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.
Which proves WHAT, you idiot......A handgun would NOT have amassed 50 dead and 53 severely wounded.
O, AR-15s in France...0, fully automatic weapons in france...they still got them....how would you stop this guy....France has extreme gun control.......more than we have and all the gun control the gun grabbers dream about.....and terrorists on government, terrorists watch lists still got them....as do French criminals.....
And they have less civil rights than we do........
Fifty people lost their lives and you have the gall to preach gun control? You sick freak.
A GUN DIDN'T KILL 50 PEOPLE, A TERRORIST DID.
AN ar15 is just a sporting rifle, just like any other...By the way, wingnuts. I own a handgun, just a simple Glock 9mm. I'm not against the ownership of guns and even if I were, it's a protected right under the 2nd.
I've thought about buying an AR-15 for the last couple of years, they look like fun and I can certainly understand why they and guns in general are popular.
However, in this debate about what should be legal or how we decide who should even own a gun, at least recognize that some guns do more damage to others. Last night/this morning a horrible new record for our country was achieved and the AR15 is the tool used to achieve it. That is fact, that is life.
I think the FBI needs to do a better job of vetting those that have had interactions with terrorism, regardless of it's origins, that's just common sense. We also need to be realistic about the guns chosen, used and how they attained them. That is also common sense. Chill out wingnuts.
I think people that are against the owning of ARs are racist...
It's by far my best seller of any sporting rifle, and you don't see any South Dakotans and being killed by any ARs, or any other sporting rifle for that matter... At $500 a pop - a great investment...
Why are you bringing race into this?
View attachment 77883
Obviously it was an attempt to make a joke. Why is bringing race into it a punchline?
No fuck head...we are okay with 320,000,000 Americans owning 357,000,000 guns who use them for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting who don't use them for any crime of any kind and in fact use them to stop violent criminal attack...according to the bill clinton Department of Justice Research.....1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack up to and including some mass shootings like this one.....
What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.
A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.
France has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. How did that workout for them?
Are you talking about one night or their entire history?
Am I saying we should have the same gun laws as France?
Are you sure you aren't really the kid in your avatar?
France had two major terrorist incidents in two years. How many people died in those incidents?
Lots?
We already have gun control...you are not allowed, by law to use a gun to commit murder or other crimes...if you do you will be arrested.
The other gun control laws are there simply to make it possible to attack normal, law abiding gun owners for Bureaucratic mistakes and for making mistakes on paperwork......
Do you think this killer would have stopped his planning because he had to get a license, register his guns or get a universal background check...since he already passed a background check to buy the guns and another one to become a security guard....
Well, let's look at that.
Two things we've found out about this guy.
1) He was saying a lot of pro-ISIS Jihadi shit on line.
2) His in-laws say he was physically abusive to his wife.
and we were able to find these things about him in one day.
The sad thing we always find out about these guys is that they are people who never should have gotten a gun who got one anyway.
Sporting rifle is the word you're looking for… DumbassFifty people lost their lives and you have the gall to preach gun control? You sick freak.
A GUN DIDN'T KILL 50 PEOPLE, A TERRORIST DID.
Yes, when FIFTY PEOPLE ARE SHOT WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON, someone should actually preach gun control.
Which proves WHAT, you idiot......A handgun would NOT have amassed 50 dead and 53 severely wounded.
So what's your point?By the way, wingnuts. I own a handgun, just a simple Glock 9mm. I'm not against the ownership of guns and even if I were, it's a protected right under the 2nd.
But you have spent the majority of this thread agreeing with nat on banning assault weapons. So, it seems to me you only agree in part with the 2nd Amendment.
I think it's worth a conversation, sure.
So, let me ask you this question:
You own a firearm, yet you think it's okay to tell people they can't buy an assault rifle for self defense as opposed to handgun. How do you explain your reasoning?
1. Let's be clear, I'm not really sure what should be legal or not, I'm saying the gun used has a direct result in the carnage we are left with. Fair enough?
2. If I were against guns like the AR15...and who knows, I might end up in that camp. What about automatic weapons? They are illegal (mostly) yet I don't hear many gun advocates having a problem with that. My guess is it's because they are so unpopular that nobody wants to argue that case. I don't think the NRA even goes there, how come? People kill people, right?
3. Lot's of things are illegal that nobody bitches about Driving a vehicle without insurance...or drunk. That includes boats and snow mobiles. Freedom of movement probably has more of a direct implication in this country than the ownership of guns, nobody complains...or not much. Because we get it, we understand and it has been turned onto it's head because of politics.
Guns are a political. There are valid reasons on both sides. It's codified in our Constituion and through legal precedence we as citizens have the right to own them. Also through precedence, like every other right there are commons sense restrictions. You right now do not have the right to won any gun you want. Some can't own any guns and it's perfectly legal. You're a felon or you're legally declared unfit to own one.
Gun Control is not some un-American communist plot. Lot's of people have them, maybe some shouldn't and certainly, some should't own machine guns or worse.
Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.
Either you continue to adamantly support the sale of assault weapons to maniacs....weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time...........OR
You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed so that you can "idealize' some stupid scenario that you must defend yourself from government troops......
If you have a conscience (and since most of you call yourselves "good Christians") you have a choice to make....Be tacitly complicit in mass murders....or change your attitude toward the sale of such lethal weapons,
Freedom is not part of socialism... Shit for brainsO, AR-15s in France...0, fully automatic weapons in france...they still got them....how would you stop this guy....France has extreme gun control.......more than we have and all the gun control the gun grabbers dream about.....and terrorists on government, terrorists watch lists still got them....as do French criminals.....
And they have less civil rights than we do........
Look at a map of Europe and those countries' contingent borders all the way to the middle east....THEN you'll have (maybe) your answer.
Killed 50 people with it....THAT is some assault weaponBy using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.
That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?
Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?
What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.
A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.
O, AR-15s in France...0, fully automatic weapons in france...they still got them....how would you stop this guy....France has extreme gun control.......more than we have and all the gun control the gun grabbers dream about.....and terrorists on government, terrorists watch lists still got them....as do French criminals.....
And they have less civil rights than we do........
Look at a map of Europe and those countries' contingent borders all the way to the middle east....THEN you'll have (maybe) your answer.
I would note one small difference, the Jews in Germany weren't going around killing as many people as they could, were they?
True....the Nazis were much "better" at eliminating those whom they consider a threat....Now, do you want for us to emulate the Nazi's methodologies?
Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.
Either you continue to adamantly support the sale of assault weapons to maniacs....weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time...........OR
You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed so that you can "idealize' some stupid scenario that you must defend yourself from government troops......
If you have a conscience (and since most of you call yourselves "good Christians") you have a choice to make....Be tacitly complicit in mass murders....or change your attitude toward the sale of such lethal weapons,
Right -- a career US citizen "security guard" shouldn't have access to firearms.
FBI was following this guy. My guess is -- because the shooting with the FBI started OUTSIDE the club, this is a baiting operation gone badly..
YET --- your clueless leftist clan wants to go after a Bill of Rights issue and gives the NSA a brand new PALACE in Utah to spy on the rest of us.. You REWARD incompetence and tyranny and you ABUSE rights and liberties.
That's what you are...
Does anyone know if the shooter bought his assault weapon(s) legally?
I would say yes....he passed background checks and had a type G gun permit....
Killed 50 people with it....THAT is some assault weaponBy using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.
Either you continue to adamantly support the sale of assault weapons to maniacs....weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time...........OR
You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed so that you can "idealize' some stupid scenario that you must defend yourself from government troops......
If you have a conscience (and since most of you call yourselves "good Christians") you have a choice to make....Be tacitly complicit in mass murders....or change your attitude toward the sale of such lethal weapons,
That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?
Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?
O, AR-15s in France...0, fully automatic weapons in france...they still got them....how would you stop this guy....France has extreme gun control.......more than we have and all the gun control the gun grabbers dream about.....and terrorists on government, terrorists watch lists still got them....as do French criminals.....
And they have less civil rights than we do........
That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?
Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?
What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.
A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.
A quite noteworthy deflection.
It doesn't matter what weapon he used, a revolver (apple) and an AR-15 (orange) are both capable of killing. Murder is murder, whether one victim or fifty. Why can't you blame terrorism for this? Is it beyond your level of comprehension to acknowledge that a human being who possessed the desire to kill used the gun as an implement to commit an act of terrorism?
No deflection on my part at all. The AR-15 is used often in mass shootings. Handguns especially revolvers not so much. I don't know where I stand right now on certain guns being legal. But to completely ignore the difference in carnage between different weapons is ignorance on display.
Also, I do blame terrorism and I also blame homophobia, my point only referenced a single topic in a multidimensional tragedy. The topic being the efficiency that allowed this guy, all by himself to terminate the lives of 50 people while injuring over 50 more and commiting the worst mass shooting in our country's history. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a handgun.
Agreed. In fact, the best thing to happen to the arms industry in America is the Democratic Party and their chosen leader, Barack Obama. I'm guessing the arms industry are holding nightly vigils praying Hillary is elected next November.You're fucking nuts.
This only makes people want to buy more ammo.
Killed 50 people with it....THAT is some assault weapon
That weapon didn't kill 50 people by itself, now did it?
Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?
What does that have to do with anything? A revolver can have as many as six rounds in it. If the shooter was an expert marksman, he could have killed six people with it. It doesn't matter what weapon he had, killing six people is just as bad as killing 50. Any loss of life is unacceptable.
A person with an AR-15 has the ability to kill 50 people, injure 53 more. A revolver, not so much.
A bag full fired into a packed nighclub with 350 people in a dark room with loud music with a good majority of them drunk or high.....yeah....a bag full of revovlers would do the trick too...or a shot gun....or several shotguns......
notice...they aren't AR-15s are they?
