They seem to be getting very popular in this country, both for sport and for committing mass murders. Why should I buy one?
It is part of the rite of passage for men that think that masculinity is defined by muzzle velocity and ammo capacity. What else can you do with them except be Rambo on the shooting range?
What a joke ! It's funny how extremists are jumping onto the "assault weapon " bandwagon once again ! You guys are a joke you know , you realize that don't you ? So what is this post about , Grabbing a little bit of attention on the backs of the sensation of a terrorist act while real victims lie in the morgue ? I'll ask a question of the O.P. Cane you spell ? L.A.M.E.
I am just answering a question, horsey, let's not have a baby about it now....
You are funny, though
Hey there bud, I think Credence2 is right, (at least in the neighborhood of being right). I think owning an AR-15 is a macho thing.
But wait, before you go off you should understand that I don't have a problem with legal AR-15 ownership. I don't support an assault weapon ban. And I think any call for banning them is pandering.
But... why else own one if not for macho reasons, (excepting target shooting/sporting categories)? There are a lot of better hunting choices. A .223 is not a very powerful weapon, (relatively speaking). A 30-30 is a much more powerful gun, and more historically approved.
For purposes of protection I think a handgun or shotgun would be much more effective. So short of macho visions of Rambo spraying a charging hord of enemies, or shooting in a target shooting environment, I don't see a credible defense to owning one. Even if I do agree with the right to own one.
What's next, outlawing fast cars because we have speed limits, or restricting extra large sizes of things because no one needs more than a large?
Why not admit it is a macho thing? That would be much more sound than a defense against a run-away government rational.
If only there was an algorithm test for that.
Has Anyone accused you of being a right wing exremist gun fanatic controlling the forum? But I believe you are right about handguns and shotguns being more effective, especially when used in the thousands of gun related deaths each year, that arent sensationalized but also in the deaths that are. Whether it is common murder or mass murders, I believe we would find pistols are the common denominator rather than semi auto rifles. Next to a ruger semi auto pistol would be a Glock pistol,, and then a pump 12 guage and then maybe a semi auto rifle in last place. So for me it is very odd .
Interestingly, there are more murders committed with hands and feet than with long guns of all types. So we talk about banning just one category of long guns rather than look at the real reasons people kill. Makes sense, doesn't it?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c … s/table-20
What country in their right mind would attack America for all their public guns.
We know the biggest death threat by firmarm is not street criminal and deer.
We know the fear of tyranny from their own Government is the greatest threat to American. How do public guns sack up to tanks, flamethrower, drones, nuclear bomb air crafts and so on?
Castle , Your blindness apparently doesn't permit you the insight to know that we are armed in the.US to prevent tyranny "which can come from all governments " ,our government or another , from happening again to Americans . It is in each states constitution in one form or another , Here in Vermont , it is actually worded as to not allow the will of the PEOPLE who own guns ,to be infringed !
Small arms will beat any army in the world , ask Viet Nam , Iraq , Korea !
And guns will once again beat the tyrannical government here or elsewhere !
Make no mistake , real Americans will not now or ever give up their guns .
The Chinese say the snake in the grass is more dangerous than the firery dragon in the sky.
When the collaspe begins most of 900,00/ police force will go home to protect their own families. Their still be lots of police psychopaths to continue. The US military will have their hands really full of fighting a world war and Marshal law at the same time.
That is when the Zionist Nazis excape to South America because who wants to live in a bomb shelter. They will bleed America for everything they can get, turn it into assets or gold. Then they will salvage what they can get. After the reset from the war, just like the Zionist bankers did in world war 1 and 2. Except this time the world will finally grow up from this worldwide abuse. Then let them rot in jail
A gun gives one at least the chance to defend oneself - regardless of teh weapon one is facing.
If you look at the bottom of this thread of my scorecard of firearms.You will see the chances of shooting yourself and the people you know rather than shooting the criminal you are trying to protect yourself from..
I don't like the weather in Canada yet I got more reasons to stay.
Except when the dollar collapses and there is a gun for every person in the US. Then Zombies Apocalypse start, I'll be living in Bolivia even if my family rather stay and join in the Purge.
Keep the cheese or guns, I want out of the mouse trap. It might be unAmerica or unCanadian yet it is the most important and sane thing to do.
No, it isn't. For the central point is the question of whether taking guns away from people, whether the dreaded "assault rifle" or any other, will save lives. Something that few people will discuss, preferring to talk about gun deaths instead of total murder rates, but something that is integral to the question. Something that IS the question, in fact.
I don't recall being accused of being a "...right wing exremist gun fanatic controlling the forum." Hopefully I am not viewed as an extremist anything.
I am a bit confused by the rest of your post relative to how it pertains to my thought that a majority of AR-15 gun ownership is related to machismo.
It appears that party affiliation or party loyalty trumps actual position. A democrat that does not support a ban - has an opinion. A conservative that supports total and complete disarmament - equals right wing extremist gun fanatic nutjob in some circles. The rest was my commentary on how pistols are the overwhelming culprit compared to rifles, including mass death, outside of the weapons used by governments and leaders of governments of course.
Just jumping in with a side comment.
Weapons like the AR-15 seem to be a weapon of choice in mass shootings. Mass shootings have different causes than other types of gun deaths. Mass shootings are also becoming associated with Islamic terrorism and have already been associated with other types of terrorism. Because mass shootings are so drastically different from other types of gun deaths--i.e., what motivates the shooter, type of firearms chosen, and the resulting number of deaths and injuries per attack--the preventative measures are going to be completely different.
Can we acknowledge these facts and stop bringing other types of gun violence into the conversation about AR-15s and other types of rapid fire killing machines?
Ok, I guess. I have no party loyalty, and can be found arguing with both Left and Right-Wingers. So I suppose I am still a little confused because my shotgun and pistol reference was about what I see as most effective for protection - not as most likely weapon used in crimes. Oh well, onward we march...
I agree with what your saying , The thing is , truth yes TRUTH has been so distorted by the right hating liberal anti's that even facts , truth , and statistics are simply a tool for the left to permanently alter !
The best thing you and I can do is seek the ONE truth and throw it into every screaming liberal face !
They go away too- have you seen many of them arguing against Ahorseback lately ?
Except by personal and venomous hatred ?
I believe that semi auto pistols are the weapon that is used in the most civilian vs civilian murder. 10- 1 compared to rifles. Mass or otherwise. I am trying to understand the bogus narrative being put out there. The worst school massacre was fire, bomb or firebomb, so let's ban hatchets? Why the false info, do you think if it is true, that its pistols over rifles? I respect your opinions and am sincere.
