There is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories

[NYcarbineer]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.

There are places now where you can go and shoot automatic weapons under controlled conditions.

 

[eflatminor]

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.

There are places now where you can go and shoot automatic weapons under controlled conditions.

And? There are also plenty of civilians that own fully automatic weapons who shoot them wherever they like. They're not illegal, nor should they be.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What someone does on their property, such as discharging one of their own firearms, isn't your, the state or the federal governments business.

 

[daveman]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

Leftist whining is less than compelling.

 

[daveman]

And?

Read it.

What was your favorite part?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

Intelligent answers only.

This is your homework assignment.

TRANSLATION:

"Agree with me, or else you're STUpid!!"

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, kid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What about the rest of the question. And you don't think that the shooters wanted to have in their hands the scariest rifle with the highest capacity mags they could get. I mean, if you want to terrorize, you are not going to get a .22 single shot rifle now are you?

And on the second rifle. Does it take the same 30 round magizines that the AR15 will accept?

And if there is no difference, why the opposition to restricting AR15's. Just buy the other weapon and carry on.

The magazine capacity is a red herring.

I can tape 2 15 round magazines together and fire 30 shots in virtually the same amount of time I can empty 1 30 round mag.

I oppose banning the AR 15 ( I do not own one by the way but I do own the second rifle I showed, a Ruger Mini 14) because as I have been saying over and over there is no difference between an AR 15 and any other semiauto rifle.

So the goal of the gun grabbers is to first ban the AR 15 and then to argue that all other semiautos are no different and then ban them too.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.

There are places now where you can go and shoot automatic weapons under controlled conditions.

I had a turkey sandwich for lunch.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What about the rest of the question. And you don't think that the shooters wanted to have in their hands the scariest rifle with the highest capacity mags they could get. I mean, if you want to terrorize, you are not going to get a .22 single shot rifle now are you?

And on the second rifle. Does it take the same 30 round magizines that the AR15 will accept?

And if there is no difference, why the opposition to restricting AR15's. Just buy the other weapon and carry on.

The magazine capacity is a red herring.

I can tape 2 15 round magazines together and fire 30 shots in virtually the same amount of time I can empty 1 30 round mag.

I oppose banning the AR 15 ( I do not own one by the way but I do own the second rifle I showed, a Ruger Mini 14) because as I have been saying over and over there is no difference between an AR 15 and any other semiauto rifle.

So the goal of the gun grabbers is to first ban the AR 15 and then to argue that all other semiautos are no different and then ban them too.

The end-game is a UK style ban.... never mind the fact that the violent crime rate in the UK is about 4 times that of the US.

 

[daveman]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Another freedon-hating prog chimes in.

 

[squeeze berry]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

YOU mean there is a reason the military does not let soldiers take their M16's home with them? Keep them under lock and key when not in use.

Good fuking god, don't tell the NRA nuts. Those soldiers are not being given full access to their second amendment rights.

Revolution I say. Revolution.

the M16's are not their personal property

 

[squeeze berry]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

military hardware does not = personal property you commies

 

[eflatminor]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

Just because something looks like a military weapon does not mean it is a military weapon.

An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semiauto rifle.

This weapon

Is no different than this weapon

Both are semiautomatic rifles
Both fire the same .223 round at the same rate

But one of them looks scarier.

Which one of those rifles were used in the recent mass killings? It was the rifle on the top photo, wasn't it?

Nope. The rifle on the top is not a Bushmaster, which is what the asshole used.

And why did the shooters use the Bushmaster AR15 instead of the other rifle? Do you know the answers?

Because that's the one he stole...the first law he broke that day.

And in the world of gun sales, when comparing numbers of guns sold betweent the two rifles, which rifle sells the best and why? Them being the same and all.

There have been far more civilian sales of the Ruger Mini 14 than Bushmaster AR15s. Why? Because the Ruger has been around for a lot longer and Ruger has a far more extensive retail distribution than Bushmaster.

Next.

 

[Jarlaxle]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.

Too much credit. I am starting to think he is not ignorant, but actually STUPID.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Brilliant post!!

I wish our leaders could articulate the argument that well!!

Of course, "military style weapons" means full auto capability, not simply semi auto firearms. My goodness you guys are supremely ignorant about this topic.

There are places now where you can go and shoot automatic weapons under controlled conditions.

And I am seriously considering a trip to one of those places this year!

 

[The Rabbi]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Who the fuck died and made you leader of the free world?

 

[The Rabbi]

Three weeks and the gun cult still can't offer one valid reason.

Reason and logic (and public safety) is not their strong suit.

Just because something looks like a military weapon does not mean it is a military weapon.

An AR 15 is functionally no different than any other semiauto rifle.

This weapon

Is no different than this weapon

Both are semiautomatic rifles
Both fire the same .223 round at the same rate

But one of them looks scarier.

Which one of those rifles were used in the recent mass killings? It was the rifle on the top photo, wasn't it? And why did the shooters use the Bushmaster AR15 instead of the other rifle? Do you know the answers?

And in the world of gun sales, when comparing numbers of guns sold betweent the two rifles, which rifle sells the best and why? Them being the same and all.

Possibly neither.
AR-15s are the most popular rifles in AMerica. There are many makers of the gun. There is only one maker of the Mini 14--Ruger.
But the point is valid: one is not more lethal than the other. I just sold my AR15 and bought a Mini instead. Just personal preference on my part.
Doubtless you've never shot either. In fact, I suspect the only thing you've shot is your mouth off on this forum.

 

[daveman]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Who the fuck died and made you leader of the free world?

He doesn't want to lead. He wants to dictate.

Of course, like all progressives, he won't actually get his hands dirty. He wants someone else to do the heavy lifting, then hand the reins over to him.

He's entitled to rule, don'tcha know.

 

[eflatminor]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Who the fuck died and made you leader of the free world?

He doesn't want to lead. He wants to dictate.

Of course, like all progressives, he won't actually get his hands dirty. He wants someone else to do the heavy lifting, then hand the reins over to him.

He's entitled to rule, don'tcha know.

He doesn't even realize that his suggestions are in direct opposition to the position he's trying to advocate. First, he says we should have access to the same weapons the military has, which means full auto. Great! Then, he qualifies how they must be stored and used, not realizing that the military guys don't own the damn weapons, the military does. But he wants us to have the same access! Fantastic! By his own reasoning, we can all go down to the nearest military range, sign out a 50 cal machine gun and have at it. Sounds good to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People can have the right to military style weapons the same way the military people have a right to those weapons -

They can be kept in secure facilities, made available to individuals under strict accountability and scrutiny,

and used in defined areas - for example shooting ranges - under strict supervision.

That's good enough for the military; it's good enough for the civilian population.

Who the fuck died and made you leader of the free world?

Is that the best you can come up with?

Why can't you buy a machine gun at the Walmart or Dick's Sporting Goods?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A MUST-READ FOR GUNTARDS

Similarly, there is no legitimate reason for gun-sellers to be peddling militarized accessories, like high-capacity ammunition magazines, speed loaders and such.

But individual access to legally obtained firearms is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution — a fact reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court as recently as 2010.

Constitutions are not easily amended — that’s the point, after all — and the 2nd Amendment would be a particularly tough nut to crack. Politically, even indigo states trend purple on guns.

So while a case can be made for stronger national gun laws, it needs to be advanced with profound respect for the constitutional issues involved.

There is every legitimate reason for gun-sellers to sell militarized accessories. when you have the Drug Cartel running though your property with the same type of accessories and semi automatic rifles.

By that logic, machine guns should be no harder to obtain than semi-automatics.