Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can't use that argument with Trump revoking the Washington Post's press pass to all his do's. You can exaggerate all you like, but the Republicans have the true hater of free speech as the head of their party. Comrade.Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.
I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.
Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.
That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.
Tell me Comrade, what are your thoughts on the "Assault Speech Ban?" No one really needs to criticize Islam. Words that might be used against Hillary MUST be restricted to trained personnel at MSNBC and DailyKOS, da?
Why do those on the left oppose the sensible precaution of stopping Muslim immigration until we can screen Muslims? There is no right to immigrate to the US.
Fucking moron hypocrites.
We should really do something about Christians, shouldn't we? And don't give me your bullshit about "refugees". You didn't say refugees", you said "Muslim immigration", implying any Muslims immigrating from anywhere.
the 2nd amendment right for 'the people' to bear arms presupposes what is "necessary to the security of" a FREE state.
totalitarian government my ass, we live by constitutional RULE OF LAW governed by the people for the people!
Yes, because you are just certain the armed forces will violate their oaths and fire on friends and family to support your war to end the US Constitution.
You've got it all figured out, Rati.
No, it's not a myth. Pulse demonstrated that for you.What do you want me to call them? I'll do that if it will shut you up, which it won't, so what's the difference? Semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines need to be banned. Period.You're continuing to quibble over semantics. You know what we mean. Talk about the real issue, which is why anyone needs them. They are overkill for civilians in a civilized country. Pun noted.You guys are so predictable. Start quibbling over the definition of an assault weapon. If Clinton and Obama and commentators on Fox News can use the term "assault weapons," so can I. You know what we're talking about.
They don't even know what they are talking about. And I mean people on the left and the right who are using the terms assault weapons and assault rifles interchangeably when they are not the same thing. PERIOD.
Also, what you refer to semantics? Yeah that's actually what the rest of us call words.
ALL assault rifles are assault weapons, but not all assault weapons are assault rifles. Assault RIFLES are so heavily regulated and even the most ardent 2nd amendment guys on this site don't argue that they shouldn't be.
Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.
If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?
See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.
Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.
Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.
You can't use that argument with Trump revoking the Washington Post's press pass to all his do's. You can exaggerate all you like, but the Republicans have the true hater of free speech as the head of their party. Comrade.Really? A "personal defense"? They point out that it has a folding stock making it easily concealable, and comes with easy change barrels. How are these important features for personal safety? I mean, I can see how they might be imp-ortant to the terrorist who wants to conceal the gun he is bringing into the club to kill everyone with, but don't really see the advantage for personal safety.
I just don't understand why so many on the right are so adverse to simple, common sense regulation, like reinstating the assault weapon bans.
Oh my Allah, I have a Winchester Shotgun with easy change barrels.
That's going to give you Bolsheviks the vapors.
Tell me Comrade, what are your thoughts on the "Assault Speech Ban?" No one really needs to criticize Islam. Words that might be used against Hillary MUST be restricted to trained personnel at MSNBC and DailyKOS, da?
[QU
Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon.
You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?
Don't change the subject.OldLady I have a theoretical for you.
Let's say we passed a law that said "all black people have to live in Mississippi" there is ZERO doubt that in every state but Mississippi crime would drop. I mean statistics bear that out, would that be reasonable to do?
OF COURSE IT WOULDN'T BE REASONABLE
No, it's not a myth. Pulse demonstrated that for you.What do you want me to call them? I'll do that if it will shut you up, which it won't, so what's the difference? Semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines need to be banned. Period.You're continuing to quibble over semantics. You know what we mean. Talk about the real issue, which is why anyone needs them. They are overkill for civilians in a civilized country. Pun noted.They don't even know what they are talking about. And I mean people on the left and the right who are using the terms assault weapons and assault rifles interchangeably when they are not the same thing. PERIOD.
Also, what you refer to semantics? Yeah that's actually what the rest of us call words.
ALL assault rifles are assault weapons, but not all assault weapons are assault rifles. Assault RIFLES are so heavily regulated and even the most ardent 2nd amendment guys on this site don't argue that they shouldn't be.
Ban large capacity magazines? LOL another feel good placebo.
If a person is intent on killing people, how many MORE people do you think they can kill with a single hundred round magazine as opposed to say twenty 5 round magazines?
See this is yet another example of people who don't understand weapons. First of all the large capacity magazine were not designed so that more people could be killed faster. They were designed so that the single infantry soldier would not be burdened with the extra weight of 4 additional magazines.
Second of all, a large capacity magazine is almost certain to jam at least once if you try to fire all 100 rounds through it, meaning it takes time to clear the weapon, if you even know how, which most people fail to learn the proper technique.
Your "large magazine" myth is just that , a myth.
Why do those on the left oppose the sensible precaution of stopping Muslim immigration until we can screen Muslims? There is no right to immigrate to the US.
Fucking moron hypocrites.
We should really do something about Christians, shouldn't we? And don't give me your bullshit about "refugees". You didn't say refugees", you said "Muslim immigration", implying any Muslims immigrating from anywhere.
You fucking know good and well we're talking about Muslim refugees when we discuss immigration bans.
As for those preachers, I'd be fine with that kind of stupid talk being made illegal.
[QU
Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon.
An "assault weapon" is a fully automatic rifle capable of supressive fire. What you attack are civilian rifles.
You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?
Until your filthy party decides to attack them as well.
If we allow you to infringe the right of the people, nothing will constrain you.
Your war on civil rights is not a case of what specific words you will ban, or what guns the enslaved peasants may keep. You seek to crush the U.S. Constitution, pure and simple.
If you want to end the Bill of Rights, draft an amendment repealing them. If your filthy party passes laws which infringe the rights there in, then they are criminals. If an anti-Constitution SCOTUS dictates law through fiat, then they too are criminals. The method to end civil rights is the amendment process. Draft your amendments, ye Stalinist snakes.
BUT should you violate the Constitution and point to Judges as above it, then do not expect a free people to acknowledge the legitimacy of your criminal acts nor acquiesce to enforcement of them.
[Q
No, it's not a myth. Pulse demonstrated that for you.
I asked you a question. You keep squirming around trying to deflect because there is no good reason for you to own military-style guns. I get it.OldLady I notice you haven't as of yet posted that portion of the COTUS which requires me to justify my need to have my rights.....
Why do those on the left oppose the sensible precaution of stopping Muslim immigration until we can screen Muslims? There is no right to immigrate to the US.
Fucking moron hypocrites.
We should really do something about Christians, shouldn't we? And don't give me your bullshit about "refugees". You didn't say refugees", you said "Muslim immigration", implying any Muslims immigrating from anywhere.
You fucking know good and well we're talking about Muslim refugees when we discuss immigration bans.
I know no such thing, especially with Trump expanding his idea to include any country where any terrorist activity has occurred.
As for those preachers, I'd be fine with that kind of stupid talk being made illegal.
Oh, I don't want just that kind of talk made illegal. I want every Christian to have to subvmit to an investigation to make sure they would not agree with that. After all, any Christian could potentially be that guy, right?
I asked you a question. You keep squirming around trying to deflect because there is no good reason for you to own military-style guns. I get it.OldLady I notice you haven't as of yet posted that portion of the COTUS which requires me to justify my need to have my rights.....
[
You are wrong. Just stop.
an assault weapon as defined by Congress does not have to fire full auto. An assault rifle, as defined by the US Army does.
Among other features for both.
See, Fair & Balanced? The gun nuts make it impossible to even discuss common sense gun regulations that statistics prove even reasonable gun owners agree with, because they are convinced that "all dem librulds wanna steal all our gunz!!!" even though there is absolutely zero evidence that any rational progressive with any real authority is attempting to do any such thing.[QU
Nope. Doesn't bother me in the least. A shot gun isn't an assault weapon.
An "assault weapon" is a fully automatic rifle capable of supressive fire. What you attack are civilian rifles.
You can own 500 shotguns for all I care. What else ya got?
Until your filthy party decides to attack them as well.
If we allow you to infringe the right of the people, nothing will constrain you.
Your war on civil rights is not a case of what specific words you will ban, or what guns the enslaved peasants may keep. You seek to crush the U.S. Constitution, pure and simple.
If you want to end the Bill of Rights, draft an amendment repealing them. If your filthy party passes laws which infringe the rights there in, then they are criminals. If an anti-Constitution SCOTUS dictates law through fiat, then they too are criminals. The method to end civil rights is the amendment process. Draft your amendments, ye Stalinist snakes.
BUT should you violate the Constitution and point to Judges as above it, then do not expect a free people to acknowledge the legitimacy of your criminal acts nor acquiesce to enforcement of them.
there is no civilian lawful purpose for this military grade weapon...
SIG SAUER developed the MCX rifle for America’s special forces.
