Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Should RPG's Be Allowed?
()
Date: June 18, 2016 06:39PM
Forty five years ago I was asked by United States of America to fight for freedom in Viet Nam. I was given an assault rifle that was designed to fire 20 bullets every 3 seconds (400 bullets per minute with a large enough clip) to kill as many of the enemy as possible in a shortest period of time. Let’s be real, this type of destruction has no place in our peacetime civilized society. Please be honest, ask yourself if you have the right to carry rocket propelled grenades (rpg) or a m60 machine gun? Of course not. Someone please tell me why you should be allowed to own an assault rifle.
Please don’t embarrass yourself by saying that it’s your right to bear arms or you need it for hunting. Listen, I’m not professing to take our guns away, I am just saying that we need to have some sanity to the argument. In today’s world we will always be confronted with emotionally disturbed people, terrorist, and criminals. Let’s just agree that we need to make it difficult to arm them with weapons designed to achieve mass slaughter of large number of human beings.
The bottom line is that there is no reason why weapons of mass destruction of any sort - chemical weapons, biological weapons, RPG's, improvised explosive devices (IED's), missiles, dirty bombs, nuclear devices, or assault weapons -- should be easily accessible. For 10 years there was a ban on the production, ownership and use of assault weapons in the United States until Congress and the Bush Administration allowed it to lapse when it sunset and came up for reauthorization in 2004.
Can our elected officials be counted on to reinstate the assault weapons ban? Or does the blood stain of man’s inhumanity to man live within all of us?
Please don’t embarrass yourself by saying that it’s your right to bear arms or you need it for hunting. Listen, I’m not professing to take our guns away, I am just saying that we need to have some sanity to the argument. In today’s world we will always be confronted with emotionally disturbed people, terrorist, and criminals. Let’s just agree that we need to make it difficult to arm them with weapons designed to achieve mass slaughter of large number of human beings.
The bottom line is that there is no reason why weapons of mass destruction of any sort - chemical weapons, biological weapons, RPG's, improvised explosive devices (IED's), missiles, dirty bombs, nuclear devices, or assault weapons -- should be easily accessible. For 10 years there was a ban on the production, ownership and use of assault weapons in the United States until Congress and the Bush Administration allowed it to lapse when it sunset and came up for reauthorization in 2004.
Can our elected officials be counted on to reinstate the assault weapons ban? Or does the blood stain of man’s inhumanity to man live within all of us?
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Major Kong
()
Date: June 18, 2016 07:15PM
Pure bullshit. OP obviously knows nothing about military firearms.
BTW, unlike the original author I'm a real Nam vet and not a phony
like him.
BTW, unlike the original author I'm a real Nam vet and not a phony
like him.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
hXKtp
()
Date: June 18, 2016 07:16PM
False equivalence. Oh well. Try again.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:09PM
Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand the difference between full and semi automatic. Very likely a Hillary supporter.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
WRONG.
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:30PM
cbaa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand the
> difference between full and semi automatic. Very
> likely a Hillary supporter.
Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons of any kind should not be available to any limp dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn what you call your toy if it is capable of killing a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand the
> difference between full and semi automatic. Very
> likely a Hillary supporter.
Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons of any kind should not be available to any limp dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn what you call your toy if it is capable of killing a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
KKEhL
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:38PM
WRONG. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cbaa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> > acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand
> the
> > difference between full and semi automatic.
> Very
> > likely a Hillary supporter.
>
> Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons
> of any kind should not be available to any limp
> dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make
> him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn
> what you call your toy if it is capable of killing
> a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
Libtards start talking about dicks in every conversation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> cbaa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> > acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand
> the
> > difference between full and semi automatic.
> Very
> > likely a Hillary supporter.
>
> Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons
> of any kind should not be available to any limp
> dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make
> him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn
> what you call your toy if it is capable of killing
> a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
Libtards start talking about dicks in every conversation.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:40PM
He specifically mention guns that fire 20 rounds in 3 seconds. Except in very rare cases, that weapon is not available. He never made any mention of a semi-automatic. Just for clarity,because I know how ignorant your ilk normally is, a semi-automatic fires 1 bullet each time you pull the trigger.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Cuck says wha???