I see the ban on rifles as more convenient than anything else. Rifles such as the AR-15 are easy to vilify as they [are scary looking (if not any more dangerous than many other rifles) and it is thus easy to raise fears in an ignorant population. They are an easy target for the unscrupulous simply because of their appearance.
Yes, yes, we're all a bunch of overeducated pu$s!es cowering in our homes afraid of the big macho conservative with all the guns.
Between your post of raising fears and GAs post of pandering with agenda, I find that stuff very concerning. Thanks
My belief is that the cries to ban "assault" weapons are one of two things; pandering by folks with an agenda, or honest responses of folks that only see the event and not the larger picture.
I won't get bogged down in a links battle of facts, (although the anti-gun crowd can't win that one), or a supposedly common sense or passion-fueled argument that if you remove the tool the act won't happen.
You are right that handguns are the most used weapon in gun deaths, but it is the mass killings, (a very small percentage of gun deaths), that get the publicity and the emotional response of caring folks horrified by the carnage. 49 deaths at once in Orlando get national attention, but 143 gun-related deaths in Chicago over the same weekend don't even hit the radar.
The reality is that the only sure-fire cure to mass killings by gun is to ban guns. We already have sufficient gun control laws. Anyone asking for more must consider that the only way to achieve their level of safety is a complete ban on guns. And I don't think even that would be enough. As is often pointed out, those that want to kill will just find another way.
Thanks GA. Pandering with agenda, in response to or surrounding a tragedy, yikes. A point though is being lost though is that I believe semi auto pistols are the most used and most deadly in mass shootings too... although stats are difficult. Sad subject.
"Anyone asking for more must consider that the only way to achieve their [perceived] level of safety is a complete ban on guns."
"Perceived" is added because it is just that. Consider that more murders are committed with hands and feet than with all long guns combined and then that we have so many calls to ban a subset of long guns and a certain...irrationality...in the idea of safety through banning guns becomes apparent. Whether "assault guns", "military style guns", handguns, automatic weapons or all guns it is a false perception and anyone that takes the time to understand and work through the numbers knows this. It is why the anti crowd never talks about reducing homicides, just gun homicides; because it gives a false perception of safety that does not exist in our violent society.
Credence, there are so many possibilities. My kids can take it to show and tell. I can shoot the band of squirrels that keep pooping on my deck. I can sit with it on my front porch in my rocking chair and scare the neighborhood kids because it's my right to have one.
You could show up with it strapped to your back at public events, like a community parade, to help people feel safe. Odd thing is, when a guy did that in Missouri, people started calling 911. Apparently, they didn't feel safe, even though he said he was there to protect them. People are so weird.
Gosh, hunting squirrels, I would be worried about stray bullets with unplanned trajectories. It just seems all like a waste of time and energy for me, anyway.
NO, it is because we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and the 2nd Amendment recognizes the natural right to keep and bear arms.
Only the NRA thinks that the 2nd Amendment is an unlimited right that exceeds all other rights -- including the right to life.
I haven't met a gun extremist yet who dares to quote the full amendment, only their favorite part of it.
For those who haven't actually read it before, here is the full text:
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A militia is made up of armed citizens. Regulated in 1780s is not the absurd destruction of liberty exemplified by the grotesque federal regulatory state.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you insinuating that "the people" actually reads "militia members", or "military" or "police" - anything other than the people? There were no women, for instance, in the militia, but "the people" most definitely includes women - it would seem that the writers of that sentence meant what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and not some subset of the people.
The people did constitute a well regulated militia at the time of the Revolution. And still do. We are still charged with protecting ourselves,our property and each other.
The British last understood that in WWII with a home guard made up of civilians and well armed - some of those arms sent by NRA MEMBERS.
As for all the ignorance about the NRAs position on fire arms regulation, it would behoove critics to read more and bloviate less
ALL the people were in the militia? Keeping in mind that self protection does not make one a member of a militia, what about women? Or the infirm or very elderly? None of those were limited in their rights, but did not belong to any militia.
Boys, old men and women did, indeed, constitute the American idea of militia. Frontier life required militia be constituted of every member capable of lifting a weapon.
Except that by that time there was a standing army rather than a militia. And I really don't think that either women or old men served in that army, although boys (by our standards if not theirs) did.
They all fought as necessary, but there was never a "well regulated" militia containing large numbers of women, the infirm or elderly.
I am curious. What sport requires the use of an assault rifle?
Snipe and jackalopes. And, of course the bandersnatch.
Ah, but some will say assault rifles are needed for protection against our own government, yet I've only seen them used by sad and tortured souls to kill their imagined enemies. Could it be that the NRA and its supporters, the ones who oppose regulating assault weapons, are just like that?
No. The NRA are not just like that. I understand the position of the NRA. I sympathize, to some extent. I simply disagree on assault rifles. I think the potential harm involved outweighs the arguments in defense of us being allowed to own them. But, I know a lot of people who feel that giving even an inch on an issue such as this is opening a door that can never be closed again and will be shoved wider and wider open by our government. I agree with them on that point but I still think that the dangers of allowing these weapons onto the street outweigh our fears of an over reaching government down the road.
You might try going to a gun club where you would find even families enjoying the sport of target practice and quality time . Of course that would not fit into a liberal schedule . There is no violence , hatred or controversy there to sensationalize upon !
Because of this thread I did some online research on Liberal Gun Clubs and was pleased to find out about several where men and women go to enjoy shooting at ranges. There are some very active Facebook groups also keeping up on the fight, with great discussions going on, they sound like anyone else fighting for their 2nd Amendment rights. They are just as active for gun rights, but for some reason they don't get much publicity (we know why). I agree, that is good advice.
Been in a gun club for target practice. Didn't see any rapid fire killing machines, though.
That's exactly it P.P. There are none on the gun range . Except those that you possibly used ? A semi- auto handgun or long gun , Those that have been around for a century , where were the mass killings then ? 1920 , 1930 ,40 , 50 , 60 , why all of a sudden are semi- auto's killing machines , destroying us ! Liberals have just simply got t mature on a little more , beyond P.C. ,beyond finger pointing , beyond the excuses that everyone is clamoring to make right now from the President Obama on down to the local FBI agent ........................................
CAN'T YOU SEE , IT'S ALL HIS FAULT !
