, but discerned via examination.

Now, spare us all this armchair BS in trying to describe the AR-15 as one step above an antique blunderbuss. What cracks me up about this tactic guys like you use is that you inadvertently shoot your argument in the foot.... because by stating that there are more weapons just as effective and more accurate, you bring up the question, "if these weapons you point to weren't on the 1994 AWB, then why all the hand wringing over the AR-15 availability? Why is it a very popular sale among Americans, who say it's great for hunting, target shooting and self defense, when as you say, there are better guns (that were NOT on the list)? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[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.

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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

 

[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 mujahideen during 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

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades: 1) you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2) If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet. See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.

1. No one is talking about 50 cal MG's, or flamethowers, or grenades. That argument will always be bullshit, so you oughta put it to bed.

2. You just said that an AR/AK rifle is the most efficient, more efficient than revolver, semi-auto pistol and certainly more efficient than a single shot. What if a burglar shows up at my crib with an AR/AK? I should be able to at least be prepared to have paridy of fires.

It's a example of the absurd conclusions of your basic point....that you have the Constitutional right to military grade weapons or the next best thing to them. NRA buffoons wailed like stuck pigs because they could no long by an AK-47 (don't lie and say they didn't), so my reference is not out of context. Oh, and had you actually read the official law enforcement information, you'd know that burglars DO NOT carry bulky, hard to conceal weapons when robbing a house. And since you claimed on another post that a shotgun can do similar damage as an AR-15 The absurd scenario you put up to justify owning such weaponry is just that...an absurd scenario. If that's the case, then again my initial statement/hypothetical example rings true....legislate to keep these weapons out of circulation, thus keeping accessibility to the criminal element down. The mass shootings using their weapons of choice supports that.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

 

[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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Im

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 mujahideen during 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

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades: 1) you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2) If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet. See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.

1. No one is talking about 50 cal MG's, or flamethowers, or grenades. That argument will always be bullshit, so you oughta put it to bed.

2. You just said that an AR/AK rifle is the most efficient, more efficient than revolver, semi-auto pistol and certainly more efficient than a single shot. What if a burglar shows up at my crib with an AR/AK? I should be able to at least be prepared to have paridy of fires.

It's a example of the absurd conclusions of your basic point....that you have the Constitutional right to military grade weapons or the next best thing to them. NRA buffoons wailed like stuck pigs because they could no long by an AK-47 (don't lie and say they didn't), so my reference is not out of context. Oh, and had you actually read the official law enforcement information, you'd know that burglars DO NOT carry bulky, hard to conceal weapons when robbing a house. And since you claimed on another post that a shotgun can do similar damage as an AR-15 The absurd scenario you put up to justify owning such weaponry is just that...an absurd scenario. If that's the case, then again my initial statement/hypothetical example rings true....legislate to keep these weapons out of circulation, thus keeping accessibility to the criminal element down. The mass shootings using their weapons of choice supports that.

Like how drugs were legislated out of circulation?...lol. That legislation kept accessibility down...lol.

It's good that burglars don't carry much firepower. That way, they won't be able to outgun me.

 

[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.

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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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.

*sigh* A loophole is a part of the original set of laws and regulations that can be applied to negate an inaction of a law. It may not be "intentional" by the authors, but discerned via examination.

Now, spare us all this armchair BS in trying to describe the AR-15 as one step above an antique blunderbuss. What cracks me up about this tactic guys like you use is that you inadvertently shoot your argument in the foot.... because by stating that there are more weapons just as effective and more accurate, you bring up the question, "if these weapons you point to weren't on the 1994 AWB, then why all the hand wringing over the AR-15 availability? Why is it a very popular sale among Americans, who say it's great for hunting, target shooting and self defense, when as you say, there are better guns (that were NOT on the list)? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why? Because the 94 gun ban law was written by fucking anti-gun idiots that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. That's why...lol

You obviously don't understand what I was referring to when I mentioned twist rates in regards to projectile weight.

The fact is: there are plenty of weapons that can be used to execute a mass shooting, besides an AR. The Denver shooting lasted 40-odd minutes. The shooter killed 10 people. That could have been pulled off with a crack barrel 20 gauge.

