This Republican has got it right.

[Crepitus]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.

If some weapon had no legitimate purpose, then why would anyone make or sell them?
Rifles like an AR-15 are some of the least powerful and least deadly rifles made.
The tiny .223 bullet was adopted by the military because they decided it made winning easier if they stopped killing people.
The bullet the AR-15 shoots is designed to not be able to kill, but to wound instead.
They are so weak that most states do not allow AR-15s to be used to hunt deer, as they are not lethal enough and cause a slow death.

But really, in a country founded by violent armed rebellion, and with all governments only lasting about 300 years before they become corrupt and need to be destroyed, anyone who does not have combat ready weapons in a democratic republic, is extremely irresponsible, to the point of being a traitor.

I know quite a bit about guns, I own some, I just think the usual arguments the right trots out are stupid and meant to shirk all the responsibility of responsible gun ownership.

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

.

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

Are you a troll or just an ignorant assed commie?

.

Are you just a total dumbass or are you also a complete moron?

 

[Crepitus]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

are you talking about the same founders that said if you give up freedom for security you deserve neither??

You mean like the freedoms to go to the movies without fear of getting shot?

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

You treat every gun as if it is loaded. But no, you don't keep all your guns loaded. Damn, even when hunting, you walk with the breechblock open and the safety on.

 

[progressive hunter]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

are you talking about the same founders that said if you give up freedom for security you deserve neither??

You mean like the freedoms to go to the movies without fear of getting shot?

not sure how that applies?? could you elaborate??

 

[progressive hunter]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

You treat every gun as if it is loaded. But no, you don't keep all your guns loaded. Damn, even when hunting, you walk with the breechblock open and the safety on.

wouldnt that depend on how many guns you have and what theyre used for??

but if you treat everyone as if it was loaded then theres no real danger or problem,,,

 

[bripat9643]

You can have as many muzzle loaders as you want.

OK, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to TV or radio because they didn't exist in 1776. The right to due process doesn't apply to your automobile or your phone because they didn't exist in 1776. You seriously just said that, Creep. Sure, that's what they meant

I believe you made the opposite argument previously.

it's in the Constitution because judges decided it is, not because the Constitution says that. - Kaz Apr 13, 2021 Forum: Politics

I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.

are you talking about the same founders that said if you give up freedom for security you deserve neither??

You mean like the freedoms to go to the movies without fear of getting shot?

There is no such right.

 

[Crepitus]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

 

[meaner gene]

Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

The rules are that when not in use, guns are to be "unloaded"

And when handling a firearm, it is always treated as if it was loaded.

Plus never carry a firearm with your finger on the trigger, until you're ready to fire.

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

 

[progressive hunter]

Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

The rules are that when not in use, guns are to be "unloaded"

And when handling a firearm, it is always treated as if it was loaded.

Plus never carry a firearm with your finger on the trigger, until you're ready to fire.

thank you for your NRA talking points and rules,,,

but I will stick with my rights and common sense,,

 

[meaner gene]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Then start documenting.

 

[Crepitus]

I've had access to guns all my life and have owned them for 58+ years. Not one of them have harmed a person, would you call that responsible gun ownership?

Are you actually responsible with them or are you just a statistical anomaly?

Are you a troll or just an ignorant assed commie?

He's got a point. So many gun owners point out use of firearms for personal protection, or for protection of others. The "if only an armed citizen was there to stop the crime" argument. Yet as you admitted, only a very tiny fraction of them ever used their weapons to protect someone.

Kinda like justifying needing a Porsche 911 twin turbo because it can do 200 mph. But you never go even half that fast.

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction"? You are obviously ignorant on the topic. Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

.

That two million number is laughable. Post the study, I am not going to bother to look for it. I know it was based on a phone survey, "Have you used a gun for a defensive reason". "Yeah, just last night, I heard some noise behind the house and I grabbed by assault weapon and shot in the woods. I know I hit them". But nobody showed up at an emergency room within a hundred miles and all it really was was a limb brushing against the window pane. Damn but you gun nuts are a hoot.

Tex walks down the street, sees a black man, looking at his phone, walking towards him. Tex nervously continues, the black man passes without making eye contact. Tex thinks "phew, good thing I had my pistol on me!".

Defensive gun use #1 for the day.

 

[meaner gene]

thank you for your NRA talking points and rules,,,

but I will stick with my rights and common sense,,

One good thing the NRA does is promote gun safety. And they've been doing it for over a century.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded.
Since then, the NRA has been the premier firearms education organization in the world.

 

[meaner gene]

but I will stick with my rights and common sense,,

If you had common sense you wouldn't post what you do.

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

isnt the 2nd rule of gun safety that all guns are loaded???

You treat every gun as if it is loaded. But no, you don't keep all your guns loaded. Damn, even when hunting, you walk with the breechblock open and the safety on.

wouldnt that depend on how many guns you have and what theyre used for??

but if you treat everyone as if it was loaded then theres no real danger or problem,,,

Radio was what everyone called him. It was over 12 years ago. He was on my son's football team. He was ten, actually just turned ten, finally old enough to join his father and grandfather in a squirrel hunt. To celebrate that milestone they climbed in the old golf cart and headed across the pasture to the woods, his .410 loaded and hanging in the back of the cart. The cart hit a bump, the .410 fell and went off when it hit the floor shooting Radio in the back. He died about three hours later. They buried him with his slingshot. The saddest funeral I ever attended.

 

[Winston]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Post the study. Locke I believe, and it is horseshit.

 

[meaner gene]

..., his .410 loaded and hanging in the back of the cart. The cart hit a bump, the .410 fell and went off when it hit the floor shooting Radio in the back. ...

This is why pistols come with all kinds of hammer block safety mechanisms, so that they can be dropped with a bullet in the chamber and not go off.

Remington to replace millions of Model 700 rifle triggers - CNBC

A class action suit alleged the guns can fire without the trigger being pulled,

At least two dozen deaths and more than 100 serious injuries have been linked to inadvertent discharges of Remington 700 series rifles.

 

[meaner gene]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Post the study. Locke I believe, and it is horseshit.

Even reading the half dozen examples each month in the various gun magazines (ex: American Rifleman) There just aren't that many examples, no less good examples.

 

[Winston]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

OK, I am bored. It was Kleck and Getz, Locke just loves quoting them. The study has not been thoroughly documented, it has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.

Debunking the Defensive Gun Use Myth

The Myth of Defensive Gun Use **Note – This article appeared in Politico on 1/14/2015 In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodo…

www.armedwithreason.com

 

[bripat9643]

So you call 2 million defensive uses of firearms a year a "small fraction

I call that imaginary.

It is thoroughly documented, turd.

Then start documenting.

It has already been documented.