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.
Yet another gun thread, yet more lies and demagoguery from the right.LiarTypical rightwing lies and demagoguery.You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took itAR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possibleThe AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.
"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"
That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.
If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.
You belong in a mental institution.
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.
And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.
Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.
Except for this little ranch rifle.
Dont give liberals any ideas
If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time
In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.
Incorrect..just puttin' it out there. The AK--the BAR....any semi-auto really..with a large capacity...will do just the same....as the AR. It really is the user.....and their skill-set + their intent. The AR..and the AK..and the SKS and the....fill in the blank..are designed to 'look scary' it's part of the appeal. My old deer rifle is a BAR semi... .30-06 ...it looks as plain as dirt...and will send rounds downrange just as fast as an AK...and anything I hit..well..it won't get back up.***\\\This Is My Opinion///***
I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...
1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.
2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."
That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.
And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.
Prove it instead of regurgitating the same old shit No one believes your ridiculous liesYet another gun thread, yet more lies and demagoguery from the right.LiarTypical rightwing lies and demagoguery.You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took itAR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.
If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.
You belong in a mental institution.
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.
And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.
That’s all you and your fellow rightists do: lie.
You lie about gun confiscation.
You lie about citizens being disarmed.
You lie about rights being violated and taken away.
No one believes your ridiculous lies.
The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.Except for this little ranch rifle.
Dont give liberals any ideas
If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time
In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.
And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.
Talk about a spoiled bratI'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.LiarTypical rightwing lies and demagoguery.
No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.
And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.
Spoiled brat!
Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.
So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.
Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.
Here you go one more time
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?
The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.
Dont give liberals any ideas
If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time
In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.
And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.
your post before this one proves your ignoranceNo other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.
I love when people who have never shot a gun think they are an expert.
You think I have never shot a gun? That makes sense to you because you think only gun nuts own guns. You are wrong on both counts.
The fundamental reason weakbrains buy them is because they look "scary"; i.e;, they look just like an M16.
Yep,Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.Many handguns hold 15-18 rounds. Handgun are much more mobile and concealable. The rounds they hold can be excessively deadly.
Yes, in some situations, but not as consistently as the AR. The AR's accuracy doesn't degrade any where near as quickly as any other commonly available gun, including pistols, and concealment isn't always an issue.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.
In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.
Yep...
In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........
Total killed.... 39 people.
numbers killed in the attacks...
4
11
4
3
17
Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.
Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......
..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.
The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..
The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded
Wrong.No, it doesn’t.The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.
"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"
That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?
But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.
That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.
The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.
In the words of Justice Scalia:
" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"
The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
so libs want to ban an AR-15
can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?
~S~
Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.
.
Yep,Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.Yes, in some situations, but not as consistently as the AR. The AR's accuracy doesn't degrade any where near as quickly as any other commonly available gun, including pistols, and concealment isn't always an issue.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.
In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.
Yep...
In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........
Total killed.... 39 people.
numbers killed in the attacks...
4
11
4
3
17
Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.
Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......
..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.
The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..
The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded
Are you saying that I have zero knowledge? That the majority of the retired Military Personnel have zero knowledge because we disagree with you and you gunnutters?
I guess you never read the opposite?You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?
Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.
Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.
I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.
I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!
According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....
I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...
The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.
So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!
Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.
The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”
Sorry, Liberals! Even the CDC's New Report Suggests Guns are Great for Self Defense...
.
Terrific researcher
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf
Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.
so libs want to ban an AR-15
can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?
~S~
Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.
.
Not my Query , is it Tex...
Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one
~S~
so libs want to ban an AR-15
can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?
~S~
Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.
.
Not my Query , is it Tex...
Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one
~S~
For the same reason I wanted this.
Because we like being impractical from time to time and we have the right to be. Why do you hate having that right?
The supreme court has, however, ruled what guns are protected by the second amendment.Wrong.No, it doesn’t.The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):
ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia
This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.
"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"
That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?
But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.
That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.
The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.
In the words of Justice Scalia:
" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"
The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
The Supreme Court has made no such ruling; the High Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, it has made no determination as to whether an AR 15 is ‘in common use,’ where its possession is entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual,’ whose possession is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.
Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.
That’s the mistake conservatives make: they come up with ridiculous reasons in an attempt to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 – when no such ‘justification’ is needed.
Name any modern military using themThe fundamental reason weakbrains buy them is because they look "scary"; i.e;, they look just like an M16.
For all practical purposes, they ARE a M-16.
You first.If you support one gun ban you'll support the next oneNo need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.Typical rightwing lies and demagoguery.
No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.
And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.
Moron, beto stated he supports door to door confiscation and not one democrat called him out...
Pretty much everyone in the Democratic party has in some way stated that forced buy backs is a very very bad idea. We may agree with the sentiment - but it would be a disaster.
Most of us cringed when he said it (not those in the auditorium). It's an unworkable idea.
That was the point I ruled out supporting Beto.
No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!
This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!
Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.
Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie
