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.
No matter who coined the term it is incorrect and is at this point predominantly used by gun control advocates to conjure up an image to advance a political agenda. It will be challenged every time............
Deal with it.
lets call these idiots out for what they really are, gun grabbers. they dont want gun control, they want gun elimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Comparing an AR15 to a military issue M16 and using the umbrella term of "assault weapon" to describe both is kind of like comparing a 4 cylinder MGB (a british car that was big in the 60's-70's) to a Big V8 Corvette and calling them both "sports cars".
There is a lot of difference between the 2.
they are both sports cars. a better choice would be calling them "high performance" sports cars. nice as the MGB is, performance is not in its vernacular.
Wait, I thought conservatives would be happy with this. After all, that would mean only American made ones would be on sale. I guess if Trump did this, y'all would support it. Right?
I can't speak for all Trump voters, but like I said, it does not affect me. (To me, any products of superior qualities should be on the market. Not some cheap ass stuff made of cheap ass materials.)
My personal preference is not the import weapon anyway. lol
The good old U.S.A. has produced some truly great and deadly-accurate bolt-actions over the years.
This said, I think the assault weapons term used here is highly laughable.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 05-17-2019 at 10:24 AM..
I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
I am pretty sure if I gave you all the "assault weapons" (lol) on earth, you would not turn yourself into the next school shooter. So not sure why banning any types of guns is the solution.
I don't mind a more effective gun law, but simply banning a certain type of weapon (or gun) is not the solution.
I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
End user determines end use.
If their purpose is for mass shootings mine must be defective.
I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
too accessible??
I bought my first one in 1974, from Sears, delivered right to my doorstep..in New York
these weapons have been MORE accessible in the past...the problem is not the weapons, not accessibility...the problem is mental health...we have kids/young adults eating Tide Pods...we have 50% of high schoolers having the mental issue of anxiety/depression, and 80% of those go untreated https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016...ns-of-students
Wait, I thought conservatives would be happy with this. After all, that would mean only American made ones would be on sale. I guess if Trump did this, y'all would support it. Right?
nope. we prefer free trade across the board. competition is good for the world, not just the US. in an ideal world the only reason tariffs would be used at all is to level the playing field as it were. and even then should be ultimately avoided.
remember the only reason that tariffs were put on by europe and china and japan in the first place was so they could rebuild their economies after world war two. the tariffs were supposed to be temporary, and were in fact negotiated by the US government as part of the marshal plan. tht way the UA government wasnt just giving these countries money directly. it also was designed to force those countries to build things at home instead of relying on imports. we tried tariffs during the great depression, but it only hurt our economy not helped it.
back then our economy was weak, and we wanted to stop the flow of cheap imports, so we put a tariff on them, the other countries then put tariffs on US made products making them too expensive for people in other countries to buy them, and we lost overseas sales as a result further harming our economy.
I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
It actually is a very good hunting rifle and shoots no differently than a rifle I have owned since 1956.
Originally Posted by SunGrins I could care less whether it is a an "assault weapon" or not -- it is too accessible and too commonly used in mass shootings and needs to be restricted or banned outright. It has no other purpose.
another gun grabber who has no clue about guns, how unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
It actually is a very good hunting rifle and shoots no differently than a rifle I have owned since 1956.
yep, especially in the AR10 version.
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.
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.