But what do we change that will bring meaningful results ? It didn't work for the Clinton Gun Ban in 1995 ?And it won't work now , You have yourself ,more than once , pointed out the definition of insanity ! Does that only work in a hospital or laboratory ? Don't we ALL understand that politics changes absolutely Nothing ?
Disney Land Fl. even notified the FBI in April 2016 - this year that they felt that the killer and his wife were "casing Disneyworld " , their own security people did that ! What did the FBI do in April ................Nothing but sight the Disney security people of racism and bigotry against Muslims! This all after the killer had been on their watch list and investigated for two full years ! Find another excuse though people , one more excuse to restrict anyone else's liberties .......except your own !
Being on a 'watchlist' and committing a crime are two different things, Clarance Darrow.
Do we arrest people now, just because you do not like them or their ideas?
No - But what we don't do is unhinge the once strong authority of the FBI from the top down !
This is entirely the Obama administrations fault . His support of culturally divisive socialist agenda wars is the fault of the hand tying of authority of our investigative agencies . All of them !
How is the FBI using proper procedure making the difference between being on a 'watchlist' vs being subject to arrest or detainment, indications of a Socialist State, with Obama as some form of dictator?
This is the standard broken record cry from the political right.
Only if you have mental problems or were indoctrinated to be a hateful intolerant person. If you can't afford a gun but meet the mental requirements, just buy the materials to make a bomb on Amazon.
Which One of these Rifles is an Assault Weapon?
Identify which of these rifles is an assault weapon?
Has to be the second one, right, because it has a pistol grip stock and a “banana clip?”
In fact, both pictures are of the very the same rifle, taken about 10 minutes apart. It’s a Ruger 10/22 Carbine that I bought about 10 years ago. For the second picture I added a Butler Creek folding stock .22, and a 25 round magazine in place of the 10 round mag the 10/22 normally comes with. It shoots the common-as-dirt .22 Long Rifle cartridge.
It doesn't matter, the OP's question is naive. Restricting a particular weapon only deters murders committed with that particular weapon. E.g. anti-gun folks are only narrowly focused on reducing shootings.
If you identify, sequester and neutralize all the nut jobs, you reduce killings.
Is there something wrong with doing both? We regulate cars to reduce car deaths. We require testing and licensing of drivers, as well as a minimum age. We require minimum visual standards (an eye test). We require minimum safety regulations for car manufacturers. We criminalize or ticket driving under the influence, driving without a license, driving without insurance, driving without a seat belt, and carrying children without a car seat. We require the vehicle to be registered ever few years and inspected for safety. We require transfer of title when the vehicle is sold. I could go on. You get the idea. All those regulations did not result in cars being banned. It simply resulted in greater safety and fewer deaths.
Why is so wrong with doing that with guns?
It's not enough, and the excessive focus on guns takes focus away from the crazy people behind these actions,which is the root cause of the problem, not the weapons.
I have two neighbors, "Frank" and "Maria." I don't care if Frank buys 30 high powered rifles and a 20 lb bag of fertilzer and stores them in a locked cabinet in his basement because he's not crazy. I do care very much if my neighbor Maria buys an ax because she is batshit. Locking Maria in a padded room and throwing away the key will make society safer than restricting things Frank can buy.
Well damn! Excellent illustration of a point.
:. But would that stop some left wing extremists types like the weather underground who want to blow up government buildings and things? Some crazy people are allowed to get away with that sorta stuff.
Well, if I had a choice between Maria being armed with an axe or a rapid fire killing machine, I would choose the axe.
It's naive and simplistic to think that the problem can be solved only one way. Most complex problems require complex solutions.
Your example also is naive. Can you predict Frank's future behavior and mental stability with 100% certainty? Of course not.
The gun helps though doesn't it. I mean, pointing your fingers and shouting "BANG!" probably won't do the same kind of damage as using an actual gun.
It can't be a surprise that people are trying to prevent harm by focusing on an object which, unlike most other objects, is specifically designed and manufactured for the purpose of causing harm to living things.
OH, perhaps sports shooting , or gun collectors , yet I wouldn't understand how anti-s .......and probably anti- everythinger's.... to understand that . I mean just how do you look at facts or statistics ,outside of what mainstream media contortionist's tell you anyway . Do statistics matter at all to you guys ?
It is the basic mis- information anti- gunners bring to the table that make me wonder at times .......Maybe I should add a AR -15 to my collection just because . I mean where is the phobia born from in you guys ?
I know ,Lets trade a gun fact , one for one - you know you will lose!
Assault rifles and assault style rifles are not designed to be collected or used for sport. They are designed specifically to enable the user to cause harm to living things in the most efficient way possible. That is what they were invented for. If someone uses an AR-15 to harm another person, they are using it for the purpose it was designed. It can't be a surprise that people would focus on reducing the availability of such objects, especially for those experiencing certain types of mental ill-health.
Or those incorrectly put on the no fly list, right? Or those convicted of fraud or DUI. Or those merely suspected of having some far off terrorist connection (would you like to give up your car because your 5th cousin twice removed visited Iraq 20 years ago?).
I'm uncomfortable about expanding the authority of the 'no fly list' or 'terrorist watch list', unless it could be demonstrated that such a process has clear judicial oversight. I recognize and share the strong desire to reduce gun violence, but restricting people's civil liberties without due process is very problematic. I don't think it's an insurmountable problem though. I just think some more work needs to be done to assure people there would processes in place to prevent abuses of authority, and recourse in the event of mistaken identity, which I think are both valid concerns.
I don't think convictions for fraud or DUI indicates an increased likelihood of committing violence, so I'm not sure why that would be considered.
First, fraud and DUI - many will ban anyone with a felony conviction (already done most places) from obtaining a gun regardless of indication of possible violence. It's apparently simpler than a court proceeding to determine if the individual is violence prone and hang the rights of the individual.
I like to hear the part about judicial oversight, but will go on record as saying that until a jury of peers has convicted that there is insufficient reason to remove ANY right, let alone one constitutionally guaranteed to all. That's how our justice is supposed to work, anyway, with but very limited exceptions such as jail for a short time prior to a trial.
Given how blindly founded your response is , I am rather glad that at least the senate , congress and the supreme courts see it far different than you do ! I for one collect guns , I hardly shoot some of them although I have shot all of mine . I am a collector, a shooter , a hunter and a believer in the second amendment and EVEN in how important that is to those like you who breath free air every day , that freedom owed to those who DO like our constitution and guns !
