Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do I really have to act like an inflamatory jerk to get a response to the points I've made, or are some of the gun-grabbers unable to offer a rebuttal?
I'm calling all of you emotional clowns out. Seriously, respond or shut up.
I apparently have to be a jerk to get a response. Let's roll.
Well, that's good to know. We're still a good 12 minutes out of town, though. Maybe 7, since the police can legally drive faster.
We were told the police have a very good idea of who is behind it, but they don't have proof. Basically, a bunch of formerly incarcerated drug addicts were dumped three towns over.
As for Jim Sullivan, I posted his rebuttal to the HBO interview, but don't remember which thread. I'll look for it again tomorrow. He said (paraphrasing) that he never thought civilians would have the AR, but that he has no issues with it being available for civilian use. He also said something about the reason he doesn't usually give interviews is because of hostile interviewers. Seems he got that right!
An officer could make it in 7 Or 8 minutes in an emergency. Still an eternity when you only have seconds
Yes "needs" is subjective but in terms of recent history why would this weapon be needed or allowed in on the commercial market. If you read through the design and saw real life consequence it takes a toll, small hole going in rather small diameter but it is designed to tumble and inflict great damage to the enemy. If you read through the comments by Sullivan he states the same.
All I was stating is that if military equipment that meets those criteria is allowed on the market then where do you draw the line.
So, your issue is with the damage caused by the round? Why are you not calling for a ban on .223/5.56 NATO ammunition, then?
There are lots more rifle calibers that are equally or more lethal than .223/5.56 NATO - why is no one discussing banning them?
So, your issue is with the damage caused by the round? Why are you not calling for a ban on .223/5.56 NATO ammunition, then?
There are lots more rifle calibers that are equally or more lethal than .223/5.56 NATO - why is no one discussing banning them?
Because the critical design features are the automatic reloading and hammer cocking functions married to the rapid reloading and/or high magazine capabilities. Showing trick shooters rapidly loading other type of weapons without the inherent ability to sustain fire for an extended period will only cause the political class to add those weapons to the banned list.
Just hope a crazy person does not become a show shooter and then goes on a rampage because the next step will be to limit you to muzzle loaders
"what hilary says and what hilary does is 2 different things."
Hillary quotes on guns:
"January 2008: Asked during a Democratic presidential debate whether “you’ve backed off a national licensing [and] registration plan,” Clinton says, “Yes.” She avers that “we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books” but adds, “I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again.”
"Short of saying she want’s to ban all guns everywhere, it’s pretty much all there. That is, at one point or another throughout the past few decades Hillary has expressed every anti-gun position known to the gun community, e.g. a desire to enact registration schemes, licensing, the notion that there are “too many guns,” an urge to ban so-called “assault weapons,” the myth that police deaths are increasing because more law-abiding citizens have black rifles, the idea Second Amendment supporters are “terrorizing” the masses, the lie that “automatic” weapons are being used by mass killers."
Your quotes show she asked for the enforcement of existing laws, something the gun folks have been asking for as well. She then called for a ban on "assault rifles" as well. In the article she was correctly pointing out that there are too many guns accessable to kids and simply asked for people to take more precautions.
At no point did she come even remotely close to the contention that she was all but calling for a total gun ban. This is what frustrates the left, you are making false assumptions and running with them which removes any form of compromise.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 06-17-2016 at 05:18 AM..
She asked for the enforcement of existing laws, something the gun folks have been asking for as well. She then called for a ban on "assault rifles".
At no point did she come even remotely close to your contention that she was all but calling for a total gun ban. This is what frustrates the left, you are making false assumptions and running with them which removes any form of compromise.
hilary has already stated that her end goal is for the total ban of all firearms. hilary can go suck an egg.
She asked for the enforcement of existing laws, something the gun folks have been asking for as well. She then called for a ban on "assault rifles".
At no point did she come even remotely close to your contention that she was all but calling for a total gun ban. This is what frustrates the left, you are making false assumptions and running with them which removes any form of compromise.
Again, assault rifles are already strictly regulated. 'Assault weapons' is just a political term. This has been explained incessantly in this and other threads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.