While the SIG SAUER MCX kinda looks like a standard AR-15, there’s one major difference: it’s gas piston operated. Buffer and gas tube? Gone. SIG’s replaced them with a short stroke gas piston and a compact recoil system contained completely within the upper receiver. To provide the force necessary to stop the bolt carrier’s rearward movement and return it to battery after each round, the MCX features a pair of recoil springs directly attached to the bolt carrier. Because the recoil springs are housed where an AR-15’s charging handle would normally sit the charging handle has been moved slightly higher than normal on the receiver.
When you run a suppressed rifle the added back pressure from the silencer creates additional force to the bolt carrier, which makes the rifle cycle faster. That’s not good; it can become uncontrollable and cause excessive wear on the operating bits. The MCX has an adjustable gas system that changes the amount of gas being sent to the piston, controlling the cycle rate. The system’s equipped with a gas regulator that the shooter can adjust on the fly.
[NB: There are currently two MCX version on the market. The first (sold through Cabela’s) uses a self-regulating gas system that vents super-heated gas directly into the air to control the pressure. The latest and now official version uses a closed system manually adjusted from “suppressed” to “unsuppressed.” The official word from SIG SAUER: the adjustable gas system was done on request, but they settled on the manual system to make the civilian MCX be as close as possible to the military MCX.]
Gun Review: SIG SAUER MCX - The Truth About Guns
silencers are big out here
why bother the neighbors when you are knocking off coyotes at 3 in the morning
"why bother the neighbors when you are knocking off coyotes(Or homosexuals) at 3 in the morning".
stop your projecting just because you hate gays
doesnt mean anyone else does
What makes you think I "hate gays"? Too early for a joke? Gays are obviously confused. It isn't my fault any of this happened. If you can't look at it without freaking out and irrationally blaming everyone in sight maybe you need to back off of it for a few days until you can think more clearly.
stop projecting your hatred for gays onto others
This has been argued many times over. The Founders mistrusted a standing army due to well known history of it's abuses. We are seeing how the Military Industrial Complex is doing that same thing today. The Founders ensured that the PEOPLE would have the same weaponry as any standing army so that the PEOPLE would be able to fight a tyrannical government on an equal footing. This is well documented no matter how hard you try and parse its meaning.
EVERY publication the Founders issued is clear on the meaning, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Your interpretation is factually, historically, and philosophically WRONG.
Will those assault rifles be banned from the BAD GUYS, or just the good guys, like it was back under William Jefferson(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton?Calling me names is not going to change my mind one iota, or further your argument. I don't see people resisting laws they don't like, including the entire Obama administration, using their weapons. So what point are you actually trying to make? Do you think Obama is saying to himself, "Oh, I'd better not pass this executive order--the people might revolt with all their AR-15's." This is a pointless argument. I'm advocating that assault rifles, military-style guns, be banned. Not that you be disarmed.Pussy, when the government starts taking away peoples rights, where does it stop, it doesn't, when you have a disarmed citizenry. Dumbass.No one says the new law has to be the same as the old one. It is sane to take these killing machines from civilians. Period. Buy backs, whatever.I don't see any of you fat mouths doing anything about it If you're going to form a militia, get to it or get off the pot and allow sane gun control in this country.""""The Founders were far more worried about an illegitimate government abusing its power than they were about an invading army thus the 2nd Amendment is about the ability of the American public to "form a well-regulated militia" in the event the Fundamentally Transformed government became tyrannical against its citizenry as The Messiah OBama had become.
I have over 60 "assault weapons" I actually own several actual assault rifles as well, yes I'm licenses. You do realize that a reinstatement of the law wouldn't have any effect on my owning said weapons , right? Oh sure, I couldn't buy any NEW ones, but it would not take the ones I already own out of circulation. IE the assault weapon ban is neither sane nor gun control.
View attachment 78260
Such stupid people who continue to vote Dumbocrat.1994 Assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine shooting
I agree that Pulse is a terrorist attack, not primarily an argument for gun control, EXCEPT that it has been pointed out over and over in the past few days that the AR-15 type weapon used caused a LOT of damage, exactly as it was designed. Actually, I'm NOT as worried about accepting refugees as I am with the FBI's flubbing of this particular case. Good God. Last night I heard that Disneyworld may have reported this shooter back in April for casing them out. Just what is needed for the FBI to stop someone when they had at least 3 times at bat and missed every one?[Q
No, it's not a myth. Pulse demonstrated that for you.
Pulse demonstrated that Muslim terrorists pose a clear and credible threat to this nation. The demands of Obama and that idiot Clinton to import MORE Muslims from radicalized hot spots like Syria will ensure more Muslim terrorist attacks.
