Yeah, as if you ever want to "discuss" anything. People either agree with you and acknowledge your brilliance or it's "go fuck yourself" because you're not "going back and forth" (which is what a discussion is by the way).
Last edited:
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
Yeah, as if you ever want to "discuss" anything. People either agree with you and acknowledge your brilliance or it's "go fuck yourself" because you're not "going back and forth" (which is what a discussion is by the way).
$440 Champagne, Cigars And Fancy Parties: The Latest In The UAW Corruption Mess
Peak irony from the UAW corruption investigation, car rationing in New Delhi, a meh German economy, and Ford bails on another one of its tech ventures. All this and more in in The Morning Shift for Friday, September 13, 2019.
jalopnik.com
Unions are only for themselves$440 Champagne, Cigars And Fancy Parties: The Latest In The UAW Corruption Mess
Peak irony from the UAW corruption investigation, car rationing in New Delhi, a meh German economy, and Ford bails on another one of its tech ventures. All this and more in in The Morning Shift for Friday, September 13, 2019.
Damn, I just know you're smarter than this .... I never said it was fear mongering either. I imagine O'Rourke is quite serious, and as I said "he's looking for a way to separate himself from the others, but he doesn't represent the mainstream Democratic platform" .... Democrats are NOT going to put someone in who openly intends to TAKE people's guns away. That would be a sure win for Trump, and they know that.
Outlawing the manufacturing of the guns & use of the ammunition is possible. Once ammo is hard to find, the price of the ammo will sky rocket and many people will willingly accept a "buy-back" on them. But they aren't going to be coming to your home and demanding your guns.
Same difference in my book. One is just undermining our rights like snakes in the grass. Are you OK with that tactic?
"Shall not be infringed"
.... Why does the public need AR-15 rifles with 30-50 round clips that fire bullets that travel so fast that they rupture the internals of the human body when they strike it, making repairs to the body almost impossible? If the guns are truly for "target practice" and innocent activities, what is the necessities of the ordinance that these guns fire? They're primarily for killing human beings, TwoBi ... why should the ordinary gun novice be able to buy these things across the counter?
.... As far as tactics ... now there's a joke. Like similar tactics Republicans used on Obamacare ... like was used on making sure Trump got to select a SCOTUS when it was President Obama's selection to make? Like how Trump IS taking money out of the military budget to build his WALL that Congress won't approve money for him to build? THOSE kind of tactics? Gee, we didn't see you yelling unfairness when THESE were going on, now did we?
.... Look, I have 2 ******* that hang out with other ******* after school and at the mall, etc ... we go out to eat once a week AS A FAMILY ... the last thing I want my family involved with is a mad gunman with a rapid fire AK or AR running around killing my family for NO REASON. So, TwoBi, I'm sorry I can't "feel your pain of unfairness" ... and you know I'm not a gun hater as I own several guns myself.
Just so ya know a Browning BAR in .308 or 30.06 has way more devastating ballistics than a .223 or 7.62 x 39 and that is a regular hunting rifle - it’s semi-auto even though the name indicates differently. It’s NOT the BAR invented in 1918 but a hunting rifle made in Belgium currently and is fed by a box magazine. Any one that knows anything about ballistics will back me up on how much more deadly .308 or 30.06 is over AR or AK rounds.
Another example would be a Springfield Armory M1A they fire .308 rounds from a box magazine as well and are a favorite of long range shoots out to 600 yards. You’d surely have to ban both the modern BAR and the Springfield M1A as both their ballistics and accuracy is WAY beyond anything you can do with an AR or AK.
The banning / confiscating issue is the Mount Everest of slippery slopes.
The banning / confiscating issue is the Mount Everest of slippery slopes.
Wow, so that's why so many of these recent, local terrorists mostly use those guns, huh?
How many rounds, by the way, do these guns hold? 5 - 10 max?
Do you think maybe that is one reason the AR-15 are so popular ... US mfg with larger mags?
What kind of "big game" is hunted in the US with these guns? Go ahead and say bears and deers ... make my day!
You know what I think, I think some of you white guys substitute these powerful guns for your small penises. Something to brag about IF you get to use one to ******* 10-20 people with one. I also think all you AR-15 gun nuts constantly live in the Dooms Day WWIII "survival mode". Bet you guys have your hidden shelters and survival MREs for a year stashed away. Did you see how many Texans believed Obama was going to take over Texas a few years ago? Even their state governor (a Republican of course) was announcing the possibility ... the BIG TEXAS INVASION! Would you even admit to it if you did? You gun folks are so pitiful, but so funny!
Why is there a need for high capacity magazines? In case you run into a herd of 8-pt buck deer or maybe 4 or 5 big grizzlies?
Why does the bullet from an AR-15 need to travel at over twice the speed of sound ( 1,125 fps)?
You folks have been majorly brain washed ... and don't even know it.
Last edited:
The average muzzle velocity of a 5.56 NATO round caliber .223 is roughly 2784 FPS shot from a 16 inch barrel and 2979 FPS shot from a 20 inch barrel - just so you get your facts straight.
A Springfield Armory M1A can b loaded with a 5 - 10 - 20 round box magazine and a far more lethal round than an AR or AK.
Banning ARs and AKs is like I said a VERY slippery slope - there are FAR more lethal weapons available than those and I’m sure the left would be after them next.
Interesting lefty rant though ;}
A Springfield Armory M1A can b loaded with a 5 - 10 - 20 round box magazine and a far more lethal round than an AR or AK.
Banning ARs and AKs is like I said a VERY slippery slope - there are FAR more lethal weapons available than those and I’m sure the left would be after them next.
Interesting lefty rant though ;}
Consumer Sentiment Rebounds More Than Expected, Dousing Recession Fears
Consumers in the first weeks of September felt better about both current conditions and their expectations for the future. | Economy
www.breitbart.com
... and a very rightie avoidance in actually answering the questions, as usual.
I'll ask another ... if you could buy a similar AR-15 type weapon which could fire a projectile 10X the speed of sound (11,250 fps) with good killing accuracy up to say 3 miles or so, a smart bullet ... I guess you'd feel entitled to make that weapon available to you as well, right?
So, why don't you go back up to #15,665 and give a few responsible answers ... you know the "why" part questions ... the ones you refuse to even acknowledge, much less address.
Of course my answer is "because you want the best weapon you can find" .... right?
Last edited:
No - in some respects I agree with you.
A BMG like a Barrett chambered for .50 caliber is ridiculous to be allowed for civilian use. That round was developed for anti-tank use in WW1 and it’s range and destructive power is off the scale. I can’t believe they are available for civilian use.
Not sure where the answer lies - all I am saying is there are many more lethal weapons out there than ARs and AKs. Banning and or confiscating those would not be the end of it and I firmly believe in the Second Amendment.
Naturally people want the best weapon they can find to defend themselves and their families.
I believe in less government and less regulation where you believe in more government and more regulation.
My reason is basically that governments tend to suck and our framers were definitely aware of that.
A BMG like a Barrett chambered for .50 caliber is ridiculous to be allowed for civilian use. That round was developed for anti-tank use in WW1 and it’s range and destructive power is off the scale. I can’t believe they are available for civilian use.
Not sure where the answer lies - all I am saying is there are many more lethal weapons out there than ARs and AKs. Banning and or confiscating those would not be the end of it and I firmly believe in the Second Amendment.
Naturally people want the best weapon they can find to defend themselves and their families.
I believe in less government and less regulation where you believe in more government and more regulation.
My reason is basically that governments tend to suck and our framers were definitely aware of that.
Well, first we "need" them to defend against a government trying to take our rights, including the 2nd amendment. Also, people don't "need" others or government telling people how they can live, what they can own, or what people can say. People only "need" to be held accountable for their actions yes, but just because they own an AR-15 doesn't make them a killer. Taking peoples AR-15's becasue they "could" harm someone is no different that cutting off your penis becasue you "could" ******* someone.
The rest of your post is just more deflection. The discussion is about how the left DOES want to eradicate the 2nd. If you wish to discuss the failed Obamacare, start a new post.
The "Free money per month for 10 families" has been tried and failed by Canada, Finland, and a few others. Doesn't surprise me the left still wants to push tried and failed ideas. The way the this guy presented it was like "Vote for me and you could win!" LOL.
The rest still haven't figured out that the only reason Biden is running is because he was guaranteed the nomination.
... and you know this as fact because ............. ????????
That's a very declarative statement, very news worthy, OR, is this just more TwoBi alt-facts?
Similar threads
