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

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using )) buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

In a soft target environment the .223 is not a "docile" round by any means. Good grief

in a combat situation versus people wearing body armor and such, yeah there are better choices, but against a nightclub full of soft civilians? Tell me what advantage would have been gained by using say a .44 automag?

Whatever you say s0n!!!

Fucking dummies around here.............

A .223 is likely stopping in its intended target. A 7.62 39 is going through a few people......same as a .44 mag.........and a shotgun slug at close range is passing through 6 or 7 people and taking whole organs with it!!.Lots and lots of vids on BOOBTUBE on this stuff.....

Makey-uppey shit on ballistics is ghey

Who's making shit up you dummy.

This guy just killed 49 and injured 50 + others with a .223 round, PROVING that the .223 is not a "docile" round and in fact provides enough of a punch to kill people.

In fact the US military STILL uses the 5.56 in combat situations in conjunction with other ordinance.

 

[there4eyeM]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using )) buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

In a soft target environment the .223 is not a "docile" round by any means. Good grief

in a combat situation versus people wearing body armor and such, yeah there are better choices, but against a nightclub full of soft civilians? Tell me what advantage would have been gained by using say a .44 automag?

Whatever you say s0n!!!

Fucking dummies around here.............

A .223 is likely stopping in its intended target. A 7.62 39 is going through a few people......same as a .44 mag.........and a shotgun slug at close range is passing through 6 or 7 people and taking whole organs with it!!.Lots and lots of vids on BOOBTUBE on this stuff.....

Makey-uppey shit on ballistics is ghey




Point is......this outrage about the AR-15 is laughable!!

US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health:
The wounding effects of 5.56 and 7.62 mm calibre bullets, hitting on soft tissues of 130 dogs at various velocities ranging from 513 to 933 m/s have been studied. The injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was more severe than that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. This is due to the difference in ballistic behavior between the two types of bullets. The wound caused by 5.56 mm bullet was characterized by a trumpet-shaped channel with large defect. The skin around the exit was torn away and its shape was irregular, which, however, occurred only when the tumbling and the breaking of the bullet existed. High-speed X-ray photograph demonstrated that in 5.56 mm bullet group, temporary cavity was much larger and lasted longer. Splashing phenomenon could be seen at the exist and the fragments of the bullet could be found somewhere. Based on the comparisons the amount of absorbed energy, the volume of wound channel, the frequency of developing complex wound and the ratio of dimensions between the entrance and the exit, it proved that the injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was several to dozens of time as severe as that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. Nevertheless, wound extents by both types of bullet would be similar if the inflicting bullet did not show any significant tumbling, breaking or deformation.

5.56 and .223 can be fired by the same weapon; very small difference in pressures, insignificant for the arm in the short term. No real difference in wound.

There is no need to make up things to argue against prohibition.

 

[Valerie]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

Rep. Seth Moulton graces cover of NY Daily News for anti-assault rifle op-ed

 

[there4eyeM]

Bans and prohibition are not good solutions. There is no need, however, for anyone to have these particular rifles. There is good reason to believe, furthermore, that they encourage a false attitude associated with excess zeal for firearms.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

fAiL s0n..........talk about ignorance.

Im laughing..........people familiar with firearms will know that even something like a .17HMR in semi-auto form fires a small but vicious round at up to 3,200ft/sec. The Orlando Muzzie wound have been just as proficient with one of those s0n!!!

And now Im off to the local hospital to lecture a brain surgeon about how to go about his work!!!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon.

You may own firearms, but you clearly don't know much about them. Weapons of war allow for select fire, including full auto. That's not the case with an AR15...or the firearm the terrorist used.

Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

Great, so you get to choose the method you'd prefer to defend yourself, but I can't? Yea, pass.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

An AR15 or other semi-auto rifle fires no more rapidly than a revolver or any pistol.

I can reload a standard pistol faster than you can reload an AR15. Guaranteed.

The .223 round is among the smallest center fire cartridges available. It does FAR LESS tissue damage than any standard deer rifle.

