- Joined
- Sep 13, 2014
- Messages
- 19,612
- Reaction score
- 7,713
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You'll have to research the list of guns that have been banned with eh second amendment still intact.
That's what I thought.
You'll have to research the list of guns that have been banned with eh second amendment still intact.
You could have a massacre once a month for a year and the butt wipes who control Congress from the NRA headquarters still would not agree to ever re-insitiute the old ban on these weapons.
Millions of AR style weapons are in private hands and will never be used for anything other than punching holes in paper or hunting. You would restrict a fundamental right that millions enjoy because of an infinitesimal number of miscreants.
While any unecessary deaths are tragic you do not have justification for infringing a fundamental right nor is a ban likely to be effective. Explosives are easily made and in tight confines like a club just as deadly - if not more so.
How would the right to keep and bear arms be denied if nobody was allowed to own weapons of war like the AR-15?
I don't owe you anything. You're in the quicksand of your own ridiculous argument.
The AR is not a weapon of war. It is a civilian firearm. That's first.
The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle.
Secondly it is arguably the most popular rifle sold. Millions of people buy and use them legally.
You advocate restricting the rights of millions because of actions of a few in what would ultimately be a merely symbolic gesture that achieves nothing
That's what I thought.
I see. So as long as you can buy your 'fun' gun over the counter just like 'some nutjob bezerko' can you don't see why there might be a problem with that ?
Well there are none so blind as the old saying goes ..... :roll:
They were your words, not mine. You owe me an apology.
Sorry, but it IS a development. When's the last time you heard Homeland Security make a such a statement, and saying that they SERVE Obama is nonsense. That's like saying that our military will say anything to support Obama.
The growing trend/ backlash is very clear.
Why are you so focused on the AR? What about other guns that fire the same cartridge?
No, you want it, go get it.
If I see you cross the street, is a lie to say that I saw you cross the street?
You want AR15s available for terrorists to use against American in our own country. There's no other explanation for your opinions.
You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.
You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.
You asked for a list, go get one. Everyone knows that assault weapons were banned in this country, as they are in some states right now, and the second amendment is still intact.
So, there's not a hint of ignorance on my part.
You can't name a single one other than "AR bad, scary gun must be ban". Let alone any of the cartridges you claimed would also have to be banned. Don't you believe a person should at least have a slight clue what they're talking about when promoting ideas which would negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans?
Really?!?!?!? And I thought it was developed as a weapon for the military?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
that is pretty clear.
What numbers do you cite as proof of its "most popular" status?
How do people use them legally?
Restricting rights? What rights would those be? How can rights be restricted - whatever that means - if they still can be exercised and enjoyed?
If the AR15 vanished tomorrow - how would the right to keep and bear arms be denied?
If I see you cross the street, is a lie to say that I saw you cross the street?
You want AR15s available for terrorists to use against American in our own country. There's no other explanation for your opinions.
You say that lie one more time, and I'll take action. I've already reported you, now twice, and this will not stand.
Well, I'm not lying. I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. With terrorism and fighting it in this country, there is no two way street to be observed in putting and end to facilitating it in any manner. Both the evidence now and from the previous assault weapons bans validate my assertions as well as public opinion.
Republicans right now are considering some form of gun control, so legislatively, such facilitation will end. So again, there is no lying on my part.
You say that lie one more time, and I'll take action. I've already reported you, now twice, and this will not stand.
Well, I'm not lying. I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. With terrorism and fighting it in this country, there is no two way street to be observed in putting and end to facilitating it in any manner. Both the evidence now and from the previous assault weapons bans validate my assertions as well as public opinion.
Republicans right now are considering some form of gun control, so legislatively, such facilitation will end. So again, there is no lying on my part.
Moderator's Warning: |
You BOTH need to stop the baiting, pronto, or I will start dishing out infractions. |
Neither George Bush Sr. nor George Bush Jr. are my "compadre." I voted against both of them each time they ran.
I never thought the creation of "Homeland Security" was a good idea and I protested it, the Patriot Act, AND the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan back in the day.
American's have a NEED for military weapons because the "call to arms" may be a rebellion against the central government. You mistake my position if you think the Right guaranteed by the 2A only applies to foreign threats.
That appeal to emotion does not fly...otherwise by extension then all of our military forces must thus be labeled "terrorists." BTW, that's exactly how they are perceived elsewhere in the world.
As for your last comment? When has such an "ideal" stopped gun sales in the past? :roll:
Stop with all the emotionally alarmist rhetoric. Disarming the public is NOT in the best interests of the American people.
I'm glad to know that you are not a right-wing voter, and I too was against Homeland Security; one, because it reminds me too much of "mother land" and "father land", and two because an expensive federal policing agency of that size reeks of 1930s Europe as well. But let's remember, the Democrats did not create it. Nor the patriot act, which like you, I am also against.
Iraq was a direct attack for profit - full stop. A shame this country now has to bear and one for which we now are more an enemy of M.E. radicals than a helping hand.
There is no NEED for military weaponry on the part of the people, because the very notion tat our own military would ever turn on it's citizens is ridiculous just on its face. The founders were referring to an "Absolute monarchy" whose survival depended upon putting down rebellions by "armed citizens". The citizens of this country are already armed at 101 weapons per 100 people that everything else is just paranoid overkill.
Furthermore, there is no "appeal to emotion" in the fact that the AR15 IS in fact a weapon of terrorism and I'll say again that the facts bear that out.
And again, you're spreading this propaganda of "government disarming the public", and that is just BS. NOBODY has said anything of the kind nor would they get away with it. So I'm afraid that the emotionally alarmist rhetoric is all yours.