 

[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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

Evey comment I've made is factual and verifiable. You know this, because you haven't tried to use a single piece of information to refute anything I've said. All you have is "nuh-uh!"...lol

 

[TheDefiantOne]

I have no fear of AR15s
I do have a fear of hidden pistols

Ahh, but it 's not about your personal fear (real or perceived), it's about the FACT that a formally banned weapon has been the favorite choice of mass shooters for the past few years. What the judge did was just green light more of the same:

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The judge cannot be overturned and it was a T judge ..I bet

Small consolation for the next mass shooting victims.

If you’re worried about violence, ask Democrats why they’ve released tens of thousands of violent felons from prison early.

Check yourself before pointing the finger:

About 3,100 federal inmates to be released early under new U.S. law

Roughly 3,100 U.S. inmates, including many convicted of drug offenses, will be released early from federal prisons for good behavior under a criminal justice reform law signed last year by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

PolitiFact - Did Va. Democrats OK an early release plan for many violent inmates?

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, says Democrats in the General Assembly have opened prison gates for the early release of

www.politifact.com

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE WEAPON MARKETED TO THE AVERAGE CIVILIAN POPULATION THAT HAS BEEN USED AS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR MASS MURDERERS.

There, you just said it yourself: AR/AK weapons are "highly effective". Why would you deny the citizenry to the most effective self-defense firearm available?

For the very same reasons I would deny some yahoo mounting a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof of their house or own a flame thrower or grenades: 1) you can't legislate against crazy very well....so keeping full auto or assault weapons and military ordinance out of circulation in the general public bodes well for all....or hasn't the last 20 years taught you anything?
2) If you can't protect yourself with a .45 caliber semi-auto handgun, or a .38 revolver, or your home with a shotgun (single, double barrell or pump action) or a hunting rifle, then you're just a lousy shot, because the average burglar or home invasion is NOT with an AK-47 or AR-15....and least not yet. See my other response to you on this...hope you read the links thoroughly.

1. No one is talking about 50 cal MG's, or flamethowers, or grenades. That argument will always be bullshit, so you oughta put it to bed.

2. You just said that an AR/AK rifle is the most efficient, more efficient than revolver, semi-auto pistol and certainly more efficient than a single shot. What if a burglar shows up at my crib with an AR/AK? I should be able to at least be prepared to have paridy of fires.

It's a example of the absurd conclusions of your basic point....that you have the Constitutional right to military grade weapons or the next best thing to them. NRA buffoons wailed like stuck pigs because they could no long by an AK-47 (don't lie and say they didn't), so my reference is not out of context. Oh, and had you actually read the official law enforcement information, you'd know that burglars DO NOT carry bulky, hard to conceal weapons when robbing a house. And since you claimed on another post that a shotgun can do similar damage as an AR-15 The absurd scenario you put up to justify owning such weaponry is just that...an absurd scenario. If that's the case, then again my initial statement/hypothetical example rings true....legislate to keep these weapons out of circulation, thus keeping accessibility to the criminal element down. The mass shootings using their weapons of choice supports that.

Like how drugs were legislated out of circulation?...lol. That legislation kept accessibility down...lol.

It's good that burglars don't carry much firepower. That way, they won't be able to outgun me.

Grasping at straws, are we? Because that's a pretty ignorant comparison....unlike crystal meth or marijuana, you don't have people cobbling together AK-47's or AR-15's or the cousins of such in their apartments and basements on mass, no do you?

*sigh* the quality of your responses indicate that you can't even muster a logical or fact based retort, nor muster the courage to answer simple questions. So unless you can do better or different, I'll soon just ignore you.

 

[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 mujahideen during 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.

*sigh* A loophole is a part of the original set of laws and regulations that can be applied to negate an inaction of a law. It may not be "intentional" by the authors, but discerned via examination.

