Common sense gun laws are pushed by people with no sense. Most often they don't even know what they are speaking of.
Thats true to an equal or lesser degree than the fast that common sense gun laws are opposed by people with no integrity, who use their superior firearm knowledge to straight up lie knowing they won't often be caught. Like when y'all claim an AR15 isn't a military rifle, knowing full well and failing to mention it was designed from the M16 military rifle. Or when y'all point out caliber and claim there's no difference in a hunting and assault rifle knowing full well and failing to mention muzzle velocity and the impact it has on lethality. Or like when y'all claim the tactical appointments don't make an assault rifle more deadly...until you need one to go boar hunting and suddenly those appointments and mods make all the difference in the world.
I'll take ignorance over dishonesty.
I’m a bit confused on what you mean in regards to muzzle velocities of hunting rifles vs “assault rifles”. The muzzle velocity of the same caliber is the same in a hunting rifle as it is in any other rifle of the same caliber. Many of the most used hunting rounds have a much higher muzzle than the most widely used ar-15 round (5.56 or .223). But there are a wide variety of calibers used in the ar-15 platform these days...so again, what are you talking about? When politicians try pushing gun control bills, they are often dishonest about their ignorance. Should I pull up the video of the CO lawmaker lying about the abilities of an AR-15 for the thousandth time?
I misspoke, "hunting" is supposed to read "handgun". Nice catch.
Did you know that handgun calibers are also used in the ar-15 platform? Also, there are some slow muzzle velocity rounds that can do WAY more damage than the fast ones depending on distance. .458 SOCOM for example.
Muddy the waters as much as you want, you only prove my point.
Common sense gun laws are pushed by people with no sense. Most often they don't even know what they are speaking of.
Thats true to an equal or lesser degree than the fast that common sense gun laws are opposed by people with no integrity, who use their superior firearm knowledge to straight up lie knowing they won't often be caught. Like when y'all claim an AR15 isn't a military rifle, knowing full well and failing to mention it was designed from the M16 military rifle. Or when y'all point out caliber and claim there's no difference in a hunting and assault rifle knowing full well and failing to mention muzzle velocity and the impact it has on lethality. Or like when y'all claim the tactical appointments don't make an assault rifle more deadly...until you need one to go boar hunting and suddenly those appointments and mods make all the difference in the world.
I'll take ignorance over dishonesty.
I’m a bit confused on what you mean in regards to muzzle velocities of hunting rifles vs “assault rifles”. The muzzle velocity of the same caliber is the same in a hunting rifle as it is in any other rifle of the same caliber. Many of the most used hunting rounds have a much higher muzzle than the most widely used ar-15 round (5.56 or .223). But there are a wide variety of calibers used in the ar-15 platform these days...so again, what are you talking about? When politicians try pushing gun control bills, they are often dishonest about their ignorance. Should I pull up the video of the CO lawmaker lying about the abilities of an AR-15 for the thousandth time?
I misspoke, "hunting" is supposed to read "handgun". Nice catch.
Did you know that handgun calibers are also used in the ar-15 platform? Also, there are some slow muzzle velocity rounds that can do WAY more damage than the fast ones depending on distance. .458 SOCOM for example.
Muddy the waters as much as you want, you only prove my point.
The waters are as muddy as they can be and ignoring that is ignorant. It is what will leave people with bald heads when no productive laws are passed...should be quite familiar with that. It is why so many pocket pistols and deadlier bullets that create hydrostatic shock were created when Bill Clinton banned high capacity magazines last go around. I think that the amped up training requirements, background checks, and stiffer legal ramifications for negligence are going to be the most productive changes.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so, same as with someone yelling “fire” in a movie theater. You do not restrict everyone’s 1st Amendment rights or impose penalties on every citizen because someone yells “fire”, though, just on the individual themselves, right?
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Interesting, I thought everyone was on board with negative actions resulting in negative consequences (civil and/or legal), but, if so, unsung would have to clarify on what he meant.
My guess is that Hugh was speaking to the millions of people who leave loaded weapons lying around neglectfully and the millions of guns sold without background checks neglectfully.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Yeah, explain in detail please. I don't condone aggression upon anyone except in defense.
have you not stated previously that your right to carry trumps another's right to life/safety?