Even my father who probably defended you and yours , in the second world war didn't like guns but understood exactly how important the second amendment is now and was then .! But spend those freedoms happily anyway with your family or loved ones , Most who paid for the freedoms FOR you would simply want it that way !
If my question is so naive, why are so many of these mass shootings being done with 30-round assault rifles?
How many mass shootings of 30 to 50 people are being done with 5-round hunting rifles?
That's a very simplistic view of the world and human nature. You must be either young or very sheltered in life.
I like that idea, but people do get upset by drones and shot them out of the air. It creeps me out when a DNA or VNP drone flies over the yard.
It appears that when someone does a bunch of killing theres a need to demonize whatever ideology one does not adhere to. In that case I recommend the ak47: the prolific weapon of choice for your atheist communist, or an obama drone for non combatants.
I am sorry that it may seem that way. Thank you for speaking up!
Here is a short video with Islamic Imams radicalizing, or brainwashing moderate Muslims to kill gays. I'm not ok with that. It is a very demonic religion. And, you are suggesting...well, excuse me!
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont … MO-28RY2PM
I lost my sense of humor, I need to go pray.
I think that liberals need to mature up about guns and particularly about "assault rifles " , I also realize that it will never happen . Apparently liberal ideology isn't capable of maturing , at least like the rest of us , Is there a missing link in the anti-gunner's genetic make up ? Is there some emotional barrier , as if perhaps a spoiled child who sits with his hands over his eye's or ears while listening to a math problem in class ? I have been around long enough to realize one thing about liberal ideology - It is unchangeable , it is unreasonable , It is blind to truth ,statistic or fact ,blind to change or even to understanding and empathizing with any other view than their own .
I am sure that the above picture tells a story of what an "assault weapon" was at any given time in history , how the evolution of opinion , thought and phobic belief evolves . It should at least , yet will liberals ever grasp the ability to reason or mature outside of their image of utopia ? Or is it what I believe , That liberals today simply want that modern day Nanny -State , where someone else is always at fault , someone else always has to solve , someone else has the real answers , to all of life's problems ?
Why would you?
Do you have some sort of training with the weapon, are you a Vet or retired police?
If you are looking for protection buy a pistol. If you are looking to become a hunter, there are literally a 1,000 better rifle & shotgun choices.
Actually, the majority of murders, including mass murders, are not committed with a semi-automatic rifle firing a .223 caliber, a 5.56 mm or 7.62 millimeter round. Petroleum fuels were the weapons of choice in the most deadly mass killings in US history and 9mm handguns the firearm of choice in most other mass killings.
Military grade full auto -assault rifle firing hundreds of rounds in one moment .Not legally available to anyone on the street.
Sporting target rifle , semi auto , one pull of trigger one shot , available to civilian shooters .
Hard to tell the difference isn't it , one legally available to you , one not !
Nice exaggeration...firing hundreds of rounds in a moment. You'd be lucky to get 60 rounds out in a minute - that is if you are fully trained.
Well... maybe... No! full auto ar-15 600 rounds per minute
Since you cannot buy a full-auto version of an AR-15, where do you get your facts? Automatic weapons cannot be purchased by regular citizens - unless you jump through a year worth of hoops....
Well gee, the side bar had so many other AR-15 rate-of-fire videos I just thought the point was clear. But, to be helpful, I found this one that shows in slo-mo, a regular semi-auto AR-15 fired at a 397 round per minute rate. A lot more than the 60 round per minute limit you indicated.
The name for that style of shooting is called "bump stock shooting " , a process of holding the rifle perfectly still as you shoot and having the Noticeably Recoiling Shoulder Stock , notice in the video the gun actually bouncing off your shoulder though , to imitate a full auto AR -15 ! Its all about noise ! AND very little about accuracy - as all full auto "assault rifles " to begin with .
Military full auto is far different than " bump-stocking" , especially with no noticeable accuracy .
I was familiar with all your points, and I agree. I was not talking about military full-auto. My point was to RJ's declaration that an AR-15 could not shoot more than 60 rounds per minute. Although I would agree if his inference was that anything more than 60 RPM was just flash/bang shooting with very little sighting or accuracy involved.
ps. If I misread RJ's intention then this point is irrelevant.
so, you have to reload how many times during that one minute to get 397 rounds fired? Just because the rate of fire is clocked at a certain speed doesn't mean its an effective rate of fire. I served and I've fired military grade automatic weapons so let's not kid ourselves to the facts. Show me someone who can reload 13 times in a minute and get all those rounds fired...then we can talk. Maybe you might want to try doing it yourself since you making such a strong defense about it - it's not a textbook operation with an endless ammo supply and by the way, that weapon is going to heat up real quick if you try it, so be careful you don't get burned.
Just out of curiosity, how long does it take to fire 30 rounds single shot? Then how long does it take to fire 30 rounds with a 5-round magazine including five reloads?
Semi- auto , I can duct tape together two ten round clips to each other allowing more shots quickly , I can fire thirty rounds in less than thirty seconds , AND ,How accurate do you believe a fully automatic weapon is , Have you ever shot one ? Have you ever shot anything ? Aren't you a typical anti- neither knowing of what they preach nor what you are arguing over , I swear , liberal extremists act more like a bunch of great grandmothers trying to wash disposable diapers.
Yes, I have used numerous rifles over many years for target practice -- all on firing ranges. No handguns or assault rifles.
Should that ban me from asking how long does it take to fire 30 rounds verus 5 rounds reloaded 5 times?
Why am I a liberal extremist for asking that question? Is it because I haven't fired an assault rifle?
You seem to lable everyone who doesn't agree with you a liberal extremist.
you are splitting hairs to try to prove a point by limiting the discussion to only two choices, one which you clearly know will be the quicker and the other slower. The fact is that in real life, you don't make that call. I can put more devastating firepower into a targeted area with two Glock handguns and probably quicker than someone firing a .223 AR-15. Stacking the deck with loaded questions does what? Gives you a perception of winning the high ground?
I already have the high ground in being opposed to assault weapons used for mass murders.
You are muddying the waters by evading my basic point, which was proven in the video of the killer with the shotgun who got tackled while reloading.
Gun extremists seem to care more about their precious guns than they do about mass murders.