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:43PM
WRONG. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cbaa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> > acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand
> the
> > difference between full and semi automatic.
> Very
> > likely a Hillary supporter.
>
> Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons
> of any kind should not be available to any limp
> dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make
> him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn
> what you call your toy if it is capable of killing
> a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
Fuck off, cuck.
-------------------------------------------------------
> cbaa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to
> > acquire. This Vet doesn't seem to understand
> the
> > difference between full and semi automatic.
> Very
> > likely a Hillary supporter.
>
> Yes, he does. His argument is that assault weapons
> of any kind should not be available to any limp
> dicked asshole who thinks they automatically make
> him manly. In the real world, nobody gives a damn
> what you call your toy if it is capable of killing
> a shitload of people within thirty seconds.
Fuck off, cuck.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 18, 2016 10:43PM
Once again for the perpetually ignorant.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Dane Bramage
()
Date: June 18, 2016 11:20PM
Should RPG's Be Allowed? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forty five years ago I was asked by United States
> of America to fight for freedom in Viet Nam. I was
> given an assault rifle that was designed to fire
> 20 bullets every 3 seconds (400 bullets per minute
> with a large enough clip) to kill as many of the
> enemy as possible in a shortest period of time.
> Let’s be real, this type of destruction has no
> place in our peacetime civilized society. Please
> be honest, ask yourself if you have the right to
> carry rocket propelled grenades (rpg) or a m60
> machine gun? Of course not. Someone please tell me
> why you should be allowed to own an assault rifle.
You're a liar.
Oh, and civilians can not own the rifle or other weapons you mentioned in your piece of fiction.
'400 bullets every 3 seconds', 'clip'
Poser.
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forty five years ago I was asked by United States
> of America to fight for freedom in Viet Nam. I was
> given an assault rifle that was designed to fire
> 20 bullets every 3 seconds (400 bullets per minute
> with a large enough clip) to kill as many of the
> enemy as possible in a shortest period of time.
> Let’s be real, this type of destruction has no
> place in our peacetime civilized society. Please
> be honest, ask yourself if you have the right to
> carry rocket propelled grenades (rpg) or a m60
> machine gun? Of course not. Someone please tell me
> why you should be allowed to own an assault rifle.
You're a liar.
Oh, and civilians can not own the rifle or other weapons you mentioned in your piece of fiction.
'400 bullets every 3 seconds', 'clip'
Poser.
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Fucking idiot
()
Date: June 18, 2016 11:39PM
OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on the production, ownership and use of assault weapons in the United States until Congress and the Bush Administration allowed it to lapse when it sunset and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue about firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s was altered. They couldn't have certain combination of grips, stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet lugs together.
Firearms manufactures just changed the appearance which made the firearm legal under the law.
The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s were never banned.
Shit like this is why responsible owners hate liberal lying pussies that are looking to use this Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to help Hillary get elected.
Fuck yourself.
OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue about firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s was altered. They couldn't have certain combination of grips, stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet lugs together.
Firearms manufactures just changed the appearance which made the firearm legal under the law.
The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s were never banned.
Shit like this is why responsible owners hate liberal lying pussies that are looking to use this Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to help Hillary get elected.
Fuck yourself.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
npchK
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:03AM
Fucking idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on the
> production, ownership and use of assault weapons
> in the United States until Congress and the Bush
> Administration allowed it to lapse when it sunset
> and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
>
> OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue about
> firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s
> was altered. They couldn't have certain
> combination of grips, stocks, flash suppressors,
> or bayonet lugs together.
>
> Firearms manufactures just changed the appearance
> which made the firearm legal under the law.
>
> The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s
> were never banned.
>
> Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> liberal lying pussies that are looking to use this
> Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to help
> Hillary get elected.
>
> Fuck yourself.
