Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[bripat9643]

How has your plan worked out in France? What terrorist shootings have you stopped with the strategy you want to follow here to limit the legal sale of guns?

I'll type slow that even a moron like you can keep up......A terrorist can drive....DRIVE....from Syria or Iraq to France without much problem, storing assault rifles along with a spare tire....So,NO...France has a bitch of a time stopping and searching every car coming across in about 5 borders....So that's rather tough for them.

Conversely, terrorists here in the US (thanks to you and your ilk and the NRA) can simply buy such lethal weapons with your blessings....

Once he tries to enter the EU, he has to go through customs and subject himself to all the usual immigration controls.

You're full of shit, of course.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh, when you get to the gun store?

Yep, for me it required the salesperson to make a call that took less than 5 minutes and he was complaining by how long it took.

That's a lie. What state did you buy your firearm in then?

Arizona. No lie. I spent more time debating jam at the grocery store.

I see. Arizona is an open carry state. Other than the Tuscon shooting and the Waddel Buddhist Temple shooting, just how many mass shootings have taken place in Arizona? I define a mass shooting as one that takes 5 or more lives.

I don't know, why don't you tell me? Shold I be especially concerned with the goings on in Arizona?

That's the state you bought your firearm in. So, why can't you tell me? We're all here talking about how AR-15's should or should not be banned because of this shooting, and you own a firearm, making theories about which type is more dangerous. Jarred Loughner used a handgun in the Tuscon shooting. Which means that handguns are equally as dangerous as assault rifles. What he used was a 9x19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. Thirty-three round magazine.

Noticing a pattern here?

 

[Borillar]

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,

By using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.

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?

Just think if you had a six shot revolver, and seven people came to assault you?

Shoot one of them and the rest would likely go running away, unless they are a group of zombies.

 

[HappyJoy]

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,

By using the words "assault weapon" your creditability with those who know firearms drops to less than zero.

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?

Does anyone know if the shooter bought his assault weapon(s) legally?

From what I heard, the shooter worked as a "security guard" and was readily licensed to purchase any weapon he desired.

According the ATF he bought a long gun and a handgun just days ago.

So!

So, it's apparently fact. Do what you want with the info.

It is apparently a fact that you are blaming the weapon.

Do what you want with the info.

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

 

[Rustic]

Ask 103 people who were shot last night if they give a flying fuck about the difference.

Better yet, ask them if they'd rather live in a dictatorship with complete security and complete Federal control or take a risk under freedom.

Ask the Japanese, they have a zero death by gun rate and they do not live in a dictatorship under complete government control. Just because America fucked up royally with this issue doesn't mean we have to become a dictatorship in order to fix it. Grow up

The suicide rate is roughly 60 percent higher than the global average, a 2014 World Health Organization report noted. In 2014 alone, 25,000 Japanese people took their own lives — roughly 70 suicides every day.Oct 22, 2015

And They don't Need guns to do it. dumbass motherfucker
Lol

 

[nat4900]

It is apparently a fact that you are blaming the weapon.

Do what you want with the info.

Stupid response used by the same trite mentality.....

Here I'll (again"make it very simple for you and the biases you must carry....

Was the weapon used in this latest shooting one that could MAXIMIZE deaths as many as possible in the shortest amount of time???? Yes or No?

Of right wingers and left leaning folks, WHO is advocating for the continued sale of such weapons...........even to would-be terrorists???

 

[HappyJoy]

Yep, for me it required the salesperson to make a call that took less than 5 minutes and he was complaining by how long it took.

That's a lie. What state did you buy your firearm in then?

Arizona. No lie. I spent more time debating jam at the grocery store.

I see. Arizona is an open carry state. Other than the Tuscon shooting and the Waddel Buddhist Temple shooting, just how many mass shootings have taken place in Arizona? I define a mass shooting as one that takes 5 or more lives.

I don't know, why don't you tell me? Shold I be especially concerned with the goings on in Arizona?

That's the state you bought your firearm in. So, why can't you tell me? We're all here talking about how AR-15's should or should not be banned because of this shooting, and you own a firearm, making theories about which type is more dangerous. Jarred Loughner used a handgun in the Tuscon shooting. Which means that handguns are equally as dangerous as assault rifles. What he used was a 9x19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. Thirty-three round magazine.

Noticing a pattern here?

Equally? No.

And I don't talk about where I currently live while online, just something I don't do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense

Whaaaaat?!

What exactly have you been doing for the past three hours? BLAMING THE WEAPON!

Holy sweet Moses you are clueless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's a lie. What state did you buy your firearm in then?

Arizona. No lie. I spent more time debating jam at the grocery store.

