What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[2aguy]

Could it be that they want their liberal war machines to make obscene profits? Oops, bet you didn't know that, did ya?

Halliburton was a "liberal" outfit ??? Amazing, what one "learns" from right wing idiots....

Haliburton doesn't care who is in office, they get no bid contracts from both sides of the aisle. They are thriving under Obama.

haliburton made tons of money under clinton......

 

[peach174]

Why does an American need a semi automatic AK47?

Because that is exactly what the drug smugglers use and all of the Ranchers plus others close to the boarder use to defend themselves with.

 

[320 Years of History]

Your claim was that an AR-15 is not used in target shooting

If you honestly believe that to be so after having re-read post #1449, well, there's nothing for me to say. That's not what the post says and that post is the start of the discussion between us.

Because the above is what you perceive to be the assertion I made, and I and everyone on the planet can see it is not the assertion I made, I have clear evidence that you don't read what I write and interpret it precisely/accurately as I wrote it, but rather that you read what I write, and take from it whatever it is you want it to mean. I don't have time to engage with folks who do that. So, I wish you well and good luck.

 

[nat4900]

Wrong....he used them on the kurds.....

It is amazing just how short the memory and attention span of a typical left wing nut is.........16 years....more like 10 years, after 9/11.....and they have already changed the facts in their heads....

I've answered your very same stupidity (as the rest of your ilk) at least TWICE.......Saddam, the bastard, used gas to kill Kurds.......weapons that WE sold to him during the Iraq-Iran war....THAT terrible incident happened in 1988..

Now, fuckhead.....Did we go and invade and occupy Iraq AFTER 15 years because Saddam killed Kurds and we wanted to punish him?......Is THAT your moronic contention?

So, we SOLD Saddam some chemical poisons (including napalm) because we hated Iran.....Saddam brutally used those chemicals on the Kurds.......and AFTER 15 years passed we decided to invade Iraq???

Go on, shit head answer......

 

[nat4900]

No....asswipe...we invaded sadaam because he had used WMDs against the Kurds, supported terrorists around the world and we had just allowed muslims from Afghanistan to knock down the world trade center and kill 3,000 people with our own jets....letting him stay in power with WMDs and all the other violations was not going to happen after that...

Now, this moron is stating that 9-11 were "Muslims from Afghanistan"?????...and GWB "allowed them"???

IDIOT, following some sort of logic we should have invaded Saudi Arabia........

 

[nat4900]

haliburton made tons of money under clinton.....

PROFITS under Clinton???

From 2003 to 2013, none has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5billion in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.

 

[there4eyeM]

Preemptive war....

...such a noble, such an American principle.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you honestly believe that to be so after having re-read post #1449, well, there's nothing for me to say. That's not what the post says and that post is the start of the discussion between us.

Because the above is what you perceive to be the assertion I made, and I and everyone on the planet can see it is not the assertion I made, I have clear evidence that you don't read what I write and interpret it precisely/accurately as I wrote it, but rather that you read what I write, and take from it whatever it is you want it to mean. I don't have time to engage with folks who do that. So, I wish you well and good luck.

Your words;

Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

 

[nat4900]

Preemptive war....

...such a noble, such an American principle.

Indeed....
In a world of true justice, Cheney would be rotting in some prison for war crimes....or hung like they did Saddam.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong....he used them on the kurds.....

It is amazing just how short the memory and attention span of a typical left wing nut is.........16 years....more like 10 years, after 9/11.....and they have already changed the facts in their heads....

I've answered your very same stupidity (as the rest of your ilk) at least TWICE.......Saddam, the bastard, used gas to kill Kurds.......weapons that WE sold to him during the Iraq-Iran war....THAT terrible incident happened in 1988..

Now, fuckhead.....Did we go and invade and occupy Iraq AFTER 15 years because Saddam killed Kurds and we wanted to punish him?......Is THAT your moronic contention?

So, we SOLD Saddam some chemical poisons (including napalm) because we hated Iran.....Saddam brutally used those chemicals on the Kurds.......and AFTER 15 years passed we decided to invade Iraq???

Go on, shit head answer......

