Senator Lindsey Graham explains why he needs an AR-15 civilian rifle...

[Blues Man]

I don’t understand why Republicans like Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey are on the side of Russians.

Isn’t it true that in Russia people aren’t allowed to own guns? So why is Russia giving millions and millions of dollars to the NRA. I’m sure the fact that the NRA gave tens of millions to Donald Trump‘s campaign had nothing to do with it.

GREAT question. Bet they'll never prove it though.

is it illegal for foreign people to donate money to any American rights group?

 

[pknopp]

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.

And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.

There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.

Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?

Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.

Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.

 

[pknopp]

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.

And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.

There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.

A very well documented though small Revolutionary War battle happened here and the men who came from surrounding towns had only three firearms between them. The rest had whatever they could grab from the barn. Pitchforks, staves, whatever.
Guns were expensive and apparently not as many people spent their time hunting as you might think. Of course the guns in those days weren't very accurate and they were a pain in the ass to use, so .... they went fishing or set traps.

You might have documented that if it was well documented. The Army did not defeat the British with pitchforks. Yes, guns were not as easy to use then as they are now but that was true for both sides.

 

[hadit]

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.

They have the privilege, not the right. Removing assault weapons does not infringe the citizen's right to bear arms.

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that is a false argument until such time as all agree on the definition of "assault weapons". Those who own and shoot AR-15's will tell you that they are just another rifle with a distinctive shape, not any deadlier than a deer rifle. And yes, they have the right until the SC weighs in on any proposed ban.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

 

[Rustic]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

Lol
Criminal control not gun control

 

[hadit]

I don’t understand why Republicans like Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsey are on the side of Russians.

Isn’t it true that in Russia people aren’t allowed to own guns? So why is Russia giving millions and millions of dollars to the NRA. I’m sure the fact that the NRA gave tens of millions to Donald Trump‘s campaign had nothing to do with it.

You're right, it didn't.

 

[Blues Man]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

 

[Blues Man]

 

[Rustic]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

...And drinking is not an right, and driving is not an right...
And drinking and driving is illegal.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

...And drinking is not an right, and driving is not an right...
And drinking and driving is illegal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

Right up until the time you're staring down the barrel of a gun and you realize that by the time the police show up, all they'll need is a mop and a body bag.

What fear? They have a gun, the fear vanishes.

In your scenario you leave out the fact that the projectile is faster than your reaction time. If someone has a gun pointed at you, they are likely to shoot if you reach for your concealed gun to protect yourself.

 

[OldLady]

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.

And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.

There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.

A very well documented though small Revolutionary War battle happened here and the men who came from surrounding towns had only three firearms between them. The rest had whatever they could grab from the barn. Pitchforks, staves, whatever.
Guns were expensive and apparently not as many people spent their time hunting as you might think. Of course the guns in those days weren't very accurate and they were a pain in the ass to use, so .... they went fishing or set traps.

You might have documented that if it was well documented. The Army did not defeat the British with pitchforks. Yes, guns were not as easy to use then as they are now but that was true for both sides.

I was simply agreeing with your earlier post that not as many people owned guns then.

 

[Rustic]

I Agree with the Senator.If there is a black out, or Hurricane, or some other natural or unnatural disaster, an AR-15 will be a good deterrent to looters and the criminal minded in the society.There are terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles waiting attack Americans. We need assault rifles in America.

Paranoid ^^^; must be a pity to feel so scared all the time.

Right up until the time you're staring down the barrel of a gun and you realize that by the time the police show up, all they'll need is a mop and a body bag.

What fear? They have a gun, the fear vanishes.

In your scenario you leave out the fact that the projectile is faster than your reaction time. If someone has a gun pointed at you, they are likely to shoot if you reach for your concealed gun to protect yourself.

That is why this country needs to be better armed, that way you never know if someone’s armed or not… That being the criminal. Lol

 

[Rustic]

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.

And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.

There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.

A very well documented though small Revolutionary War battle happened here and the men who came from surrounding towns had only three firearms between them. The rest had whatever they could grab from the barn. Pitchforks, staves, whatever.
Guns were expensive and apparently not as many people spent their time hunting as you might think. Of course the guns in those days weren't very accurate and they were a pain in the ass to use, so .... they went fishing or set traps.

You might have documented that if it was well documented. The Army did not defeat the British with pitchforks. Yes, guns were not as easy to use then as they are now but that was true for both sides.

I was simply agreeing with your earlier post that not as many people owned guns then.

This country needs to be better armed... fact

 

[Wry Catcher]

Being prepared is not the same as being paranoid and afraid.

I also carry a kit in my car with various items in case I break down or so I can be of aid to someone else if their car breaks down

Is that paranoid or fearful?

I have several fire extinguishers in my home

Is that paranoid or fearful?

The odds of you ever needing a gun is extremely low. The odds of being killed by a gun are extremely low.

Same argument.

The odds of me breaking down are extremely low because I take excellent care of my cars
The odds of my house burning down are extremely low as well

I don't carry because I am I'm afraid I'm going to get shot and killed I carry because I know from experience that there are violent people in the world and those people do not necessarily need a gun to inflict great harm on innocent people.

You condemned people for being concerned over something that has a very low chance of happening. You are doing the same.

They simply want to address that extremely low risk differently than you.

I just said I am not concerned about being murdered by a person with a gun.
You do realize that you can be the victim of a violent crime that does not involve a gun don't you?

Committed crimes in the U.S. in 2017, by type of crime | Statista

The chance of being the victim of a crime is far greater than the chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. When i was 18 I was jumped by 3 thugs and wound up in the hospital with cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a severe concussion and a lacerated spleen that had to be removed.

There was no gun involved. And I obviously wasn't murdered.

So no I don't worry that I will be murdered by a person using a gun but I know that people without guns can still commit violent crimes

And had you simply shown that you had a gun, you likely wouldn't have been harmed at all, or needed to shoot anyone.

Given the fact that mass murderers show the gun, some good guy with a gun might very well take you down, thinking you are one of the bad guys.

 

[OldLady]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.

 

[hadit]

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.

And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.

There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.

A very well documented though small Revolutionary War battle happened here and the men who came from surrounding towns had only three firearms between them. The rest had whatever they could grab from the barn. Pitchforks, staves, whatever.
Guns were expensive and apparently not as many people spent their time hunting as you might think. Of course the guns in those days weren't very accurate and they were a pain in the ass to use, so .... they went fishing or set traps.

You might have documented that if it was well documented. The Army did not defeat the British with pitchforks. Yes, guns were not as easy to use then as they are now but that was true for both sides.

It was the colonist's use of asymmetrical warfare that defeated the British. At the time, "honorable" battles were fought face to face, with both sides wearing distinctive unforms and standing in formation facing each other. The British had superior numbers and weapons, but got very frustrated when the rebels started decimating them from the trees, behind buildings, etc. Their knowledge of the terrain was a huge advantage.

It was that same advantage the Afghans used to drive the Russians out a few decades ago, and is why it is so difficult to successfully occupy a foreign country, especially when the civilians have access to firearms.

 

[Blues Man]

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.

Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder

That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500

Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.

And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%

 

[Rustic]

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!

So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?

So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?

This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.

It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.

Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder

That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500

Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.

And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%

And we have much bigger fish to fry