I see. Arizona is an open carry state. Other than the Tuscon shooting and the Waddel Buddhist Temple shooting, just how many mass shootings have taken place in Arizona? I define a mass shooting as one that takes 5 or more lives.

I don't know, why don't you tell me? Shold I be especially concerned with the goings on in Arizona?

That's the state you bought your firearm in. So, why can't you tell me? We're all here talking about how AR-15's should or should not be banned because of this shooting, and you own a firearm, making theories about which type is more dangerous. Jarred Loughner used a handgun in the Tuscon shooting. Which means that handguns are equally as dangerous as assault rifles. What he used was a 9x19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. Thirty-three round magazine.

Noticing a pattern here?

Equally? No.

What?

 

[Divine Wind]

I know it's not in their DNA. That's just another way of saying that certain attitudes that are instilled from birth can't be changed later in life.

Sorry, but again disagreed. Sure, some people are "indoctrinated" from birth and never break that indoctrination. In my experience, those people are usually on the backside of the IQ bell curve. Smart people can change, and often do, upon their emancipation as citizens when becoming adults. Since all human beings are 99.9% genetically identical, the differences are mostly cultural. Ideology, religion, politics, etc. These are all learned and, thus, can be unlearned.

 

[Rustic]

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,

I think that is the most moronic thing I've heard in a while.

Innocent people were attacked by a radical Islamic nutjob who didn't kill them because of lax gun laws or easy access to weapons. These are the nutjobs created by Secretary of State Clinton and Barack Obama when they pulled out of Iraq after turning it into a reliving of Vietnam.

Now you are going to take the results of your disastrous foreign policy and blame it on our constitutional right to bear arms? If you think Americans are going to buy THIS spin, you're as big of a nutjob as the radical Islamist.

Oh GFY. You stupid people blame Obama for everything, everything! You don't realize how stupid this is. You morons thought he was going to come in and take your guns away in 2010. Maybe if he had shit like this wouldn't be happening

Barry is a fuck up, Plain and simple. Shit for brains

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense

Whaaaaat?!

What exactly have you been doing for the past three hours? BLAMING THE WEAPON!

Holy sweet Moses you are clueless.

Several times in this thread I have made it clear, I blame the shooter. That doesn't mean you ignore the tools he had available to him. Especially the one he was holding, pointing, shooting, reloading, pointing and shooting where he hit more than 100 people.

 

[Anathema]

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...........

OR

You employ some sanity and abandon this moronic notion that NO weapon should be outlawed.

I'll take Option ONE, thank you very much.

My family has fought, killed and died to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Arms sufficient to overthrow the Government if necessary.

The failure in this nation is not mostly one of arms available. It is a failure of individuals and businesses to protect themselves and their families/customers along with a failure of the Government to secure criminals and foreigners properly.

 

[bripat9643]

I know it's not in their DNA. That's just another way of saying that certain attitudes that are instilled from birth can't be changed later in life.

Sorry, but again disagreed. Sure, some people are "indoctrinated" from birth and never break that indoctrination. In my experience, those people are usually on the backside of the IQ bell curve. Smart people can change, and often do, upon their emancipation as citizens when becoming adults. Since all human beings are 99.9% genetically identical, the differences are mostly cultural. Ideology, religion, politics, etc. These are all learned and, thus, can be unlearned.

Syrians have an average I.Q. of 84. That's partly the result of inbreeding. Other Muslims countries are just as bad. The reason is that Muhammad commanded his followers to marry their cousins.

Muslims suffer insanity, low IQ, recessive disorders from 1400 years inbreeding

Your claim is another reason we shouldn't import these bloodthirsty savages.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense

Whaaaaat?!

What exactly have you been doing for the past three hours? BLAMING THE WEAPON!

Holy sweet Moses you are clueless.

Several times in this thread I have made it clear, I blame the shooter. That doesn't mean you ignore the tools he had available to him. Especially the one he was holding, pointing, shooting, reloading, pointing and shooting where he hit more than 100 people.

He had to have the right tool for the job...AR-15 with a high capacity magazine.......perfect for killing gays

The NRA made sure he had the best available weaponry

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense

Whaaaaat?!

What exactly have you been doing for the past three hours? BLAMING THE WEAPON!

Holy sweet Moses you are clueless.

Several times in this thread I have made it clear, I blame the shooter. That doesn't mean you ignore the tools he had available to him. Especially the one he was holding, pointing, shooting, reloading, pointing and shooting where he hit more than 100 people.

