ADVERTISEMENT

For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....

Meanwhile....

holding+breath(1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MegaPoke
This is all so racist. White nationalists everywhere, obviously they don’t follow the law so law abiding minorities can’t have equal firepower? It’s not like the racist police are going to help we know that. @Syskatine just wants law abiding blacks to be unarmed with gangs and white nationalists running around with weapons of war. They can have three bullets at a time though. It’s like with sys’s view on guns and abortion he wants black genocide to just be done already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and Soonersincefitty
COWBOYintheUK said:
If you think the Armenian Genocide is why you should be able to own a military grade weapon then you need help.......I 100&% agree with 2A, I grew up in Alaska where we had to carry guns, and I own 7 myself, I love the M-16/ AR-15, I qualified Expert on the M-16 7 times in my 22 years in the military, I also know what it is capable of, and that is why it should not be in civilians hands
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity - and I ask this with utmost humility - out of your 22 years of service how many times were you involved in actual combat, putting your 7-time expertise with the M-16 to use while having someone else shoot back at you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek, Ostatedchi and OUSOONER67
Syskatine said:
How many is high capacity?

I dunno. 3+? If somebody can't hit the target in 3 shots, or has more than 3 targets, they generally need to start over imo. Revolvers frequently have up to 7 or 8, maybe that.



High rate of fire in any semi auto is dependent on how fast you can manually pull a trigger. What are you suggesting here?

I don't follow you.



The purpose of a flash suppressor is simply to minimize the flash in front of the front sights of the gun, so you don't lose your target. I agree though - largely cosmetic, but not entirely.

If that's the objective, it fails. The flash is MORE blinding because it shoots all over instead of straight out of the barrel. Like I said, those are the half-ass ones on the civilian market. I thought they were designed to minimize flash so other people can't identify the flash.



Again, are you proposing banning all semi-autos? The vast majority of firearms in the united states from shotguns to double action revolvers are effectively semi-auto in the fact that you don't have to manually chamber a round, cock a hammer, etc.

Yes. If and when revolvers, bolt actions, slides, etc. develop the same fixation and cult and body count then maybe talk about them too. I like guns and think we need them as a matter of national security and hunting. I have a problem with suburban dorks getting assault weapons.

Also - you are right. Bolt actions, lever actions etc. would get off fewer rounds, but the rounds they do get off are devastating. Have you ever compared a 30/06 or 30/30 bullet to a .223? If you had to take a hit from one, I promise you would prefer the .223. The UT tower shooter effectively executed a typical mass shooting with bolt action weapons, by the way, so it's not going to solve the problem.

I have never seen a ballistics test from them all, but my understanding is the speed and tiny bullet of the .223 makes it particularly nasty. .30-06 will go straight through where the .223 is tumbling, fragmenting, ricocheting around, etc. I'm not an expert but the .223 supposedly punches above its weight regarding destroying flesh.



Making it more expensive is patently racist and classist. The rich and elite will be able to afford personal protection and the working class won't. Making it harder for "morons" to get in the first place is somewhat problematic because morons can easily get illegal guns now. Who are the morons? The legit mentally ill or just people who you disagree with politically?

The poor won't be able to afford ASSAULT RIFLES. If you're gonna go class warfare, don't confuse a .38 in the nightstand with an AR 15. By Morons I mean the crazy people that shoot up theaters, etc.



There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the buy back. Did you know that? Also, you may have noticed, Australia does not share a massive border with Mexico. We do. And you don't want a wall or really any method of keeping drugs, guns and illegals out, so... how does this compare in any way?

Yes. Because we're similar countries demographically and culturally.

Yes, but Australia has massive coastlines. You asked, yes. Other countries have done it. If you're just gonna 'Well that doesn't count" all the way down the line, just say so. Hell you have other entire countries that have tackled this issue successfully and there's aaaaaaalways a reason why we can't do it. Now it's a border.



A limited gun buy-back would result in a great black market seller's opportunity. Unlicensed dealers could simply add 25% to what the government would pay, and presto - the idiots who sold their guns will have made a few bucks while supplying unregulated dealers with a cheap inventory.

It might. You don't know that. It might do all that, too, and we get a ton of guns off the street and firearm deaths go down 25%. It worled for Australia. Personally, I think it's piss in the wind as gun nuts don't give up their guns, but if there's a demographic it DOES work with... why not?



Again, making them artificially more expensive isn't going to do anything but disarm law abiding working class citizens. Suing manufacturers opens a pandora's box that I think liquor lobby, auto manufacturers and so on may not agree with. Plus, where do you stop? Do you only sue manufacturers of AR's and AK's? Do Glock and Smith & Wesson get off free for suicides and handgun murders which are infinitely more common problems?

Again, yes, high gun prices count. Fear of getting sued counts. I'm repeating the mantra of the business lobby for the past 30 years, i.e. that lawsuits destroy industries. Listen to your own side of the aisle on this one.

