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

[RealDave]

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 you & your buddy, Panty Waist Lindsey" say oply an AR-15 provides defense.

 

[RealDave]

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

Don't count on it

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this before ---that's total bullshit
there are NOT 1.1 million SD uses --that's ridiculous

How many would you estimate?

There is no way to get an authoritative number on this. Most of the time a criminal will just shit himself and vamoose as soon as he sees his victim is ready for action. Police aren't notified, records aren't kept

let me state again--because this is AMAZINGLY idiotic:
you have to use a gun, and DON'T call the police??????!!!!!!!!!!!???????
what???????

Why would you call the police if the situation is resolved? Further, in a lot of cities, brandishing a firearm or carrying it in public isn't looked upon that highly. Tell the police, they are likely to confiscated your weapon and investigate you. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
plain and simple---you SHOULD call the cops!!
and--AND---you prove MY point!!!!! there are NOT 1.1 million SD uses
1. ''''supposedly'' [hahahahaha] they are not even reported [ ]
2.if it is a LEGITIMATE SD use---it would be LEGAL to use the gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it would NOT be brandishing--would it!!!!????

The police don't want to hear about a problem that is already resolved. Why would they? They aren't your mother.

Why anyone ask the police to investigate them? Even if they are innocent- especially if they are innocent?

''''vamoose as soon as he sees his victim is ready for action''''
hhhhhahahhahahah
so they police don't want you to report on criminals !!!!!!!!!!!?????????
man--you have posted some wild crap --a lot of it

 

[Polishprince]

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 you & your buddy, Panty Waist Lindsey" say oply an AR-15 provides defense.

If you are facing down large numbers of looters, yes, you'll need a powerful gun to deter this kind of mob.

Bringing out a "Saturday Night Special" isn't going to help that much.

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this before ---that's total bullshit
there are NOT 1.1 million SD uses --that's ridiculous

How many would you estimate?

There is no way to get an authoritative number on this. Most of the time a criminal will just shit himself and vamoose as soon as he sees his victim is ready for action. Police aren't notified, records aren't kept

let me state again--because this is AMAZINGLY idiotic:
you have to use a gun, and DON'T call the police??????!!!!!!!!!!!???????
what???????

Why would you call the police if the situation is resolved? Further, in a lot of cities, brandishing a firearm or carrying it in public isn't looked upon that highly. Tell the police, they are likely to confiscated your weapon and investigate you. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
plain and simple---you SHOULD call the cops!!
and--AND---you prove MY point!!!!! there are NOT 1.1 million SD uses
1. ''''supposedly'' [hahahahaha] they are not even reported [ ]
2.if it is a LEGITIMATE SD use---it would be LEGAL to use the gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it would NOT be brandishing--would it!!!!????

The police don't want to hear about a problem that is already resolved. Why would they? They aren't your mother.

Why anyone ask the police to investigate them? Even if they are innocent- especially if they are innocent?

you keep digging deeper

 

[harmonica]

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 you & your buddy, Panty Waist Lindsey" say oply an AR-15 provides defense.

If you are facing down large numbers of looters, yes, you'll need a powerful gun to deter this kind of mob.

Bringing out a "Saturday Night Special" isn't going to help that much.

but you and 2A say pistols are just as bad/dangerous/deadly as rifles
I've seen here and on many comment sections
so which is it?
..according to all of you gun nuts [ I'm not anti-gun by the way ] you can take on large numbers with a KNIFE--you guys always say KNIVES are just as deadly as guns---2AGuy just said it!!!
so --which is it?

 

[harmonica]

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 you & your buddy, Panty Waist Lindsey" say oply an AR-15 provides defense.

If you are facing down large numbers of looters, yes, you'll need a powerful gun to deter this kind of mob.

Bringing out a "Saturday Night Special" isn't going to help that much.

2aGuy says:

knives kill more people every single year than these rifles do.......according to you, we must ban knives.

 

[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...

That’s the best he can come up with?

I need an AR-15 to fight off looters?

It's a valid reason.

 

[hadit]

So people need unlimited access to AR-15s because someone might steal their stuff

They don't need a reason, they have the right.

 

[xyz]

 

[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?

I told joe over and over again he needs professional help. He has mixed the wiring up in his brain and now sees sexual gratification in guns....that is not only a mental illness, it can be extremely dangerous to him and his blow up doll.....he needs to get help.......

Guns Do Kill People

Anthony A. Braga and Philip J. Cook

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a well-known slogan used by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun activists to make the case for their deregulation agenda.

Snip

Our new research, along with other compelling evidence, demonstrates that this view is false and that the type of weapon used is highly influential in determining whether the victim of an assault lives or dies.