He had to have the right tool for the job...AR-15 with a high capacity magazine.......perfect for killing gays

The NRA made sure he had the best available weaponry

Lame

 

[nat4900]

Several times in this thread I have made it clear, I blame the shooter. That doesn't mean you ignore the tools he had available to him. Especially the one he was holding, pointing, shooting, reloading, pointing and shooting where he hit more than 100 people.

Agreed!!!! and well stated...

of course, right wingers will retort that such weapons MUST remain legal and MUST be sold to whomever wants one because..........well, because

An honest hunter MUST be able to shoot at 100 or more deer if he so chooses......and
A homeowner MUST be able to shoot down at least 100 or more intruders to his house.

 

[2aguy]

Can you name any mass shooting with an AR-15 that killed more than 30 people? Besides this one...asshole...try real hard.........

Thank you for proving my point. There were no mass shootings committed by people with hand guns over 30. What you are admitting to is that last nights shooting couldn't be committed by a single person with hand guns. Damn, I couldn't have said i any better myself.

Then, funny as all shit, you're post is practically begging me to prove your point for you. Double suck on your part.

He admitted no such thing. The fact that it hasn't occurred isn't proof that it couldn't occur. Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building. According to your "logic," it should have been impossible.

After 9/11 we enacted laws and forced airlines to barricade cockpit doors. Not to mention the creation of the DHS. So, good job Jr, way to fail that shit.

In the meantime we do know the effectiveness of assault style weapons in the hands of terrorists...or anyone really. Why can't you morons just deal with the fact that they are effective? Hell, they are sold as though they are the weapon of choice of warriors. Can't have it both ways.

Your theory is that since it hasn't happened, then it must be impossible. That's an idiot theory.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment covers semi-automatics like the AR-15.

My theory is that weapons like the AR15 are more dangerous than the average handgun, you don't even want to wade into those waters, your ideology won't allow you to.

The 2nd amendment covers the AR15 up until a law were passed to ban it and others like it, then it's up to...oh-oh, the rights bane of American democracy...the judiciary.

I have to state again, I'm not necessarily for the ban of assault style weapons...and after listening to you fucks I'm having a difficult time not just wanting them banned outright. Can't get a straight answer from one of you. Believe what you want but at least have an understanding of their proven ability to mow people down.

In truth, they are not....anything they can do a nut with a pistol can also do...it all comes down to target selection...location, location, location.....

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense

Whaaaaat?!

What exactly have you been doing for the past three hours? BLAMING THE WEAPON!

Holy sweet Moses you are clueless.

Several times in this thread I have made it clear, I blame the shooter. That doesn't mean you ignore the tools he had available to him. Especially the one he was holding, pointing, shooting, reloading, pointing and shooting where he hit more than 100 people.

He had to have the right tool for the job...AR-15 with a high capacity magazine.......perfect for killing gays

The NRA made sure he had the best available weaponry

Actually, has anyone heard from the NRA yet? Usually they announce a press conference in a couple of days and just rabble through the same bullshit.

 

[HappyJoy]

Thank you for proving my point. There were no mass shootings committed by people with hand guns over 30. What you are admitting to is that last nights shooting couldn't be committed by a single person with hand guns. Damn, I couldn't have said i any better myself.

Then, funny as all shit, you're post is practically begging me to prove your point for you. Double suck on your part.

He admitted no such thing. The fact that it hasn't occurred isn't proof that it couldn't occur. Before 9/11, passenger planes had never been used to destroy a building. According to your "logic," it should have been impossible.

After 9/11 we enacted laws and forced airlines to barricade cockpit doors. Not to mention the creation of the DHS. So, good job Jr, way to fail that shit.

In the meantime we do know the effectiveness of assault style weapons in the hands of terrorists...or anyone really. Why can't you morons just deal with the fact that they are effective? Hell, they are sold as though they are the weapon of choice of warriors. Can't have it both ways.

Your theory is that since it hasn't happened, then it must be impossible. That's an idiot theory.

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment covers semi-automatics like the AR-15.

My theory is that weapons like the AR15 are more dangerous than the average handgun, you don't even want to wade into those waters, your ideology won't allow you to.

The 2nd amendment covers the AR15 up until a law were passed to ban it and others like it, then it's up to...oh-oh, the rights bane of American democracy...the judiciary.

I have to state again, I'm not necessarily for the ban of assault style weapons...and after listening to you fucks I'm having a difficult time not just wanting them banned outright. Can't get a straight answer from one of you. Believe what you want but at least have an understanding of their proven ability to mow people down.

In truth, they are not....anything they can do a nut with a pistol can also do...it all comes down to target selection...location, location, location.....

Then you should have no problem pointing out an instance where someone with a single hand gun came even close. I mean, given all those locations, locations, locations.