Now, spare us all this armchair BS in trying to describe the AR-15 as one step above an antique blunderbuss. What cracks me up about this tactic guys like you use is that you inadvertently shoot your argument in the foot.... because by stating that there are more weapons just as effective and more accurate, you bring up the question, "if these weapons you point to weren't on the 1994 AWB, then why all the hand wringing over the AR-15 availability? Why is it a very popular sale among Americans, who say it's great for hunting, target shooting and self defense, when as you say, there are better guns (that were NOT on the list)? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why? Because the 94 gun ban law was written by fucking anti-gun idiots that don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. That's why...lol

You obviously don't understand what I was referring to when I mentioned twist rates in regards to projectile weight.

The fact is: there are plenty of weapons that can be used to execute a mass shooting, besides an AR. The Denver shooting lasted 40-odd minutes. The shooter killed 10 people. That could have been pulled off with a crack barrel 20 gauge.

You first sentence is the blathering of a drunk or a petulant child that does NOT address the question. Clearly, you can't muster the intellectual courage to honestly do so, as admitting error on any point seems to be a problem for you.

You essentially just keep parroting the SOS; your supposition and conjecture trying to pass for facts while avoiding simple questions. The objective reader sees your folly, and what a waste of time it is to engage you further.

 

[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.

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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

Evey comment I've made is factual and verifiable. You know this, because you haven't tried to use a single piece of information to refute anything I've said. All you have is "nuh-uh!"...lol

I can and have provided documentation from valid sources to back what I say....and I discuss it.

You don't....you can't. So you blather like a petulant child. I have no use for that. You're done.

 

[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.

And if that is the case and the M-1 was available, then why is the AR-15 more popular? Why didn't the mass shooters go for the better type of weapon, as you allude to?

And last time I checked, it was gun retailers and the manufacturers that advertised the AR-15 as the best for what it does....."anti-gun" types don't control or do such advertising. If you can provide proof regarding such advertising, then do so. If not, stop making stuff up.

Because the anti-gun idiots have tricked a lot of people into thinking the AR-15 is the most lethal, accurate firearm in history...lol.

The average mass shooter nutjob doesn't know enough about firearms to even have heard of an M-1 Carbine, but thanks to you and your gun ban idiot pals, they have definitely heard of an AR-15.

They don't use the FN-FAL, H&K 91, H&K 93, M-1 Carbine, Sprinfield M1A. The few that use an AR choose an AR because you people have moronically been it's best salesman. Good job!...lol

You have a fanatical belief that your opinion, supposition & conjecture are parallel to valid history and documented facts. Hint: they're not even close. You have no proof of what you say.

You make statements you can't factually back up, claims that have NO basis in reality or recent history, and then you just blow smoke and double down on your silliness. In short, your insipid stubbornness renders you useless in a rational, fact based and logical debate. So I'll shortly leave you to your self aggrandizement and kudos from your like minded compadres.

Evey comment I've made is factual and verifiable. You know this, because you haven't tried to use a single piece of information to refute anything I've said. All you have is "nuh-uh!"...lol

I can and have provided documentation from valid sources to back what I say....and I discuss it.

You don't....you can't. So you blather like a petulant child. I have no use for that. You're done.

Your use of insults proves the fragility of your argument. Your source is shit. Whoever wrote that is ignorat AF.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Im

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 mujahideen during 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

Was it on the 1994 AWB? If not, then no. If so, then yes.

Now, have you mustered the intellectual courage to answer my questions or not?

You keep saying "weapon of war". Why the inconsistancy? Is it because you know the "weapon of war" catch phrase used scare people?

Pardon? Please copy & paste where I used the phrase "weapon of war". I'll wait. Until then, quit stalling and just honestly answer the questions. If you can't or won't, then honestly say so.

Post #276. You said "military grade weaponry".

I've answered every question you've asked and you damn well know it.

And since when does "military grade weaponry" translates to "weapons of war"? Didn't you and your cohorts blather endlessly how a club can be categorized as a weapon of war? Now if you found that to be stupid, then don't play stupid and try to adjust definitions to suit your blather.

And stop lying...the chronology of the posts shows how you've consistently dodge pertinent questions.

I'm tired of your childish BS.....just another NRA armchair "expert" sycophant short on facts and logic but long on supposition and conjecture. You're done.