No asswipe....we invaded Iraq because muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 people with airplanes.....he was financing muslim terrorists around the world and had WMD, which we know he had because he used them against the kurds.....so letting him hang out, and fund and train terrorists...and possibly supply them with gas....was a non starter after 9/11...

I know you guys think history begins only when you wake up in the morning...but try to pay attention....

 

[2aguy]

haliburton made tons of money under clinton.....

PROFITS under Clinton???

From 2003 to 2013, none has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5billion in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.

Hey asswipe.....you realize that you assholes forced Cheney to disinvest from haliburton...right? And he made tons of money doing it.....good for him you moron.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you honestly believe that to be so after having re-read post #1449, well, there's nothing for me to say. That's not what the post says and that post is the start of the discussion between us.

Because the above is what you perceive to be the assertion I made, and I and everyone on the planet can see it is not the assertion I made, I have clear evidence that you don't read what I write and interpret it precisely/accurately as I wrote it, but rather that you read what I write, and take from it whatever it is you want it to mean. I don't have time to engage with folks who do that. So, I wish you well and good luck.

Your words;

Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

Yes, those are my words. They are the first words I offered in our conversation and they are the words that commenced the conversation.

And how have you most recently interpreted them? You wrote:

Your claim was that an AR-15 is not used in target shooting and supported this by pointing to professional match shooters who preferred other rifles.

I rarely shoot distances greater than 100 yards.
​

Re: the emboldened text:
You and I both know that this is your first time/effort in which you provided any contextual basis for your remarks, having only until now shared little but a lot of "colored" accusations and "flavored" descriptions that really didn't do much of anything except paint you as biased rather than objectively insightful.

Your emboldened statement above would have been a helpful and conversation altering thing to share right after my post of multiple sources I looked at to get a sense of whether AR-15s are often used for "target shooting." Even better, pointing out after my post in which I related my friend's remarks that you had in mind shooting activity pertaining to targets out about 100 yards, give or take, would have also provided sufficient and conversationally critical/helpful context. But instead of that, or something like it that provided perspective, you chose to write:

You're friend is an idiot.

More likely, your story is a fabrication.

I'm a grown man, a fairly serious one, and a pretty smart one too. I'm also fair. I have no problem with "calling a spade a spade," but what is not a "spade," I won't call one or pretend it is. I can't read people's minds at all, but I'm quite good at reading and understanding all of what is written in accordance with the conventions of basic to very advanced modern English. (I'm also decent with "legacy" forms of English.) I can "make heads or tails" of pretty much anything when I have factual and contextual information that allows me to do so accurately.

The accusatory and personally derisive BS, however, is not something in which I care to engage. I don't care whether a stance is advocated by the left or right. I care about the facts and context of a matter. I care whether the problems and issues discussed deserve to be discussed with the aim of identifying solutions for them. I think actionable solutions are worth considering/discussing if they offer some hope of achieving a specific objective that is worth achieving. As go guns, the only thing that strikes me as important is whether fewer people, ideally none, die or are harmed from being shot, and I don't' care whether the left or right comes up with ideas and approaches for making that happen. Anything else is just "noise" as far as I'm concerned.

If you have the time and actually want to know what I think about the "gun debate," you'll find a good deal of it here: Libtard Remedial Education 103; What a Freaking Assault Weapon Actually Is . If there's something you see there that you want to know more about, ask, but don't tell me what I think. I can tell you what I think, and I know better what I think that does anyone else on the planet. Is what I think a left or right wing position? I don't know. I don't care. It's my position that accrues from what I understand about the matter and from what I think we should thus do to resolve the problems we face regarding gun use/abuse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you honestly believe that to be so after having re-read post #1449, well, there's nothing for me to say. That's not what the post says and that post is the start of the discussion between us.

Because the above is what you perceive to be the assertion I made, and I and everyone on the planet can see it is not the assertion I made, I have clear evidence that you don't read what I write and interpret it precisely/accurately as I wrote it, but rather that you read what I write, and take from it whatever it is you want it to mean. I don't have time to engage with folks who do that. So, I wish you well and good luck.

Your words;

Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

Yes, those are my words. They are the first words I offered in our conversation and they are the words that commenced the conversation.

And how have you most recently interpreted them? You wrote:

Your claim was that an AR-15 is not used in target shooting and supported this by pointing to professional match shooters who preferred other rifles.

