Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-16-2016, 11:39 PM
 
7,687 posts, read 5,096,916 times
Reputation: 5479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Who are the opposition?
Any criminal. Thug. Overreaching govt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2016, 11:45 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,761 posts, read 7,803,234 times
Reputation: 5327
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2016, 11:47 PM
 
7,687 posts, read 5,096,916 times
Reputation: 5479
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilliamsny View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2016, 11:51 PM
 
7,687 posts, read 5,096,916 times
Reputation: 5479
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96 View Post

What's happened in American society since then that makes people snap and start killing people wholesale? ?
Massive 3rd world immigration. Radical ideologies. Government waste and world policing. Whitey feels left behind
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
4,761 posts, read 7,803,234 times
Reputation: 5327
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcoastforme View Post
Massive 3rd world immigration. Radical ideologies. Government waste and world policing. Whitey feels left behind

\
Most of this seems to be the feeling of our government. Aside from the immigration part.

We, citizens, seem to be the bad guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 04:52 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,298,749 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 05:06 AM
 
Location: Elysium
12,313 posts, read 8,043,089 times
Reputation: 9124
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,152 posts, read 10,300,213 times
Reputation: 27284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"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."

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/hil...ond-amendment/
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 05:13 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,161,162 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2016, 05:18 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 2,725,265 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top