Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[akatrex]

What's the third word of the Second Amendment, hm?

What does the Second Sentence say?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Well, in your case if the hammer and sickle fits then accept it and wear it.

Show me where I have ever posted anything that would label me that, TrailerTrash.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think this the right on target. Most anti-gun propagandists don't really know anything about the subject they're so vehemently against.

Guns are simple machines; you put the bullets in, aim, and pull the trigger. The number of bullets capable of being loaded into the gun is irrelevant since one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused. Whether a gun is semi-auto or a revolver is irrelevant because one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused.

Yet these are the things the anti-gun propagandists focus on. The question is why?

The answer is that they, and their adoring fans are clueless. They claim that "assault weapons" are dangerous. The truth is, every gun is dangerous so an "assault weapon" isn't any more dangerous than usual. They claim that "assault weapons" can shoot more bullets quicker, but any semi-automatic rifle can shoot just as quickly. They claim that "assault weapons" are high powered, yet most shoot a .22 caliber bullet.

The facts aren't in support of their arguments but the anti-gun propagandists make those arguments anyway because they, and their sycophants, are clueless about the truth.

Timmy, maybe you could man-splain to your rationalizations to the father of the five year old who got his fucking face blown off by one of your semiautomatic gun companions last week.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I haven't seen a post anywhere about George Alvarez that ran into 18 people and killed 8 migrants, some Venezuelans, waiting in front of migrant shelter. He was reported to be cursing them and calling them invaders. Apparently mass killings only count if you use a gun.

I'm sure he's every bit the adherent of White Victimhood as the Allen Texas shooter was, and as you currently are. You and your White Supremacist "elk" are a cancer on society.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Show me where I have ever posted anything that would label me that, TrailerTrash.

Well it is as defensible on my part as all the nonsense you have spewed about me. I thought I would just serve you up some of your own Bull Shit. dosviDAnyia Tovarich!

 

[TrailerHitch]

I'm sure he's every bit the adherent of White Victimhood as the Allen Texas shooter was, and as you currently are. You and your White Supremacist "elk" are a cancer on society.

More lies about me from the angry guy with little man syndrome. Please point on your little penis where my post hurt you.

By the way the driver's name was Alvarez...Draw your own conclusions.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I think this the right on target. Most anti-gun propagandists don't really know anything about the subject they're so vehemently against.

Guns are simple machines; you put the bullets in, aim, and pull the trigger. The number of bullets capable of being loaded into the gun is irrelevant since one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused. Whether a gun is semi-auto or a revolver is irrelevant because one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused.

Yet these are the things the anti-gun propagandists focus on. The question is why?

The answer is that they, and their adoring fans are clueless. They claim that "assault weapons" are dangerous. The truth is, every gun is dangerous so an "assault weapon" isn't any more dangerous than usual. They claim that "assault weapons" can shoot more bullets quicker, but any semi-automatic rifle can shoot just as quickly. They claim that "assault weapons" are high powered, yet most shoot a .22 caliber bullet.

The facts aren't in support of their arguments but the anti-gun propagandists make those arguments anyway because they, and their sycophants, are clueless about the truth.

You are correct. We should ban private ownership of all firearms.

 

[TrailerHitch]

You are correct. We should ban private ownership of all firearms.

Actually I support the ban of all electronic communication devices in the hands of private citizens. They are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution, therefore they are not protected ands must be eliminated.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Well it is as defensible on my part

To lie? No one doubts that, liar.

all the nonsense you have spewed about me

Poor baby. Show me

I thought

Again, lies.

dosviDAnyia Tovarich

Spell it correctly, dumbdumb.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Actually I support the ban of all electronic communication devices in the hands of private citizens. They are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution, therefore they are not protected ands must be eliminated.

Curious position. Why do you want to ban cell phones? What will that accomplish?

 

[TrailerHitch]

To lie? No one doubts that, liar.

Poor baby. Show me

Again, lies.

Spell it correctly, dumbdumb.

You have been involved in the smear campaign. Oh my God I had the last i in the wrong place!! Sorry I'm not as familiar with Russian as you are. dosvidaniya Tovarich!

 

[TrailerHitch]

Curious position. Why do you want to ban cell phones? What will that accomplish?

Many anti-gunners use the argument that today's firearms were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected like a single shot flintlock would be. So my response is electronic communication devices were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected under the Freedom of Speech elements. And its not only cell phones its all phones, telegraph, computers, television, radio, and everything else. Because if a way to eliminate today's guns is to say the framers couldn't envision them, then we must apply that standard all along the Constitution and Amendments to be fair and just.

