• 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!

A message from a veteran about the AR-15

Seeing as that is a lie, looking at the President of the United States of America...

Also, racism is bigotry towards a person or people based on skin color. You lose.

The president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, can be considered white. He has a white mother and was raised by a white family, and still enjoyed enough white privilege to receive an education that would have been denied to people of color.

Racism equals privilege plus power. That's the definition. Get it into your head.
 
The president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, can be considered white. He has a white mother and was raised by a white family, and still enjoyed enough white privilege to receive an education that would have been denied to people of color.

Racism equals privilege plus power. That's the definition. Get it into your head.

No, that's the definition racist promote to excuse their hateful bigotry.
 
The president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, can be considered white. He has a white mother and was raised by a white family, and still enjoyed enough white privilege to receive an education that would have been denied to people of color.

Racism equals privilege plus power. That's the definition. Get it into your head.
You actually put thought into this one, Slevvie.
 

More racist saying "I can be racist, you can't". Not impressed.

If Person A is one race and Person B is another, and they both dislike/hate the other because of their race... they are RACIST! Regardless which one is white and which one is not.

Game, set, match.
 
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.
A message from a current active duty military member: I own my AR15 "assault rifle" (you know, the assault rifle that fires one round for every trigger pull and only has one rate of fire selection) because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says I can.

Now I just need to make sure I didn't leave any alcohol out before i left for work today.... wouldn't want it [my AR15 ] to get drunk and go shoot up my local shopping mall [emoji57]

PS: I've decided to officially rename my 9mm Beretta to an"assault pistol" because it operates the same exact way. Kinda catchy the more I say it.

Sent from my XT1030
 
How is it incorrect? And please don't link me to John Lott or the NRA website.

God forbid anyone do research from our angle....
 
The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

So I take it you can produce the procurement criteria "said rifle must be capable of killing in excess of 24 people in under x number of minutes"

if you can't find that then it was not designed for such.
 
More racist saying "I can be racist, you can't". Not impressed.

If Person A is one race and Person B is another, and they both dislike/hate the other because of their race... they are RACIST! Regardless which one is white and which one is not.

Game, set, match.

it's hilarious how your white privilege blinds you to your own bias and internalized discrimination against people of color
 
So I take it you can produce the procurement criteria "said rifle must be capable of killing in excess of 24 people in under x number of minutes"

if you can't find that then it was not designed for such.

The M-4 was chosen for, among other things, it's ability to effectively kill the enemy. That's common sense. The Army's job is to kill people, and they choose the best tools for the job.
 
The M-4 was chosen for, among other things, it's ability to effectively kill the enemy. That's common sense. The Army's job is to kill people, and they choose the best tools for the job.

no, but your source said "designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes" It was not designed to do such, I'm looking at the original procurement specifications, it ain't on there, meaning it wasn't designed for such, hence that argument is false.
 
no, but your source said "designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes" It was not designed to do such, I'm looking at the original procurement specifications, it ain't on there, meaning it wasn't designed for such, hence that argument is false.

Guns are designed to kill people. The government felt that this was obvious enough that it didn't need to be mentioned in the procurement standards.
 
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle.

.

That's fine. If he chooses to be wilfully ignorant, that's his problem. :shrug:
 
That's fine. If he chooses to be wilfully ignorant, that's his problem. :shrug:

I think that you're willfully ignorant of the fact that Heller vs. DC will be repealed very soon, since Scalia is dead and the court will soon have a 5-4 majority in favor of common sense.
 
Guess what, the so called "rants" of concerned mothers, of the families of mass shooting victims, have gotten assault weapons bans and background checks passed in two of the most populous states: New York and California. And after the Democrats trounce the GOP in this year's elections, there will be similar laws passed nationwide, thanks to the "rants" of families who don't want to see their children get shot at school.
Even if the Left wins this year (and that is a sizable IF), the NRA has more than enough muscle to stop the passage of any federal laws.

I remind you that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the big gun control push in 2013, and we still stopped it cold. And that was probably the strongest gun control push that the Left was ever capable of doing

I also remind you that there wasn't even an attempt at an assault weapons ban a few weeks ago, and that was because DEMOCRATIC leaders opposed it.

And sooner or later the Supreme Court will begin enforcing the Second Amendment. When that happens the assault weapons bans in those extreme left states will be struck down.


The NRA member base of old white men is becoming less and less of a political force.
There will always be old people in this country. And some of them will always be white.

More to the point though, the NRA's base is everyone who cares about our rights, not just old and white people.


The right wing will be trounced in this year's elections, and a reasonable supreme court justice will be appointed to replace Scalia. Heller vs. DC will be repealed as soon as possible.

Cry all you want about it. When you cry, though, think of the far greater tears of the mothers who lost their children at Newtown.
Good of you to confirm that the Left seeks to violate our rights. A vote for Trump is a vote to preserve civil rights.


The second amendment guarantees the right of the PEOPLE, not individuals, but the PEOPLE AS A WHOLE to bear arms while they are part of a well regulated militia, aka the national guard.
I thoroughly debunked this falsehood already at the end of message #76 (on page 8).