Exactly. The only thing that it did was to drive up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers. Which created a huge number of new makers of parts, and accessories, and builders. The ironic unintended consequence being that popularity of the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded into tens of millions of new guns and millions of new owners of the exact types of weapons they were trying to ban. lol
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on the
> production, ownership and use of assault weapons
> in the United States until Congress and the Bush
> Administration allowed it to lapse when it sunset
> and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
>
> OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue about
> firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s
> was altered. They couldn't have certain
> combination of grips, stocks, flash suppressors,
> or bayonet lugs together.
>
> Firearms manufactures just changed the appearance
> which made the firearm legal under the law.
>
> The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s
> were never banned.
>
> Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> liberal lying pussies that are looking to use this
> Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to help
> Hillary get elected.
>
> Fuck yourself.
Exactly. The only thing that it did was to drive up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers. Which created a huge number of new makers of parts, and accessories, and builders. The ironic unintended consequence being that popularity of the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded into tens of millions of new guns and millions of new owners of the exact types of weapons they were trying to ban. lol
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
More Unintended Consequences
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:08AM
npchK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on the
> > production, ownership and use of assault
> weapons
> > in the United States until Congress and the
> Bush
> > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> sunset
> > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> >
> > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> about
> > firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s
> > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> suppressors,
> > or bayonet lugs together.
> >
> > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> appearance
> > which made the firearm legal under the law.
> >
> > The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s
> > were never banned.
> >
> > Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> > liberal lying pussies that are looking to use
> this
> > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> help
> > Hillary get elected.
> >
> > Fuck yourself.
>
>
> Exactly. The only thing that it did was to drive
> up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> Which created a huge number of new makers of
> parts, and accessories, and builders. The ironic
> unintended consequence being that popularity of
> the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with
> modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded into
> tens of millions of new guns and millions of new
> owners of the exact types of weapons they were
> trying to ban. lol
Thanks. You just made the argument for banning all guns.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fucking idiot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on the
> > production, ownership and use of assault
> weapons
> > in the United States until Congress and the
> Bush
> > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> sunset
> > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> >
> > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> about
> > firearms. For ten years the production of AR15s
> > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> suppressors,
> > or bayonet lugs together.
> >
> > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> appearance
> > which made the firearm legal under the law.
> >
> > The arms people owned were never banned. AR15s
> > were never banned.
> >
> > Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> > liberal lying pussies that are looking to use
> this
> > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> help
> > Hillary get elected.
> >
> > Fuck yourself.
>
>
> Exactly. The only thing that it did was to drive
> up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> Which created a huge number of new makers of
> parts, and accessories, and builders. The ironic
> unintended consequence being that popularity of
> the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with
> modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded into
> tens of millions of new guns and millions of new
> owners of the exact types of weapons they were
> trying to ban. lol
Thanks. You just made the argument for banning all guns.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Uh no...
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:17AM
More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> npchK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on
> the
> > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > weapons
> > > in the United States until Congress and the
> > Bush
> > > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> > sunset
> > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > >
> > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> > about
> > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> AR15s
> > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > suppressors,
> > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > >
> > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > appearance
> > > which made the firearm legal under the law.
> > >
> > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> AR15s
> > > were never banned.
> > >
> > > Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to use
> > this
> > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> > help
> > > Hillary get elected.
> > >
> > > Fuck yourself.
> >
> >
> > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> drive
> > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> > Which created a huge number of new makers of
> > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> ironic
> > unintended consequence being that popularity of
> > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with
> > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> into
> > tens of millions of new guns and millions of
> new
> > owners of the exact types of weapons they were
> > trying to ban. lol
>
> Thanks. You just made the argument for banning all
> guns.
Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever work.
You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even worked. lol
-------------------------------------------------------
> npchK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on
> the
> > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > weapons
> > > in the United States until Congress and the
> > Bush
> > > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> > sunset
> > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > >
> > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> > about
> > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> AR15s
> > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > suppressors,
> > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > >
> > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > appearance
> > > which made the firearm legal under the law.
> > >
> > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> AR15s
> > > were never banned.
> > >
> > > Shit like this is why responsible owners hate
> > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to use
> > this
> > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> > help
> > > Hillary get elected.
> > >
> > > Fuck yourself.
