What happens to all the AR-15s out there now when they're banned?[W:11]

[SMTA]

Are there any that aren't against known lists? I only know of NICS, and then some states do their own using the NICS. Are there any others used?

The NICS data has to come from somewhere else.

 

[AGENT J]

The NICS data has to come from somewhere else.

What do you mean?

 

[MickeyW]

translation: you still got nothing
Still waiting for you to show where I support gun control and think it stops mass murder. Your lie fails again. :laughat:

Am I wrong, if so elaborate.

Once again you come up empty as usual and think you can just denounce valid evidence out of hand. Who promoted you to such a position? YOURSELF?

ONLY AUTO firearms can have a selective fire control. Do you now see the gun control propaganda and falsity of claims? Nor does having a selective fire control make it a semi-auto. GOT IT NOW

It's like pulling teeth and putting dots between the dots there is so little comprehension.

Spot On!

 

[AGENT J]

Am I wrong, if so elaborate.

Yes you are factually wrong
Nice try, its not my job to elaborate. YOU claim i support gun control like they are trying to do wright now and i think it prevents mass murder. SO its YOUR job to back up that claim.

Ill wait
opcorn2:

 

[MickeyW]

1.) I know the brady bill that doesn't make me think ARs will be banned in anyway or support something so silly. Why do you think the brady bill would change that?
2.) again I dont see people turning in their ARs nor do i support it especially since it again would be stupid because theres millions of weapons out there just like ARs just not called ARs. Yes I think many people would object.

I support back ground checks and i object to this nor is supporting back ground checks idiotic

3.) SOrry i just dont buy into the hoopla, I dont think that when ever comes in my life time or my kids.

You are entitled to your beliefs....but I don't agree with you on most things....working backwards...

3.) We should always be prepared for anything. I have seen a ton of changes in this world, in the last 60+ years.....nothing is out of the realm of possibility.
2.) Do you know what the others are called?
1.) No liberal inspired bill, is a good bill.

I don't like BGCs on me or my family.......we have done nothing wrong and should be able to buy what we want, when we want w/o Govt. knowledge!

 

[AGENT J]

1.)You are entitled to your beliefs....but I don't agree with you on most things....working backwards...

2.) We should always be prepared for anything. I have seen a ton of changes in this world, in the last 60+ years.....nothing is out of the realm of possibility.
3.) Do you know what the others are called?
4.) No liberal inspired bill, is a good bill.

5) I don't like BGCs on me or my family.......we have done nothing wrong and should be able to buy what we want, when we want w/o Govt. knowledge!

1.) what are my beliefs?
2.) didnt say any of that nor am i against being prepared
3.) just about every semi automatic long gun LOL the one im probably going to get an S&W MP as i discussed in a thread many moons ago about the next guns i want,
4.) see and you just proved me right again. Statements like these are part of the problem with american politics today LMAO
5.) You are allowed to feel that way :shrug:

when are you gonna support your false claim?

 

[MickeyW]

1.) what are my beliefs?
2.) didnt say any of that nor am i against being prepared
3.) just about every semi automatic long gun LOL the one im probably going to get an S&W MP as i discussed in a thread many moons ago about the next guns i want,
4.) see and you just proved me right again. Statements like these are part of the problem with american politics today LMAO
5.) You are allowed to feel that way :shrug:

when are you gonna support your false claim?

Maybe I just don't understand your dialect ....and we are on the same page! eace

 

[AGENT J]

Maybe I just don't understand your dialect ....and we are on the same page! eace

I seriously doubt that, but your earlier claim about me was 100% false and it seems you cant back it up.eace

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: What happens to all the AR-15s out there now when they're banned?

And plenty of AR, 80% lowers.

Just bought a SIG (like the orlando shooter used) at a shop, I was at two shops today-the first to pick up a HAWKE airgun scope my son had ordered for his FX PCP, and they had the sig for almost 1700 but the next shop-where I shoot, had it for 1450 and the clerk (A guy I know who doesn't BS me) noted that the next bunch were going up in price. They are extremely well made and compact. probably going to make this the perimeter defense rifle over the SW I have now. Just got in a bunch of Lancer and Hex 30 round mags as well. I like the Lancers a little bit more than the MagPs. the Bannerrhoids in Congress sure have sold lots of firearms and magazines. The more people buy, the less there is a chance of a ban. and with millions and millions of more magazines being bought up, that is a good insurance against a repeat of the idiocy that took place in 1994. so if there is a ban, I doubt the price gouging is going to take place on magazines as lots of us have plenty of time to prepare since the Bannerrhoids won't be able to do anything until probably January if they get lucky in the elections

 

[SMTA]

What do you mean?

The felony convictions have to come from some state or federal database that has the original information.

 

[AGENT J]

The felony convictions have to come from some state or federal database that has the original information.

