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

[Mikeoxenormous]

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?

And that is the liberal kool aid coming out of the white house. God you are so predictable in what you are going to say. Why not have m1a1 abrams sold instead of the fucking electric volt. Talk about not having to worry about a traffic jam. Or have a F-35 VTOL, in every parking lot , so you jump in and fly to where ever you want? Because tards, American citizens want to be able to protect themselves from some fucking liberal who wants to break into their house and take FREE STUFF. As long as We the People have the right to protect ourselves, you have to stay out. That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, try coming into my house uninvited and see what happens.

13-Year-Old Boy Fatally Shoots Burglar With His Mom's Handgun in South Carolina

13-Year-Old Boy Fatally Shoots Burglar With His Mom's Handgun in South Carolina

 

[2aguy]

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?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

It was a Sig Sauer. It is not what the left claims.

Regardless; this was the second most deadly attack by Muslim terrorists in this nation. The most deadly one used box cutters.

Do we need to outlaw "assault box cutters?"

Why, or why not?

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?

You ought to be concerned with refugees.. Of the last four terrorist attacks, Ft. Hood (which Obama still lies about.) , The attack by the Muslim with a machete where he murdered 4 in Columbus OH. San Bernardino, and Orlando. (The last three within a 12 month window.

In ALL cases, these involved refugees or the children of refugees from radicalized hot spots.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Can you prove that you NEED to write words that oppose Donald Trump? If not, why should you be allowed to speak?

 

[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?

And that is the liberal kool aid coming out of the white house. God you are so predictable in what you are going to say. Why not have m1a1 abrams sold instead of the fucking electric volt. Talk about not having to worry about a traffic jam. Or have a F-35 VTOL, in every parking lot , so you jump in and fly to where ever you want? Because tards, American citizens want to be able to protect themselves from some fucking liberal who wants to break into their house and take FREE STUFF. As long as We the People have the right to protect ourselves, you have to stay out. That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, try coming into my house uninvited and see what happens.

13-Year-Old Boy Fatally Shoots Burglar With His Mom's Handgun in South Carolina

13-Year-Old Boy Fatally Shoots Burglar With His Mom's Handgun in South Carolina

"...his mother's pistol..." Have I suggested a ban on pistols, or shotguns, or, even, all rifles? no. Just assault weapons. So, what does your linked story have to do with what I am talking about?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

 

[2aguy]

yep.......hammers got it wrong.....

NARRATIVE FAIL: Orlando Islamic Terrorist Did NOT Use An AR-15

The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.

Okay. so, in view of how Sig Saur, themselves, markets this weapon:



Would someone still like to insist that this is just a "hunting" weapon, and not an assault weapon?

It is a rifle....in common use...8,000,000 of them in private hands......vs. 1 that was used to kill 49 people...vs. the 3 or 4 used to stop violent criminal attack each year...vs. the 8,000,000 used by normal Americans for competition, hunting, self defense, collecting and leisure activities.....like target shooting....

You left wing nuts always claim to believe in science....then you take the irrational stand that at an 8,000,000 to 1 ratio...we must ban rifles because one guy 1 rifle illegally.......

You guys are irrational....and it is time to stop giving in to your irrational....fucking bug nut crazy demands....because you never stop with the irrational demands.....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

No they have to go through a background check, unless the DOJ Eric Holder allows them to walk across the border into Mexico. How did a guy who was on the FBI watch list allowed by the FBI to get the AR-15? What the FUCK don't you understand? WAKE THE FUCK UP OR SOON YOU TOO WILL BE DEAD BY MUSLIMS...

 

[2aguy]

yep.......hammers got it wrong.....

NARRATIVE FAIL: Orlando Islamic Terrorist Did NOT Use An AR-15

The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.

Okay. so, in view of how Sig Saur, themselves, markets this weapon:



Would someone still like to insist that this is just a "hunting" weapon, and not an assault weapon?

assault weapon is a legal term as defined by Congress. NO manufacture defines their own weapons as "assault weapons"

Sig actually defines their weapon as a personal defense weapon.