I rarely shoot distances greater than 100 yards.
​

Re: the emboldened text:
You and I both know that this is your first time/effort in which you provided any contextual basis for your remarks, having only until now shared little but a lot of "colored" accusations and "flavored" descriptions that really didn't do much of anything except paint you as biased rather than objectively insightful.

Your emboldened statement above would have been a helpful and conversation altering thing to share right after my post of multiple sources I looked at to get a sense of whether AR-15s are often used for "target shooting." Even better, pointing out after my post in which I related my friend's remarks that you had in mind shooting activity pertaining to targets out about 100 yards, give or take, would have also provided sufficient and conversationally critical/helpful context. But instead of that, or something like it that provided perspective, you chose to write:

You're friend is an idiot.

More likely, your story is a fabrication.

I'm a grown man, a fairly serious one, and a pretty smart one too. I'm also fair. I have no problem with "calling a spade a spade," but what is not a "spade," I won't call one or pretend it is. I can't read people's minds at all, but I'm quite good at reading and understanding all of what is written in accordance with the conventions of basic to very advanced modern English. (I'm also decent with "legacy" forms of English.) I can "make heads or tails" of pretty much anything when I have factual and contextual information that allows me to do so accurately.

The accusatory and personally derisive/accusatory BS, however, is not something in which I care to engage. I don't care whether a stance is advocated by the left or right. I care about the facts and context of a matter. I care whether the problems and issues discussed deserve to be discussed with the aim of identifying solutions for them. I think actionable solutions are worth considering/discussing if they offer some hope of achieving a specific objective that is worth achieving. As go guns, the only thing that strikes me as important is whether fewer people, ideally none, die or are harmed from being shot, and I don't' care whether the left or right comes up with ideas and approaches for making that happen. Anything else is just "noise" as far as I'm concerned.

If you have the time and actually want to know what I think about the "gun debate," you'll find a good deal of it here: Libtard Remedial Education 103; What a Freaking Assault Weapon Actually Is . If there's something you see there that you want to know more about, ask, but don't tell me what I think. I can tell you what I think, and I know better what I think that does anyone else on the planet. Is what I think a left or right wing position? I don't know. I don't care. It's my position that accrues from what I understand about the matter and from what I think we should thus do to resolve the problems we face regarding gun use/abuse.

No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

That is a false statement and the crux of the argument. An AR-15 is a fine target rifle, and one of the most popular in the nation. In fact is a gun far more shooters choose than whatever your friend has.

The anti-liberty left is intent on demonizing inanimate objects. particularly this rifle. Your claim feeds into that demonetization.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you honestly believe that to be so after having re-read post #1449, well, there's nothing for me to say. That's not what the post says and that post is the start of the discussion between us.

Because the above is what you perceive to be the assertion I made, and I and everyone on the planet can see it is not the assertion I made, I have clear evidence that you don't read what I write and interpret it precisely/accurately as I wrote it, but rather that you read what I write, and take from it whatever it is you want it to mean. I don't have time to engage with folks who do that. So, I wish you well and good luck.

Your words;

Last weekend, I hung out with a friend who is a target shooter. He uses a single bolt action rifle. I asked him if an AR-15 would be a good gun to use for that. He laughed and said, "No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

Yes, those are my words. They are the first words I offered in our conversation and they are the words that commenced the conversation.

And how have you most recently interpreted them? You wrote:

Your claim was that an AR-15 is not used in target shooting and supported this by pointing to professional match shooters who preferred other rifles.

I rarely shoot distances greater than 100 yards.
​

Re: the emboldened text:
You and I both know that this is your first time/effort in which you provided any contextual basis for your remarks, having only until now shared little but a lot of "colored" accusations and "flavored" descriptions that really didn't do much of anything except paint you as biased rather than objectively insightful.

Your emboldened statement above would have been a helpful and conversation altering thing to share right after my post of multiple sources I looked at to get a sense of whether AR-15s are often used for "target shooting." Even better, pointing out after my post in which I related my friend's remarks that you had in mind shooting activity pertaining to targets out about 100 yards, give or take, would have also provided sufficient and conversationally critical/helpful context. But instead of that, or something like it that provided perspective, you chose to write:

You're friend is an idiot.