Snip

Relative to criminal assaults involving small-caliber guns, the likelihood of death was more than doubled for criminal assaults involving medium-caliber guns and nearly five times greater for criminal assaults involving large-caliber guns. Based on these estimates, we ran a simulation that found that if the medium and large caliber guns had been replaced with small caliber guns in these criminal assaults, and all else had remained the same, it would have reduced gun homicides by nearly 40 percent. This percentage reduction in fatalities provides a measure of the overall effect of instrumentality associated with caliber for our sample.

Guns Do Kill People | The Regulatory Review

Lol
Political correctness has made you fucking retarded

 

[Rustic]

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

That is the current definition, yes. What people like you and your ilk did is bastardize the definition in an effort to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Prior to the need to change the definition in order to infringe on these rights of law abiding citizens, the widely accepted definition of an assault rifle, the traditional definition of an "assault rifle" was, and should still be, a weapon the military generally uses and has "select fire capabilities," or the capability to switch between semi-automatic or a fully automatic mode.

Nothing that is legally available to the public in the United States meets this definition.

Hmmm so if the Gov't bans AR-15s how is that infringing on your constitutional right?

It is a semi-automatic firearm, it does not have the ability to switch to fully automatic firing. It is legal to own. Why ban it? Because someone committed a heinous and illegal crime with one? Should we ban cars because someone uses one to drive through a crowd of people? Should we abolish the first amendment if someone yells "FIRE!" or "SHOOTER!" or "BOMB!" in a crowded mall, killing people in the ensuing stampede?

You should not punish everyone because of the actions of anomalous individuals.

Ultimately, the problem really isn't that some people want to ban a particular firearm, the bigger problem is that the majority of these people see it as the first step to abolishing the 2nd amendment. And some are blatantly saying abolish it now. As if that will solve the problem.

It shouldn't be legal to own. No one needs a semi automatic weapon, except those who are bad shots and want to mass kill.

Lol
Most firearms are semi automatic you fucking retard… Common sense alludes you most definitely

 

[Rustic]

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.

No, he doesn't......the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court tried to explain it to you...but you are too dense to understand Natural Rights....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), 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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

(Actual number is now closer to 18 million...)

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

And the supreme court can say ASSAULT weapons are not allowed. I am being nice because I would allow 10 bullet mags for when someone is a terrible shot and only 1 to be loaded at all times, 1 in the home and 1 in the car.


Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

• Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine[11][14]
• Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[14] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[16]
• A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the action of the weapon[14]
• Bayonet lug,[14] which allows the mounting of a bayonet
• Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[14] compensator or muzzle brake
• Grenade launcher[14]
• Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.

​

lol
Do you watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types and and the fucking retards over there at the Clinton news network and MSNBC.
Political correctness has made you fucking retarded... most definitely

 

[Rustic]

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...

The AR-15 is a .223" pea-shooter weapon, not even big enough to go hunting with, effectively in the same class as the .177" pump or CO₂ BB guns and .22"-LR rimfire rifles every teenaged boy used to carry before extremist fanatical 9/11 progressive liberals took over our nation & destoyed the lives of an entire generation of youth.

Really:
An assault rifle is designed to deliver fatal wounds to multiple individuals within a short time period; it has no other purpose. The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4), has become the most commonly used rifle in US mass shootings; the recent shootings in Parkland and Las Vegas, for instance, testify to the effectiveness of this weapon’s design. It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order; in the hands of civilians, it not only clearly serves the same purpose for some individuals, but it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made.
snip
To compare again, a typical 9mm handgun wound to the liver will produce a pathway of tissue destruction in the order of 1-2 inches. In comparison, an AR-15 round to the liver will literally pulverize it, much like dropping a watermelon onto concrete results in the destruction of the watermelon. Wounds like this, as one sees in school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland where AR-15s were used, have high fatality rates.
Opinion | The Parkland shooter's AR-15 should never have been legal
What are you trying to do, blast the meat you are trying to hunt.

lol
You don’t know jack shit about anything you fucking retard made obvious by what you just posted.

Ars are available chambered in Multiple cartridges and Calabres you fucking retard...

ARs are great varmint hunting sporting rifles, You need to educate yourself because you sound like a fucking retard

 

[Rustic]

Graham is another ridiculous rightwing loon.

Lol
What you don’t like gay Graham?

 

[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.

I don't think Sen. Graham is going to shoot up a mall or a nightclub.


In any event, if you are hot to trot to disarm LAW ABIDERS, are you willing to accept liability when they are killed , or suffer injuries because they were unable to defend themselves?

If someone files a false "red flag" alert against a senior citizen, and the senior citizen is subsequently assaulted or killed, should the party issuing the fake alert be held financially liable for the seniors medical bills? Should they be held criminally liable for the murder or robbery as well?

If I don't have a weapon on me, and a criminal pulls a gun on me on the street- sure I'm going to try and grab the weapon. I'm going to try to gouge his eyes out, or deliver a crotch shot.