Again you use a single piece of evidence and allow it to be your mantra - sorry to burst your bubble, but just because you oppose something doesn't give you ground. Just enter an abortion debate and you'll see both parties having dibs on that coveted space. I am not muddying anything - you cannot put restrictions on what's part of a real world debate. Most "gun extremists" are law abiding citizens who would gladly take a bullet to defend the very same people who demonize them (that would be you in t his case)
Love the loaded questions. Mr Schwartz , a hypothetical situation. Your neighbors mentally unstable, convicted felon, 12 year old son, living in Remote area has you on the phone , telling you his Sister is being beat to death, by escaped convicts, and you can see it or hear it, do you tell him how to easily Access his dads ar15? Or ya just let her die, cause you dont like guns? Yes or no?
Love the deceitful answer. Again, no one has said we should ban all guns. Protecting yourself is everyone's right, and if it requires a gun, so be it.
Meanwhile, you guys still haven't said if it's OK or not for children, convicted felons and mentally ill people to buy assault rifles.
Why are you so afraid of a simple yes or no answer? Maybe you work for the NRA.
Noone has called for complete disarmament on this thread? You are not reading are you. Yea I work for the NRA , my fellow Republican friend.
Now Thats odd. I see. Now its ok. Hmm. Should they check with you first..? The hypothetical was a mentally unstable, convicted felon, 12 year old. With an ar15. So be it. Your words.
Phoenix - not sure how to take your question. Do you think I'm anti gun? It's unclear by the way you've written things.
If my neighbors were in distress, I'd come to their aid armed to the teeth - living in the country teaches you to look out for your neighbors, with deadly force if necessary.
Governments have killed hundreds of millons. How come liberals dont want to take their guns? Didnt Omar have a swiss sig, yet the only focus is an ar15, and the point is if we banned all ar15, gun related deaths would go numerically unchanged or increase and 80% would still be handgun related.
I assume you mean dictatorships with one-party systems such as Russia, Germany and the future United States.
Not just those, most all of them are responsible or turn a blind eye. Neutral switzerland made the gun Omar used, I believe. All these governments are really indescriminate on their killing sprees. One so called bad guy and 10 innocent bystanders. Thats the %. If theyll lay down their fully autos and assorted bombs, etc etc ,. I will help you collect some ar15s and we'll throw em away, but handgun will still be a problem but millions would live. So, are you going start calling for governments to lay em down?
Phoenix, yes, I agree that handguns will continue to be a problem. But I don't know of an example where someone with a handgun killed 49 people and wounded 52 others.
As I have said before, I don't have a problem with gun ownership. My frustration is easy access to assault rifles that keep showing up in these massacres.
I have posted several times on these boards a simple question: Should children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people have easy access to assault rifles?
Do you say yes or no?
How about this mass murderer , or the dopey kid from Sandy Hook , should they have had access ? Just what is the problem with the FBI that Obama and his administration decides who they put on a list and who they don't , Who they investigate and who they don't . Incompetence of the FBI , DHLS , and the presidents agenda are at fault here ! Not a law abiding seller , purchaser or user of any gun !
It's todays political atmosphere that's laying in the way of progress !
I guess the adage is true - never let a tragedy go to waste. Promisem I am all for background checks. Your party dropped two atomic bombs with mass civilian casualties. In my lifetime, Ive witnessed your party drag the country through a decade of vietnam. Im sure since then there have been many deaths outside of declarations of war along with drone attacks and whoever is standing next to them. Your party just miserably failed any sane background check and the other party fares no better. Opportunistic sensationalism to facilitate goosestepping partisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Phoenix, I have voted Republican most of my life including Ronald Reagan both times. My father was a long-time party official, my son is an aide to a representative and I am now a firmly right of center independent.
Why do you assume I am a liberal Democrat just because I don't want bad people to get easy access to assault rifles?
Your comment about "opportunistic sensationalism" is both offensive and wildly out of touch with my posts about assault rifles. It would be like me saying that you care more about guns than you do about murdered children and other innocent victims of assault rifles.
Your partisan hatred is showing.
Based only on the threads you have just recently posted I would be surprised if one wasnt titled ' democrats good republicans bad. When I commented that probably 80% of gun deaths , say 6000 outa 8000 a year, are by handguns you immediately sidestepped it. The obvious rallying cry is ban a gun that was not used. The concern is just % low rate cases, but not high% problem. Hop on a bandwagon . The kicker is you want the worst offenders on the planet to do the regulating. Bandwagon hysterics makes ruger stock look dirt cheap, and the people you want to regulate stuff are gonna bank. As far as being offended at what May or May not be the truth, well that is One thing a liberal ideaology is expert at aint it? Hey have all the ar15 ya want theyll just use a plane, pressure cooker or 12 guage #2 shot. But statistically it will be a government sanctioned mass deaths of civilians or a handgun. That gets someone killed.
Actually, my titles should be "Extremists bad, everyone else good".
I didn't sidestep a thing. I can't answer every sentence in the barrage coming from the handful of extremists -- most of them right wing gun fanatics -- who have taken control of these forums.
I'll say again -- even though you guys never listen -- that don't have a problem with gun ownership. I have a problem with easy access to assault rifles.
So just answer one simple yes or no question that none of you guys will answer. Should we limit access to assault rifles for children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people?
Yes or no?
But you are an offended staunch conservative Republican voting citizen, in a right wing Forum is nonsensical.
A good test is whether it is universally true. If a gay couple decides to exercise their constitutional right to purchase an ar15 for adequate protection in light of todays World, they are now right wing extremist gun fanatics. How absurdly and irrationally convenient. I personally do not own a firearm, but would be all for disarmament of everyone. But universally and preferably from the top down and definitely all militaries first.
They would certainly be gun extremists. Whether they are right-wing extremists would depend on their politics. That's an entirely rational description of them.
While we are on that subject, you still haven't answered my simple yes or no question about limits on assault rifles.
Not knowing someones Politics has not been stopping you yet.
You seem to come up with a lot of responses to my posts than have nothing to do with my posts.
I don't care if you are liberal, conservative or moderate. I care about stopping mass murders with assault rifles.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I have Stated my position several times over and over. If you do not Subscribe to my position how are you not a right wing extremist gun fanatic? Yes or no?
And there ! Is the absolute naiveté of anti's . Mass shooting are far outnumbered by liberal abortions for one !
so do you support mass murders with other means? Or is it only the ones with assault rifles that bother you?
We have to assume so. Forum questions are more loaded than an ar15.
It's the only way some people can win an argument - reduce all outside factors to only those which guarantee them the victory - discount real life - discount any factors that may make them uncomfortable
Btw I enjoy alot of your political commentary. I had forgotten the * ignore it for months until they can call it old news* tactic, or something like that.
Thanks - I just posted one today you might like
http://hubpages.com/politics/Sinking-Th … Presidency
In what way is denying a mentally unstable person access to an assault rifle not a real life question?
Extremists love evasion. They also hate answering simple questions that make them uncomfortable.
Please name a recent shooting spree by one person with a shotgun that resulted in 49 dead and 52 wounded.
You still haven't answered my question either. Why are you OK with mentally unstable people buying assault rifles?
there has always been the soft shoe dance aout second amendment liberties from the left , "It's only reasonable ................" Its Only magezine size , its only assault rifles , its only semi -automatics ..........................................But the agenda for total gun elimination IS an agenda of attrition ! Sad part is , Even liberals know that gun restriction amount to a grand total of Zip, when it comes to results !
I just love the Australia debate , "But it ended gun crimes ..........."Bull, here's the thing , gun confiscation in America WILL amount to an all out civil war , nothing more and nothing less , I am an avid owner ,shooter , hunter , collector, and voter , and everyone that I know and talk to about these issues believes in the same outcome ! I believe liberal anti- second people should push it even further now , bring on that fight , because it will be nothing less than a fight . There will be more guns buried in cellars , hidden in attics , stashed in lock boxes , Here's a question for liberals --
Are any of you aware just how much ammunition for guns ALONE have been stored away since Obama took office ? Trillions of rounds . Liberals in there extreme naiveté aren't even fully aware of how every time this president or one of his minions even mentions these controls , how gun sales skyrocket immediately ? One would seriously almost wonder if liberals don't work in the gun industry , thereby spiking sales by continued meat-headed rhetoric of gun bans? Makes you wonder , Just how dumb a extreme leftist really is ?
Answer -Abortions , ......Question who is responsible for the most mass murders ?
Unless you have some evidence that young black women are being abducted, taken to abortion clinics and being given abortions against their will......what's your point?
My point is ,as usual , Reason. This first thing liberals want to do is ban ! Outlaw the law abiding ! Sensationalize the "facts ", divert the conversation to hysteria , blame the other guy ! I like facts , I like keeping incidents , blame , solutions in perspective .
For instance , More black children are killed in the womb before "Birth" by abortions than by ANY other cause what so ever ,every year . For instance , Mass shootings in America is rated # 12 in the developed , nations , Since the eighties there have been approximately 200 deaths. But do we bring facts , statistics , truths into the debate ? No.
I'm still at a loss. I don't think one woman making one decision which involves her own body and her own life can, in any way, be brought up in the same conversation with mass shootings in America. Well, that is if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
Before 2005 they were banned. Half the mass murders in the US have happened since. Hopefully, a new president will reinstate the ban. There is so much we can't do about this situation. But we could do this, with the right president.
You and I know that the NRA lobby is virtually an impossible nut to crack...
Thanks to gun extremists, organizations that want better laws for gun control are on the rise. They include Everytown for Gun Safety (note that it isn't named "Liberal Extremists Who Want to Ban All Guns") with 3 million members:
In the long run, the NRA's extremism is actually creating a backlash that will work against it.
Before or after the right president drones or bombs some village over there, without a declaration of war? The right president wont ever leave us to die in some god forsaken place and go on tv and knowingly and deliberately lie about it for months on end will they? Wars, Atomic bombs, holocausts, purges and more wars and more wars. If only we had the right president.
Then I ask myself the question: Why not ruger and glock pistols instead? Why is that?
US car dealer offers free AR-15 assault rifle with every car
A New Hampshire car dealer is offering everyone who buys a car a free AR-15 assault rifle.
He says he’s given away four AR-15s and one 9mm handgun, an option for buyers who don’t want the rifle.
Hagan is a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan. He says the possibility the weapons he’s giving away could be used to kill civilians doesn’t weigh on him.
Assault weapons , the Big Bad wolf !
America has grown symbolically into a nervous old Nellie , Homicide deaths , by whatever means doesn't even fall into the top twelve reasons for death in our culture , yet every time something like Orlando happens ,we start looking at the nuts and bolts of a firearm . While most Americans wouldn't even know how to aim a firearm , if it wasn't for the drama of Hollywood !
In truth , it will take a lot more terror , a greater presence of an Islamic Jihad inside America's borders before the average public even stirs from its lazy slumber . And while Jihad it is here , waiting , growing , simmering , planning . Whether in a lone wolf attack or in organized groups , all the this American culture is capable of doing for vigilance , Is to wrings its collection conscience ,wiping tears of "shock and awe ", and screaming for legislating magazine capacities on "Assault weapons " the new Big bad Wolf !
Ahorseback, do you believe mentally unstable people should be allowed to buy assault rifles?
Simple yes or no answer. Please don't rage about liberals. Just show you are open minded, willing to have a reasonable discussion about my question and prove that you aren't an extremist.
I think I have read through this entire thread and don't see where anyone answered the question. Should promisem buy an assault rifle? Anyone have an answer?
Maybe I could phrase it differently. If you own an AR-15, why did you buy it?
Edited to add: I don't intend to challenge your reasons or debate their merits. I'm just curious.
THE BEST PROMOTER OF GUN SALES IN US HISTORY HAS BEEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S PARANOIA ABOUT GUNS .........................ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY [140%]PERCENT GUN SALE INCREASE.
Thank you President Obama . Now either Obama and his people are stupid and grossly inept - or , this has been a plan all along , think about this ! And , I don't think Obama is stupid , do you ?
I believe there is a WHOLE LOT of gun talk here in forums where those doing the critiquing are neither gun experts , law experts , constitutionally aware , or politically savvy . I have watched this debate go on for years , Personally most anti- gun people have little use for one , are urban warriors so no problem with another law as long as it doesn't affect them [you ] . After all , I couldn't get most of the anti- gun people to pick one up and know which end to point , how to load , unload or even explain the operation of one .
The evolution of ant- gun crowd evolves in many ways , the rhetoric changes , the excuse making changes , the sabre rattling evolves , bt you still understand very little of any of this picture except the paranoia and hysteria . The old term assault rifle has morphed into weapons of war , thank you Obama , Hillary , but its the same sad blabbery -know not- of which they speak . For one fact , I believe since 1993 or so 198 people in America have been shot and killed by semi- automatic guns . Approximately another 196 ore so have been wounded .
If liberals especially including the total ignorance of the Obama administration and everyone in general were to focus their attentions on REAL issues , we could actually cure one of our real ills in America . Perhaps , even a crime issue .
2009 - 1.21 million abortions took place in America !