What you know about this topic is not much.

Your ignorance doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of semi automatic weapons that are "weapons of war" which isn't even a term anyway.

There are TWO terms. Assault weapons , which is a lawful definition as described by Congress and assault rifle which is a military definition as described by the US Army.

fAiL s0n..........talk about ignorance.

Im laughing..........people familiar with firearms will know that even something like a .17HMR in semi-auto form fires a small but vicious round at up to 3,200ft/sec. The Orlando Muzzie wound have been just as proficient with one of those s0n!!!

And now Im off to the local hospital to lecture a brain surgeon about how to go about his work!!!

No shit son, PROVING that your claims that the .223 is a "docile" round are stupid.

you're a special kind of retarded aint ya?

 

[westwall]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

 

[skookerasbil]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, an Ar15 chambered in .223 is a sporting rifle. It would never stand up to the testing of military grade. Dumbass

yes....much progressive ignorance displayed around here about weapons. The .223 round is highly docile compared to MANY, MANY other available rounds. Like a shotgun slug for example...........duh........one fired at close range passes through 6 or 7 people and obliterates an entire organ upon entry. Frankly, the dumbass Muzzy used the wrong weapon if he wanted maximum destruction. Any idiot practicing speed loading techniques and using 00 or slugs and 3 or 4 belts of shells and has 3 hours takes out 150 people minimum. Many combat veterans in Vietnam carried 12G shotguns BY CHOICE using )) buck!!! duh

The problem is.........progressives anguish over shit they cant control. They see the world very differently. They absolutely NEED to do SOMETHING to get past the guilt.......doesn't matter if it has zero effect. The results are never a concern...........never a concern.

In a soft target environment the .223 is not a "docile" round by any means. Good grief

in a combat situation versus people wearing body armor and such, yeah there are better choices, but against a nightclub full of soft civilians? Tell me what advantage would have been gained by using say a .44 automag?

Whatever you say s0n!!!

Fucking dummies around here.............

A .223 is likely stopping in its intended target. A 7.62 39 is going through a few people......same as a .44 mag.........and a shotgun slug at close range is passing through 6 or 7 people and taking whole organs with it!!.Lots and lots of vids on BOOBTUBE on this stuff.....

Makey-uppey shit on ballistics is ghey

Who's making shit up you dummy.

This guy just killed 49 and injured 50 + others with a .223 round, PROVING that the .223 is not a "docile" round and in fact provides enough of a punch to kill people.

In fact the US military STILL uses the 5.56 in combat situations in conjunction with other ordinance.

Connect the dots fail................

The ban the AR crowd doesn't get it...........never will. Its a thinking thing with these progressives. Next week, they'll want to ban a varmint rifle with semi-capabilities!!

Im laughing..........people familiar with firearms will know that even something like a .17HMR in semi-auto form fires a small but vicious round at up to 3,200ft/sec. The Orlando Muzzie wound have been just as proficient with one of those.................s0n!!!

And now Im off to the local hospital to lecture a brain surgeon about how to go about his work!!!

 

[westwall]

Dems protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’


“Hey, NRA: This Marine served in Iraq & he says assault rifles should be banned,” the headline reads. “Does that make him a gun-grabbing commie, too?”

A look at tomorrow's front page…
Hey @NRA, Marine says "NO CIVILIAN SHOULD OWN THIS GUN" Civilians have no reason for owning assault weapons pic.twitter.com/1cngdNzvNu

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 15, 2016

In his column, Moulton said Congress, flooded with campaign donations from the National Rifle Association, lacks the courage needed to pass a ban on military-style assault rifles. The Harvard alum, who served four tours of duty in the Iraq War, even compared their civilian ownership to that of rockets and landmines.

“I’m a Marine. I carried guns every day in Iraq, guns very similar to the ones used to perpetrate the Orlando murders and many other mass shootings in America. I’ve used guns in combat. On more than one occasion, guns have saved my life. But there’s a big difference between a U.S. Marine with a rifle and a civilian with a gun,” Moulton, a Democrat, wrote.