But as I get older and older, it becomes less and less practical, and soon I might only be able to cuss him out.

Graham is very unstable, see my sig, he flies wherever the wind is blowing. That's my plan:
I'm going to try to gouge his eyes out, or deliver a crotch shot a long with pepper spray. If he wants my body, but if he wants my purse, I'll give it to him.

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.

I don't think Sen. Graham is going to shoot up a mall or a nightclub.


In any event, if you are hot to trot to disarm LAW ABIDERS, are you willing to accept liability when they are killed , or suffer injuries because they were unable to defend themselves?

If someone files a false "red flag" alert against a senior citizen, and the senior citizen is subsequently assaulted or killed, should the party issuing the fake alert be held financially liable for the seniors medical bills? Should they be held criminally liable for the murder or robbery as well?

If I don't have a weapon on me, and a criminal pulls a gun on me on the street- sure I'm going to try and grab the weapon. I'm going to try to gouge his eyes out, or deliver a crotch shot.

But as I get older and older, it becomes less and less practical, and soon I might only be able to cuss him out.

Graham is very unstable, see my sig, he flies wherever the wind is blowing (sometimes I even agree with him). People need to be alert to their surroundings and you can have a pistol with a 10 bullet mag. No one is suggesting you not be armed with a pistol of which you can defend yourself. The democrat's aren't that heartless.

When do you carry a semi assault rifle around with you, when I ask??​

Lol
You have no right to say what someone should have for firearm ownership or not because you are a fucking retard.

 

[Rustic]

I'd ask Senator Graham why S. Carolinian's fear looters during a natural crisis; during the '89 Earthquake in CA, and in particular in Oakland where the freeway pancaked and people were trapped, black young men who lived in the area were climbing on the unstable concrete and steel to rescue people trapped in their cars.

Of course Graham is politically astute, and only implied looters would appear and white people needed to be armed.

Lol
Political correctness has made you fucking retarded

 

[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

That is the current definition, yes. What people like you and your ilk did is bastardize the definition in an effort to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Prior to the need to change the definition in order to infringe on these rights of law abiding citizens, the widely accepted definition of an assault rifle, the traditional definition of an "assault rifle" was, and should still be, a weapon the military generally uses and has "select fire capabilities," or the capability to switch between semi-automatic or a fully automatic mode.

Nothing that is legally available to the public in the United States meets this definition.

Hmmm so if the Gov't bans AR-15s how is that infringing on your constitutional right?

It is a semi-automatic firearm, it does not have the ability to switch to fully automatic firing. It is legal to own. Why ban it? Because someone committed a heinous and illegal crime with one? Should we ban cars because someone uses one to drive through a crowd of people? Should we abolish the first amendment if someone yells "FIRE!" or "SHOOTER!" or "BOMB!" in a crowded mall, killing people in the ensuing stampede?

You should not punish everyone because of the actions of anomalous individuals.

Ultimately, the problem really isn't that some people want to ban a particular firearm, the bigger problem is that the majority of these people see it as the first step to abolishing the 2nd amendment. And some are blatantly saying abolish it now. As if that will solve the problem.

It shouldn't be legal to own. No one needs a semi automatic weapon, except those who are bad shots and want to mass kill.

There you go trying to tell people what they "need"

I can come up with a list of things a mile ling that i don't think you "need"

But it's none of my fucking business

 

[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

 

[hjmick]

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

That is the current definition, yes. What people like you and your ilk did is bastardize the definition in an effort to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Prior to the need to change the definition in order to infringe on these rights of law abiding citizens, the widely accepted definition of an assault rifle, the traditional definition of an "assault rifle" was, and should still be, a weapon the military generally uses and has "select fire capabilities," or the capability to switch between semi-automatic or a fully automatic mode.

Nothing that is legally available to the public in the United States meets this definition.

Hmmm so if the Gov't bans AR-15s how is that infringing on your constitutional right?

It is a semi-automatic firearm, it does not have the ability to switch to fully automatic firing. It is legal to own. Why ban it? Because someone committed a heinous and illegal crime with one? Should we ban cars because someone uses one to drive through a crowd of people? Should we abolish the first amendment if someone yells "FIRE!" or "SHOOTER!" or "BOMB!" in a crowded mall, killing people in the ensuing stampede?

You should not punish everyone because of the actions of anomalous individuals.

Ultimately, the problem really isn't that some people want to ban a particular firearm, the bigger problem is that the majority of these people see it as the first step to abolishing the 2nd amendment. And some are blatantly saying abolish it now. As if that will solve the problem.

It shouldn't be legal to own. No one needs a semi automatic weapon, except those who are bad shots and want to mass kill.

Your obvious abject ignorance disqualifies you from any rational discussion on this subject. You are dismissed.