America's Gun Violence

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

More than likely not as there really is no such thing.  

He probably had his personal defense firearm or his sporting rifle.  I highly doubt he had a military M16.

Just wondering, what are you considering an assault rifle? A gun used by the military?
The government has defined assault rifles by a few select features, many of which are available on civilian versions.

You lost me at "the government".

Features that don't make a weapon any more likely to be used in a crime.

Oh no, those evil pistol grips!  LOL.

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

More than likely not as there really is no such thing.  

He probably had his personal defense firearm or his sporting rifle.  I highly doubt he had a military M16.

Just wondering, what are you considering an assault rifle? A gun used by the military?
The government has defined assault rifles by a few select features, many of which are available on civilian versions.

You lost me at "the government".

Features that don't make a weapon any more likely to be used in a crime.

Oh no, those evil pistol grips!  LOL.

I absolutely agree that the definition is extremely stupid. According to at least one bill the definition was a detachable magazine and any 2 of the following features, which included a pistol grip to an attachment that can hold a grenade launcher. It didn't make any sense to me as far as how and why any of those were chosen and why 2? I think most, of not all, of those other features are harmless.
But I asked because you said assault rifles don't technically exist. I was just wondering how you came to that conclusion. 
Like it or not, we live in a governmental society, and our government has defined what an assault rifle is. I was just wondering how you came up with your conclusion that assault rifles don't exist, when "the government" has defined them?

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

More than likely not as there really is no such thing.  

He probably had his personal defense firearm or his sporting rifle.  I highly doubt he had a military M16.

Just wondering, what are you considering an assault rifle? A gun used by the military?
The government has defined assault rifles by a few select features, many of which are available on civilian versions.

You lost me at "the government".

Features that don't make a weapon any more likely to be used in a crime.

Oh no, those evil pistol grips!  LOL.

Is there a sovereign citizens or similar handbook where we can learn all your acceptable definitions.

You do realize a pistol grip is intended to make the weapon easier to handle, which much like semi-auto features, makes it a much more efficient killing machine for those who are highly skilled in it's use. Unlike a handgun, a rifle bullet is going to travel a lot farther with more efficiency than when I shoot a handgun from a non conforming position. I can shoot a hand gun from the hip and be very effective at 30 feet so imagine if I practice shooting my semi auto from a lower position if I was say, retreating or on the move. That would keep people on their heels. Sure, you won't be very accurate if you aren't aiming, but the fact that you can at least semi-auto fire rounds from a non-sighted position isn't anything I would want to be on the other end of. You seem to think that all of these "features" have no negative impact. To the average gun owner, they probably don't mean shit because they are never going to use it that way, but to the next mass shooter, they are looking for quick and efficient killing "features".

mace1229 said:

riley540 said:

A lot of people use prayer to better their lives. It’s gross to see how insensitive the people on this board are towards those people. This was a church. These innocent people were there for open prayer and worship and people on here are making a mockery of it. 

I get a board closed closed last week for saying radical Islam is a problem, and this board is applauded for bashing Christian people. Funny 

I had the same feeling. I just don't get it either. You don't like prayer then that's fine, but mocking someone who prays seems like being extremely intolerant of others to me. Especially for those who pride themselves on being tolerant of everyone.

Just upsetting. I’m not religious, but it just puts a sour taste in my mouth 

lol you guys  are funny don't be butt hurt i stated i don't belive in any religion and i stay away from any church i've never mocked people for following any religion i respect all people's choices ...

mace1229 said:

riley540 said:

A lot of people use prayer to better their lives. It’s gross to see how insensitive the people on this board are towards those people. This was a church. These innocent people were there for open prayer and worship and people on here are making a mockery of it. 

I get a board closed closed last week for saying radical Islam is a problem, and this board is applauded for bashing Christian people. Funny 

I had the same feeling. I just don't get it either. You don't like prayer then that's fine, but mocking someone who prays seems like being extremely intolerant of others to me. Especially for those who pride themselves on being tolerant of everyone.
Some defended it because thats all some do about it as pray. I dont see it that way, I see it as a cheap shot at a religion, and then the same people get offended when you use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" when you describe the San Bernardino shootings. There's more tolerance for radical violence than people praying it seems like.

nope. not at all. you folks are missing the point entirely. it doesn't matter if the word "prayer" is in there or not. I would say the same if it was just "my thoughts are with you". it's the hypocrisy of the message. has nothing to do with religion. it's saying "i'm sorry this happened to you, but my gun rights are more important to me than anything else". that is all.

not a religion thing whatsoever. 

riley540 said:

A lot of people use prayer to better their lives. It’s gross to see how insensitive the people on this board are towards those people. This was a church. These innocent people were there for open prayer and worship and people on here are making a mockery of it. 

I get a board closed closed last week for saying radical Islam is a problem, and this board is applauded for bashing Christian people. Funny 

and who is mocking people who pray? 

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

riley540 said:

A lot of people use prayer to better their lives. It’s gross to see how insensitive the people on this board are towards those people. This was a church. These innocent people were there for open prayer and worship and people on here are making a mockery of it. 

I get a board closed closed last week for saying radical Islam is a problem, and this board is applauded for bashing Christian people. Funny 

I had the same feeling. I just don't get it either. You don't like prayer then that's fine, but mocking someone who prays seems like being extremely intolerant of others to me. Especially for those who pride themselves on being tolerant of everyone.
Some defended it because thats all some do about it as pray. I dont see it that way, I see it as a cheap shot at a religion, and then the same people get offended when you use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" when you describe the San Bernardino shootings. There's more tolerance for radical violence than people praying it seems like.

nope. not at all. you folks are missing the point entirely. it doesn't matter if the word "prayer" is in there or not. I would say the same if it was just "my thoughts are with you". it's the hypocrisy of the message. has nothing to do with religion. it's saying "i'm sorry this happened to you, but my gun rights are more important to me than anything else". that is all.

not a religion thing whatsoever. 

^^^This guy gets it. Mace and Riley, read this over and over again until you understand.

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

riley540 said:

A lot of people use prayer to better their lives. It’s gross to see how insensitive the people on this board are towards those people. This was a church. These innocent people were there for open prayer and worship and people on here are making a mockery of it. 

I get a board closed closed last week for saying radical Islam is a problem, and this board is applauded for bashing Christian people. Funny 

I had the same feeling. I just don't get it either. You don't like prayer then that's fine, but mocking someone who prays seems like being extremely intolerant of others to me. Especially for those who pride themselves on being tolerant of everyone.
Some defended it because thats all some do about it as pray. I dont see it that way, I see it as a cheap shot at a religion, and then the same people get offended when you use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" when you describe the San Bernardino shootings. There's more tolerance for radical violence than people praying it seems like.

nope. not at all. you folks are missing the point entirely. it doesn't matter if the word "prayer" is in there or not. I would say the same if it was just "my thoughts are with you". it's the hypocrisy of the message. has nothing to do with religion. it's saying "i'm sorry this happened to you, but my gun rights are more important to me than anything else". that is all.

not a religion thing whatsoever. 

^^^This guy gets it. Mace and Riley, read this over and over again until you understand.

They got it in the first place. If they didn't... aye-yay-yay.

Nothing will ever change.