• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix

Holy ****!!!!!! Just saw the CNN vid on Hotair. The cat totin' the AR-15 is black!!!!

I'm sure that with this new revelation, the issue will die very quickly...:rofl

Why do you always have to play the race card?
 
I was unaware race had anything to do with this conversation until you brought it up.

I'm sure the Libbos that started this thread knew that the dude was black, otherwise, they wouldn't have started the thread. I mean, it would goa against the, "gun totin' racist wanna kill Obama", mentality otherwise.

If they wanna play the race card, they need to be prepared to play it to the hilt.
 
I'm sure the Libbos that started this thread knew that the dude was black, otherwise, they wouldn't have started the thread. I mean, it would goa against the, "gun totin' racist wanna kill Obama", mentality otherwise.

If they wanna play the race card, they need to be prepared to play it to the hilt.

Stevenb is a liberal? Bet that is news to him.
 
Last edited:
Me?!?! You're kidding, right?

You are the only one who has brought up race, and are apparently the only one who cares about it in this thread.
 
You are the only one who has brought up race, and are apparently the only one who cares about it in this thread.

In this thread, yes, but, you said, "always". I challenge you to prove that I, "always", play the race card. We'll be waiting for you live up to your own standard for a change.
 
Last edited:
Waitin' on ya, brother.
 
Did anyeone see the pic in the article?

The guy carrying the gun was a black man.
 
You ignored several aspects of my post and the overall point I was driving at. Maybe I didn't phrase the questions in a clear enough manner.

Your position on this does not account for a reasonable purpose or need to carry a semi-automatic riffle around in a city public area. Yes, it may be his legal right to do so, but why do that?
YOU may find no 'purpose' or 'need' in his LEGAL exercise of his 2A right.
That YOU do not find those things means nothing.
 
So the major difference between naming it as an assault rifle and a normal rifle is that "assault rifle" is a liberal scare tactic?
At worst. At best, its just another example of a reporter not having any idea what he's talking about. Either way, the term used was unquestionably wrong.

And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?
If it did, the person doing it could be arrested for disturbing the peace, etc.
Did that happen?
 
Well, an AR-15, or any variant of, is an assault rifle. It's an assault rifle, because of it's capability to use a high capacity magazine; 20, 30, 40 rounds.
This is so VERY incorrect.
 
That's not true. Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear.
That's odd, as I have seen scores of these rifles, none of which have the machining you mention. I know none of mine have it, nor any of those of anyone I know.

Perhaps you could provide a source for this?
 
That's odd, as I have seen scores of these rifles, none of which have the machining you mention. I know none of mine have it, nor any of those of anyone I know.

Perhaps you could provide a source for this?

Most of the rifles I've seen that were manufactured in the past 7, or 8 years have milled receivers. Are 100% of the AR-15 style rifles milled to accept an automatic sear? Of course not, but by the same token not all of them have solid receivers, either. I've seen Bushmasters, Colts, S&W's, Armalite and Double Star brand rifles that were milled. I'm not sure about DPMS and Olympia.

I know a guy that has an automatic sear and for $100 will install it your rifle and let you fire a few rounds on rock-n-roll. he's licensed to own it, of course.
 
Most of the rifles I've seen that were manufactured in the past 7, or 8 years have milled receivers. Are 100% of the AR-15 style rifles milled to accept an automatic sear? Of course not, but by the same token not all of them have solid receivers, either. I've seen Bushmasters, Colts, S&W's, Armalite and Double Star brand rifles that were milled. I'm not sure about DPMS and Olympia.
Perhaps you could provide a source for this?
 
Couples of any sexual orientation need to be mindful and respectful of their surroundings when displaying affection for one another.

I know that gay is not contagious so gay pride demonstrations don't bother me. Harmless self-expression. My children are only going to be more tolerant by learning that some people are just naturally different.

Re: Pro-Choice, I'm not sure what you're saying. Usually the people displaying inappropriate depictions of abortions are pro-life. I've never known a pro-choice activists to use graphic descriptions of abortions to win people over. So, could you be more specific?

So, it doesn't bother you when the pro-choice guys run into churches or rally's for pro-life screaming stupid **** and being obnoxious?

Doesn't bother you when they disrupt peaceful protests, etc..etc?

There's no reasoning with you. By freaking people out, he did more to hurt the public perception of gun owners. You want to win people over. Let mature, reasonable people who understand and appreciate the concerns of the unarmed public be your representative. Not wingnuts trying to make a point and misfiring all the way.



If they have a carry permit and legitimate need to be armed, sure, it's all good as long as they follow the law.

See, in Wyoming, I don't even think they need guns laws. Those people are smart and sensible and can police themselves as far as firearms. But in New York City and Los Angeles, gun regs should be draconian. I want anyone in L.A. county purchasing ammo to leave a fingerprint. I want the California carry permits to be strictly regulated. People who don't live in one of three or four really big cities with diverse populations really don't get it. There are more people in L.A. and Manhattan than in some states. Your gun laws will not work for us.

You could fit roughly 3 Maricopa County's (which is surrounded by desert) into 1 L.A. county which is surrounded by Orange and Ventura County. That jackass would have been shot dead if he tried a stunt like that in L.A. or NYC.

The Thune amendment was thankfully shot down this July--it would have lowered all state gun laws to the lowest common denominator.

To be honest, we're at this again... I have no obligation to give you a reason, or justification for using my rights. How hard is this to grasp?

btw, if gun regs really work.. why is LA so violent? Why is Washington DC so violent? Why are the places with the most draconian gun laws in the nation the most violent? (I'm willing to bet you come back with "population", "race", or "societal structure" as one of your excuses).



