- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,331
- Location
- Northwest Peninsula
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
This behavior puzzles me concerning banners. An AR 15 was not used by the Orlando terrorist, yet that is the weapon the banners want to ban in the aftermath. Even if a ban on AR 15's were in place, it would not stop the terrorist from getting and using the gun he actually used. There is real danger in these knee jerk reactions.
Bill has always had a thing for gun control. Nothing new to see here.
Agreed..it is legal to buy most guns...but if you mean things like rocket launchers or hand grenades you are wrong. A person even has to have a permit to buy TNT.
This behavior puzzles me concerning banners. An AR 15 was not used by the Orlando terrorist, yet that is the weapon the banners want to ban in the aftermath. Even if a ban on AR 15's were in place, it would not stop the terrorist from getting and using the gun he actually used. There is real danger in these knee jerk reactions.
Bill has always had a thing for gun control. Nothing new to see here.
?Oh please, any ban that captures an AR 15 will also ban the rifle used - "AR-15" is merely shorthand for that style weapon.
View attachment 67202827
?
One would wonder why you took the time to make the image of the MCX tiny. Is it because you don't want people to see that it is not an AR 15?
No, an AR 15 is a very specific type of weapon with specific parts that are interchangeable with other AR 15s. Except for the magazine, the MCX is proprietary.
Test question: Why can't an AR 15 have a folding stock like the MCX?
This post makes it clear that banners are basing their judgement on looks rather than functionality. Instead of picking on the AR 15, why not just come out and say all scary rifles should be banned.
No one is getting "disarmed" since "disarming" means taking away all firearms. And how about this - let's either require all American citizens to be part of the militia...or agree that the time of the militia (and as a result, the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A) is long past, and that the necessity of such is long gone, too.
From Raw Story:
Something is definitely going on over at Fox News — where two hosts have come out in favor of gun control laws.
Gretchen Carlson surprised viewers Tuesday afternoon by calling on lawmakers to reinstate a ban on weapons like the AR-15 that a gunman used to murder 49 people and wound 53 more at a gay nightclub in Orlando.
Later that evening, Bill O’Reilly cast some blame on conservatives for the domestic terror attack and hate crime, which he said might have been prevented or lessened if the killer hadn’t been able to buy the weapons he used.
“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars — even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.”
Riiiiiiight. I can just see how the right-wing gun nut would react to the Muslim standing next to him in line armed with an M-16....
?
One would wonder why you took the time to make the image of the MCX tiny. Is it because you don't want people to see that it is not an AR 15?
No, an AR 15 is a very specific type of weapon with specific parts that are interchangeable with other AR 15s. Except for the magazine, the MCX is proprietary.
Test question: Why can't an AR 15 have a folding stock like the MCX?
This post makes it clear that banners are basing their judgement on looks rather than functionality. Instead of picking on the AR 15, why not just come out and say all scary rifles should be banned.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065968803 said:It would require the passing of another amendment. You know how that works, right?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065968803 said:It would require the passing of another amendment. You know how that works, right?
No one is getting "disarmed" since "disarming" means taking away all firearms. And how about this - let's either require all American citizens to be part of the militia...or agree that the time of the militia (and as a result, the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A) is long past, and that the necessity of such is long gone, too.
No, it wouldn't. All it would require is a courageous SCOTUS.
What specifically are you claiming would require the passing of a new amendment?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065968840 said:Apparently you don't know what an M-16 is.
No, it wouldn't. All it would require is a courageous SCOTUS.
From Raw Story:
Something is definitely going on over at Fox News — where two hosts have come out in favor of gun control laws.
Gretchen Carlson surprised viewers Tuesday afternoon by calling on lawmakers to reinstate a ban on weapons like the AR-15 that a gunman used to murder 49 people and wound 53 more at a gay nightclub in Orlando.
Later that evening, Bill O’Reilly cast some blame on conservatives for the domestic terror attack and hate crime, which he said might have been prevented or lessened if the killer hadn’t been able to buy the weapons he used.
“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars — even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.”
People are such ****ing sheep."Reinstating the assault rifle ban" would mean NO weapons in existence or on the market would be impacted, no magazines already in circulation would be impacted, and most importantly...weapons used in LESS THAN% of all gun violence would be targeted. NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said he supports an assault weapons ban but told CBS News' Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" that illegal handguns are much more widely used in violent crimes. However, Commissioner Kelly said only 2% of those arrested in gun-related crimes in the past two years have possessed an assault rifle. Of the murders in New York City in 2012, 60% were caused by handguns, he added. There were 414 homicides, a record low for New York City. "Handguns account for nearly all murders by firearm in New York City and state, data show. An analysis by the NYPD determined that assault weapons were used in just three of the 1,400 instances of gunplay in the city last year." 3 BULLETS of 1400 fired. THREE.
It sure does....
The issue now is the same it has always been: the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is constitutionally protected. I'll take gun control seriously when someone has the honesty to say they have to take that on. Until then it's all just posturing and positioning.
I completely agree. People should buy guns because they want them when they want them and certainly not as a kneejerk reaction to the morons and the assclowns on the left calling for gun bans.People are such ****ing sheeple... running to the local firearms store to buy anything with a barrel and mag well when the NRA wails about the eminent banning of firearms if the sheeple don't send millions of dollars to K street lobbyists... :roll:
As to pistols- beefing up the ATF's ability to close down 'gun' stores that violate ATF regulations in a timely fashion, having the stores audited more than once every 5 years, and allowing the ATF to revisit offenders WITHOUT a warrant is a small step in the correct direction...eace
From Raw Story:
Something is definitely going on over at Fox News — where two hosts have come out in favor of gun control laws.”
“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars — even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.
This is encouraging. Thank for the update.
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?