It's almost comical how "assault gun" has become "military style" weapon, isn't it? How long has it been such such a gun as the AR-15 has been used by our military? 50 years? 100? But "military style" has a much higher negative connotation (makes the ignorant think people are carrying military grade weaponry) and generates fear so much better than "semi-automatic" so it's the new term.
Maybe we'll change the name from "gun" to "bazooka" or "rocket launcher" next?
The AR-15 was specifically designed for nilitary use. It didn't "become" a military style weapon; it was invented for that purpose. If civilians started using bazookas to blow up wasps nests, would they suddenly be pest control devices?
That said, who cares, anyway?
The military version and the civilian version are pretty much miles apart , so is the understanding of firearm terminology of the sportsman and the anti- I only wish ideologies weren't so polarized . Why , because a reasonable law or two could be persuaded yet in result totally ineffective . I know exactly how my friends and I feel and how the anti-s feel .
Acts of terror, by ALL means will become SO prevalent as to make the gun issue a mute point !
Be vigilant and have a plan if your in the city ! My advice to those who know little of self protections , Get to know a good friend who is and does know !
So were muzzle loaders. Your point?
As to who cares - those that wish an answer to the violence in America. Not just to control other's lives and violate the constitution, but actually put a dent in the death toll from violence. Fear mongering and use of loaded words makes for fine politics, but does little to save lives.
Yeah, well, we aren't seeing crazy people shooting up public places with muzzle loaders, are we? "Military style" is still an accurate description for the AR-15.
Sure it is (accurate description)...if you don't care what a military weapon is and the goal is to scare people. Otherwise, not so much - you might want to think about the single omnipresent attribute of a military weapon in the field (excluding specialized weapons such as a sniper's rifle). It's the ability to fire more than one shell with a single trigger pull, putting massive amounts of lead into the air far, far faster than your "military style" gun could ever do.
Eh, we could quibble over the technical meaning, but who cares? If a weapon can be used to kill and injure dozens of people in a matter of minutes, it's certainly not styled for deer hunting, is it?
You're right - who cares? Except, of course, the people that have or want one. Certainly those afraid or hating guns don't care as their goal is to confiscate ALL guns eventually and view it as nothing but a step along the way. Personal rights, freedom, our constitution...such things mean nothing to the person with an irrational fear of guns and the people that own them.
Fear is a terrible thing, isn't it, particularly when it is so unfounded and ridiculous as to resort to such tactics.
I don't know a single person who wants to take away all guns, yet you ALWAYS go there. It gets old.
And SO does the chiseling away of all our liberties ! If you deny that, P.P. then you are either blinded by rhetoric or naïve ? I am sure you are neither but why do you always go to the easy answer and the least favorite solution to anything positive .....more restrictions, less personal accountability , and never calling out our lax justice system ?
And why do you always go there... "We don't want to ban all guns." disclaimer gets old too.
I hope you don't mind if I butt in, but facts, studies, and history have shown that more gun control does not solve the problem of mass killings. An Ar-15 is not so different from a semi-auto hunting rifle in function. So why are you for banning AR-15s and not also banning semi-auto .308 hunting rifles?
When apples to apples comparisons are made, more gun control laws won't make a difference. "Assault weapons" were banned for 10 years and the data shows that it did not make any significant difference. So when you see the ban on "assault weapons" doesn't work, what will you ask for next?
That is why Wilderness, (and the rest of us), goes there. You only want one more little step to stop gun violence... then one more, then just one more... until you must admit that a total ban is the only thing that will work - for you.
Maybe you are on to something with that macho.thing. Statistically speaking we'd all be safer if the guns were in Panthers hands or any woman's hands. Liberals will wanna ban testosterone *sp ...now or someday. Idk what the solution is. People should be more responsible. Violence on tv.and violent games targeted at kids could be reduced or similar things without having to undermine the
2nd amendment. We gotta.violent people problem, guns are an excuse. Idk
I don't know about guns being an excuse per se, but it is certainly true that we have a violent culture problem. Just as it is all too obvious that limiting constitutional rights is just an excuse, a show that we are doing something about that violence. While we actually do nothing to help the problem of violence.
Please name a situation where a mentally unstable person with a shotgun killed 49 people and wounded 52 others.
I don't see many people here trying to stop all gun violence. Why do YOU people keep going there?
The question of the day is easy access to assault rifles.
GA is right - the disclaimer, so obviously false for a great many powerful liberal politicians gets old. It is all to obvious that it is but another lie; that banning (take your choice of guns or ammunition) is just another small step in the ultimate confiscation of all guns from American citizens.
Sure, there are liberals that really don't want it done...but will agree with and vote for every new gun limitation that comes along.
You are quite right. Gun extremists love to make that claim.
Wilderness, I wondered when you would join the fray.
I count on you to have an intelligent answer to my question, unlike the other responses that I have received that divert, evade or include calling me a liberal who wants to ban all guns.
Should children, mentally unstable people or violent felons have easy access to assault rifles?
One must look at Chicago , the most strict gun laws in the nation , safe zones , entire neighborhoods where there are special gun laws because of high crime rates , Last weekend --90 shootings ! And by invoking laws like Chicago has - they have driven the guns right into the hands of the criminals and gangs and no doubt the mentally unstable too !
Did you notice it was the democrats who voted down the gun vote in senate ?
Sorry - missed this one. But you ask the wrong questions - can we rephrase those questions to reflect what is happening? Begin with "assault weapon"; I assume you mean the current political definition of the term, which simply means "anything we can convince people to be afraid of" rather than a gun having anything to do with military usage. And that in turn means any gun at all, the left just needs more time to raise the fear factor. With that in mind, some pertinent comments:
Will you deny a gun (any gun) to a properly trained child, being used properly? Perhaps in food collection for their family (I hunted and brought home meat in pre-teen years myself)?
Would you deny ALL felons the second amendment right? The embezzler stealing to get medical help for his daughter? The repeat DUI offender? The person forging checks? The counterfeiter? All of these are currently forbidden the purchase of a gun, but what possible reasoning is there beyond simply limiting gun ownership to any group possible (that would include those on the no-fly list)? And after the felon has served their time and paid the price for their crime what is the justification for continued withholding their rights? Because you're afraid of them? Should we just ship any felon to Antarctica or the far north in Alaska? Never forget that far more people are murdered without using a tool than are killed with all long guns combined, including the small subset of so-called "assault weapons".
