The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[OldLady]

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.

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.

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.

Pussy, when the government starts taking away peoples rights, where does it stop, it doesn't, when you have a disarmed citizenry. Dumbass.

View attachment 78260

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.

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?
1994 Assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine shooting | Politics

1994 Assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine shooting

Such stupid people who continue to vote Dumbocrat.

Don't YOU be stupid. What a question.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[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.

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.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

 

[Iceweasel]

I know no such thing, especially with Trump expanding his idea to include any country where any terrorist activity has occurred.

When did he say that? He said hotspots, what place on Earth hasn't had terrorism?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Q


uh you just made my argument, dumbo.

No, you posted a retarded meme from one of the Soros hate sites, which you were dumb enough to think was clever.

that sort of big gubmint PARANOIA is what makes idiots think they have a right to own weapons of war in the USA.

You Bolsheviks jack off to a vision of the armed forces attacking the enemies of your filthy party as you move to end that pesky Constitution once and for all. You are delusional. There is NOTHING to suggest that the military would side with you, or even take sides in the event of a civil war.

I know, you really WANT to see napalm dropped on everyone at the Republican Convention, but it isn't going to happen.

 

[Czernobog]

[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.

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.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OldLady]

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?

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.

You DO realize that Clinton has also banned certain publications from her campaign right?

Who cares. I'm not voting for her.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

[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.

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?

Do you think banning Legal Citizens from obtaining AR-15s will stop the EVIL person from getting AR-15s, or would he get AK-47s from those who are crossing the border illegally? If the DHS wont stop them, how can the police stop them? Such stupid people who continue to Vote Dumocrat and think they will be safe.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[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.

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?

The embarrassing truth is our federal agencies have been ordered to tip toe around Muslims lest they upset them. That has been confirmed by MULTIPLE people including former Directors of said agencies.

You are 100% correct, that guy should have been in jail already, or at the very least not been permitted to buy weapons.

What you are wrong about is claiming the failure of the government to prevent him from buying said weapon proves I should lose MY right to own them. I didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

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.

You DO realize that Clinton has also banned certain publications from her campaign right?

Who cares. I'm not voting for her.

People who are fair and reasonable care.

You obviously are not one of those people.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

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.

Pussy, when the government starts taking away peoples rights, where does it stop, it doesn't, when you have a disarmed citizenry. Dumbass.

View attachment 78260

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.

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?
1994 Assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine shooting | Politics

1994 Assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine shooting

Such stupid people who continue to vote Dumbocrat.

Don't YOU be stupid. What a question.

Wow, I must of really hit a nerve that showed how incompetent the Rapist in Chief was when he banned the AR-15 back when Columbine still happened. I could almost feel those laser eyes piercing out of my monitor.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

[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.

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.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

 

[OldLady]

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.....

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.

I avoid your question because it is stupid. I am not required to justify exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, PERIOD. You know that is true, so badgering me about it is pointless.

Got it. There is no justification for those rifles and you know it. I'll stop "badgering" you now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

See, Fair & Balanced? The gun nuts make it impossible to even discuss common sense gun regulations

Ah yes, you only seek to reasonably violate the Constitution. You don't want to ban all speech, just that bad speech that offends the party.

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.

You seek to violate the Constitution and the crush civil liberty.

There is nothing "rational" about your position. You are a radical attempting to end the form of government the USA operates under.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.....

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.

I avoid your question because it is stupid. I am not required to justify exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, PERIOD. You know that is true, so badgering me about it is pointless.

Got it. There is no justification for those rifles and you know it. I'll stop "badgering" you now.

Of course I k don't know that, what I DO know is that I am not required to justify exercising my rights.

I like the word fuck, i use it all the time, Do I have to justify why I need to be able to say the word fuck? Of course not.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

See, Fair & Balanced? The gun nuts make it impossible to even discuss common sense gun regulations

Ah yes, you only seek to reasonably violate the Constitution. You don't want to ban all speech, just that bad speech that offends the party.

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.

You seek to violate the Constitution and the crush civil liberty.

There is nothing "rational" about your position. You are a radical attempting to end the form of government the USA operates under.

Uncensored, you do not help your cause when you incorrectly use terms.

assault weapon and assault rifle are not interchangeable.

 

[Czernobog]

See, Fair & Balanced? The gun nuts make it impossible to even discuss common sense gun regulations

Ah yes, you only seek to reasonably violate the Constitution. You don't want to ban all speech, just that bad speech that offends the party.

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.

You seek to violate the Constitution and the crush civil liberty.

There is nothing "rational" about your position. You are a radical attempting to end the form of government the USA operates under.

Bullshit. Why stop at semi-automatics? If the Constitution allows unfettered access, why shouldn't we legally sell M16s to citizens?

 

[OldLady]

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.....

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.

I avoid your question because it is stupid. I am not required to justify exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, PERIOD. You know that is true, so badgering me about it is pointless.

Got it. There is no justification for those rifles and you know it. I'll stop "badgering" you now.

Of course I k don't know that, what I DO know is that I am not required to justify exercising my rights.

I like the word fuck, i use it all the time, Do I have to justify why I need to be able to say the word fuck? Of course not.

Okay, I'm not badgering now, but the last I heard, saying the word "fuck" has never caused another person to bleed to death.

 

[Czernobog]

[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.

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.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

 

[2aguy]

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

Sure there is. If I want one then I can buy one. 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 own the very same weapons that were used by the military's of the world. Including our own.

And based on the corruption in our government that is now demonstrated on a daily basis, they were correct in doing so.

You are partially correct. I have fixed your statement to actually reflect the 2nd Amendment's true intention:

""""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 newly-created government became tyrannical against its citizenry as King George III had become.

"A well regulated militia" is not private citizens acquiring military-style weapons to play with at the risk and peril of the general public.

Definition: "Militia: a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.""
Google

Yeah....and you are wrong......completely wrong....this has been gone over again and again, you can lie about the 2nd AMendment as much as you want but the term "people" means the citizens, not a militia......

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Had they meant the militia, they would have used the word militia since they had already used the word in the first part of the Amendment....

You liars never give up, which is why we can't give up either....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

An "assault weapon" is a fully automatic rifle capable of supressive fire. What you attack are civilian rifles.

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.

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.

You just advocated forcing me to surrender my assault weapons. Hard to consider you reasonable after that son.

Why? Are you incapable of protecting you, and your family without an assault weapon? You are really going to make that claim? If not then why do you need assault weapons?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I don't have them because I NEED them, obviously no one NEEDS 60 assault weapons . I collect them because I like them, and further as I told Old Lady, I don't have to justify exercising my right.

So, why stop at semis? Why shouldn't private citizens be allowed to own fully automatic M16s, or AKs? Why do you draws the line at semi-automatic assault weapons?

I hate to be the one to break this to you , but we can legally own fully automatic weapons. I own several. The licensing procedure is extensive, as it should be, but contrary to popular belief fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal in the US.