 

[phrodeau]

The Constitution doesn’t mention guns, either.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You have been involved in the smear campaign. Oh my God I had the last i in the wrong place!! Sorry I'm not as familiar with Russian as you are. dosvidaniya Tovarich!

What smear campaign? Lol. A small group of people calling a dumbass a dumbass isn't a smear campaign, snowflake. And you don't have to be familiar with Russian to know that you're not very bright.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Many anti-gunners use the argument that today's firearms were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected like a single shot flintlock would be. So my response is electronic communication devices were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected under the Freedom of Speech elements. And its not only cell phones its all phones, telegraph, computers, television, radio, and everything else. Because if a way to eliminate today's guns is to say the framers couldn't envision them, then we must apply that standard all along the Constitution and Amendments to be fair and just.

I want to ban private ownership of guns because of the carnage they cause. If cell phones caused the death of 50,000 Americans a year, you would have a point, but cell phone usage is largely innocuous.

I want to reduce car use in the United States for the same reason. Cars are more useful than guns, but they still kill far too many people. My desire is purely selfish. I don't want to be shot or run down when I'm going about my daily business. And I don't want my kids to be shot or run down either.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Many anti-gunners use the argument that today's firearms were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected like a single shot flintlock would be. So my response is electronic communication devices were unknown to the framers of the Constitution so they are not protected under the Freedom of Speech elements. And its not only cell phones its all phones, telegraph, computers, television, radio, and everything else. Because if a way to eliminate today's guns is to say the framers couldn't envision them, then we must apply that standard all along the Constitution and Amendments to be fair and just.

Though to be fair the framers of the Constitution knew they could not predict what kinds of future weapons would be invented. Hence why they very intentionally stated "Right to bear arms" and didn't specify any specific type of weaponry. Same reason their statement for Freedom of Speech isn't directed at a specific language.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I want to ban private ownership of guns because of the carnage they cause.

If a woman wants to carry a pistol to protect herself from rapists or physical assault, don't you think she should have that right?

 

[ShandyLeer]

If a woman wants to carry a pistol to protect herself from rapists or physical assault, don't you think she should have that right?

Not the worst idea. Provided she can pass a comprehensive background check, and can show her proficiency with the weapon. Gun ownership ought to be a challenge, a right you earn, not just demand.

Obviously it shouldn’t be an assault weapon, that’s just fucking stupid.

Not that being stupid is much impediment for the whack jobs who are only too happy for a 16 year mental case to arm himself like Rambo down at the supermarket.

 

[phrodeau]

If a woman wants to carry a pistol to protect herself from rapists or physical assault, don't you think she should have that right?

It’s easy for rapists to get guns.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It’s easy for rapists to get guns.

All the more reason for a woman to have the right to defend herself with equal force. If she has a gun and the appropriate training and safety to use it for self defense, then her potential attacker, despite likely being bigger and stronger, has no advantage over her.

 

[ShandyLeer]

All the more reason for a woman to have the right to defend herself with equal force. If she has a gun and the appropriate training and safety to use it for self defense, then her potential attacker, despite likely being bigger and stronger, has no advantage over her.

“…..has no advantage over her”.

Apart from him knowing he’s going to attack her, and her entirely unaware with her gun in her handbag ?

 

[TastySuckToy]

“…..has no advantage over her”.

Apart from him knowing he’s going to attack her, and her entirely unaware with her gun in her handbag ?

So any attempt for a woman to defend herself is pointless, because ambush and surprise is a thing?

 

[ShandyLeer]

So any attempt for a woman to defend herself is pointless, because ambush and surprise is a thing?

Mate, your argument was that a woman - thanks to the gun she’s armed with - neutralises all the advantages a potential male attacker holds.

It‘s fucking bullshit, just own it and don’t deflect.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Mate, your argument was that a woman - thanks to the gun she’s armed with - neutralises all the advantages a potential male attacker holds.

It‘s fucking bullshit, just own it and don’t deflect.

I suggest you reread my post. I was talking specifically about advantages afforded by a gun, strength and size.

By your logic, a potential rapists/killer can just surprise run her over with a vehicle. Therefore, any defensive measures that cannot combat that specific scenario is totally useless.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The Constitution doesn’t mention guns, either.

Note to this person unable to read...I said Constitution AND Amendments. Please try to keep up.