When rich people are the ones shooting these people, I'll worry about them. Right now I'm worried about mass shooters and many of them have a helluva time getting the coin to buy these guns. I don't get your objection. It's a plan that takes nothing. You're worth more the next day. Your gun is worth x3 the amount.

And yeah, I guess for now only the assault weapon manufacturers. I hate to throw out ALL guns if you don't need to.
Click to expand...
And you claim you own 30+ firearms?

5cFH.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1, 22LR and OUSOONER67
Syskatine said:
I dunno. 3+? If somebody can't hit the target in 3 shots, or has more than 3 targets, they generally need to start over imo. Revolvers frequently have up to 7 or 8, maybe that.
Click to expand...

3+? So anything over 2? Or something similar to typical 7-8 chamber revolvers..

I hope you are trolling here.

Syskatine said:
Yes. If and when revolvers, bolt actions, slides, etc. develop the same fixation and cult and body count then maybe talk about them too. I like guns and think we need them as a matter of national security and hunting. I have a problem with suburban dorks getting assault weapons.
Click to expand...

You are still going to need to define assault weapons. And maybe suburban dorks.

Syskatine said:
I have never seen a ballistics test from them all, but my understanding is the speed and tiny bullet of the .223 makes it particularly nasty. .30-06 will go straight through where the .223 is tumbling, fragmenting, ricocheting around, etc. I'm not an expert but the .223 supposedly punches above its weight regarding destroying flesh.
Click to expand...

NATO 5.56 (M16) is very slightly hotter than .223 (AR). Both rounds can get over 3000 fps which can cause a shockwave and tumbling and splintering. .308 / .30 06 can get to 2700 fps which can still do the same but with a much heavier round and a lot more power getting it there - so it’ll hold that speed further.

A .270 Winchester will get over 3100 fps.

Syskatine said:
The poor won't be able to afford ASSAULT RIFLES. If you're gonna go class warfare, don't confuse a .38 in the nightstand with an AR 15. By Morons I mean the crazy people that shoot up theaters, etc.
Click to expand...

Still haven’t defined an assault rifle.

Syskatine said:
Yes. Because we're similar countries demographically and culturally.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the founding was completely different. The exploration was different. Guns are an inextricably central component of American history.

Syskatine said:
Yes, but Australia has massive coastlines. You asked, yes. Other countries have done it. If you're just gonna 'Well that doesn't count" all the way down the line, just say so. Hell you have other entire countries that have tackled this issue successfully and there's aaaaaaalways a reason why we can't do it. Now it's a border.
Click to expand...

It’s really not been that successfully done. Certainly not in our context. There is no direct comparison. We’ve discussed this.

Syskatine said:
It might. You don't know that. It might do all that, too, and we get a ton of guns off the street and firearm deaths go down 25%. It worled for Australia. Personally, I think it's piss in the wind as gun nuts don't give up their guns, but if there's a demographic it DOES work with... why not?
Click to expand...

Why not? Because Constitutional rights aren’t a good place for social experiments. It should be set in stone.

Syskatine said:
Again, yes, high gun prices count. Fear of getting sued counts. I'm repeating the mantra of the business lobby for the past 30 years, i.e. that lawsuits destroy industries. Listen to your own side of the aisle on this one.

I don’t follow

When rich people are the ones shooting these people, I'll worry about them. Right now I'm worried about mass shooters and many of them have a helluva time getting the coin to buy these guns. I don't get your objection. It's a plan that takes nothing. You're worth more the next day. Your gun is worth x3 the amount.

Can you prove an socioeconomic barrier?

And yeah, I guess for now only the assault weapon manufacturers. I hate to throw out ALL guns if you don't need to.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
MegaPoke said:
Not obsessed. Just saying enough is enough. Getting rid of AR's would do nothing. They are the iPhone of rifles. The reason you see them involved in more mass shootings than other options is simply because *among guns* they are ubiquitous. If they weren't, something else would be. It's not the gun. It's the broken people behind them. How can you not realize this?

Just answer me this - AR's have been around since the 50's. Why are they just now a problem? Rapid fire semi auto and full auto technology goes back to the early 1900's. There's literally nothing about an AR that makes it more deadly than any number of things you could easily buy in 1930. Are they more dependable long term and more versatile etc? yeah. But for a guy that wants to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, AR's are not using any kind of new tech.

What's different now and why are guns the solution?
Click to expand...

Were we in person I'd slap you. So? Yes, of course the people are broken. It's easier to take away the gun than to fix all these random broken people. If there's some prairie fire of "fix people" that I'm unaware of, please apprise. Or some movement towards fixing the other 400 obstacles you can create before we stop the gun abuse.

Maybe it's getting worse and not better. We're supposed to wait for some Great Awakening? Who or what on the radar screen is bringing that? How many excuses until some basic, basic things are done that works? Or we just outsmart the nitwits?

1. Government isn't the threat. There are other threats government protects us from. Unless the NRA is gonna take on Big Tech?

2. You can always arm up. A lot harder to get them away from morons.

3. This is such a waste of time. The groundhog day nature of these mass shootings are intolerable and only getting worse and it's a game to you guys.