> >
> >
> > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> drive
> > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> > Which created a huge number of new makers of
> > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> ironic
> > unintended consequence being that popularity of
> > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along with
> > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> into
> > tens of millions of new guns and millions of
> new
> > owners of the exact types of weapons they were
> > trying to ban. lol
>
> Thanks. You just made the argument for banning all
> guns.
Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever work.
You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even worked. lol
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:35AM
For every veteran who says guns should be banned, I'd guess there are 1,000 who would disagree.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Navy Seal
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:42AM
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Sigh...
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:42AM
Uh no... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > npchK Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on
> > the
> > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > weapons
> > > > in the United States until Congress and the
> > > Bush
> > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> > > sunset
> > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > >
> > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> > > about
> > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > AR15s
> > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > suppressors,
> > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > >
> > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > appearance
> > > > which made the firearm legal under the law.
>
> > > >
> > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > AR15s
> > > > were never banned.
> > > >
> > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> hate
> > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> use
> > > this
> > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> > > help
> > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > >
> > > > Fuck yourself.
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > drive
> > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> > > Which created a huge number of new makers of
> > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > ironic
> > > unintended consequence being that popularity
> of
> > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> with
> > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > into
> > > tens of millions of new guns and millions of
> > new
> > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> were
> > > trying to ban. lol
> >
> > Thanks. You just made the argument for banning
> all
> > guns.
>
>
> Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever work.
>
> You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> worked. lol
You just don't get it. You morons want to argue the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to concede the use of some guns for hunting and self-defense (even though I don't agree with it). But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that case, I'm for nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > npchK Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban on
> > the
> > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > weapons
> > > > in the United States until Congress and the
> > > Bush
> > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when it
> > > sunset
> > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > >
> > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a clue
> > > about
> > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > AR15s
> > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > suppressors,
> > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > >
> > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > appearance
> > > > which made the firearm legal under the law.
>
> > > >
> > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > AR15s
> > > > were never banned.
> > > >
> > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> hate
> > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> use
> > > this
> > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue to
> > > help
> > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > >
> > > > Fuck yourself.
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > drive
> > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned a
> > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
> > > Which created a huge number of new makers of
> > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > ironic
> > > unintended consequence being that popularity
> of
> > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> with
> > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > into
> > > tens of millions of new guns and millions of
> > new
> > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> were
> > > trying to ban. lol
> >
> > Thanks. You just made the argument for banning
> all
> > guns.
>
>
> Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever work.
>
> You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> worked. lol
You just don't get it. You morons want to argue the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to concede the use of some guns for hunting and self-defense (even though I don't agree with it). But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that case, I'm for nothing.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Fuck Your Constitution
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:46AM
Your freedoms are offensive to me!
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 19, 2016 12:53AM
Sigh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh no... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > npchK Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban
> on
> > > the
> > > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > > weapons
> > > > > in the United States until Congress and
> the
> > > > Bush
> > > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when
> it
> > > > sunset
> > > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > > >
> > > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a
> clue
> > > > about
> > > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > > AR15s
> > > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > > suppressors,
> > > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > > appearance
> > > > > which made the firearm legal under the
> law.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > > AR15s
> > > > > were never banned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> > hate
> > > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fuck yourself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > > drive
> > > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned
> a
> > > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
>
> > > > Which created a huge number of new makers
> of
> > > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > > ironic
> > > > unintended consequence being that
> popularity
> > of
> > > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> > with
> > > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > > into
> > > > tens of millions of new guns and millions
> of
> > > new
> > > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> > were
> > > > trying to ban. lol
> > >
> > > Thanks. You just made the argument for
> banning
> > all
> > > guns.
> >
> >
> > Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever
> work.
