Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey Fuckwad the AR frame rifle is the most popular single rifle in the country and you wonder why a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them are used in crimes?Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...Then what difference does it make?There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho stylingHave you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.
Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.
Hey Fuckwad the AR frame rifle is the most popular single rifle in the country and you wonder why a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them are used in crimes?Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...Then what difference does it make?There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho stylingHave you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?
If the 6.8 mm semiauto is the single most popular rifle in the country that's the one you would be whining about
Can you please then explain the disparity in the number and frequency of gun massacres in the United States and other industrialized western nations? What makes our nation more prone to gun violence? Our culture? Our preternatural tendency to be less mentally stable? Or our open and unfettered access to guns?And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.The notion that nothing should be done because nothing is 100% effective is short sighted. The notion that nothing should be done because doing anything could make nconvienence someone who absolutely needs to get a gun today, not later this week betrays an intransigent attitude.no. people get your point.I'm afraid you're missing the point.You're missing a point. AR is not military style gun. It just looks like it is.
Now that we cleared that up, if there are guns just as, if not more effective, why gun grabbers are pursuing to ban ARs? Shouldn't they go after those more effective first?
My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.
If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?
If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?
It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.
it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.
tag. you're it.
Surely we know that no single effort can be a panacea. Surely we have passed other laws that have never completely prevented the crime they were written to punish. And surely there are solutions to what we all must recognize as our uniquely American obsession with guns NSA and gun violence.
Can the gun lovers pitch in and help divine some answers?
Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.
Hey Fuckwad the AR frame rifle is the most popular single rifle in the country and you wonder why a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them are used in crimes?Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...Then what difference does it make?There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho stylingHave you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?
If the 6.8 mm semiauto is the single most popular rifle in the country that's the one you would be whining about
“AR frame “. Hmmm that’s an odd line . Yet again proving my point on the gun nerd misleading info tactics .
any rifle you use to huntWhat the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?Here, stupid.Firearm Owners Protection Act - WikipediaWhen the hell did people have automatics? link?
See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i
PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.
We do have militias. they are called the National GuardWe are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.Gun control that 2nd Amendment advocates fear will come from the courts when the interpretation of "well-regulated militia" is reinterpreted and defined.
There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".
The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"
If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.
If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.
What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.
On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?
By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.
No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.
The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.
The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.
Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.
It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.
But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?
They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.
My 2c.
Terrorism isn't even a blip as a cause of death but you people really like to focus on the 1% or less so I can see why you think terrorism is a "major" problemBath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact
They kill more Americans than terrorists. So we shouldn’t bother fighting terror ?
These lame death count comparisons are embarrassing.
if the founders wanted the right to keep and bear arms to belong to the militia then they wouldn't have specifically stated "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would they?We do have militias. they are called the National GuardWe are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".
The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"
If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.
If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.
What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.
On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?
By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.
No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.
The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.
The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.
Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.
It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.
But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?
They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.
My 2c.
well end the suspense and let us know the numbers.I don't think that's right, but it isn't worth the effort for your ass. you can just post that up on a link.Bath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact
They kill more Americans than terrorists. So we shouldn’t bother fighting terror ?
These lame death count comparisons are embarrassing.
How many terror attacks did we have last year? How many people killed . So few that you can’t even think of them.
I’m just using the inane argument you gun nuts are using .
it's your concern, you tell us. can't ever speak for yourself can you? LOLAsk the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...Then what difference does it make?There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho stylingHave you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.
I am tired of talking to brainwashed fools who have to have those psycho stylings and and fight the government they love so much. What a bunch of crap.
that isn't so, they are part of the state government. a militia is citizen volunteersWe do have militias. they are called the National GuardWe are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.There is only one way to interpret "shall not be infringed".
The guns lefties want to control aren't for hunting dear. The argument literally boils down to: "Do you believe in the individual having the right to the use of force or don't you?"
If you do the guns stay and shall not be infringed.
If not. Then only the state has the right to the use of force and you support full confiscation and government control.
What flavor of freedom the people enjoy is largely irrelevant. This one really is black and white yes or no.
On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?
By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.
No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.
The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.
The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.
Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.
It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.
But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?
They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.
My 2c.
if the founders wanted the right to keep and bear arms to belong to the militia then they wouldn't have specifically stated "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would they?We do have militias. they are called the National GuardWe are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.
On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?
By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.
No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.
The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.
The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.
Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.
It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.
But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?
They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.
My 2c.
Can you please then explain the disparity in the number and frequency of gun massacres in the United States and other industrialized western nations? What makes our nation more prone to gun violence? Our culture? Our preternatural tendency to be less mentally stable? Or our open and unfettered access to guns?And here is that same bullshit statement gun control advocates like to trow out even though it is blatantly false.The notion that nothing should be done because nothing is 100% effective is short sighted. The notion that nothing should be done because doing anything could make nconvienence someone who absolutely needs to get a gun today, not later this week betrays an intransigent attitude.no. people get your point.I'm afraid you're missing the point.
My argument is that perhaps the very styling of the gun is what makes it more attractive as a weapon with which to commit a gun massacre.