Who and how will we determine "mental instability"? Require a panel of psychologists (hired by politicians wishing to limit gun ownership perhaps) to personally interview anyone wishing to purchase guns or ammunition? Do it every year as people DO change? Or would we make physicians violate the privacy of patients and simply turn over any and all medical records to Uncle Sam? This is a great idea - limiting gun ownership for mentally unsuitable people - but completely unworkable as far as I can see without truly egregious violations of privacy and that at great financial cost as well.
You think I'm asking the wrong question because you don't like the question.
Once again, an evasion.
Oh, the question has merit - we just already go far beyond it in one case, can't do another at all and pretend that children cannot handle guns safely when they've done so for decades.
Things which you tend to ignore with your question. So tell me - what is a "child"? A 2 year old or a 14 year old boy out hunting for a deer? How do you propose finding the mentally ill? (Your "cure" is worse than the "disease") And why, in your opinion, a DUI recipient should lose their constitutional rights?
(Yes, I know you said violent felon, but that's not what the law is, and now we're seriously proposing that even being suspected of possible future violence is enough to take those constitutional rights, and without recourse. It's never ending, isn't it - always more restrictions, more laws, more control and, at the end of it all, more death as the tool isn't the problem. WE are.)
You may know more about assault rifles than me, but I know more about gun massacres than you.
It's almost as if the tool doing the least amount of damage is intentionally targeted, isn't it? I'd even bet that if the "non-firearm" category was broken down there would be pie sections greater than the 4% from all rifles, let alone the smaller figure from a sub-set of rifles.
Wonder why that is?
The politics of divisiveness , Keep us concentrated on a false issue ,while real government accountability can slide downhill , unchecked !
Problem is , most buy it !
Or is it because it's so easy to scare those ignorant of basic gun facts. Those evil "assault", or "military style" guns look so scary!
Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.
Lawnmower don't mow lawns, people do.
If you want to mow a lot lawn use a machine lawnmower. If you want to kill a lot of people, get the world champion killing machine firearms.
Score card for history of firearms killing effectively rate in order
Governments have killed public more than the pubic killing the public. A+
Killing wildlife. A+
Killing someone you know. A
Killing women and children. A
Killing by cops. A
Killing robbers. B
Seem much more dangerous owning a gun .
My scorecard is pure, no killing allowed for a healthy soul. What ever you do, don't kill a person with a hammer, it's way too personal.
I know I have a lot of posts to respond to in this thread, but I'm just going to say this:
No one has ever answered the question of why you would want an assault rifle, or AR-15, or rapid fire killing machine.
It is not possible to have a discussion about gun control if one side operates from the position that they don't believe you when you say you don't want to ban all guns. It is a convenient and easy way to dismiss discussion. A lazy way out. The NRA loves you for it, but your country doesn't.
Lastly, I suggest our Republican friends in the legislature introduce a bill to allow guns in the congressional chamber. Their position that law-abiding gun owners can stop shooters from killing innocent people means they should feel much safer if many of their colleagues are carrying. And don't forget about the people who are allowed to observe Senate and House proceedings. They should be allowed to bring their lawfully obtained firearms into the chamber. It would make our legislators feel even safer knowing that responsible gun owners are all around them.
PP. I want an AR-15 gun ,"assault weapon "...a "weapon of war ".....a "killing machine" to add to my collection of guns ! How hard is that to understand ? It shouldn't take a scientist to understand mans personal, basic fascination with guns ! Much like hanging a musket on the wall , Would you be willing to take a class to understand a mans likes and dislikes ?
Nothing personal , but that really seems like a foolish question.
How is it that liberals raise a child where this is okay but a gun collector is evil ?
So, if it's simply for your gun collection, why would it bother you for your AR-15, or rapid fire killing machines, to be heavily regulated? Or, perhaps I am assuming too much, and it would not bother you?
Edited to add: I do not think gun collectors are evil. I just don't understand why a gun collector would care whether or not he has to jump through some hoops to collect his gun.
We already jump though hoops , in a back ground check P.P. I have at times actually worried that I wouldn't be permitted , because of delays ; I have zero-----legal issues , My friends have the same records and have had extensive problems ., One of my friends has issues each time he goes through the FBI check , why ? because he shares the same name as a convicted felon all the way across the country . My friend Jim is a highly decorated 3 tour Marine Corp Viet -Nam veteran without one legal infraction in his entire life . .........Fine , I say , the system is working right ?
I mean right ? He has also spent money with an attorney to clarify the infraction of the FBI record keepers .
It should be mandatory for all senator and politicians to carry a firearm, and send all their children into war first.
After Trump it is the only fair position I approve of.
UN would second that for their depopulating plan.
I'm not sure I can support that, though it's mighty tempting.
Could we just send the politicians instead of their children? Less to lose that way: one of the kids might one day amount to something, but a politician...
The Obama administration with Loretta Lynch at the head of the justice dept. says we need to "fight terrorism with Compassion , Unity and love " . That means no" assault rifles" , no" weapons of war "! Sorry people . So one must arm themselves with only the tools available for that , a pair of arms .
This is the entire arsenal of the Obama administration on the war on terror .
I guess anything is better than calling it workplace violence .
Love would be the way
Oh course Obama is lying. He has increase military and debt spending far greater than any US President in history. I don't even trust Noble prize anymore for it's one side Zionist.
, Because he is the first black president I guess ,.......... what else had he accomplished !
Being half black, Gay marriage and some odd minor things. That's it. Hard to believe each President keep getting worst, because all puppets just follow their script. They are just there to create an delusion of freedom and rights, we don't.
You do have freedom of what color of jellybean you can eat.
Probably not unless your far away from people and own property .
America should be like Israel , Young Americans should HAVE to serve in the military for a year or two before college , Thereby requiring everyone to have an " assault rifle" and yes Hillary "a weapon of war " ! It would mature America UP instead of the usual down !
If noting more it would show everyone that a rifle is part of life more than a part of death !
by Don Bobbitt14 months ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by My Esoteric8 months ago
Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
This isn't meant to be a pro-gun or anti-gun thread. This is meant to be an educational thread... if anybody cares.There is a lot of misconception about guns(I blame the media and Congress), so I'll explain anything or...
by Dr Billy Kidd3 years ago
Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. What's more, they say that not passing a federal budget by the Oct. 1...
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
by Scott Bateman7 months ago
Why do gun extremists think that the 30-round assault rifle magazine size is no different than 5-round rifles or even shotguns?The video below shows a shooter at a college with a shotgun who killed one person, wounded...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.