> >
> > You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> > worked. lol
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
I'm for stricter gun laws. I think we should start by banning guns from anyone from the M.E. anyone who identifies as a Democrat and anyone who voted for Obama. That should reduce gun deaths by about 75%.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh no... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > npchK Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban
> on
> > > the
> > > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > > weapons
> > > > > in the United States until Congress and
> the
> > > > Bush
> > > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when
> it
> > > > sunset
> > > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > > >
> > > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a
> clue
> > > > about
> > > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > > AR15s
> > > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > > suppressors,
> > > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > > appearance
> > > > > which made the firearm legal under the
> law.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > > AR15s
> > > > > were never banned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> > hate
> > > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fuck yourself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > > drive
> > > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned
> a
> > > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
>
> > > > Which created a huge number of new makers
> of
> > > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > > ironic
> > > > unintended consequence being that
> popularity
> > of
> > > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> > with
> > > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > > into
> > > > tens of millions of new guns and millions
> of
> > > new
> > > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> > were
> > > > trying to ban. lol
> > >
> > > Thanks. You just made the argument for
> banning
> > all
> > > guns.
> >
> >
> > Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever
> work.
> >
> > You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> > worked. lol
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
I'm for stricter gun laws. I think we should start by banning guns from anyone from the M.E. anyone who identifies as a Democrat and anyone who voted for Obama. That should reduce gun deaths by about 75%.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cYmb4
()
Date: June 19, 2016 01:41AM
Sigh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh no... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > npchK Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban
> on
> > > the
> > > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > > weapons
> > > > > in the United States until Congress and
> the
> > > > Bush
> > > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when
> it
> > > > sunset
> > > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > > >
> > > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a
> clue
> > > > about
> > > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > > AR15s
> > > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > > suppressors,
> > > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > > appearance
> > > > > which made the firearm legal under the
> law.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > > AR15s
> > > > > were never banned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> > hate
> > > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fuck yourself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > > drive
> > > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned
> a
> > > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
>
> > > > Which created a huge number of new makers
> of
> > > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > > ironic
> > > > unintended consequence being that
> popularity
> > of
> > > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> > with
> > > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > > into
> > > > tens of millions of new guns and millions
> of
> > > new
> > > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> > were
> > > > trying to ban. lol
> > >
> > > Thanks. You just made the argument for
> banning
> > all
> > > guns.
> >
> >
> > Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever
> work.
> >
> > You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> > worked. lol
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
Ummm, no dumbass. Let me try to explain it to you...
In order to have any effect and make the "mass shootings stop" (which is very unlikely to happen in any event) you need to address the actual causes in specific ways versus things you just don't like but don't really know anything about. In that regard, details matter.
As a practical example, if you want to ban those nasty old "assault weapons" then you need to understand and define specifically in law what makes it an "assault weapon." The problem that you have is that, despite what you've been told, what you call as "assault weapon" for abstract talking point purposes isn't really much if any different from any other. That's why the previous ban was pointless. It focused on largely meaningless cosmetic features, not on any real distinctions.
Furthermore, most of you don't understand that most all of what you want to do make illegal already is. The problem largely isn't "loopholes" in the law, it's people intentionally breaking the law. It does absolutely no good to pass more laws that the same people are going to avoid.
Also, most of what isn't done now also has some rationale. As an example, why the law falls to people *adjudicated* mentally ill and why mental health records aren't included in background checks. It's not because of "the NRA."
The entire argument essentially breaks down to "I don't like guns. I don't like people who like guns. Guns are bad. Let's ban guns!" That's as deep as it goes. You effectively want guns un-invented and bad people to magically disappear. That's not going to happen. Ever. Sorry.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh no... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More Unintended Consequences Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > npchK Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Fucking idiot Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > OP stated "For 10 years there was a ban
> on
> > > the
> > > > > production, ownership and use of assault
> > > > weapons
> > > > > in the United States until Congress and
> the
> > > > Bush
> > > > > Administration allowed it to lapse when
> it
> > > > sunset
> > > > > and came up for reauthorization in 2004."
> > > > >
> > > > > OP is a shitbird liberal that hasn't a
> clue
> > > > about
> > > > > firearms. For ten years the production of
> > > AR15s
> > > > > was altered. They couldn't have certain
> > > > > combination of grips, stocks, flash
> > > > suppressors,
> > > > > or bayonet lugs together.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firearms manufactures just changed the
> > > > appearance
> > > > > which made the firearm legal under the
> law.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The arms people owned were never banned.
