"You don't need an AR15..."

[AtlantaAdonis]

A picture is worth a thousand words...

View attachment 67207704

Using racist stereotypes to try and scare people into purchasing military-grade weaponry? SMH.

 

[blackjack50]

Using racist stereotypes to try and scare people into purchasing military-grade weaponry? SMH.

I guess you needed to build your credit on the card? Dude. Put it back in the wallet. This has nothing to do with race. What? Are you claiming white people don't riot? That seems pretty racist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

They had the right to every firearm made, thanks for making the point that we should be able to own whatever the police have.

Ah, but the police may take specific training to utilize a specific weapon.

But i actually agree with your overall point.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Using racist stereotypes to try and scare people into purchasing military-grade weaponry? SMH.

Pretty accurate picture though..................eh?

Nothing racist about it.

 

[TheGoverness]

Using racist stereotypes to try and scare people into purchasing military-grade weaponry? SMH.

SMH. Put the race card back in the deck, please.

 

[blackjack50]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ah, but the police may take specific training to utilize a specific weapon.

But i actually agree with your overall point.

It obviously doesn't work. They shoot less criminals with a higher rate of error than civilians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You can't make a federal drinking age of 21 for the same reason, but they found a way, didn't they ?

I don't have to prove anything, in fact, we hardly ever do. What we do do is audit those mechanisms that we do put in place.

drinking isn't constitutionally protected. You should know that

 

[Crimefree]

What is the percentage of people who want all guns confiscated? I don't think it's really that high...

What is the percentage of gun grabbers that will tell you what they want and will be happy with that? I'll tell you zero. Not one of them knows what they want as that desire is born of fear and fear has no appeasement.

They all want no guns and that is it. What they say has nothing to do with it as they have no clue what they want how can they know what they don't want?

Start a thread and see if you can get them to state this much no further. Not one will respond.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ah, but the police may take specific training to utilize a specific weapon.

But i actually agree with your overall point.

Oh!! For goodness sakes. The police have a duty to use their firearms and that is part of the job. Citizens have no such duty and can walk away if they want.

 

[Casper]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Ah, but the police may take specific training to utilize a specific weapon.

But i actually agree with your overall point.

Yes, I know, I used to train military and LEO's.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

There's no compromise of rights. The right can still be exercised. Our founding fathers didn't have a right to an AR15, it didn't get them killed.

Wow.
Did the founding fathers fight for our nations independence using stones and clubs? Or did they use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Did their opponents use slings and crude swords? Or did THEY use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Was the 2nd Amendment written ONLY for 1780? Was the entire Bill of Rights intended ONLY for the protection of freedoms as they would apply in 1780? Do you sacrifice your rights to free speech if you dont use a quill pen, hand placed typeset, or speak from a box in the town square?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

drinking isn't constitutionally protected. You should know that

Either way, that's irrelevant to my point.

The federal government does not force a federal drinking age of 21, and yet that drinking age is ubiquitous within the US.

If any states want to forego having any responsibility for gun merchants and buyers, they can forfeit federal funding.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Wow.
Did the founding fathers fight for our nations independence using stones and clubs? Or did they use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Did their opponents use slings and crude swords? Or did THEY use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Was the 2nd Amendment written ONLY for 1780? Was the entire Bill of Rights intended ONLY for the protection of freedoms as they would apply in 1780? Do you sacrifice your rights to free speech if you dont use a quill pen, hand placed typeset, or speak from a box in the town square?

"Most technologically advanced weapons of the time" would include ordinance, classified fighter jets, armored tanks, electromagnetic pulse grenades, spy satellite technology, and a nuclear arsenal.

Sounds like an awful plan.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Either way, that's irrelevant to my point.

The federal government does not force a federal drinking age of 21, and yet that drinking age is ubiquitous within the US.

If any states want to forego having any responsibility for gun merchants and buyers, they can forfeit federal funding.

on what-the excise tax on firearms

you still haven't told us what solutions you have to a problem you constantly whine about

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

on what-the excise tax on firearms

you still haven't told us what solutions you have to a problem you constantly whine about

...

I said something VERY specific. Perhaps you should read what i actually write instead of responding to your own imagination or whatever.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

...

I said something VERY specific. Perhaps you should read what i actually write instead of responding to your own imagination or whatever.

Lets hear it again. I have seen so much crap from the anti gun posters, I cannot remember seeing anything that made sense from you

 

[legalimmigrant]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

"Most technologically advanced weapons of the time" would include ordinance, classified fighter jets, armored tanks, electromagnetic pulse grenades, spy satellite technology, and a nuclear arsenal.

Sounds like an awful plan.

"Most technologically advanced weapons of the time" ... good for the mission.

Even the feds, with access to all weapons - including B2's - use just what's needed to make an arrest or to kill a terrorist. No tanks, artillery or whatever.

Private individuals should be allowed to use any weapon that at least matches that of the aggressor.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Lets hear it again. I have seen so much crap from the anti gun posters, I cannot remember seeing anything that made sense from you

You've preemptively characterized it as "crap" but i don't feel responsible for any prejudice you might have.

I think that private citizens who exercise public possession of certain types of firearms should be trained.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Wow.
Did the founding fathers fight for our nations independence using stones and clubs? Or did they use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Did their opponents use slings and crude swords? Or did THEY use the most technologically advanced weapons of their time? Was the 2nd Amendment written ONLY for 1780? Was the entire Bill of Rights intended ONLY for the protection of freedoms as they would apply in 1780? Do you sacrifice your rights to free speech if you dont use a quill pen, hand placed typeset, or speak from a box in the town square?

the psychobabble from the anti gun left is hilarious. The second amendment was not written to be stuck in the state of the art at a given time. Just like the first amendment protects faiths that came about say in the 1800s or media that was created with the invention of electronics

 

[VanceMack]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

"Most technologically advanced weapons of the time" would include ordinance, classified fighter jets, armored tanks, electromagnetic pulse grenades, spy satellite technology, and a nuclear arsenal.

Sounds like an awful plan.

You are on a 'stupid' role today. No...the militiamen carried militia weapons. Soldiers dont carry jets. They carry combat related small arms. And your arguments are ridiculous. Truly.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You've preemptively characterized it as "crap" but i don't feel responsible for any prejudice you might have.

I think that private citizens who exercise public possession of certain types of firearms should be trained.

and that violates the constitution and allows anti gun turds in office to claim someone doesn't have enough training. but i agree=I train all the time. I want to win armed confrontations with people who might want to do me harm. SO I train all the time. 20,000 rounds a year worth of training

 

[VanceMack]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

the psychobabble from the anti gun left is hilarious. The second amendment was not written to be stuck in the state of the art at a given time. Just like the first amendment protects faiths that came about say in the 1800s or media that was created with the invention of electronics

Its like some dumbass once said "they carried muskets, not machine guns!" and a whole host of like minded individuals all said "ewwwww yeah...thats a good one...cant wait to use it!"

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

You are on a 'stupid' role today. No...the militiamen carried militia weapons. Soldiers dont carry jets. They carry combat related small arms. And your arguments are ridiculous. Truly.

You're moving the goalposts to a completely different field.

You were arguing that the second amendment gives us access to the most technologically advanced weapons of our time.

Now, you're incoherently bringing up "small arms" that can be "carried" as though you were talking about it the whole time. Fine, if you want to LIE to save face, then tell me, is a grenade launcher a small arm that can be carried ?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

and that violates the constitution and allows anti gun turds in office to claim someone doesn't have enough training. but i agree=I train all the time. I want to win armed confrontations with people who might want to do me harm. SO I train all the time. 20,000 rounds a year worth of training

No, it doesn't.

You cannot buy a new machine gun. You must think that that violates the constitution if you apply that logic. Is that true ?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

the psychobabble from the anti gun left is hilarious. The second amendment was not written to be stuck in the state of the art at a given time. Just like the first amendment protects faiths that came about say in the 1800s or media that was created with the invention of electronics

That wasn't what i was suggesting, don't make such a ridiculous equivocation. Right now, private citizens cannot buy an M16. I'm not demanding that they should only be able to buy muskets.