You know that it is impossible to be racist towards white people, right?
Good grief.
 
Even if the Left wins this year (and that is a sizable IF), the NRA has more than enough muscle to stop the passage of any federal laws.

I remind you that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the big gun control push in 2013, and we still stopped it cold. And that was probably the strongest gun control push that the Left was ever capable of doing

I also remind you that there wasn't even an attempt at an assault weapons ban a few weeks ago, and that was because DEMOCRATIC leaders opposed it.

And sooner or later the Supreme Court will begin enforcing the Second Amendment. When that happens the assault weapons bans in those extreme left states will be struck down.



There will always be old people in this country. And some of them will always be white.

More to the point though, the NRA's base is everyone who cares about our rights, not just old and white people.



Good of you to confirm that the Left seeks to violate our rights. A vote for Trump is a vote to preserve civil rights.



I thoroughly debunked this falsehood already at the end of message #76 (on page 8).



Good grief.

You really said that a vote for Trump is a vote for civil rights? WTF. This man wants to deport people on the basis of their religious beliefs and race!

And the conservative older white population, which is the main group that supports the NRA, is slowly but surely dying out. The country will be getting less and less friendly to the NRA as time goes by.
 
You really said that a vote for Trump is a vote for civil rights? WTF.
Your posts make it very clear that the Left is dedicated to violating our rights.

Yes, Trump will ensure that our rights are protected.


And the conservative older white population, which is the main group that supports the NRA, is slowly but surely dying out. The country will be getting less and less friendly to the NRA as time goes by.
Good grief.

Once again, there will always be old people in this country. The idea that we will run out of old people when the current crop of elders dies is just silly.

There may be a small decrease in white people, but so what? There will still be plenty of white people. AND non-white people are just as capable of supporting our rights as white people are.

The idea that "only" old white people support the NRA is just as ludicrous as the idea that we're about to run out of old white people.
 
Take a look at this thread. Take a good look at all the posters who always like to note it was a "gun free zone", and more that believe their armed presence would have a made a difference.

And you can characterize 'the left's" response as that of a line from Hillary's play book, but you cannot deny the insanity of the very phrase "every time one of these things happen" considering its become somewhat routine. As the ONLY with a constitutional right to bear arms AND the nation with the highest death by gun rate as well as a lot of other rates, the status quo is insane. Einstein said 'doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is insanity." And as you just posted, it's the same argument, no change, no progress, just more blood and bodies piling up.

Sorry that trying to introduce a new vein and the consideration that so-called "assault weapons" probably deserve to be banned. I've never suggested tro an American to take anyone's guns away just like I never try to talk to a brick.

Gun-free zones make it harder for people to defend themselves. That is indisputable.

Actually, I didn't mention Hillary at all. Why did you imply that I did?

I certainly CAN deny the insanity of that phrase, because every time this sort of thing happens, the left DOES jump up and say we need to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is also indisputable. But this results in the right opposing their actions...as they should to protect our Constitutional Rights.

Now...as far as the right not doing anything different, there are things they would like to do, but they are blocked by the left. It's gridlock, which is better than letting the left have their way. At least with gridlock, we STILL have our Rights.

You don't have to be sorry about introducing a ban on assault weapons. (LOL!! Actually, you aren't "introducing" anything...you are only trotting out your tired old tactic. Talk about "doing the same thing again and again, eh?) It's in your nature. Embrace who you are. But if you realize that banning weapons is an infringement of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms...well hell, you won't have to be sorry anymore, don't you think?
 
Guns are designed to kill people. The government felt that this was obvious enough that it didn't need to be mentioned in the procurement standards.

Actually, no...firearms are only designed to propel a bullet downrange.

If a firearm actually kills anybody, it is the user's choice.
 
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.


Ok, right out of the gate you screwed the pooch. The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. That bit of hyperbole ALONE marks you as a rabid anti-gunner.
 
I think that you're willfully ignorant of the fact that Heller vs. DC will be repealed very soon, since Scalia is dead and the court will soon have a 5-4 majority in favor of common sense.

How do you "repeal" a SCOTUS decision?
 
Gun-free zones make it harder for people to defend themselves. That is indisputable.

Actually, I didn't mention Hillary at all. Why did you imply that I did?

I certainly CAN deny the insanity of that phrase, because every time this sort of thing happens, the left DOES jump up and say we need to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. That is also indisputable. But this results in the right opposing their actions...as they should to protect our Constitutional Rights.

Now...as far as the right not doing anything different, there are things they would like to do, but they are blocked by the left. It's gridlock, which is better than letting the left have their way. At least with gridlock, we STILL have our Rights.

You don't have to be sorry about introducing a ban on assault weapons. (LOL!! Actually, you aren't "introducing" anything...you are only trotting out your tired old tactic. Talk about "doing the same thing again and again, eh?) It's in your nature. Embrace who you are. But if you realize that banning weapons is an infringement of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms...well hell, you won't have to be sorry anymore, don't you think?



Wow.

Thanks anyway. I used top respect you.
 
Back
Top Bottom