If other weapons are just as effective in terms of rate of fire and lethality of round trajectory, why aren't those weapons used as often as the military style weapons?
If cultural aspects like video games and movies can bear blame, why not cultural aspects like the style of the weapon itself?
It seems that there are unfortunate people much more interested in protecting guns than protecting the public against lunatic gunmen.
it will just never fly, this banning a gun on the looks. it just seems you're out to take away the nasty looking gun and demonize the owners vs. understand the actual problem at hand.
tag. you're it.
Surely we know that no single effort can be a panacea. Surely we have passed other laws that have never completely prevented the crime they were written to punish. And surely there are solutions to what we all must recognize as our uniquely American obsession with guns NSA and gun violence.
Can the gun lovers pitch in and help divine some answers?
Not wanting to do anything is NOT the same as not wanting to enact more useless gun control measures that will accomplish nothing. Most people want solutions - the problem is that gun control is simply not a solution and there is noting to back up the vapid claims that it is.
Are we more prone?
Our murder rate has has been dropping and we have more guns.
No our murder rate has never been as low as some other countries and most likely will never be because we don't really care about 70% of all murders because those murders are usually young urban criminals shooting other young urban criminals so people like you focus on 1% of all murders because it makes good press and you actually think that focusing on that 1% will lower the murder rate of the country.
It won't.
So if you really care about the murder rate ( you don't but for the sake of argument let's say you do) then you would be concentrating on why 5% of all the counties in the US account for almost 70% of all murders wouldn't you?
and psycho mothers use bathtubs to kill their own childrenBath tubs kill more people than AR15’s do every year... fact
If you care about children you would ban bathtubs
I have no problem with regular hunting rifles, s*******LOLHey Fuckwad the AR frame rifle is the most popular single rifle in the country and you wonder why a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them are used in crimes?Ask the psycho Mass murderers that have to use them...Then what difference does it make?There are plenty of other semi-automatic hunting rifles without the gaudy psycho stylingHave you ever hunted wild boar in the deep woods?What the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?
If the 6.8 mm semiauto is the single most popular rifle in the country that's the one you would be whining about
Nobody wants to ban guns. Do semi-automatic guns these days shoot faster than they used to? If so that should be limited, as well as the styling this OP is about. And of course bump stocks, conversion kits, and background check loopholes.if the founders wanted the right to keep and bear arms to belong to the militia then they wouldn't have specifically stated "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" would they?We do have militias. they are called the National GuardWe are banking on, depending on, the court continuing to have a majority conservative or Republican pro-gun members. I am merely expressing an opinion of what direction the court could or may go if the pro-gun majority is lost.You quoted one part of the 2nd Amendment, I quoted the other.You ignore the first part of the, so it is dopes like you who will enable the anti-gun advocates to lose our gun rights. There are loopholes and weaknesses in the 2nd.
On which quoted part anti gun advocates are focusing more, yours or mine?
By the way, what do you think it's a purpose of the 2nd in general?
Purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia and armed population capable of challenging tyranny from the federal or other government or non-government entities, foreign and domestic.
No argument from me here. Maybe just a clarification.
The Second Amendment isn't to combat a tyrannical government, it's to repel the possibility of there being one. The founders had just fought a horrible and bloody war to establish their government, I don't think they wanted anybody fighting it.
The Second Amendment was the attempt to circumvent that possibility. The US government is not supposed to have a standing federal army in peacetime. It intended to replace a federal army by instead arming and training every able bodied American that did not object based upon religious reasons.
Every county of every state is supposed to have a militia, that in times of war would take command from its state militia which itself would be marshaled by the Commander in Chief in times of war, but only in times of war. The rest of the time the states would control their own regions with no federal oversight as long as the constitution was being upheld.
It was one of the most ambitious attempts at perpetuating true liberty in the history of mankind. Landed gentry deliberately ceded its power to the people. That is the true intent of the Second Amendment. No tyrant was ever intended to be able to exist in the USA.
But Americans forgot that responsibilities go along with rights, and now all they know is simplistic industry marketing, they do not understand the profound beauty of the Second Amendment. We let a federal military exist and get out of control and now it is much too big for democracy to wield. But why bother convincing them that their guns won't help?
They can't stop the MIC with guns, they can't stop the MIC at all. You can't stop something that has the option of taking everybody everywhere with it when it dies. That's true, sure. But disarming doesn't achieve anything either. All it would accomplish would be to ensure that America can never ever return to its intended path. It may balkanize some day and in doing so, find its way home. They need the guns.
My 2c.
Some people like to hunt with bazookas and 155s...any rifle you use to huntWhat the hell is it then, a hunting rifle?Here, stupid.Firearm Owners Protection Act - WikipediaWhen the hell did people have automatics? link?
See, this is why ignorant people should get the fuck out of the gun debate. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Let us make the decisions.
Question after Orlando: Are assault rifles banned? No, only fully automatic are ...
PolitiFact › statements › jun › ron-johnson
Jun 20, 2016 · One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered i
PolitiFact should get their "facts" straight. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
If anything that could kill is called "assault", then we should ban all assault hammers, assault trucks, assault hands, assault swimming pools.
DUH