Oh ok . . .
do you object to that?

 

[SMTA]

Oh ok . . .
do you object to that?

It was an observation.

 

[AGENT J]

It was an observation.

oh thanks for the info

 

[MickeyW]

Just bought a SIG (like the orlando shooter used) at a shop, I was at two shops today-the first to pick up a HAWKE airgun scope my son had ordered for his FX PCP, and they had the sig for almost 1700 but the next shop-where I shoot, had it for 1450 and the clerk (A guy I know who doesn't BS me) noted that the next bunch were going up in price. They are extremely well made and compact. probably going to make this the perimeter defense rifle over the SW I have now. Just got in a bunch of Lancer and Hex 30 round mags as well. I like the Lancers a little bit more than the MagPs. the Bannerrhoids in Congress sure have sold lots of firearms and magazines. The more people buy, the less there is a chance of a ban. and with millions and millions of more magazines being bought up, that is a good insurance against a repeat of the idiocy that took place in 1994. so if there is a ban, I doubt the price gouging is going to take place on magazines as lots of us have plenty of time to prepare since the Bannerrhoids won't be able to do anything until probably January if they get lucky in the elections

One who doesn't learn from the mistakes of his enemies, is destined to be unprepared for the next conflict. Any bannerhroid is an enemy of mine.

 

[MickeyW]

 

[TurtleDude]

I suspect some of those petulant bannnerhoid turds suck on other things too! what a bunch of losers

 

[Crimefree]

1.) I know the brady bill that doesn't make me think ARs will be banned in anyway or support something so silly. Why do you think the brady bill would change that?
2.) again I dont see people turning in their ARs nor do i support it especially since it again would be stupid because theres millions of weapons out there just like ARs just not called ARs. Yes I think many people would object.

Did you not ask how they would be defined? What gave you the impression I was discussing any other feature of the Brady bill

Did I not say a ban would be over the top which is why new sales will be first. Did you read my post?

I support back ground checks and i object to this nor is supporting back ground checks idiotic

They are until you can show what use they are to crime fighting. I see you neglected to do that. Do you just believe they are a good thing and have not thought this through? Your objection s noted can you back it up.

Please show how a back ground check can determine what somebody will do in the future. You must have thought of that as it is only natural to ensure a law works as advertised. Do you have a figure for the accuracy of your tests or is it that you simple wish to deny specific groups of people like Jews, blacks, gays...

Please show why everybody should not be subjected to the same tests in case they commit a violent crime. Think of how much domestic violence could be prevented if this was applied to marriage or crime for vehicle ownership and driving, purchase of household utensils, gardening tools and other tools.

Please show why denial of anyone the constitution gives a right to bear arms is not oppressive.

3.) SOrry i just dont buy into the hoopla, I don't think that when ever comes in my life time or my kids.

You are expressing a belief and attempting to discredit with ridicule, so I wasted my time explaining why it was wrong. It still does not change my claim.

 

[Crimefree]

I suspect some of those petulant bannnerhoid turds suck on other things too! what a bunch of losers

The difference is gun control never gives up no matter how many times they lose, whereas firearm organisations never get started. Firearm owners may want to think about how useless most firearm organisations are when it comes to protecting the only reason for their existence.

 

[TurtleDude]

The difference is gun control never gives up no matter how many times they lose, whereas firearm organisations never get started. Firearm owners may want to think about how useless most firearm organisations are when it comes to protecting the only reason for their existence.

so why don't you edify the pro gun masses what they need to do. I already know and am doing it

 

[Crimefree]

The traditional way of such bans is to simply offer a grace period from prosecution. This will get about 75..80% of them. At that point the remainder will be thinking every cop car in the neighbourhood is coming for their guns and be to frightened to object or resist. All it really takes is one well publicised resistor to be disarmed, injured of killed. Confiscation as this has rarely if ever been resisted.

Firearm owners need to learn to fight smart. The easiest way to defeat any law is not to allow it to be passed. This sitting on your bum until it bites you is near useless as strategy. Those waiting for a ban are in for a shock and giving up the best opportunity to embrace sure failure and loss as a better option.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Did you not ask how they would be defined? What gave you the impression I was discussing any other feature of the Brady bill
2.)Did I not say a ban would be over the top which is why new sales will be first. Did you read my post?
3.)They are until you can show what use they are to crime fighting. I see you neglected to do that. Do you just believe they are a good thing and have not thought this through? Your objection s noted can you back it up.
4.)Please show how a back ground check can determine what somebody will do in the future. You must have thought of that as it is only natural to ensure a law works as advertised. Do you have a figure for the accuracy of your tests or is it that you simple wish to deny specific groups of people like Jews, blacks, gays...
5.)Please show why everybody should not be subjected to the same tests in case they commit a violent crime. Think of how much domestic violence could be prevented if this was applied to marriage or crime for vehicle ownership and driving, purchase of household utensils, gardening tools and other tools.
6.)Please show why denial of anyone the constitution gives a right to bear arms is not oppressive.



You are expressing a belief and attempting to discredit with ridicule, so I wasted my time explaining why it was wrong. It still does not change my claim.

1.) yes i asked ANOTHER poster and NOT you hence who i quoted lol so my thoughts had nothign to do with you
2.) yes i read your post to me and not any others since i was talking to somebody else. Maybe YOU werent reading
3.) that has been shown time and time again you belief in them isnt needed. They have infact denied felons and criminals guns and people who should not have them.
4.) never made that claim in any way what so ever. Please show where I said any of that. Please dont make up lies and strawmans cause honest, educated and objective posters will just laugh at them and mock how quickly they fail
5.) see #4
6.) see #4

seems you quoted the wrong person or didnt read anything because NOTHING i worte has anything to do with the retarded strawman you posted here LMAO

 

[Thrilla]

I think the AR-15 WILL be banned eventually across the board --- so what happens to all of the AR-15s out there right now which were purchased legally?

they will be grandfathered in.... and their worth will increase dramatically.... nothing else will really change.


like machine guns, they will become firearms of the 1%...unaffordable by the common plebes who are unworthy of self defense/ hunting/ sporting weapons.

I'm not a fan of AR's.... they are more "toys" than weapons to me.... I prefer rifles of larger calibers, with much greater range, and without all the "tactical" bull**** on them... but iv'e recently invested heavily in them, and their variants.
I would personally profit greatly from such a ban... .. if no such ban materializes, my grandkids will have a lots of little pea shooters to plink or hunt with.

either way, i'm set.

 

[Crimefree]

1.) yes i asked ANOTHER poster and NOT you hence who i quoted lol so my thoughts had nothign to do with you

Liar your post 216 was in response to my post.

Ridiculous, asinine and avoidance. When you post here it is open to comment. It answered your question like it or not.

See the Brady bill. Features. It would be stupid at present to try and ban current possession but future sales are easy.

The Brady bill was based on features.

2.) yes i read your post to me and not any others since i was talking to somebody else. Maybe YOU werent reading

My post was open for anyone to comment. You are babbling in avoidance.

Where was the name of the person you asked. Please quote. Am I a mind reader.

You don't answer questions do you. Maybe you don't want to.

3.) that has been shown time and time again you belief in them isnt needed. They have infact denied felons and criminals guns and people who should not have them.

Only an idiot would claim because something has been done that justifies it or proves it valid. You going to answer the question or not?

They are until you can show what use they are to crime fighting. I see you neglected to do that. Do you just believe they are a good thing and have not thought this through? Your objection s noted can you back it up.

4.) never made that claim in any way what so ever. Please show where I said any of that. Please dont make up lies and strawmans cause honest, educated and objective posters will just laugh at them and mock how quickly they fail

Liar #216

I support back ground checks and i object to this nor is supporting back ground checks idiotic

It is neither a lie or strawman. YOU CLAIMED YOU SUPPORTED BACKGROUND CHECKS. Answer the question.

Please show how a back ground check can determine what somebody will do in the future. You must have thought of that as it is only natural to ensure a law works as advertised. Do you have a figure for the accuracy of your tests or is it that you simple wish to deny specific groups of people like Jews, blacks, gays...

5.) see #4)

Please show why everybody should not be subjected to the same tests in case they commit a violent crime. Think of how much domestic violence could be prevented if this was applied to marriage or crime for vehicle ownership and driving, purchase of household utensils, gardening tools and other tools.

6.) see #4

Please show why denial of anyone the constitution gives a right to bear arms is not oppressive?

Answer the questions. Your claim or do you admit you have absolutely no idea why you support back ground checks, you just do. It seems like it does it not. You do know that means it is not your idea but an indoctrinated belief. Something every gun control advocate suffers from.

I postulated that this was a belief you had, thank you so much for confirming you have given it no thought of your own and have been inculcated by gun control propaganda.

seems you quoted the wrong person or didnt read anything because NOTHING i worte has anything to do with the retarded strawman you posted here LMAO

You like all gun control advocates make asinine claims about others but never ever quote any proof of the claim. Why is that? Every line quoted was written by yourself. You have failed abysmally to show one single word somebody else wrote. You do know what that makes you.

Right down at the bottom of the list of avoidance of answering ploys is ridicule. It is a favourite of morally bankrupt gun control advocates exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You might bear that in mind next time you try it and ask yourself why am I avoiding answering the post.

 

[Crimefree]

so why don't you edify the pro gun masses what they need to do. I already know and am doing it

The masses need to kick their organisations in the butt. However organisations are seen as the authority figure that knows better and one guy saying listen guys everything you know about fighting gun control is wrong has little chance of making headway. I try and even yourself cling to policy that is totally useless.

There is only one way to win and that is to take back what gun control has been slowly eroding. PUBLIC support. Not doing so is the same as conceding loss. It means harnessing every willing firearm owner to play their part in assuring the public gun control is a danger to them and firearm owners are not. Or one can throw billions at it and buy advertising and copy with money that does not exist. 100,000 angry people willing to be seen demonstration is infinitely better than a billion people who pay their subs to some foolish organisation. People do not just get up and demonstrate or write or do a thing unless they have a good reason. Losing their guns is not a good reason. Being a member of some organisation is not a good reason. Losing what they value in life is a good reason. Freedom, rights, land.... Unfortunately the right to arms thanks to firearm organisation is not worth very much

If there is an easy way of doing this I have not found it. Completely changing people thinking that has the foundation of many years of stupidity and authority is never easy.

For the interested the most read column of any newspaper is not the front page but the letters column. One needs letters to fill it objecting to gun control and assuring the public that gun control lies and it is stupid to think disarming the victims of crime will make citizens safer. Do not promote guns, do not protect guns, do not promote sports or any shooting activity. Any promotion of what people fear is simply going to turn them off, shut their mind down.... put blinders on...

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Liar your post 216 was in response to my post.

Ridiculous, asinine and avoidance. When you post here it is open to comment. It answered your question like it or not.

See the Brady bill. Features. It would be stupid at present to try and ban current possession but future sales are easy.

The Brady bill was based on features.


2.)My post was open for anyone to comment. You are babbling in avoidance.
Where was the name of the person you asked. Please quote. Am I a mind reader.
You don't answer questions do you. Maybe you don't want to.


3.)Only an idiot would claim because something has been done that justifies it or proves it valid. You going to answer the question or not?
They are until you can show what use they are to crime fighting. I see you neglected to do that. Do you just believe they are a good thing and have not thought this through? Your objection s noted can you back it up.

4.)Liar #216
It is neither a lie or strawman. YOU CLAIMED YOU SUPPORTED BACKGROUND CHECKS. Answer the question.

5.)Please show how a back ground check can determine what somebody will do in the future. You must have thought of that as it is only natural to ensure a law works as advertised. Do you have a figure for the accuracy of your tests or is it that you simple wish to deny specific groups of people like Jews, blacks, gays...
Please show why everybody should not be subjected to the same tests in case they commit a violent crime. Think of how much domestic violence could be prevented if this was applied to marriage or crime for vehicle ownership and driving, purchase of household utensils, gardening tools and other tools.

6.)Please show why denial of anyone the constitution gives a right to bear arms is not oppressive?

Answer the questions. Your claim or do you admit you have absolutely no idea why you support back ground checks, you just do. It seems like it does it not. You do know that means it is not your idea but an indoctrinated belief. Something every gun control advocate suffers from.

7.)I postulated that this was a belief you had, thank you so much for confirming you have given it no thought of your own and have been inculcated by gun control propaganda.


8.)You like all gun control advocates make asinine claims about others but never ever quote any proof of the claim. Why is that? Every line quoted was written by yourself. You have failed abysmally to show one single word somebody else wrote. You do know what that makes you.

Right down at the bottom of the list of avoidance of answering ploys is ridicule. It is a favourite of morally bankrupt gun control advocates exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You might bear that in mind next time you try it and ask yourself why am I avoiding answering the post.

1.) LMAO FACTUALLY wrong. i posted in post 17 to Josie, then YOU responded to me in post 215 that had nothing to do with my post. Try again
Facts prove i asked another poster about THEIR stance and asked nothing of you then you started rambling about the brady bill which had nothign to do with my question

2.) wrong again you quoted me, no avoidance, already posted the name and post number see above. Your false claim gets destroyed again

3.) justifies? you like straw man dont you. You asked for an example of it doing anything. One was given. ANother posted lie of yours totally destoryed

4.) Zero lies, nothign in 216 supports your posted lie.
in 215 YOU said "look how many gun owners support background checks AND registration, you think they object"
I said that i support background checks but I do object to whats going on and not want registration.
You claim faisl and gets destroyed again

5.) repeating this strawman wont make it work. never claimed background checks tell us what people do in the future:lamo Disagree? qoute me sayign that. You cant because i never did and this strawman fails and gets destroyed again.
6.) see#5
7.) yes you made up that strawman and using facts it was destroyed and proved wrong
8.) try again, everything i said is here for all to read and has nothgin to do with your false claims as facts just proved

That was awesome!!!1 what a display of total self ownage you just posted. Maybe actually read what people post next time so you can avoid this mistake and utter failure in the futures.
Your post fails and facts win again

opcorn2: