Another mass shooting.

Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Answer the question.

Do you think the gun makes a person go crazy and kill people?

Or do you think they are crazy and d3code to kill a bunch of people and decide to use the gun?

Do you think they would decide not to kill a bunch of people if the gun was not available?

Say derp all you want. All guns kill, period. Pistols kill way more people than assault rifles.

You have a very limited knowledge of guns. Most hunting rifles were once war rifles or based on a war rifle design.

Take away the stock, fore grip and 30 round mag and an ar is nothing more than a hunting rifle.

You now sound like some of the people on the news. It was a semi automatic used. No shit. Everything except black poweder, most shotguns and revolvers are semi Auto.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that many of these killers would not kill a bunch of people if they did not have a gun. I also think many suicides would not happen if a gun were not available.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
It's time for our leaders to voice their opinion.
Why are they so silent about this domestic chaos? Apple HP Walmart. Help Us !
I just wish my industry had more lobbing dollars. We would live smarter/longer.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
too larry said:
I never understood why the right to bear arms always means guns to the NRA guys. Tanks, planes, ships and the like are arms too.
Click to expand...
It has to do with the "spirit" of the 2nd amendment.

When it was written, the only defense the States had was its militia, which consisted of men with their hunting rifles (muskets). There was no such thing as police, sheriffs, nothing. The U.S. Army wasn't even on its feet yet. That is why the 2nd amendment reads:

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.
Click to expand...
Now, the reasoning behind that was that it was those very same men, the men that made up local militias, that had fought during the revolution using their own guns. Since it was they who made up the defense of the state, then they should always be able to arm themselves appropriately.

At the time, it made sense and was in fact a necessity of the day.

Now, however, it has outlived any use at all.

No longer does any state rely on a militia. At all. States now have at their defense:
  • Their local State Police
  • Their County Sheriff Departments
  • Their County Police Departments
  • Their City Police Departments
  • Their State Special Tactics Squads (SWAT)
  • Their National Guard
  • The United States Army
  • The United States Air Force
  • The United States Marine Corps
  • The United States Navy
  • The United States Coast Guard
  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  • The Central Intelligence Agency
  • The National Security Agency
  • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
  • The Department of Homeland Security
and that's not even all the list.

So the 2nd amendment has long, long ago outlived its use. It is now nothing more than a bargaining chip for the NRA to exploit in its mission to keep big gun manufacturers in business making billions of dollars. They even bought 4 supreme court justices so they would interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right when the absolute fact of the matter is that it was a State right.

It's a perversion bought and paid for by big gun manufacturers and has been for decades.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
Here you go ya gun totting Jesus freak, a bit from slate magazine.

The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent. From 1994 to 2004, AR-15-style rifles were subject tothe now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since then, the rifle and others like it have become tremendously popular. Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States. People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”
Click to expand...
Lol. You post something that says that the gun is not good for hunting anything but small game. If that's true then how's the fucking thing penetrate a helmet that far out.

You are stupid when it comes to guns. The ar15 comes in many calibers including .308. It is a great hunting rifle.

I've killed many deer with .223.

Go ahead and call names. Its all your good for.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
There's a big difference between car accidents and gun deaths. Deaths from cars and drugs are, 99.9% of the time, completely accidental. Many are caused by defects and failures as well.

A guy mowing down 500+people in cold blood with his only intent being death and destruction isn't. A guy walking into a FUCKING CHURCH and flat out EXECUTING PEOPLE PRAYING isn't either.

And you're going to compare that to a trucker falling asleep at the wheel on accident after driving 19 hours straight and killing two people?

To compare to two makes you a complete jackass of the highest order.
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing the two. Just asking why you guys aren't crying about it.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Yes, it does. But what does that matter? How would that prevent las Vegas? Are you being deliberately obtuse or just really want unfettered gun sales so bad that you will just never admit the danger it causes to society?
Click to expand...
I've admitted the dangers of guns and the statistics here before.

I've followed all the precautions I can. I'm fully trained and capable of owning weapons. My kids are going through the training. I've had training on weapon retention.

When not in use my guns are locked up in a gun safe. Not a flimsy one. One big enough to need a forklift to be moved.

My carry gun, it not on me, is locked in a quicksafe.

I support universal background checks. I support closing gun show loops. I don't buy guns off the street. I buy from reputable licensed firearm dealers.

I support training and compentecy checks for concealed carry. I'm fine with some kind of extra checks and training required for "assault" weapons".

I own and use an ar to hunt with. Most of my mags are 10 round. That's state law for hunting here. I own a couple 30 round mags.

I would be fine with banning the 45-100 mags and drums. I'm on the fence about banning 30 round mags.

I just refuse to sit here and let someone tell me that an ar is no good for hunting and good for spray and pray. That is silly. The ar has become the most popular hunting platform out there.
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Lol. You post something that says that the gun is not good for hunting anything but small game. If that's true then how's the fucking thing penetrate a helmet that far out.

You are stupid when it comes to guns. The ar15 comes in many calibers including .308. It is a great hunting rifle.

I've killed many deer with .223.

Go ahead and call names. Its all your good for.
Click to expand...

Youre a shitty hunter and neighbor.

The only reason you gun nuts cling to your assault weapons is the pathetic fantasy of another civil war. I think part of the problem is you idiots have lost all respect for the weapon it self, using it as you see fit, not what it was made to do. Real sportsman use real hunting equipment, not tactical assault weapons.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Justin-case said:
Youre a shitty hunter and neighbor.

The only reason you gun nuts cling to your assault weapons is the pathetic fantasy of another civil war. I think part of the problem is you idiots have lost all respect for the weapon it self, using it as you see fit, not what it was made to do. Real sportsman use real hunting equipment, not tactical assault weapons.
Click to expand...
All hunting weapons were once a weapon of war dumbass.

Time moves on and newer weapons are made.

I'm a great hunter and a damn good neighbor. Any of my neighbors would back that. I actually help my neighbors when in need. We watch each others back and properties.

I've been using the .223 and .243 rounds for hunting for 6years before the assault weapons ban was lifted. I have several hunting weapons that shoot that round.

I have been civil. You have attacked my beliefs and called me names. It shows you have no leg to stand on.

Think what you want. Its no matter to me.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
I'm not comparing the two. Just asking why you guys aren't crying about it.
Click to expand...
Because they are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS NOT REMOTELY RELATED.

Jesus wept, man. Accidents happen. They're tragic and awful and beyond our control the vast majority of the time.

Guns are NOT. They are INTENTIONALLY used to kill MASSES of people. And we CAN do something about it, we simply REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING because rich people MAKE MONEY ON LETTING PEOPLE GET MOWED DOWN WITH MACHINE GUN FIRE IN A FUCKING CHURCH.

If you don't get that, you're a fucking moron.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
You've gone full tilt asshole.

ONLY GUN USED IN LAST SEVERAL MASS KILLINGS

Click to expand...
Those other guns can be setup the same way. Why am I an asshole for pointing it out?

Police and military still use pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles and pistols to kill people.

All guns kill. Most semi autos can be setup for rapid fire and high capacity magazines.

I'm for doing something. Just not a ban on them.

If they are banned the ones out there will be grandfathered in.
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Those other guns can be setup the same way. Why am I an asshole for pointing it out?
Click to expand...
Because you're making bullshit excuses.

NOBODY sets those up that way.

NOBODY has mowed down over 500 people with a fucking shotgun in a single go.

You suggesting they do and/or could makes you a fucking asshole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top