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

[Darkwind]

Graham needs to understand something.

The American citizen does not need to explain or justify exercising a right.

Not to government.

Not to him.

Not to the left.

 

[gipper]

There’s that penis obsession again. Why do gun grabbers love dicks so much?

It's impossible to miss the way they're waved around.

You better get your eyes checked.

 

[Penelope]

FN® Five seveN® Model Semiautomatic Pistols

• Weighs up to 30% less than comparably sized 9mm pistols
• Rugged polymer construction with integrated tactical rail
• Three 20-round magazines, lockable fitted hard case

Originally developed for military and law-enforcement tactical applications, the FN Five-seveN is chambered for the 5.7x28mm cartridge and has an impressive 20+1 capacity. It offers a high-velocity, medium-range, penetrating round in a lightweight, low-recoiling handgun. Weighing up to 30% less than comparably sized 9mm pistols, the Five-seveN is engineered for minimal muzzle jump. Rugged polymer construction with an integrated tactical rail for accessories. Ambidextrous manual safety. Three 20-round magazines included.
Available:

• Dark Earth frame with blued slide and adjustable rear sight/high-profile front blade sight.
• All black with adjustable rear sight/high-profile front blade sight.
• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this pistol needs to be outlawed for civilian use.
FN® Five seveN® Model Semiautomatic Pistols : Cabela's

 

[Penelope]

Graham needs to understand something.

The American citizen does not need to explain or justify exercising a right.

Not to government.

Not to him.

Not to the left.

For an assault weapon he needs to justify having one, like in the military.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did he whip out his tiny dick and show it to the crowd?

Have you seen it?
Fucking gazer!!!

 

[gipper]

Graham needs to understand something.

The American citizen does not need to explain or justify exercising a right.

Not to government.

Not to him.

Not to the left.

For an assault weapon he needs to justify having one, like in the military.

Okay Penny, you sold me. I will buy an AR15 this week. Thanks.

 

[mudwhistle]

I fully support you owning whatever weapon you want but dang, if Lindsey Graham is defending this I have to reconsider as he is never right about anything.

Lindsey Graham may be gay, and he may tend to drift from one side of the isle to another with his statements, but he tends to make more sense than just about any Democrat these days. At least he isn't in Iowa this weekend calling everyone on the right a White Supremacist.
Every Democrap candidate is trying to cover up for their horrific debate performance by spreading racial unrest....primarily because their fake Russian Collusion hoax literally blew up on national television.

 

[Blues Man]

Look it up yourself.

Well if your weapon is based on a design configured for rapid fire and combat use and will accept large interchangeable magazines, it'd fit the designation 'assault weapon'. That includes the Rugers.

At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
Assault weapon - Wikipedia​

It's called a ranch rifle and it can only fire one round at a time

 

[Blues Man]

So my 7.62 mm Semiautomatic with wood stock is OK because it doesn't fit the definition of "assault" weapon

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Some jurisdictions define revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia

And what are those other features?

As the ability to accept a detachable magazine alone does not make a rifle an "assault" rifle

My 7.62 mm rifle has none of those other features and would not fit the definition of an assault rifle so it must be OK to use for home defense right?

NO. Show a link to it.

Ruger® Mini-14® Mini Thirty® Rifle Autoloading Rifle Model 5806

Well since its semi automatic it is.

No it's not by the definition you posted

 

[hadit]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Senator Graham doesn't have much faith in American moral values, does he? He has more faith in combat-armed looters?

YEP them damn looters in Baltimore Furguson st Louis DC just destroyed things

Well MAYBE if assault rifles were banned, the looters wouldn't have that advantage. It is a known, if denied by the RW, that the past assault weapon & clip ban brought a decrease in violent crime. And certainly less mass shootings. What else are they used for? We get a lot of hypothetical musings about the need, but what other than mass shootings are the combat weapons in civilian hands actually used for?

It is a bleeping convenient excuse mouthed by Graham, and if THAT doesn't work, he can always remind you that we may be attacked by anti-tariff Chinese or Martians or Zulu tribesman or crazed Mexican jalapeno growers.

1. I'd like to see your source that credibly claims the bans

My 7.62 mm rifle has none of those other features and would not fit the definition of an assault rifle so it must be OK to use for home defense right?

Gods. The semantic games rightard gun nuts play to deflect from the mass killing capabilities of semi automatic rifles with large interchangeable magazines. Still, I suppose their penis extensions are important to them.

Is it just me or does anyone else notice that anti-gun people seem to be obsessed with sex? They're kind of weird that way.

 

[hadit]

There’s that penis obsession again. Why do gun grabbers love dicks so much?

It's impossible to miss the way they're waved around.

Leftists at protests wave signs around a lot. Penis extenders?

 

[Blues Man]

The penis reference

Well you need quite a large one, after all. What with your 'assault weapon' and everything.

And you think like a juvenile idiot

I bet you still giggle when someone say fart.

And I don't have any assault weapons.

I have several rifles that do not meet any of the definitions of an assault rifle in American law.

 

[Rustic]

Did he whip out his tiny dick and show it to the crowd?

Lol
There you go with penis obsession again, are you a little flaky in the head?
How did your mom raise you? Why are you still in your mothers basement?
You do realize he’s gay? Are you an Homophob?

 

[Rustic]

You really should get help with your psycho-sexual issues joe.....the rage and penis fixation that you have can't end well...

what doesn't end well is when one of you nuts shoots up a Mall or a nightclub.