Now you are talking about two different things. I, not speaking for unsung, would say that my *individual* right to carry has no relevance to another’s right to life/safety. Now, if I *individually exercise that right in a neglectful manner that results in someone else’s safety or life being at risk, then I should be held accountable in the same way that a person yelling “fire” in a movie theater would be held responsible for any injuries that neglectful behavior resulted in. There was a recent story about an FBI agent causing a firearm to discharge while he was doing a flip...now he is being held accountable for the negligence, which is exactly what should happen. I would be fine with amping up the legal ramifications of said actions if that would deter negligence.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Yeah, explain in detail please. I don't condone aggression upon anyone except in defense.
have you not stated previously that your right to carry trumps another's right to life/safety?
Now you are talking about two different things. I, not speaking for unsung, would say that my *individual* right to carry has no relevance to another’s right to life/safety. Now, if I *individually exercise that right in a neglectful manner that results in someone else’s safety or life being at risk, then I should be held accountable in the same way that a person yelling “fire” in a movie theater would be held responsible for any injuries that neglectful behavior resulted in. There was a recent story about an FBI agent causing a firearm to discharge while he was doing a flip...now he is being held accountable for the negligence, which is exactly what should happen. I would be fine with amping up the legal ramifications of said actions if that would deter negligence.
k, my original response to you was incorrect. you misunderstood my point and then I misunderstood your response.
i wasn't speaking originally of people being neglectful of their firearms. Just stating very simply I believe he has stated in the past that his right to carry an AR-15 (or similar) trumps everyone else's right not to be killed by one.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Yeah, explain in detail please. I don't condone aggression upon anyone except in defense.
have you not stated previously that your right to carry trumps another's right to life/safety?
Now you are talking about two different things. I, not speaking for unsung, would say that my *individual* right to carry has no relevance to another’s right to life/safety. Now, if I *individually exercise that right in a neglectful manner that results in someone else’s safety or life being at risk, then I should be held accountable in the same way that a person yelling “fire” in a movie theater would be held responsible for any injuries that neglectful behavior resulted in. There was a recent story about an FBI agent causing a firearm to discharge while he was doing a flip...now he is being held accountable for the negligence, which is exactly what should happen. I would be fine with amping up the legal ramifications of said actions if that would deter negligence.
k, my original response to you was incorrect. you misunderstood my point and then I misunderstood your response.
i wasn't speaking originally of people being neglectful of their firearms. Just stating very simply I believe he has stated in the past that his right to carry an AR-15 (or similar) trumps everyone else's right not to be killed by one.
Oh, I see. I think that is just a silly argument either way and was probably one of those viral meme quotes. I do not think rights “Trump” each other, but are in addition to each other. I have the right to own a firearm, but do not have the right to murder someone with it.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Yeah, explain in detail please. I don't condone aggression upon anyone except in defense.
have you not stated previously that your right to carry trumps another's right to life/safety?
Now you are talking about two different things. I, not speaking for unsung, would say that my *individual* right to carry has no relevance to another’s right to life/safety. Now, if I *individually exercise that right in a neglectful manner that results in someone else’s safety or life being at risk, then I should be held accountable in the same way that a person yelling “fire” in a movie theater would be held responsible for any injuries that neglectful behavior resulted in. There was a recent story about an FBI agent causing a firearm to discharge while he was doing a flip...now he is being held accountable for the negligence, which is exactly what should happen. I would be fine with amping up the legal ramifications of said actions if that would deter negligence.
k, my original response to you was incorrect. you misunderstood my point and then I misunderstood your response.
i wasn't speaking originally of people being neglectful of their firearms. Just stating very simply I believe he has stated in the past that his right to carry an AR-15 (or similar) trumps everyone else's right not to be killed by one.
I don't know a single gun owner that believes being neglectful is acceptable.
Their first Amendment rights end where the rights of others suffer.
Remember the whole can't yell fire in a theatre thing?
so shouldn't that apply to 2A as well?
They should, and they do. People that exercise their 2nd Amendment rights neglectfully should be held accountable for doing so.
I believe I have seen unsung disagree with that.
Yeah, explain in detail please. I don't condone aggression upon anyone except in defense.
have you not stated previously that your right to carry trumps another's right to life/safety?
