The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
The AR-15 is basically marketed as a weapon of war that you (YES YOU!) can legally own, because they made it semi-automatic.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
That doesn't fit the narrative of the radical lefty anti-gunner.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.
I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
That doesn't fit the narrative of the radical lefty anti-gunner.
The narrative at play is righties taking one anecdotal story and then generalizing from there. A 12 gauge is more practical because the shooter is more likely to hit the other person, and misses won't go ripping into the neighbors house.
A firearm is no match for a tank, which is what the government has along with fighter jets and missile drones. I don't think your gun is going to do much for you when the revolution starts.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.
I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.
Now you're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about water pistols. Which, incidentally require something like a bright orange tip to specifically distinguish them from real guns.
Let's say I make $50K per year. And I buy a $500 gun. That's 1% of my income.
Last year Bill Gates fortune went from $75 billion to $86 billion. 1% of that is $110 million dollars. Which is roughly the cost of a brand new F-35. Why shouldn't he be able to purchase one if he can afford it?
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.
Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.
I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.
Now you're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about water pistols. Which, incidentally require something like a bright orange tip to specifically distinguish them from real guns.
Let's say I make $50K per year. And I buy a $500 gun. That's 1% of my income.
Last year Bill Gates fortune went from $75 billion to $86 billion. 1% of that is $110 million dollars. Which is roughly the cost of a brand new F-35. Why shouldn't he be able to purchase one if he can afford it?
Because all the surplus F-35's go straight to Israel on OUR dime. Good Night and good Luck
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
Bernie or Hillary would give it to them for free.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
That doesn't fit the narrative of the radical lefty anti-gunner.
The narrative at play is righties taking one anecdotal story and then generalizing from there. A 12 gauge is more practical because the shooter is more likely to hit the other person, and misses won't go ripping into the neighbors house.
I will use what I want and I do not need govt or your permission to make that decision for me.
Thanksverymuch.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.
Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
I am in a militia. My State Constitution says so.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
How is this a false equivalency? Let's say I'm loaded ass rich and own acres of land. Maybe my own island? Why wouldn't I want my own fleet of jets with missiles, tanks, rocket launchers to protect myself (or even just for kicks)? Hell, with the way wage disparity is headed in this country, the rich should seriously consider protecting themselves with tanks and private armies.
I don't know if anyone saying there should be no restrictions, just not ridiculous or infringing ones....and people's definition of ridiculous and infringing is what is in argument. Banning a semi-automatic rifle is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to start arguing that tanks and jets should be restricted to the military, then go for it...but it would only be opposed by the extreme. That's why it's a false equivalency. It's like me turning it around and saying "let's ban water guns since you want to ban stuff". There are extreme differences between an ar-15 and tank and there are extreme differences from an ar-15 to a water gun.
Now you're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about water pistols. Which, incidentally require something like a bright orange tip to specifically distinguish them from real guns.
Let's say I make $50K per year. And I buy a $500 gun. That's 1% of my income.
Last year Bill Gates fortune went from $75 billion to $86 billion. 1% of that is $110 million dollars. Which is roughly the cost of a brand new F-35. Why shouldn't he be able to purchase one if he can afford it?
Let him, I have no problem with the purchase of the aircraft.
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
That doesn't fit the narrative of the radical lefty anti-gunner.
The narrative at play is righties taking one anecdotal story and then generalizing from there. A 12 gauge is more practical because the shooter is more likely to hit the other person, and misses won't go ripping into the neighbors house.
I will use what I want and I do not need govt or your permission to make that decision for me.
Thanksverymuch.
Don't worry, we're still free to make a lot of stupid choices.
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.
Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
Isn't it funny how the well-regulated militia part is oft-forgotten?
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
Now you've got your logics crossed. People defend AR-15s because they say they're little more than a dressed up hunting rifle. Which of course, it is. Dressed up to be a military grade weapon, for military purposes, not civilian use.
A tank would probably be pretty useful for home defense, too. But you don't see one of those parked my front yard.
Nice false equivalency regarding the tank...but this civilian used it for home defense pretty well. Who argued that they were dressed up hunting rifles? I remember people arguing that they were effective and practical for hunting and that certain features did not make them "deadlier". It is a semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles that fire just as fast, they just don't have the "assault rifle" stigma attached to them. Sad that some courts are ruling this way, personally I can think of a very distinguishable difference between ar-15s and "weapons of war"...has to do with the differences between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" and select fire.
The AR-15 is basically marketed as a weapon of war that you (YES YOU!) can legally own, because they made it semi-automatic.
They do sell kits to convert a semi automatic AR 15 to fully automatic. You can legally buy both the kit and the gun, but you cannot "legally" convert it... so I'm sure everyone abides by this law...
Look up ar full auto (parts kit) at gunbroker site. I thought about buying one for mine, but why do I need it??? I thought. Better safe not getting it in case they want to somehow crack down on it in the future... One of my relatives got one for a Colt for around $150
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
Bernie or Hillary would give it to them for free.
You tipped your hat again.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
The would-be burglars had "a short exchange of words" with the homeowner's 23-year-old son before he shot them with a rifle, Wagoner County Deputy Nick Mahoney said. The unnamed shooter has not been charged, and Mahoney said he appeared to be acting in self-defense -- but investigators said more charges could be coming.
Wait, wait, wait...aren't AR-15s impractical for home defense as stated by the anti-firearms experts around here? Seemed awfully practical in this situation...I find it odd that they didn't use the term "assault rifle" as usual. Where is the "teen uses assault rifle to stop three home intruders" NBC headline? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
That doesn't fit the narrative of the radical lefty anti-gunner.
The narrative at play is righties taking one anecdotal story and then generalizing from there. A 12 gauge is more practical because the shooter is more likely to hit the other person, and misses won't go ripping into the neighbors house.
I will use what I want and I do not need govt or your permission to make that decision for me.
Thanksverymuch.
Don't worry, we're still free to make a lot of stupid choices.
As we should be.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
Bernie or Hillary would give it to them for free.
You tipped your hat again.
Just stating the truth. Promises promises. Free free.
I can't afford own a tank, I can afford a firearm.
ftfy
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own guns if you can afford them or not is your issue, but if past presidents can hand out cell phones why not issue each American citizen a SW 9mm on their 18th birthday ?...now everybody is covered.
Or more logically, the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well-regulated militia, which would make more sense.
I am in a militia. My State Constitution says so.
We've been over this. If you're in a militia, then you can store your constitutionally protected armaments down at the armory with everyone else.
Comments
There is my issue with the 2nd Amendment. As interpreted now, it only protects those individuals who can afford to purchase a firearm. What about those who can not?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/john-boch/trump-hating-leftists-march-guns-bloodshed-horizon/
Here's the video:
https://m.liveleak.com/view?i=fda_1490585820
Let's say I make $50K per year. And I buy a $500 gun. That's 1% of my income.
Last year Bill Gates fortune went from $75 billion to $86 billion. 1% of that is $110 million dollars. Which is roughly the cost of a brand new F-35. Why shouldn't he be able to purchase one if he can afford it?
Thanksverymuch.
good grief ! really ?????
One of my relatives got one for a Colt for around $150