- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It came with two 15-round magazines and AFAIK it is no longer made/imported from Brazil.
And thank you for that information.
It came with two 15-round magazines and AFAIK it is no longer made/imported from Brazil.
You cannot infringe upon it because owning assault weapons is NOT a right.
Nothing in the Second protects you owning military assault style weapons. It is not a right.
And thank you for that information.
You do not have it as a right. It is a privilege being extended to you that could change in time.
As for the millions owned, use will be made illegal and there will be buyback programs to remove them from society.
You can play word games all day long but an AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
Hay, old buddy. The Constitution is not a limit on what I can do. It's a limit on what the government can do.
But that aside, It is a right. And it shall not be infringed
Assault style, defined as some bolt on after market parts, is a made up term to define skeery looking.
You keep repeating this. You keep getting shot down. Do you never get tired of losing?
BTW, I don't own an assault style weapon. Last one of those I handled was when in the military.
Yes, I am sure you look at the Bill of Rights as a privilege, makes it easier to Ignore and change as you see fit. I and the Supreme Court disagree.
ROTFLMAO! You actually are naive enough to believe you can force a buy back program on the American People and they would comply? Really? Not in your wildest fantase would that work out in your favor.
They had a virtually filibuster free Senate and huge majority in the House in 2009-2010; why didn't they pass the law then? Oh, yeah, they thought they didn't need a talking point to cling to beat GOP - they were basking in the glow of the "Permanent Democratic Majority" - funny how they screwed that up.So you're complaining that Democrats can't pass legislation due to the actions of Moscow Mitch? Well that's a first...
It might take a while - but that day will come.
We've been over this topic time and time again and, through all the discussions, gun control proponents have failed to come up with a single good reason for banning "assault weapons" as they define them.
Instead, the conversation circles around the magazine size. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (like its proposed replacement) not only banned certain firearms based on irrelevant features, it also banned 11+ round magazines.
So if that's really the solution, why aren't Democrats pushing standalone Federal legislation restricting or banning 11+ round magazines? Why bury it in a whole bottle of poison pills?
Do they actually care about saving lives, or are they just pandering to their uniformed base?
Keep dreaming, there will always be Millions of AR:s in the hands of American Citizens, ban or no bans.
What would you call it?
A (usually) small calibre, semi-auto rifle. To become an "assault rifle" would require adding burst/full-auto capability.
Keep dreaming, there will always be Millions of AR:s in the hands of American Citizens, ban or no bans.
How many millions do you think there are and what do you base that estimate on?
It is not a right.
So, only those arms that can be born, i.e., carried around. That does eliminate the Abrams Tank.
Why you be recommending that?
It isn't illegal to own a tank. It's illegal to own a tank with an operational main gun.
You hit it out of the park. They are pandering for the almighty vote to stay in office. They for the most part could care less who gets shot as long as they get the vote.We've been over this topic time and time again and, through all the discussions, gun control proponents have failed to come up with a single good reason for banning "assault weapons" as they define them.
Instead, the conversation circles around the magazine size. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (like its proposed replacement) not only banned certain firearms based on irrelevant features, it also banned 11+ round magazines.
So if that's really the solution, why aren't Democrats pushing standalone Federal legislation restricting or banning 11+ round magazines? Why bury it in a whole bottle of poison pills?
Do they actually care about saving lives, or are they just pandering to their uniformed base?
You hit it out of the park. They are pandering for the almighty vote to stay in office. They for the most part could care less who gets shot as long as they get the vote.
So it is terminology that you differ with. If theoretically we wanted to ban the same gun as what many are terming a military style assault rifle but described it technically to your satisfaction, would that be more acceptable to you?
Who are all of these Americans anyway? That's the story line Liberal rags and MSNBC,CNN and others push. I have never been asked my opinion ever nor anyone I know of and I know a lot of people.=haymarket;1070567060]The single best reason has been explained to you countless times: because the majority of Americans do not feel such weapons have any use by civilians.
That's a fall back back reason kinda like your nuclear weapons.There is your reason. So please STOP lying and saying you have not heard of a reason because you have an excellent one.
Then let it be said that The First guarantees the right of free speech and freedom of the press,but it does NOT protect any style or brand of press. So ALL cellphones and computerized presses could be banned yet you would still enjoy the rights expressed in the First.=haymarket;1070567128]All the Second guarantees is the right to keep and bear arms. It does NOT protect and style or brand of arms. All assault weapons could be banned and you would still enjoy the right as expressed in the Second.
Imagine 80-100 million fanatics running around. Hope you got a real big Mack with an even bigger plow blade on it.But I am convinced gun fanatics are pissing in their own water supply and eventually - and it might take a while - they will be hit with far more severe restrictions than our now being talked about. Eventually they will just become so irrelevant that the majority will run over them like a Mack truck hitting an armadillo on a Texas highway. And it will be there own fault for refusing to do anything when they had the chance.