Now you are talking about two different things. I, not speaking for unsung, would say that my *individual* right to carry has no relevance to another’s right to life/safety. Now, if I *individually exercise that right in a neglectful manner that results in someone else’s safety or life being at risk, then I should be held accountable in the same way that a person yelling “fire” in a movie theater would be held responsible for any injuries that neglectful behavior resulted in. There was a recent story about an FBI agent causing a firearm to discharge while he was doing a flip...now he is being held accountable for the negligence, which is exactly what should happen. I would be fine with amping up the legal ramifications of said actions if that would deter negligence.
k, my original response to you was incorrect. you misunderstood my point and then I misunderstood your response.
i wasn't speaking originally of people being neglectful of their firearms. Just stating very simply I believe he has stated in the past that his right to carry an AR-15 (or similar) trumps everyone else's right not to be killed by one.
I don't know a single gun owner that believes being neglectful is acceptable.
again, that's not what I was talking about. read again.
If I carry an AR it doesn't take anyone else's right away. If they attack me I would use it if forced to in order to defend myself. I didn't take away their right to live, they gave it up when they aggressed against me.
The mere act of carrying a gun does not take away anyone else's right to live.
If I carry an AR it doesn't take anyone else's right away. If they attack me I would use it if forced to in order to defend myself. I didn't take away their right to live, they gave it up when they aggressed against me.
The mere act of carrying a gun does not take away anyone else's right to live.
not the act specifically. the right. I believe you have stated your right to carry it (AKA: that style of weapon being legal to carry) is more important than saving lives by making it illegal to have the option of carrying it.
It really is simple. Murder is illegal. I know let's make it illegaler! That'll solve it.
Or maybe teach people to value life.
This Reminds me of a gun control measure that New Jersey passed the other day; they banned armor piercing ammunition that was already banned under federal law. So now they made it even illegaler. I bet they felt real good after signing it. Idiots.
It really is simple. Murder is illegal. I know let's make it illegaler! That'll solve it.
Or maybe teach people to value life.
This Reminds me of a gun control measure that New Jersey passed the other day; they banned armor piercing ammunition that was already banned under federal law. So now they made it even illegaler. I bet they felt real good after signing it. Idiots.
no, they made it illegal at the state level in case the federal law gets changed.
It really is simple. Murder is illegal. I know let's make it illegaler! That'll solve it.
Or maybe teach people to value life.
This Reminds me of a gun control measure that New Jersey passed the other day; they banned armor piercing ammunition that was already banned under federal law. So now they made it even illegaler. I bet they felt real good after signing it. Idiots.
no, they made it illegal at the state level in case the federal law gets changed.
I’m sure the NRA is lobbying for the repeal of legislation that bans or restricts armor piercing ammunition.
It really is simple. Murder is illegal. I know let's make it illegaler! That'll solve it.
Or maybe teach people to value life.
This Reminds me of a gun control measure that New Jersey passed the other day; they banned armor piercing ammunition that was already banned under federal law. So now they made it even illegaler. I bet they felt real good after signing it. Idiots.
no, they made it illegal at the state level in case the federal law gets changed.
I’m sure the NRA is lobbying for the repeal of legislation that bans or restricts armor piercing ammunition.
I don't believe so. I think I got my monthly magazine from them today, I'll go see if there is an article about this.
It really is simple. Murder is illegal. I know let's make it illegaler! That'll solve it.
Or maybe teach people to value life.
This Reminds me of a gun control measure that New Jersey passed the other day; they banned armor piercing ammunition that was already banned under federal law. So now they made it even illegaler. I bet they felt real good after signing it. Idiots.
Illinois wants to licence people that sell firearms, even though the sellers are already fedrally licensed.
They did leave an exemption for big box stores though, so it isn't really about safety, only the mom and pop shops suffer.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
i wasn't speaking originally of people being neglectful of their firearms. Just stating very simply I believe he has stated in the past that his right to carry an AR-15 (or similar) trumps everyone else's right not to be killed by one.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
If I carry an AR it doesn't take anyone else's right away. If they attack me I would use it if forced to in order to defend myself. I didn't take away their right to live, they gave it up when they aggressed against me.
The mere act of carrying a gun does not take away anyone else's right to live.
Speak up.
correct or no?
www.headstonesband.com
Because it won't save lives.
Let's make murder illegal first. That would mean nobody would murder, right?
(mass murderers) - (weapon of choice for maximum casualties) = x
please solve for x. I'll give you a hint: it's not zero.
www.headstonesband.com
Or maybe teach people to value life.
free market murder I say!
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
They did leave an exemption for big box stores though, so it isn't really about safety, only the mom and pop shops suffer.