Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who said I did? I own what I own legally, every piece, every round. I think everybody responsible should. I have no idea how to regulate the irresponsible or criminal elements as they are by definition, not adherent to responsible or legal action. They are the biggest reason I keep what I keep.Ban guns? I keep enough to break up any assault on my place and make somebodies pay dearly for any attempt, and all are loaded, all the time. You would not know a leftist if your life depended on it.Does not surprise me. You are wanting to ban cars? Doubt you will win this one, any more than the nut-balls that would ban guns.You aren't going to kill 20 people in 10 second with a semi-automatic weapon, and we already prohibit full auto weapons in this country for civilian use. Got any other good exaggerations to impress the people that know nothing about weapons?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?
Did you know you can kill 20 people in 10 seconds with a car? Didn't know that, did ja
So you don't want to ban guns, which is good for a leftist.
But you think government can decide what our rights are, which isn't so good. You realize the second protects us specifically FROM government, right? That's the purpose of the 2nd, so say they can't restrict our rights. That it's a protection from government and government gets to decide what they means is absurd.
The right shall NOT BE INFRINGED. By ... government ... Seems clear. It's extremist to think it means what it says?
What did you think of George W. Bush and his post Katrina gun confiscation in Louisiana? You can worry about leftist gun grabbers, trying to pass laws that ultimately will not pass constitutional muster all you want. I am keeping my eye on the right wing control people, as they are the only ones that have pulled it off, even on a limited area. Still, they pulled it off. All they had to do was declare an emergency and institute martial law over the citizenry. Those citizens, white, black, rich or poor never got their weapons back, not the ones in the ghettos, nor the ones in the gated communities. They were confiscated by local and state law enforcement, backed up by federalized National Guard. This is what you had better be worried about, no me.
You said Democrats were one extreme and you weren't with them or me.
So what infringement of gun rights do you support?
So, for what reason do you own them?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.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
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.
Just say they are cool and fun to shoot. That way you don't sound like a racist loony.
Just say they are cool and fun to shoot. That way you don't sound like a racist loony. I know the argument lacks the punch of "protecting us from tyranny" but it's at least rational.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.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
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.
So you think that conservatives arguments on guns are the ones that are weak in a discussion supporting leftists who want to ban guns that commit a tiny fraction of murders as if that's the problem.
And yet you don't wonder why most murders happen in cities which virtually ban gun ownership and have no complaint over the thousands of blacks being killed by guns that apparently don't exist because they are in those locations where guns are banned.
Thanks for bringing that moderation and balance to the discussion!
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?
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.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
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.
Who said I did? I own what I own legally, every piece, every round. I think everybody responsible should. I have no idea how to regulate the irresponsible or criminal elements as they are by definition, not adherent to responsible or legal action. They are the biggest reason I keep what I keep.Ban guns? I keep enough to break up any assault on my place and make somebodies pay dearly for any attempt, and all are loaded, all the time. You would not know a leftist if your life depended on it.
So you don't want to ban guns, which is good for a leftist.
But you think government can decide what our rights are, which isn't so good. You realize the second protects us specifically FROM government, right? That's the purpose of the 2nd, so say they can't restrict our rights. That it's a protection from government and government gets to decide what they means is absurd.
The right shall NOT BE INFRINGED. By ... government ... Seems clear. It's extremist to think it means what it says?
What did you think of George W. Bush and his post Katrina gun confiscation in Louisiana? You can worry about leftist gun grabbers, trying to pass laws that ultimately will not pass constitutional muster all you want. I am keeping my eye on the right wing control people, as they are the only ones that have pulled it off, even on a limited area. Still, they pulled it off. All they had to do was declare an emergency and institute martial law over the citizenry. Those citizens, white, black, rich or poor never got their weapons back, not the ones in the ghettos, nor the ones in the gated communities. They were confiscated by local and state law enforcement, backed up by federalized National Guard. This is what you had better be worried about, no me.
You said Democrats were one extreme and you weren't with them or me.
So what infringement of gun rights do you support?
Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.A little more than zero percent.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.
So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?
Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?
Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.
Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.
And yet that's the focus of leftists.
Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people
One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
Which ones?I have a pair of those!Here's the only assault weapon I own:
All the rest are sporting or home defense weapons:
Here's the only assault weapon I own:
This is the only one I own.
View attachment 508756
Just say they are cool and fun to shoot. That way you don't sound like a racist loony. I know the argument lacks the punch of "protecting us from tyranny" but it's at least rational.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.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
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.
So you think that conservatives arguments on guns are the ones that are weak in a discussion supporting leftists who want to ban guns that commit a tiny fraction of murders as if that's the problem.
And yet you don't wonder why most murders happen in cities which virtually ban gun ownership and have no complaint over the thousands of blacks being killed by guns that apparently don't exist because they are in those locations where guns are banned.
Thanks for bringing that moderation and balance to the discussion!
LOL, the guy who doesn't care if thousands of black people are killed in your quest of free shit is worried about racism. Of course you are, Adolph
They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
Here is the thing, if you gun nuts have to make up shit to support your argument, well your argument is pretty damn weak. Police DO support an assault weapons ban.A little more than zero percent.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.
So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?
Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?
Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...
You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
I do not believe your numbers are accurate.
This is from the DOJ:
{...
Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns.
...}
Guns Used in Crime
Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT BJS SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995 202-307-0784 HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES THE USE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS...bjs.ojp.gov
Shotguns are #2, rifles are the lowest, and assault rifles are less then 1%, although increasing.
Police do NOT at all support any assault weapons ban.
That is because laws like assault weapons bans do not reduce the number of them in the hands of the criminals at all, but instead only decrease the number of weapons in the hands of honest people.
So assault weapons bans always increase crime and force police to work harder to defend the honest population the misguided law disarmed.
Anyone who understands and believes in a democratic republic, can't be for any gun control.
Leftist article? God but you are stupid. The article came from the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at, now wait for it, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY.A little more than zero percent.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.
So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?
Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?
Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...
You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
We support police to maintain our rights, not in lieu of them.
Even a leftist article trying to maximize the use of the term assault weapon and narrow the definition of crime to maximize the percent couldn't come up with a number higher than 7%.
And yet that's the focus of leftists.
Funny how a guy calling himself "Winston" wants to protect the power of government from the people
An assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. I mean what is the benefit of legal ownership of assault weapons? Other than making people feel good, I ain't seeing much of a benefit. It is little to no advantage over other weapons when it comes to self-defense. Surely no one is really thinking about using one while hunting, as the OP pointed out. And they sure are not going to make a difference in an armed insurrection against the federal government, pissing in the wind comes to mind. Honestly, the only benefit I see is the ability of some weekend soldiers to go out and play war games with inferior weapons that are made to look like real military weapons. Not really worried about them crazy ass yahoos losing their toys.
But what do we pay for having legal assault weapons. Easier access to those weapons by criminals, and the really violent ones, the ones that conduct offensive operations against law enforcement, use assault weapons. Every once in a while some crazy ass uses one to shoot lots and lots of people, at one time, at movie theaters, concerts, and even elementary schools. Most of the time they legally obtained that assault weapon. And then you have those dickshits I mentioned, the weekend warriors, who have become increasingly emboldened since the elimination of the assault weapons ban. Yep, seeing a real benefit in taking their toys now.
They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
WTF are you talking about?
.
Just say they are cool and fun to shoot. That way you don't sound like a racist loony. I know the argument lacks the punch of "protecting us from tyranny" but it's at least rational.
So you think that conservatives arguments on guns are the ones that are weak in a discussion supporting leftists who want to ban guns that commit a tiny fraction of murders as if that's the problem.
And yet you don't wonder why most murders happen in cities which virtually ban gun ownership and have no complaint over the thousands of blacks being killed by guns that apparently don't exist because they are in those locations where guns are banned.
Thanks for bringing that moderation and balance to the discussion!
LOL, the guy who doesn't care if thousands of black people are killed in your quest of free shit is worried about racism. Of course you are, Adolph
The main cause of murders now is the same back when we had the stupid and illegal prohibition against alcohol.
Whenever you make something illegal, the profits go up, people use it even more, but then since you have to use cash but not banks, there are going to be lots of turf wars.
Same thing with alcohol prohibition, murders spiked.
Don't blame the poor people, blame the stupid legislators who make bad laws.
There is no legal basis for making law prohibiting things that do not harm others.
The war on drugs is not just stupid and causes murders, but inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
Here is the thing, if you gun nuts have to make up shit to support your argument, well your argument is pretty damn weak. Police DO support an assault weapons ban.A little more than zero percent.They know you mean combat weapons. The ones with no legitimate purpose.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?
And the ones that commit roughly zero percent of the murders in this country.
So just to be clear, you read the Constitution and find where it says we need to justify needing our Constitutional rights protected. I don't see that qualification, can you show me where it says that?
Does that work with free speech? Religion? Due process? You think they start with a judicial hearing where you first prove you need them before you get them? You are actually this stupid, aren't you?
Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2-12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13-16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total)
Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: an Updated Examination of Local and National Sources - PubMed
Policies restricting semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are intended to reduce gunshot victimizations by limiting the stock of semiautomatic firearms with large ammunition capacities and other military-style features conducive to criminal use. The federal...
You know, if you Republicans really wanted to show your support for law enforcement, you would support a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
I do not believe your numbers are accurate.
This is from the DOJ:
{...
Eighty-six percent of the time (in 1.1 million violent
crimes) the weapons were handguns.
...}
Guns Used in Crime
Handguns Used in More Than One Million Violent Crimes, The Use of Semi-Automatic Guns In Murders Is Increasing U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EDT BJS SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1995 202-307-0784 HANDGUNS USED IN MORE THAN ONE MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES THE USE OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS...
Shotguns are #2, rifles are the lowest, and assault rifles are less then 1%, although increasing.
Police do NOT at all support any assault weapons ban.
That is because laws like assault weapons bans do not reduce the number of them in the hands of the criminals at all, but instead only decrease the number of weapons in the hands of honest people.
So assault weapons bans always increase crime and force police to work harder to defend the honest population the misguided law disarmed.
Anyone who understands and believes in a democratic republic, can't be for any gun control.
First passed in 1994, the assault weapons ban required domestic gun manufacturers to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds except for military or police use. While the ban was in place, it was remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. In the period of the ban, (1994-2004) the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes fell by a dramatic 66 percent. Semi-Automatic assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers. The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership has approved several reauthorizations of support in the years since. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.
That is directly from the Firearms Policy Position Statement of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Why do you Republicans not support law enforcement?
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
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.
Here's the only assault weapon I own:
All the rest are sporting or home defense weapons:
Almost forgot my other assault weapon, my reproduction 1874 Sharps Carbine:
