“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

Well, there's where you're wrong....I don't miss.

Then you have never been under fire. Big talk for a chairwarrior.

 

[francoHFW]

There is very little difference between an AR-15 and a M-16-A-4 except the A-4 has a 3 shot burst setting. But in combat, that setting is rarely used. It's pretty worthless. Since you arm chair generals have never served you wouldn't know that.

Yes, the Military uses it as a sporting rifle as well. Their game is humans.

Actually I did serve eight years in the guard. Second of all, there is no way an over the counter Ar15 would ever pass military muster you obviously know nothing of the subject.

Funny, I can buy a military grade AR-15 over the counter. The only difference will be the receiver which cannot be changed out with the M-16 receiver. Same barrel, same everything else. The cost won't be no crummy 500 bucks. It will be closer to 1500 or better. You get what you pay for.

And I doubt you ever served. You don't know the history of the Military at all.

'military grade AR-15 over the counter?' Yeah, you're just woefully uninformed. Have you ever actually attempted to purchase a firearm before? I'm gonna go with no. You're a typical Gun Grabber Democrat. So, i'm done wit ya. Movin on...

You have no clue, try the mini 14 it can use the nato shell. Have people here ever seen a group that knows so little about their toys.

Lol
The shell does not make a weapon an assault weapon dumbass

No it's that crazy styling just want the psycho Killers want....

 

[OKTexas]

There is a neighbor with a gun that there is a 1.55 in 300,000,000 chance might fall over and go through multiple walls and kill you.

How the hell are you able to function every day with those odds.

I don't see that as a problem, Pop. In fact, I have no longer a need for, or desire to own, any of the 5 firearms in my house, and if I could get rid of them safely, I would probably sleep better only because there would be less reason for someone break in to steal them. I feel reasonably certain that I will never have to use them to fight off the black helicopters.

Getting rid of guns safely really isn't an issue, unless of course you have a fear of taking them into a police station and surrendering them.

Now I get it, you're afraid one might go off and kill you while getting them to the station?

Fear not, you have a far greater chance of dying on that Motorscooter than dying from an accidental gun discharge, which is somewhere in the area of 1.55 in 300,000,000 of happining.

I have the perfect way to prevent anyone from dying on a MotorScooter. Don't ride it in the first place. Same goes for an accidental discharge from a gun in your home. The only safe way to prevent that is to not have it in the first place. If you are afraid of a toaster electrocuting you don't own a toaster. Your logic on this one is illogical. And the only reason for it is that you want to sell more guns and make more profits. No wonder you don't want any gun laws. There just might be a market still in arming the 5 year olds.

It wasn't about the deadly tool, it was about the paranoia.

Why would anyone be paranoid about something that happens 1.55 in 300,000,000, but not about something with far greater odds.

The answer is that it is disingenuous to say one thing is so frightening that it should be banned, especially with such long odds, yet you willingly participate in something with far better odds that it will kill you.

But I think you already knew that.

If one needless death can be absolutely prevented then it should be prevented. A life is more important than your paranoia. But I guess it pays to be paranoid when they really are out to get you. Why that line must be completely around the block.

So how many lives are saved by the 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year, are they worth nothing to you? Come on child, let's see if you have an intellectually honest bone in you feeble body.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Everything is within reason. If an aregument is presented that is without being within reason it's not viable. What you are doing is presenting an argument that is beyond reason. Most of the "Reasons" given are beyond reason.

So are you.

Explain why my argument is not reason and yours is.

You can't.

You should now understand why your argument is NOT reasonable.

let's see. My reason.

I want to raise the age limit for all states for purchasing guns to 21.
I want to make it where ALL guns sales must pass a gun check
I want to completely outlaw bumps stocks
I want to limit Mag size to no more than 15 rounds
I want the weapons to not have the rails for many of the dangerous addons
I want to make silencers have to have an FFL License to own, purchase or use them.

Not a long list. BTW, Colorado already has these in place. And the NRA has already taken it to court and lost. Welcome to the future. These are reasonable laws. Most of the exceptions were grandfathered in and it only affects new sales, manufacturing. These are not gun Grabbers, they are reasonable otherwise, they would have been found unconstitutional. Some states have gone further while others have not gone quite as far. But most states have at least made an effort. If you don't like the state you are in, move to one you like. But, rest assured, sooner or later, all states will carry reasonable gun control laws similiar to the ones we have here.

Exactly what dangerous add ons can be attached via rails on a weapon? Be very specific.


.

 

[OKTexas]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

That is YOUR very narrow definition. Others have other definitions. Like, can it accept additional equipment that is strictly used for war like a M203 Grenade Launcher. Can it accept a Silencer, can it accept a Bayonet?

One person said that a Bayonet was just a knife. Not when mounted on the front of a rifle, it's not. It becomes many times more deadly and has only one use and that is of war. You can't use a bayonet to varmint hunt. Those little critters just won't cooperate.

Most of these arguments by you nutters are just strawmen. The AR can be equipped exactly like the M-16 and that is part of the mystique of the weapon. By changing it to not accept the accessories of war much of the mystique is removed. You don't want it classified as an Assault Weapon, remove the ability to accept the War Accessories. Or lose the weapon completely. You people are your own worst enemy.

Tell us child, where can you buy these rail mounted 203s and ammo for them? While your at it how about a rail mount bayonet lug? The rails on mine are designed to accept different lights and sights, in fact it didn't even come with fixed sights. I don't know where you're coming up with these fantasies.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

The right of self defense doesn't end at your front door or property line.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

 

[mudwhistle]

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

Well, there's where you're wrong....I don't miss.

Then you have never been under fire. Big talk for a chairwarrior.

I never spent 5 years on a Special Forces Operational Detachment "Alpha" Team.
I was never in Moghadishu Somalia in 93' getting shot at by 'Skinnies' belonging to Tribal Leader Mohamed Farid Aideed.
I never was deployed on a JSOTF (Joint Special Operations Task Force) under UNISOM.
I never trained foreign troops how to fight.
Never.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

Well, there's where you're wrong....I don't miss.

Then you have never been under fire. Big talk for a chairwarrior.

I never spent 5 years on a Special Forces Operational Detachment "Alpha" Team.
I was never in Moghadishu Somalia in 93' getting shot at by 'Skinnies' belonging to Tribal Leader Mohamed Farid Aideed.
I never was deployed on a JSOTF (Joint Special Operations Task Force) under UNISOM.
I never trained foreign troops how to fight.
Never.

And you never lie or embellish about your military career either. Never.

 

[2aguy]

The correct question to ask is what percentage of mass-shootings is done with an assault weapon.

Zero

The term "Assault weapon" is a media invention.

Did you know that most mass shootings were domestic or family violence? Analysis of Mass Shootings

Only 27% of mass shooters used an AR-15. Most used handguns. Reality Check: Most Mass Shooters Use Handguns, Not AR-15s

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Flintlocks? Weren't those the original guns used to commit genocide against the Native Americans?......those are weapons of mass genocide...how dare you....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

No it can't. Well, it can once. Then the prison sentence will begin. It's well beyond the reasonable weapons to be used for home defense. If it is in the security storage it's supposed to be in then you probably won't have time to get it out in time and would choose a different more suitable weapon. You have been watching way too many A-Team episodes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

The right of self defense doesn't end at your front door or property line.


.

Once you exit your property line you are under the jurisdiction of the local and state governments. You aren't free to carry or do any damned thing you want to do. You have to abide by the laws of the land no matter what they are. Okay, you are free to grumble about them, tell every person you see just how unfair they are but you will abide by them or be taken out of the equation one way or another.

 

[Rustic]

Excellent post. And I might add that there is no evidence that those 27%, even if an AR style weapon was banned, would not simply use a different weapon to accomplish their goal. The body count in some cases may have been slightly lower, but of course, in others they might have been slightly higher. It is after all, complete speculation.

Yet the post leaves out that of the Mass Shootings, the high body counts were all AR-15, all but one were done by people younger than 21, of these all used 30 shot or better multiple mags for reloading. Using that data, what can we change to not stop the mass shootings but keep the body counts down? And don't use the old tired "From My Dead Cold Hands" response.

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

You’re the fool that trusts the collective, typical of anti-gun nutters like yourself.

Keep your appeasement to yourself, it Suits only you...

 

[Pop23]

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

The right of self defense doesn't end at your front door or property line.


.

Once you exit your property line you are under the jurisdiction of the local and state governments. You aren't free to carry or do any damned thing you want to do. You have to abide by the laws of the land no matter what they are. Okay, you are free to grumble about them, tell every person you see just how unfair they are but you will abide by them or be taken out of the equation one way or another.

1st line is false. No government can deny you the right to self defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

My reason.

Mine:

It is a right, not a privilege. Fuck your restrictions.

Especially the rail ban. What the fuck kind of dangerout accessories could be attached. Laser sites?


You just proved that you have limit knowledge and understanding.

What you have just proved is that you have absolutely nothing to input in this discussion. You use the same old tired insults over and over. You want to present the AR as a sporting rifle? Well, present it that way. But don't include the things that makes it an Assault Rifle by definition. Otherwise, it gets banned completely if you win out on it's construction. You don't need the rails to mount a 203 grenade launcher and anything else that clearly defines it as a Military Assault Rifle. You want to argue that the rail for a Laser Site is in question? It's not. but the ability to mount a Bayonet is. The ability to mount a silencer is in question and is illegal to manufacture and be sold in Colorado. Many Rifles have the ability to mount Laser Sites so that isn't in question. So how about growing up a bit. And allow those that want to use it as a sport rifle to have it instead of getting your way and having it banned completely. Stop screwing it up for other people.

What makes a rifle an assault rifle by definition is the select fire ability.

The AR 15 does not have that ability ergo the AR 15 is not an assault rifle by definition

That is YOUR very narrow definition. Others have other definitions. Like, can it accept additional equipment that is strictly used for war like a M203 Grenade Launcher. Can it accept a Silencer, can it accept a Bayonet?