Now , obviously that weapon meets the criteria for assault weapon according to the now defunct law, but that has nothing to do with how Sig markets it.

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.

All of them....cars don't have to go over 15 miles an hour...but they do....

How many rifles are used in crime to the point you think they are so dangerous they have to be banned......? Please show us how many rifles are used each year for mass shootings vs. how many are actually owned by Americans..can you do that?

 

[Czernobog]

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?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Banning negroes from the US would cut our crime rate by about 1/3. FBI statistics absolutely prove this is fact. Banning 13% of the population to reduce crime by 30% sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Oh it doesn't ? Why not?

Table 43

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

I'll go one further. A mental health evaluation should be part of the back ground check and if you fail, you should be locked up in a mental institution .

You with me?

B/c I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of current legal gun owners would pass both tthe background check and the mental evaluation.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

God, educate yourself please. You can legally own a fully automatic weapon.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

Sure. And how about M1A1s? Rocket launchers. F16s. Hell, if the military gets to have one, I do too, right? Excuse me, I need to take some time to go build my missile silo, in the back yard...

 

[Czernobog]

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?

Of course they don't......that is the key.....8,000,000 rifles with detachable magazines.... 1 is used to kill 49 people...

Pistols murder close to 8,124 people a year...70-80% of them convicted felons....but they kill more people......so eventually they will get around to those....they just know getting the pistols will be harder.....so they get the AR-15s and other rifles...then when they come for the pistols the precedent is already set....1 rifle killed 49 people and we banned them...so pistols kill 8,124 people....so we definitely need to ban them...

That is how the battle will go....

Nope. But the interesting part of your post is "...70-80% of them convicted felons..." Which brings up the next piece of common sense gun regulation that the gun nuts want to lose their shit over - federal instant background checks. This should be mandatory in all 50 states. maybe then we'd get fewer criminals, and nutcakes getting their hands on firearms.

I'll go one further. A mental health evaluation should be part of the back ground check and if you fail, you should be locked up in a mental institution .

You with me?

B/c I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of current legal gun owners would pass both tthe background check and the mental evaluation.

Not sure I'd go that far. Not all mental health issues require institutionalization. But, I would be all for refusing to sell them a weapon.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

what the hell? You didn't propose regulating who could buy assault weapons, you proposed an outright ban, and not just an outright ban, but a confiscation of existing weapons to boot.

If this thread were about reasonable background checks to determine who is legally able to buy assault weapons, who's going to oppose that in light of recent events? No sane person, that is for sure.

By the way, where do you stand on Voter ID, I'm just curious.

Oh. I'd be perfectly okay with special licences for, say Private security firms. I understand that, in their line of work, they need a bit more fire power. But, again, the licensing process would be long, and cost prohibitive for just any average Joe to get their hands on assault weapons. and anyone who doesn't own the proper licensing, has to give up their assault weapons.

See, you are just as rigid and uncompromising as the fools you hate.

I am not required to be part of a security firm , hell I'm not even required to prove I NEED the damn automatic weapon at all.

You can't help yourself, you really can't. You can't just stop at "background checks" and that's why reasonable people disagree with you. You cry "slippery slope" argument but the fact is you have admitted in this thread that what you really want is a ban.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, but by your own words, they are not readily available to just anyone, like the semi-automatic assault weapons are. Why not? Why not start selling M16s right in Walmart with the rest?

In fact, why not?

How many people in the USA are killed by an M-16 every year?

I will say this, the M-4 is a piece of crap. Spray and pray is only effective as part of squad tactics to suppress.What you Stalinists sell is voodoo. You appeal to emotion and fear, hoping to evoke a visceral response from the ignorant in order to further your agenda against civil rights.

Offer a valid argument as to why we should not allow an M-16 to be sold?

God, educate yourself please. You can legally own a fully automatic weapon.

Likely, he can't. As you pointed out, the licensing is lengthy, more detailed, and costlier. The average person, likely, couldn't afford the process. Which is a good thing. Weapons of that sort were never meant for the average citizenry.