Funny, you started this post with examples of people, Gays and Pro-Choice, who should moderate themselves in your presence. Your examples were a particular speech or personal expression that you feel infringes on your space.

What I'm talking about is the carrying of a lethal weapon, a rifle, into a public space for no other purpose than to press your rights. How can you not see the very big difference?

Carrying an inanimate object that requires intervention by a user to do anything. Without a human to pull the trigger a rifle does nothing.

My point was, even though I don't agree with some of the **** they spew.. It's not within my rights to take their rights away.. even if it makes me uncomfortable.

period.

Well, an AR-15, or any variant of, is an assault rifle. It's an assault rifle, because of it's capability to use a high capacity magazine; 20, 30, 40 rounds.

Now, if the Libbos are successful in completely eradicating box magazines that are capable of holding more than 5 rounds, it's no longer an assault rifle.

Incorrect:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle]Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Assault rifle definition said:
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound." The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[5]


Perhaps you could provide a source for this?

Of course he can't... it'll be "I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend."
 
art.obama.gun.pool.jpg


Is this a black man with an assault weapon? So, what's the issue here the weapon or the black man?
 
art.obama.gun.pool.jpg


Is this a black man with an assault weapon? So, what's the issue here the weapon or the black man?

The issue here is the continued demonization of people utilizing their second amendment rights..

And the continued dysphisimismsmsmsms of firearms by the media.
 
Is this a black man with an assault weapon? So, what's the issue here the weapon or the black man?
You can bet that if the guy was NOT black, there'd be charges of white trash red-neck racism...
 
This is an AR15

300px-Stag2wi.jpg


To most people an assault rifle is anything that looks like a combat weapon. It is dull black, pistol grip, magazine, short and easy to handle. Kind of looks like these m16 assault rifles to the untrained eye.

300px-M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg


Get over it.





So....


this is not an assault weapon according to your definition?


hellokitty_ar15assault_2.jpg
 
Perhaps you could provide a source for this?

Anyone that knows even a little bit about these weapons should already be familiar with this information. It's the difference between, "pre-ban", and, "post-ban", lower receivers. Purdy much common knowledge among firearms enthusiasts.

Olympic lower. Pre-ban on the left, post ban on the right.

inside.gif


Here's on you may be able to purchase, if you're interested.

pix35048375.jpg


Tactical Innovations T15BDX AR Lower - Milled : for AR-15 at GunBroker.com

You Tube vid of a lower that is clearly milled.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq4KfUaVp8M"]YouTube - Assembling an AR-15 Stripped Lower 2 of 2[/ame]

You can bet that if the guy was NOT black, there'd be charges of white trash red-neck racism...

That's exactly why I pointed out that the dude is black.

Don't hear none of them accusations, now.
 
An assult rifle is anything with a large capacity magazine. Typically, those weapons are designed with a combat'esque look.
 
At worst. At best, its just another example of a reporter not having any idea what he's talking about. Either way, the term used was unquestionably wrong.

If the point was to provoke fear, no worries. The gunman already did that. Otherwise, reporters are reporters. They're expected to be knowledgeable to a reasonable degree. I think calling a gun that had assault rifle ancestors and offspring an assault rifle is reasonable intelligence. Also, I bet you there's a sizeable amount of people in the US that believes AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle 15. In either case, if the reporter is wrong, he's wrong. It's not like the AR-15's status as a weapon is commonly known.

If it did, the person doing it could be arrested for disturbing the peace, etc.
Did that happen?

Oh really? So I have the right to suppress your rights (2nd Amendment) because I'm scared of them? That's news to stevenb.

I'm sorry, but needs and purpose aren't required to exercise your constitutionally given rights.

And, again I'm sorry that you believe that the "fears" or "dislikes" of others of me exercising my rights trump my rights... Maybe we could apply that to the liberals and their precious freedom of speech... and start restricting when they can talk about subjects that make me uncomfortable? Or subjects that I don't like?

It is not my problem if you're uneasy about seeing a gun in a law abiding citizens hand's.

So while I respect your right to object to me carrying a rifle, I have to politely tell you to bite my ass while I exercise my rights.
 
So....


this is not an assault weapon according to your definition?


hellokitty_ar15assault_2.jpg

Is that "hello kitty"? That may be even sillier than your hair splitting. I have fired both of these weapons and when it comes down to it there is no real difference between semi and auto when you have a thirty round mag and a fast trigger finger. You can quickly throw a lot of lead downrange on semi and in the end probably hit your target more accurately than just spraying bullets. After three or four rounds you are no longer aiming, only pointing.
 
An assult rifle is anything with a large capacity magazine. Typically, those weapons are designed with a combat'esque look.

No, an assault rifle is a rifle that has assault capabilities.

Merely possessing a large magazine capacity does not make a rifle an assault rifle.

Hell, by that definition my 10/22 with a 30 round magazine in it is an assault rifle.

Get informed before you continue to parrot liberal media talking points.
 
Is that "hello kitty"? That may be even sillier than your hair splitting. I have fired both of these weapons and when it comes down to it there is no real difference between semi and auto when you have a thirty round mag and a fast trigger finger. You can quickly throw a lot of lead downrange on semi and in the end probably hit your target more accurately than just spraying bullets. After three or four rounds you are no longer aiming, only pointing.

What's your point?

There is a very clear line in the sand between the functionality of both.

One is an assault rifle... because it is select fire.

The other is a semi-automatic rifle, because that is the only firing mode it has.
 
Back
Top Bottom