- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 65,386
- Reaction score
- 49,410
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Then they need to buy a dictionary, and look up the definition of "infringe," and then read " ..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Our 2nd Amendment right has been infringed upon already, and no further infringement is acceptable.
Actually you know what this article has inspired me to do. If I can finance one I'm going to get an AR. I just don't feel like dropping 1000+ cash at the moment.
Except of course more stringent rules to obtain the guns in the first place.
Sent from a flower watered by the tears of Trump supporters and crazy newb liberals.
CBS News producer shows how easy it is to buy an assault rifle
Only one problem with that.
- Gun Store Claims CBS News Violated Federal Law to Make Buying AR-15 Look Easy
- Gun Store Owner: CBS Lied, Broke Federal Law With Undercover Sting
- Gun store owner says undercover CBS reporter broke federal law to purchase AR-15
- While showing how easy it is to buy an AR-15, CBS News may have violated federal gun control laws
- Store Owner: Undercover CBS Purchase of AR-15 Broke Federal Law
Based on CBS' recent history, from the Lovin-In Steve Croft interview of Obama and Hillary to the present, seems that CBS is in deep with the leftist agenda it keeps pushing.
Break the law in order to push the narrative.
Isn't that inherently dishonest?
Is that exactly NOT supposed to be the purpose and role of a free press?
Isn't this exactly counter to the free press' social contract of a well informed electorate?
What do you think?[/QUOTE
]An AR-15 is not an assault rifle it’s the civilianized version if an M-16 which is a military assault rifle.
I have to admit that I'm looking into it as well. From what I have learned, the only component of the AR which is serialized and registered is the lower receiver which must be purchased through an FFL licensed dealer. All the rest of the components can be obtained without FFL.
CBS News producer shows how easy it is to buy an assault rifle
Only one problem with that.
- Gun Store Claims CBS News Violated Federal Law to Make Buying AR-15 Look Easy
- Gun Store Owner: CBS Lied, Broke Federal Law With Undercover Sting
- Gun store owner says undercover CBS reporter broke federal law to purchase AR-15
- While showing how easy it is to buy an AR-15, CBS News may have violated federal gun control laws
- Store Owner: Undercover CBS Purchase of AR-15 Broke Federal Law
Based on CBS' recent history, from the Lovin-In Steve Croft interview of Obama and Hillary to the present, seems that CBS is in deep with the leftist agenda it keeps pushing.
Break the law in order to push the narrative.
Isn't that inherently dishonest?
Is that exactly NOT supposed to be the purpose and role of a free press?
Isn't this exactly counter to the free press' social contract of a well informed electorate?
What do you think?
What's the FFL stuff have to do with me getting one?
LOWER RECEIVER MULTI
$57.75 AR15-A3 .223/5.56 LOWER RECEIVER MADE FROM 7075-T6 ALUM FORGING WITH LOGO OF ”DON’T TREAD ON ME” ON ONE SIDE OF THE LOWER.
FFL REQUIRED for purchase, send copy of FFL to documents@aXXXXXXX.com
Califonia Dealers add CFL#
Sure that'll work.
For every murder committed with a firearm there is a murder committed. Murders are pretty stringently regulated. How's that working out?
I don't get what the problem is, that CBS is supposedly exposing? Easy to legally buy a firearm in the US? Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment protects?
If you pass the federal background check, you have the money to pay for the firearm, and you are complying with federal, state, and local laws (including not performing a straw purchase) then why the outrage?
Maybe I'm just too stupid to get it, but I don't see what the problem is that CBS is supposed to be exposing?
It's the serialized component of the weapon that can't be sold without a registered dealer selling it to you.
Yep. The worlds a dangerous place. Paris has a total gun ban and they managed to kill over 100 people with banned weapons that were impossible to get. Ratrher than **** yourself over reality, you might want to consider how to better prepare for a potential circumstance.They were demonstrating that we can look forward to many more horrendous shootings with mass casualties thanks to the easy availability of the WMD called the AR-15. We should not be surprised when that weapon does the job it was designed to do. To kill as many people as fast as possible. It just sits there waiting for the right person to hold it in their hands. Anyone who thinks there are not more people like Omar or the Sandy Hook shooter out there is fooling themselves and we have no way of stopping them all. We might as well admit that the 49 kills is still not anywhere near a Ar-15's potential. Who will break Omar's record is all we are in the dark about.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle it’s the civilianized version if an M-16 which is an military assault rifle.
Yep. The worlds a dangerous place. Paris has a total gun ban and they managed to kill over 100 people with banned weapons that were impossible to get. Ratrher than **** yourself over reality, you might want to consider how to better prepare for a potential circumstance.
Yep. The worlds a dangerous place. Paris has a total gun ban and they managed to kill over 100 people with banned weapons that were impossible to get. Ratrher than **** yourself over reality, you might want to consider how to better prepare for a potential circumstance.
Or a .45 on your hip. Or a .380 in your pocket. Or how about just the will to not lay down and die like a bitch if something bad happens.Perhaps we should all walk around with AR-15's on our shoulders or just barricade ourselves in our homes and never go out. But it will be worth it because...?
Are YOU a mass murdering maniac? How do I know if you are or arent?So we should just legally sell mass murdering maniacs WMD's because ......Paris? How does that make sense to you? Why is making the world MORE dangerous your solution?
And the only difference is you have to "flutter"the trigger to get machine gun fire, otherwise they are functionally identical.
Or a .45 on your hip. Or a .380 in your pocket. Or how about just the will to not lay down and die like a bitch if something bad happens.
You are a reasonably intelligent person. You KNOW beyond question that mass shootings involve handguns as well as AR type weapons. You also know full on assaults occur in places where weapons are prohibited and in countries were those weapons are banned. You know that we live in country that has proven that because of people like you, we cannot stop the flow of 30 million illegal immigrants into this country, let alone tons of illegal drugs. And you know bad things happen and they cannot be prevented. Your solution? Clamor for a weapons ban that will target ONLY law abiding citizens, that WILL NOT prevent terrorist attacks, and that WILL NOT end mass shootings. You would be better served admitting to the facts we all already know. Your SOLE INTENT is to promote your gun ban ideology, regardless of the potential impact. You sit around WAITING for incidents such as what occurred in Orlando and IGNORE the day to day violence. You ignore perpetrators. Hell...when a mass shooting occurs that doesnt involve AR style weapons you ignore those as well. You only surface when you have the excuse to promote gun bans. You know it. I know it.
Poll: Majority backs assault weapons ban | TheHillA new poll shows a majority of Americans support a nationwide ban on assault weapons following the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history on Sunday in Orlando.
The CBS News poll finds that 57 percent of Americans support a ban on assault weapons, up from the 44 percent who said they supported a ban in the same poll in December.
He began firing at 2:02. He DIDNT STOP until 5:05 when he shot his last victim hiding in a bathroom stall with 3 shots. See what happens when you ignore facts and obsess over your gun ban ideology?I am primarily concerned with the rapid speed of fire and large magazines of the AR that make it such an efficient MASS killing machine. How can that be ignored? Why should we make it so easy to kill 100's of people? What gives you the right to decide? Omar was a law abiding citizen right up to the point where he murdered 49 people in a minute or 2. Why is it necessary to sell him the best weapon for that job? Yes I could support a ban on Ar-15' and their clones along with the ammo and magazines they use. We had one and the USA was still a free country under it.
Not so. There is no way you can "flutter" (whatever that means) 600 + times in a minute. But even so, the definition of full auto is that more than one round is released with each trigger pull. However there are devices available that will do it for you. I've never heard of a bump device being used in a crime.
AR 15 style weapons are functionally identical to the Ruger 10/22.
Here's some one firing an AR-15 at 5 shots a second. That's "only" 300 rounds per minute.
A-Jerry Miculek is not your average shooter.
B-MOST mass shootings involve handguns and people die with just as great efficiency. See VA Tech, Wakefield, San Ysidro, etc. The difference is in this case the terrorist had a room full of compliant victims. It wasnt the gun. It was the availability of compliant targets. Nothing more
Here's some one firing an AR-15 at 5 shots a second. That's "only" 300 rounds per minute.
CBS News producer shows how easy it is to buy an assault rifle
Only one problem with that.
- Gun Store Claims CBS News Violated Federal Law to Make Buying AR-15 Look Easy
- Gun Store Owner: CBS Lied, Broke Federal Law With Undercover Sting
- Gun store owner says undercover CBS reporter broke federal law to purchase AR-15
- While showing how easy it is to buy an AR-15, CBS News may have violated federal gun control laws
- Store Owner: Undercover CBS Purchase of AR-15 Broke Federal Law
Based on CBS' recent history, from the Lovin-In Steve Croft interview of Obama and Hillary to the present, seems that CBS is in deep with the leftist agenda it keeps pushing.
Break the law in order to push the narrative.
Isn't that inherently dishonest?
Is that exactly NOT supposed to be the purpose and role of a free press?
Isn't this exactly counter to the free press' social contract of a well informed electorate?
What do you think?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?