> > > AR15s
> > > > > were never banned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shit like this is why responsible owners
> > hate
> > > > > liberal lying pussies that are looking to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > Muslim terrorist attack as a wedge issue
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > Hillary get elected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fuck yourself.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. The only thing that it did was to
> > > drive
> > > > up the prices of "pre-ban" guns and spawned
> a
> > > > whole new group of "post-ban" manufacturers.
>
> > > > Which created a huge number of new makers
> of
> > > > parts, and accessories, and builders. The
> > > ironic
> > > > unintended consequence being that
> popularity
> > of
> > > > the AR-15 platform and similar guns, along
> > with
> > > > modern high-capacity pistols, then exploded
> > > into
> > > > tens of millions of new guns and millions
> of
> > > new
> > > > owners of the exact types of weapons they
> > were
> > > > trying to ban. lol
> > >
> > > Thanks. You just made the argument for
> banning
> > all
> > > guns.
> >
> >
> > Uh no. Maybe for why no gun bans will ever
> work.
> >
> > You idiots don't even know how the "ban" even
> > worked. lol
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
Ummm, no dumbass. Let me try to explain it to you...
In order to have any effect and make the "mass shootings stop" (which is very unlikely to happen in any event) you need to address the actual causes in specific ways versus things you just don't like but don't really know anything about. In that regard, details matter.
As a practical example, if you want to ban those nasty old "assault weapons" then you need to understand and define specifically in law what makes it an "assault weapon." The problem that you have is that, despite what you've been told, what you call as "assault weapon" for abstract talking point purposes isn't really much if any different from any other. That's why the previous ban was pointless. It focused on largely meaningless cosmetic features, not on any real distinctions.
Furthermore, most of you don't understand that most all of what you want to do make illegal already is. The problem largely isn't "loopholes" in the law, it's people intentionally breaking the law. It does absolutely no good to pass more laws that the same people are going to avoid.
Also, most of what isn't done now also has some rationale. As an example, why the law falls to people *adjudicated* mentally ill and why mental health records aren't included in background checks. It's not because of "the NRA."
The entire argument essentially breaks down to "I don't like guns. I don't like people who like guns. Guns are bad. Let's ban guns!" That's as deep as it goes. You effectively want guns un-invented and bad people to magically disappear. That's not going to happen. Ever. Sorry.
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Vexxxed
()
Date: June 19, 2016 06:11AM
Ten minutes ago according to this forum, Veterans were too stupid to get a job so they enlisted.
Today they are Steven Hawking clones.
Anyone gotten a quote from Lt. Calley yet on this?
Today they are Steven Hawking clones.
Anyone gotten a quote from Lt. Calley yet on this?
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
Dane Bramage
()
Date: June 19, 2016 08:27AM
Sigh... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
There is no difference in AR platform and hunting rifles except one is scary looking.
And the fact is most liberals would love to ban all guns; look to CA, NY and CT as examples of states moving in that direction.
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You just don't get it. You morons want to argue
> the fine points of weaponry. The rest of us just
> care that the mass shootings stop. I'm willing to
> concede the use of some guns for hunting and
> self-defense (even though I don't agree with it).
> But for you gun nuts it's all or nothing. In that
> case, I'm for nothing.
There is no difference in AR platform and hunting rifles except one is scary looking.
And the fact is most liberals would love to ban all guns; look to CA, NY and CT as examples of states moving in that direction.
-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
cbaa
()
Date: June 19, 2016 10:16AM
Liberals are too stupid to understand that almost all mass shootings occur in their "gun free zones".
Re: Another Veteran Says Assault Rifles Have No Place in Civilian Population
Posted by:
TkDHk
()
Date: June 19, 2016 11:16AM
cbaa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals are too stupid to understand that almost
> all mass shootings occur in their "gun free
> zones".
Liberals are too stupid to understand that ALL mass shootings involve breaking of multiple laws. Yet, being stupid sheeple, they believe that answer is to pass even more laws.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberals are too stupid to understand that almost
> all mass shootings occur in their "gun free
> zones".
Liberals are too stupid to understand that ALL mass shootings involve breaking of multiple laws. Yet, being stupid sheeple, they believe that answer is to pass even more laws.