I fully support you owning whatever weapon you want but dang, if Lindsey Graham is defending this I have to reconsider as he is never right about anything.

I'd have more respect for Limp Lindsey if he actually stood for something.

Lol
The vast majority of these mass shooters are progressives much like yourself

 

[Rustic]

There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A disaster, no power, no cops, no anything, means no looters, he would probably leave if there was a hurricane warning. Also they would be all fighting for their lifes.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but none are good for having assault weapons or pistols, no matter how hard you try.

Study what happened to unarmed people after Katrina, if you can stomach it. You will have to do some research to find the truth, since most of the MSM ignored the horrors, because they were committed by “people of color.”

So a pistol with 10 mag can be self defense, there is not need for assault weapons. So are you really going to kill someone for your possessions, guns are for self defense.

Another officer, D.J. Butler, told the crowd standing around that they would be out of the way as soon as they got the necessities.

“I’m not saying you’re welcome to it,” the officer said. “This is the situation we’re in. We have to make the best of it.”

The looting was taking place in full view of passing National Guard trucks and police cruisers.

One man with an armload of clothes even asked a policeman, “Can I borrow your car?”

Looters take advantage of New Orleans mess
Misleading reports of lawlessness after Katrina worsened crisis, officials say

Lol
You have no qualifications to even opine on the subject, You spineless motherfucker

 

[Rustic]

There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A disaster, no power, no cops, no anything, means no looters, he would probably leave if there was a hurricane warning. Also they would be all fighting for their lifes.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but none are good for having assault weapons or pistols, no matter how hard you try.

So my 7.62 mm Semiautomatic with wood stock is OK because it doesn't fit the definition of "assault" weapon

None of the weapons she and her ilk want to ban fit the description of "assault weapon" save for cosmetics. Not a single one.

What is an assault weapon?

Lol
It’s a boogie man made up by spineless progressives like yourself

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

So in your dumb ass world Republicans don't commit crime and a 12 gauge shotgun has the same effect. That looter bullshit is the dumbest argument Graham has ever put together.

 

[2aguy]

There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A disaster, no power, no cops, no anything, means no looters, he would probably leave if there was a hurricane warning. Also they would be all fighting for their lifes.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but none are good for having assault weapons or pistols, no matter how hard you try.

Study what happened to unarmed people after Katrina, if you can stomach it. You will have to do some research to find the truth, since most of the MSM ignored the horrors, because they were committed by “people of color.”

So a pistol with 10 mag can be self defense, there is not need for assault weapons. So are you really going to kill someone for your possessions, guns are for self defense.

Another officer, D.J. Butler, told the crowd standing around that they would be out of the way as soon as they got the necessities.

“I’m not saying you’re welcome to it,” the officer said. “This is the situation we’re in. We have to make the best of it.”

The looting was taking place in full view of passing National Guard trucks and police cruisers.

One man with an armload of clothes even asked a policeman, “Can I borrow your car?”

Looters take advantage of New Orleans mess
Misleading reports of lawlessness after Katrina worsened crisis, officials say

Looters can turn into rapists and murderers fairly quickly you moron......and while a crowd of thugs might try to push the attack against a 10 shot pistol, a rifle is another thing altogether....

 

[2aguy]

There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A disaster, no power, no cops, no anything, means no looters, he would probably leave if there was a hurricane warning. Also they would be all fighting for their lifes.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but none are good for having assault weapons or pistols, no matter how hard you try.

So my 7.62 mm Semiautomatic with wood stock is OK because it doesn't fit the definition of "assault" weapon

Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Some jurisdictions define revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia

Try an actual definition



Defining "Assault Weapons" | The Regulatory Review

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “assault rifles” are“short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”

All assault rifles are capable of automatic fire.

Examples include the U.S. Army M-16, the Soviet AK-47, and the German Sturmgewehr.

No guns that are dubbed “assault weapons” are assault rifles—but some of them do look similar, because the small parts that make a gun automatic are internal and not visible.


And another Supreme Court ruling on "dangerous and unusual."


Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]



Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[gipper]

There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A disaster, no power, no cops, no anything, means no looters, he would probably leave if there was a hurricane warning. Also they would be all fighting for their lifes.

You can make up all kinds of excuses, but none are good for having assault weapons or pistols, no matter how hard you try.

Study what happened to unarmed people after Katrina, if you can stomach it. You will have to do some research to find the truth, since most of the MSM ignored the horrors, because they were committed by “people of color.”

So a pistol with 10 mag can be self defense, there is not need for assault weapons. So are you really going to kill someone for your possessions, guns are for self defense.

Another officer, D.J. Butler, told the crowd standing around that they would be out of the way as soon as they got the necessities.

“I’m not saying you’re welcome to it,” the officer said. “This is the situation we’re in. We have to make the best of it.”

The looting was taking place in full view of passing National Guard trucks and police cruisers.

One man with an armload of clothes even asked a policeman, “Can I borrow your car?”

Looters take advantage of New Orleans mess
Misleading reports of lawlessness after Katrina worsened crisis, officials say

Looters can turn into rapists and murderers fairly quickly you moron......and while a crowd of thugs might try to push the attack against a 10 shot pistol, a rifle is another thing altogether....

Everyone should read about what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. It will make even the hardened combat veteran’s hair stand up.