“I trained for years in order to use my weapon properly. And long before I ever aimed it at an individual, I had to look at pictures of dead and mangled bodies in order to understand the magnitude of what it meant to pull that trigger.”

Moulton, along with his colleague Rep. Katherine Clark, protested a Congressional moment of silence led by House Republicans for the 49 victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

House Dems shouted “Where’s the bill?’’ and ‘‘No leadership!’’ after Speaker Paul Ryan silenced Democratic South Carolina Rep. Jim Cleburne, who asked if the body would consider gun legislation.

‘‘If the LGBT community has taught us anything, it’s that silence is the enemy of progress,” Clark wrote on Facebook. “I refuse to take part in a moment of silence by a Congress that takes part in empty gestures rather than do something—anything—that could actually prevent these horrific acts from happening. We can’t reduce gun violence with silence.’’

Seth Moulton: 'No Civilian Should Own This Gun'

way to go, dumbo Rethuglicans... blood is on your hands until you stand up the NRA!




Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate

April 17, 2013

The national drive for laws that might prevent another mass shooting unraveled under intense pressure from the gun rights lobby, which used regional and cultural differences among senators to prevent new firearms restrictions.


One by one, the Senate blocked or defeated proposals that would ban certain military-style assault rifles and limit the size of ammunition magazines.


But the biggest setback for the White House was the defeat of a measure to expand background checks to most gun sales. The Senate defied polls showing that nine in 10 Americans support the idea, which was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a visibly angry Obama said as he delivered his response to the nation.

Gun-control overhaul is defeated in Senate


Orlando Shooting Widens Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Divide



"...his killer was interviewed by the FBI three times and I'm not going to second guess what career law enforcement professionals do everyday to defend our nation. But we need to look carefully at this. Should we have a broader database? You know, someone comes to the attention of FBI not once but three times, does that suggest that local law enforcement needs to know. That people need to be more aware? Do we need to, you know, push the Congress harder to pass a law forbidding anybody on the no fly list from buying a weapon in our country? Something they have refused to do. And should people who express the kind of admiration and allegiance to terrorism be on that list? So I think we're going to have to take a hard look about what more we can do to prevent this kind of lone wolf attack."


Transcript: NPR's Interview With Hillary Clinton

Rep. Seth Moulton graces cover of NY Daily News for anti-assault rifle op-ed

The opinions of POLITICIANS don't interest me in the slightest.

 

[Valerie]

and YOUR opinion means so much...

 

[skookerasbil]

OK....I got a wee bit of a ? here because I guess Im the asshole!!!

What exactly does banning an AR-15 accomplish??

 

[Valerie]

OK....I got a wee bit of a ? here because I guess Im the asshole!!!

What exactly does banning an AR-15 accomplish??

act like you care to know the answer and do a little thoughtful research.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

 

[skookerasbil]

OK......heres an attempt to try to get people to connect some dots >>>

Savage Arms > Launch > A17


GO!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

OK......were gonna play a game called, "LETS CONNECT THE DOTS" for firearm dumbasses............

Savage Arms > Launch > A17


Ready.....................GO!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The 14″ Mossberg 500 That ISN’T NFA! | Shockwave Technologies


Ready..............GO!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Ready.............GO!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.gunsandammo.com/tv/ruger-mini-30-rifle/

Are we starting to connect a bit s0ns??!!!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

http://www.gunsandammo.com/tv/ruger-mini-30-rifle/

Are we starting to connect a bit s0ns??!!!

I think you need to cut back on the meth sonny.

 

[Czernobog]

People like you, Mr. Westwall, are the definition of insanity. Denying reality on every front. I have owned guns for 60 years, and still own them. And have no need of a war weapon. Been in a situation where there were ten against me, and a single shot 12 gauge changed their intentions.

The assault weapons are the preferred weapon of the crazies because of the rapid fire and reload capabiities, and the massive tissue damage that rounds like the .223 do.

According to you all we need to do is ban assault weapons and mass shootings will magically disappear. France proves that to be crap.

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk