Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Hypoxia]

This Kim-sucking traitor is still around? Turn yourself in now.

Time to repeal John Paul Stevens, and replace him with yet another of the Scalia minded, right thinking Associate Justices.... and a couple others (Ginsburg and Kennedy), these old farts need to be retired.

Steven IS retired. You don't keep up on news, do you?

Scalia was a scaly cunt who, along with the perjurer Thomas, failed to recuse in a rather prominent case in which close relatives of both were parties. You may recall Bush v Gore? It seems 'corrupt' means "right thinking" to you.

The hounds are closing in. Flee to Kim or turn yourself in.

 

[Hypoxia]

If gun accessories don't make any difference or change the capability of a gun in any way, how stupid are the people who buy them?

"Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
--HL Mencken

Paraphrase: "There's a sucker born every minute."
--PT Barnum

Flashing-light hubcaps don't make cars go faster but they sure look kewl, hey?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Flashing-light hubcaps don't make cars go faster but they sure look kewl, hey?

But nobody NEEDS that kind of horsepower on a public road!!

LOL

 

[phrodeau]

Trigger crank
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/326980/24241283/1390278591317/hypergatad2.jpg?token=qJW214KbcUyHB0smyIAL7xSANWk%3D
Alternate trigger spring
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jBB3a_1ef4/maxresdefault.jpg
Forward grip
https://ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/EMA-Tactical-Vertical-Forward-Grips.jpg
Hey look, they actually change the way guns work.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hey look, they actually change the way guns work.

Of all those the trigger crank is the only one that does.

Even then it's more of a change in how the operator interfaces with the weapon than how the gun functions.

At least you tried though.

 

[phrodeau]

Of all those the trigger crank is the only one that does.

Even then it's more of a change in how the operator interfaces with the weapon than how the gun functions.

At least you tried though.

Oh, how the operator interfaces with the weapon, well well.

So if they're interfaced, which does the killing, the operator or the weapon?

 

[dan_c00000]

You'll be waiting a long time dumb ass, I already told you IDGAF about what Trump wants, it doesn't matter what he wants and I don't obsess over him like you do.

You're sound very much like a triggered pro-child killer.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Quibble all you want, nothing you've said refutes the fact that the Assault Weapons BAN of 1994 BANNED SOME GUNS AND TYPES OF GUNS, and was not unconstitutional = GUN BAN

-Some specific guns by make and model

-Assault rifles "so defined" by the gubmint.

Legal and permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

You still got AR-15's, you say? Clearly the gubmint fucked up in how they defined "Assault Rifle." I assure you the NEXT BAN will not make the same mistakes. The more you quibble and cheat (and tell us how you're doing it, lol) the more you give away where the loopholes are.

No, but it does shit all over you ignorant and erroneous interpretation of it.

That's why ban or no, we will have AR-15's.....but you can keep sticking your head in the dirt to persist in your ignorance if you like.




Nope.....you'll have to get rid of 2A first.



Yea....do it!! LOL



Just as stupid as the people who put stickers, wings and a fart can on their civic....slightly less dumb than the morons who think that makes said 130hp gas sipping Honda civic WAY too powerful for public roads!!



Your the one in here begging for an answer and I'm triggered?

You'll be waiting a long time dumb ass, I already told you IDGAF about what Trump wants, it doesn't matter what he wants and I don't obsess over him like you do.

Now carry on being a triggered snowflake!!

 

[dan_c00000]

Quibble all you want, nothing you've said refutes the fact that the Assault Weapons BAN of 1994 BANNED SOME GUNS AND TYPES OF GUNS, and was not unconstitutional = GUN BAN

Let's not forget the fact that the assault weapon ban worked.

It's also worth noting that bot's argument is basically pro-child killing. He's yet to answer how many dead kids he wants to see, why his hero, the Orange Nazi wants to take away guns, and why he's such a triggered snowflake in regards to guns.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, how the operator interfaces with the weapon, well well.

So if they're interfaced, which does the killing, the operator or the weapon?

Appeal to emotion fallacy.

You're sound very much like a triggered pro-child killer.

More appeal to emotion fallacy.

Legal and permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

Because it didn't ban weapons, it banned features.

Can't ban arms under 2A.

You still got AR-15's, you say? Clearly the gubmint fucked up in how they defined "Assault Rifle."

Yea, "semi automatic rifle" is the term you're looking for, I keep telling you that but you're too stupid to understand.

"assault weapons" are just semi automatic rifles with some scary to the ignorant looking accessories.

And you are going to need to repeal 2A in order to actually get rid of them.

I assure you the NEXT BAN will not make the same mistakes. The more you quibble and cheat (and tell us how you're doing it, lol) the more you give away where the loopholes are.

LOL yea it will because you're not taking 2A out first.

So you'll be limited to banning accessories.

Let's not forget the fact that the assault weapon ban worked.

Coincidental old data, if assault weapons were really the problem most shootings wouldn't be done with pistols so often.

Also if it worked then how come the problem in CA?

Oh that's right because they can still get semi-automatic rifles here.

It's also worth noting that bot's argument is basically pro-child killing.

No, it's not at all. You're just dishonest, a liar like usual.

He's yet to answer how many dead kids he wants to see, why his hero, the Orange Nazi wants to take away guns, and why he's such a triggered snowflake in regards to guns.

Ascription, blatant lies and appeal to emotion fallacy again and possible illiteracy.....trying a little hard??

Jesus Christ you're pathetic.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yes you can yes they did.

Can't ban arms under 2A.


D

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes you can yes they did.

Then tell me how these *NOT ASSAULT WEAPON* and *NOT AR15's* .....AR-15's are 100% assault weapons ban legal.....

http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453
https://i2.wp.com/lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/riflesfull.jpg
http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG


Urrrrrrrrr.....starting understand it's just a feature/accesorries ban, not an actual weapons ban?

No you can't, that's why the "assault weapons" ban is really just an impotent accessories ban. Former Justice Stevens was right, if you really want to go for prohibition you're going to have to repeal 2A.

Otherwise you're just pissing into the legal wind sister.

And no they didn't, that's why all those AR15's are not assault weapons....you're living in a fantasy world.

Feel the stupidity of what you support sinking in yet??

 

[phrodeau]

Did you cum when you found those pictures?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Did you cum when you found those pictures?

No.

Projection much?

 

[phrodeau]

No.

Projection much?

Oh yeah, they got me all horny.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

If the gubmint defines a particular "gun" as having x, y, and z features, they are banning a gun.

And you keep neglecting the GUNS by name and number specifically BANNED.

You can ban guns under the 2nd Amendment.

If the guns you are picturing here don't qualify for the gubmint definition, they don't qualify. That does not change the fact that they are still banning guns.

How to broaden the scope of the gubmint definition is a different question. Broaden the scope of the definition and more guns will fall under the ban.

Still a gun ban. No need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Then tell me how these *NOT ASSAULT WEAPON* and *NOT AR15's* .....AR-15's are 100% assault weapons ban legal.....

http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453
https://i2.wp.com/lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/riflesfull.jpg
http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG


Urrrrrrrrr.....starting understand it's just a feature/accesorries ban, not an actual weapons ban?

No you can't, that's why the "assault weapons" ban is really just an impotent accessories ban. Former Justice Stevens was right, if you really want to go for prohibition you're going to have to repeal 2A.

Otherwise you're just pissing into the legal wind sister.

And no they didn't, that's why all those AR15's are not assault weapons....you're living in a fantasy world.

Feel the stupidity of what you support sinking in yet??

 

[My I]

So... I see everyone has been arguing the 2nd amendment again. Fine let me put this one to rest.

Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by an accredited expert

In the video Eugene Volokh talks about the D.C. vs Heller decision. That SUPREME COURT decision UPHELD the 2nd amendment as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Furthermore, it specifies that ANY firearm in COMMON LAWFUL USE is protected under the 2nd Amendment. Common lawful use includes home and personal protection, hunting, target shooting and competition. With one million AR15s sold each year and being commonly used for ALL of those reasons, that more than qualifies as "common use".

So if you are MORE of an expert than Eugene Volokh, or ANY of the supreme court justices, just show us YOUR credentials. Otherwise you are no expert and have no credibility.

EDIT: Eugene Volokh's credentials

 

[My I]

Then tell me how these *NOT ASSAULT WEAPON* and *NOT AR15's* .....AR-15's are 100% assault weapons ban legal.....

http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453
https://i2.wp.com/lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/riflesfull.jpg
http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG


Urrrrrrrrr.....starting understand it's just a feature/accesorries ban, not an actual weapons ban?

Maybe I can help clear it up for everyone. Just tell me which of these ARE assault rifles:

https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/36781/967998470/wm_1683068.jpg

https://www.springfield-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SA9802_1200x3601.png

https://www.springfield-armory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MP9826C65_Feature.png

https://cowboygunsandgear.com.au/image/cache/catalog/product/464%20synth-800x800.png

 

[BotanyBoy]

double post

 

[BotanyBoy]

If the gubmint defines a particular "gun" as having x, y, and z features, they are banning a gun.

You're even admitting it right there!!

It's the features they ban...not the gun.

And you keep neglecting the GUNS by name and number specifically BANNED.

Then they call it NAR-27 Kiddy Blaster Express!!! Or whatever...doesn't really matter.
http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453

Point is with it's new "name" it's totally not an AR-15 anymore...even though it's the exact same thing as an AR-15

If you don't ban semi-automatic actions, then it will take the gun industry exactly 15 seconds to skirt your bullshit with their own bullshit.

Are you starting to understand yet herp a derp??

You can ban guns under the 2nd Amendment.

No...you can't, you can only regulate and there are specific ways you can and can't do that too because 2A.

That's why there are no banned guns...just banned accessories.

If the guns you are picturing here don't qualify for the gubmint definition, they don't qualify. That does not change the fact that they are still banning guns.

But they are the same guns you allege were banned!

Still semi-automatic .223cal/5.56mm NATO, air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed rifles. Exact same action as an "AR-15" ....fires just as many of the same bullets just as fast.

Oh...and none of them are retroactive, the millions of AR's already out there? Still legal and grandfathered in because 2A.

Are you starting to understand how dumb the accessories "ban" is?

Wanting to ban all semi-auto weaponry, especially hand guns is a logical argument. But really only if there is a full on search and seizure of the whole country.

Banning "assault" weapons.....aka the rifle accessories ban....is an ignorant morons argument.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Have you read the Assault Weapons Ban? They provide a definition of the CLASS OF WEAPONS ("ARMS") they are prohibiting the manufacture and sale of (i.e. BANNING).

The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons" as defined by the Act. "Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun"

Doesn't say anything about an AR-15.

Even if they are clueless about loopholes (not saying that's true, but just for the moment), it makes no difference, because they are defining a class of weapon to ban, and it was not ruled as violating the 2nd Amendment = a gun ban. A weapons ban.

If the gubmint decided to define assault weapons as being anything "green and fuzzy", it doesn't matter. They provided a definition and a class and banned it = a BAN on some GUNS.

You can quibble all you want about how their definition doesn't cover x,y,z, but that is beside the point. They banned SOME guns. Not unconstitutional.

You're even admitting it right there!!

It's the features they ban...not the gun.




Then they call it NAR-27 Kiddy Blaster Express!!! Or whatever...doesn't really matter.
http://www.mynameisfoxtrot.com/storage/FRS15%20riflestock01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1355373649453

Point is with it's new "name" it's totally not an AR-15 anymore...even though it's the exact same thing as an AR-15

If you don't ban semi-automatic actions, then it will take the gun industry exactly 15 seconds to skirt your bullshit with their own bullshit.

Are you starting to understand yet herp a derp??



No...you can't, you can only regulate and there are specific ways you can and can't do that too because 2A.

That's why there are no banned guns...just banned accessories.



But they are the same guns you allege were banned!

Still semi-automatic .223cal/5.56mm NATO, air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed rifles. Exact same action as an "AR-15" ....fires just as many of the same bullets just as fast.

Oh...and none of them are retroactive, the millions of AR's already out there? Still legal and grandfathered in because 2A.

Are you starting to understand how dumb the accessories "ban" is?

Wanting to ban all semi-auto weaponry, especially hand guns is a logical argument. But really only if there is a full on search and seizure of the whole country.

Banning "assault" weapons.....aka the rifle accessories ban....is an ignorant morons argument.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

A point about gun nuts.

They whine and complain about needing guns to 'defend' themselves for their own precious protection, just in case some day in the future, a black man in a hoodie breaks into their sacred home.

Meanwhile, there are teens and first graders who ARE getting shot and murdered right now, in the present, and they want to do nothing.

MY paranoia about what could possibly happen to ME is more precious than the reality of what IS happening to THOSE people.

That is why it is perfectly appropriate to call them child-killers and selfish assholes, and to wish a pox upon their houses, ie. that their own precious hides get caught up in a shooting spree.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They provide a definition of the CLASS OF WEAPONS ("ARMS") they are prohibiting the manufacture and sale of (i.e. BANNING).

Based upon features (accessories) not by action or actual class of weapons (single action, Semi-Auto, select fire, full auto) because you can't do that.

. They banned SOME guns. Not unconstitutional.

No they banned some features.

Leaving all the semi-auto NOT *assault* rifles (AR15's without the accessories) legal.

Because banning guns is unconstitutional, if you want to have the effect you're looking for then you'll have to ban all semi-autos.

Best of luck with that!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Meanwhile, there are teens and first graders who ARE getting shot and murdered right now, in the present, and they want to do nothing.

Wong, they do want to do something, just not ban guns.

That is why it is perfectly appropriate to call them child-killers and selfish assholes, and to wish a pox upon their houses, ie. that their own precious hides get caught up in a shooting spree.

No, that's just you being an over emotional jerk.

 

[My I]

A point about gun nuts.

They whine and complain about needing guns to 'defend' themselves for their own precious protection, just in case some day in the future, a black man in a hoodie breaks into their sacred home.

Meanwhile, there are teens and first graders who ARE getting shot and murdered right now, in the present, and they want to do nothing.

MY paranoia about what could possibly happen to ME is more precious than the reality of what IS happening to THOSE people.

That is why it is perfectly appropriate to call them child-killers and selfish assholes, and to wish a pox upon their houses, ie. that their own precious hides get caught up in a shooting spree.

First of all what is a "Gun Nut"? Is that like a pistachio? Or more like a pecan?

Second, gun OWNERS do not whine and cry. That's the Libs you're thinking of where everything is based on "visceral emotional response" instead of anything resembling rational or reasonable.

The last part just shows how delusional and unstable you are. Seek help for the good of society.

Oh,... The whole child killers thing was worn out it the 70 and 80s. I know, before you were born but still it went out of fashion with your grandparents because it was only making them look stupid. Do you really want to make the same mistake?