One person said that a Bayonet was just a knife. Not when mounted on the front of a rifle, it's not. It becomes many times more deadly and has only one use and that is of war. You can't use a bayonet to varmint hunt. Those little critters just won't cooperate.

Most of these arguments by you nutters are just strawmen. The AR can be equipped exactly like the M-16 and that is part of the mystique of the weapon. By changing it to not accept the accessories of war much of the mystique is removed. You don't want it classified as an Assault Weapon, remove the ability to accept the War Accessories. Or lose the weapon completely. You people are your own worst enemy.

Tell us child, where can you buy these rail mounted 203s and ammo for them? While your at it how about a rail mount bayonet lug? The rails on mine are designed to accept different lights and sights, in fact it didn't even come with fixed sights. I don't know where you're coming up with these fantasies.


.

Funny, I did a quick search for a M-203 and on the 3 one on the first page I hit it. All the accessories any collector with a FFL License or a complete fruitcake could imagine is available. And it all fits the standard AR-15 including the rails to mount the goodies. I won't go into it since the collectors already know of it and the gun nutcases like you shouldn't have readily have that information handed to them. Actually, I already know you would be too friggin lazy to even go through the hoops to have a legally mounted M-203 with Rounds so it's probably not a problem anyway.

 

[Rustic]

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

No it can't. Well, it can once. Then the prison sentence will begin. It's well beyond the reasonable weapons to be used for home defense. If it is in the security storage it's supposed to be in then you probably won't have time to get it out in time and would choose a different more suitable weapon. You have been watching way too many A-Team episodes.

Lol
Actually you are wrong there, A Ffl dealer can use any firearm they legally can have for their own defense.
That’s were local law-enforcement comes in, how do I know this. I sell glocks to the local sheriffs department...
It might different in crazy Cali or some other urban shitholes... but Here in rural America we have an absolute right to firearm ownership unless someone fucks it up for themselves... of course..

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

The right of self defense doesn't end at your front door or property line.


.

Once you exit your property line you are under the jurisdiction of the local and state governments. You aren't free to carry or do any damned thing you want to do. You have to abide by the laws of the land no matter what they are. Okay, you are free to grumble about them, tell every person you see just how unfair they are but you will abide by them or be taken out of the equation one way or another.

1st line is false. No government can deny you the right to self defense.

Under the 1st amendment,. you have the right to say that. I will give you that. But that's as far as it goes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

No it can't. Well, it can once. Then the prison sentence will begin. It's well beyond the reasonable weapons to be used for home defense. If it is in the security storage it's supposed to be in then you probably won't have time to get it out in time and would choose a different more suitable weapon. You have been watching way too many A-Team episodes.

Lol
Actually you are wrong there, A Ffl dealer can use any firearm they legally can have for their own defense.
That’s were local law-enforcement comes in, how do I know this. I sell glocks to the local sheriffs department...
It might different in crazy Cali or some other urban shitholes... but Here in rural America we have an absolute right to firearm ownership unless someone fucks it up for themselves... of course..

You sell glocks but you don't sell the weapons that you are harping about. Glocks within the reasonable self defense fire arms status. So you sell a Glock. Since I can buy a Glock that means I must also be an expert in it as well. Noper, not even close for either of us. But, according to the 1st Amendment, we both have a right to claim to be experts.

 

[Rustic]

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

The right of self defense doesn't end at your front door or property line.


.

Once you exit your property line you are under the jurisdiction of the local and state governments. You aren't free to carry or do any damned thing you want to do. You have to abide by the laws of the land no matter what they are. Okay, you are free to grumble about them, tell every person you see just how unfair they are but you will abide by them or be taken out of the equation one way or another.

Lol
Legally
I can take a fully auto ar15 hunting... here is South Dakota, Wyoming and most western states... the only limitation in South Dakota you are limited to 6 round mag for large game... Which is quite silly really. But oh well

 

[Rustic]

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

No it can't. Well, it can once. Then the prison sentence will begin. It's well beyond the reasonable weapons to be used for home defense. If it is in the security storage it's supposed to be in then you probably won't have time to get it out in time and would choose a different more suitable weapon. You have been watching way too many A-Team episodes.

Lol
Actually you are wrong there, A Ffl dealer can use any firearm they legally can have for their own defense.
That’s were local law-enforcement comes in, how do I know this. I sell glocks to the local sheriffs department...
It might different in crazy Cali or some other urban shitholes... but Here in rural America we have an absolute right to firearm ownership unless someone fucks it up for themselves... of course..

You sell glocks but you don't sell the weapons that you are harping about. Glocks within the reasonable self defense fire arms status. So you sell a Glock. Since I can buy a Glock that means I must also be an expert in it as well. Noper, not even close for either of us. But, according to the 1st Amendment, we both have a right to claim to be experts.

The enforcement is up to the local law-enforcement, and they disagree with you. So there is that… LOL