N. Pappagiorgio said:
sys, how many of your 30+ guns are semiautomatic ?
Click to expand...

2 shotguns and several pistols. There's an old childhood $80 sks in there, too, with a cracked stock and crooked iron sight but it's such a p.o.s. it doesn't really count.
 
Syskatine said:
Were we in person I'd slap you.
Click to expand...

That would be inadvisable.

Syskatine said:
It's easier to take away the gun than to fix all these random broken people.
Click to expand...

Sure. If you are actually taking away guns from broken people and not recklessly removing the single greatest safeguard to our freedom that exists in a fools errand that in reality won't make any difference. There is no chance of eradicating guns from the United States. None. And that's what you would have to do to substantively change gun violence. The unintended consequences of where this goes every time a bad idea doesn't work are unacceptable.

Syskatine said:
Maybe it's getting worse and not better. We're supposed to wait for some Great Awakening? Who or what on the radar screen is bringing that? How many excuses until some basic, basic things are done that works? Or we just outsmart the nitwits?
Click to expand...

No, but some measure of reality would be nice. The reality is that there is no quick fix and mutilating the Constitution isn't going to solve anything. That document is why after a 1/4 millennium, we are the undisputed greatest nation in the history of mankind. Who in their right mind wants to fvck around with the thing that clearly enabled that fact to be? Find other solutions. There is nothing to suggest that shot in the dark would work, but it's consequences could literally be bloody revolution/civil war and the destruction of a unified Continental United States. I cannot fathom how anyone thinks that's a risk worth taking.

Syskatine said:
Government isn't the threat.
Click to expand...

Dumbest thing you've ever said. Maybe not today - but 20 years from now? 50? You have no earthly idea if it will be a threat or not. Also, the reason it isn't a threat today could very well be the problematic fact that we are armed. Take that away, and you change the chemistry of the equation. It's stupid. It's shortsighted. It's not happening.

Syskatine said:
it's a game to you guys.
Click to expand...

This is where you become completely childish and intolerable. You think you care, but it's a game to "us guys." It's a classic dehumanization of "other" in order to sooth your own confirmation bias against people who disagree with you. There's no way to intelligently debate anyone who believes we are bad people as a starting point. You are wrong. it's no game. it's deadly real. A buyback program in this country would be a flashpoint to horrific violence.

Syskatine said:
There's an old childhood $80 sks in there
Click to expand...

Sorry bro. That is literally an assault rifle / weapon of war. It's likely a Vietnam war trophy, and more likely than not has a violent combat history. Take a look at your sorry old SKS that "doesn't count" and re-imagine it with a new stock and magazine upgrade.

Tell me sys... what is this?

1966-Vintage-Norinco-inch-Triangle-26inch-Paratrooper-SKS-Custom-in-7-62x39-Caliber-Nice-Custom-Para_101223423_70986_781F826366BAE25D.JPG


The SKS shoots the same ammo as an AK47. It's a Chinese assault rifle. You don't think it counts because it has an ugly wooden stock with a crack in it, but that's just cosmetic. You would absolutely have to sell it to the government like a good boy if some dickface like Beta O'Dork has their way, or become a felon like the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoastGuardCowboy, Medic007, jkosu and 1 other person
What seems to be completely lost on leftists is that the political party that creates sanctuary cities to aid criminal illegal aliens in avoiding federal law enforcement, wants open borders, hates law enforcement, and coddles criminals wants to take away a tool of self defense from those of us who choose to protect ourselves from the inevitable effects of those moronic leftist policies.

Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange, OSU_Orlando, Soonersincefitty and 2 others
soonerinlOUisiana said:
Good God almighty where did you go to law school? Government by definition is a threat to freedom. Therefore its powers should be granted sparingly, and limits to those powers should be imposed liberally. 1st year constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Oh my stars! Good gracious! Who told you that?

Tell me a government imposition of freedom that happened without individuals doing it!

And here's a couple of times ol' government has helped protect freedoms.

1. Abolished slavery.

2. Nazis.

3. Desegregation.

4. Antitrust actions against the robber barons.

Those are some minor freedoms, fwiw. I know, I know, you weren't at risk so they don't count. Right?
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ostatedchi
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aix_xpert

Expect this weekend's rhetoric to be all about race

Replies
1
Views
206
24/7 Politics
Sunburnt Indian
Sunburnt Indian
GhostOfMatchesMalone

Anyone claiming to be on the 'right' who says Trump is an *&*&*&*&* we need to move on from must be mocked and shamed to the left where they belong

Replies
5
Views
264
24/7 Politics
GhostOfMatchesMalone
GhostOfMatchesMalone
P

For Those If You That Never - And I Mean Never …

Replies
7
Views
208
24/7 Politics
Medic007
Medic007
GhostOfMatchesMalone

Libs, what would be your response if Trump did this to Obama?

Replies
5
Views
380
24/7 Politics
fatman76
fatman76
P

I Cannot Fathom

Replies
0
Views
206
24/7 Politics
Ponca Dan
P
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back