More likely, your story is a fabrication.

I'm a grown man, a fairly serious one, and a pretty smart one too. I'm also fair. I have no problem with "calling a spade a spade," but what is not a "spade," I won't call one or pretend it is. I can't read people's minds at all, but I'm quite good at reading and understanding all of what is written in accordance with the conventions of basic to very advanced modern English. (I'm also decent with "legacy" forms of English.) I can "make heads or tails" of pretty much anything when I have factual and contextual information that allows me to do so accurately.

The accusatory and personally derisive/accusatory BS, however, is not something in which I care to engage. I don't care whether a stance is advocated by the left or right. I care about the facts and context of a matter. I care whether the problems and issues discussed deserve to be discussed with the aim of identifying solutions for them. I think actionable solutions are worth considering/discussing if they offer some hope of achieving a specific objective that is worth achieving. As go guns, the only thing that strikes me as important is whether fewer people, ideally none, die or are harmed from being shot, and I don't' care whether the left or right comes up with ideas and approaches for making that happen. Anything else is just "noise" as far as I'm concerned.

If you have the time and actually want to know what I think about the "gun debate," you'll find a good deal of it here: Libtard Remedial Education 103; What a Freaking Assault Weapon Actually Is . If there's something you see there that you want to know more about, ask, but don't tell me what I think. I can tell you what I think, and I know better what I think that does anyone else on the planet. Is what I think a left or right wing position? I don't know. I don't care. It's my position that accrues from what I understand about the matter and from what I think we should thus do to resolve the problems we face regarding gun use/abuse.

No. You can shoot things with it, but it's not a gun a target shooter would choose."

That is a false statement and the crux of the argument. An AR-15 is a fine target rifle, and one of the most popular in the nation. In fact is a gun far more shooters choose than whatever your friend has.

The anti-liberty left is intent on demonizing inanimate objects. particularly this rifle. Your claim feeds into that demonetization.

As I said earlier. Goodday.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong....he used them on the kurds.....

It is amazing just how short the memory and attention span of a typical left wing nut is.........16 years....more like 10 years, after 9/11.....and they have already changed the facts in their heads....

I've answered your very same stupidity (as the rest of your ilk) at least TWICE.......Saddam, the bastard, used gas to kill Kurds.......weapons that WE sold to him during the Iraq-Iran war....THAT terrible incident happened in 1988..

Now, fuckhead.....Did we go and invade and occupy Iraq AFTER 15 years because Saddam killed Kurds and we wanted to punish him?......Is THAT your moronic contention?

So, we SOLD Saddam some chemical poisons (including napalm) because we hated Iran.....Saddam brutally used those chemicals on the Kurds.......and AFTER 15 years passed we decided to invade Iraq???

Go on, shit head answer......

No, we didn't sell Iraq the weapons. You can't back that up, I've made the challenge before. All you have is stupidity, lies and hate.

 

[nat4900]

No, we didn't sell Iraq the weapons. You can't back that up, I've made the challenge before. All you have is stupidity, lies and hate.

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more: Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Iceweasel]

No, we didn't sell Iraq the weapons. You can't back that up, I've made the challenge before. All you have is stupidity, lies and hate.

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more: Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What's their source? If it's true you don't need a sleaze site to make your case. Duh.

 

[nat4900]

What's their source? If it's true you don't need a sleaze site to make your case. Duh.

Give it up, nitwit.....

 

[Iceweasel]

What's their source? If it's true you don't need a sleaze site to make your case. Duh.

Give it up, nitwit.....

That's what I thought. You need sleaze to peddle your bullshit, not me.

 

[Papageorgio]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

Why the hell does any American citizen need a car that can go 180mph, a 10,000sq ft house, 30 different pairs of shoes, 5 cats, potato chips, etc.... Your question is silly.

They all have avoided that question. It has been posed many times on this thread.

The answer is, because they want to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. If they had their say we would all live in 900 sqft. homes, ride on horses and buggies, shoes would be given to you by the state. No one would be allowed to own any pets as they are people to and potato chips being junk food, they would ban them also. That is what the liberal regressives want for us.