- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,064
- Reaction score
- 9,812
I'm sorry, pisol/hanguns are used inchangablely.
and lolz @ being this wrong/clueless/stupid/etc in a thread about gun laws. 'it's a totally different thing, but it's the same thing!'
I'm sorry, pisol/hanguns are used inchangablely.
Yes, you mentioning nukes is silly. It's not like you can run down to your military surplus store and pick up a fat boy. You can't get training, certification, and even sourcing the materials is likely illegal.
Muskets take forever to load.
Even limiting.mags to 3....i could carry 25 mags and reload easily plus have side arms mid load in case someone gets brave. It wont do anything significant.
The point of this thread is determining where you draw the line when it comes to the second amendment. Everyone has a line, even though you're trying to pretend that you don't.
When the second amendment was created, nukes didn't exist. Now they do. So where do you draw the line? Are you fine with the status quo?
Whatever the US military has access to, should also be available to law abiding American citizens
The argument about rifles over guns is the idea that apparently it's easier to kill a lot of people with a rifle, so citizens shouldn't have them.
I have no idea.
You're the "lazy asshole" using laughable terminology like "assault weapon".
An "assault weapon" is a "rifle" you dumb fuck.
The point of this thread is determining where you draw the line when it comes to the second amendment. Everyone has a line, even though you're trying to pretend that you don't.
When the second amendment was created, nukes didn't exist. Now they do. So where do you draw the line? Are you fine with the status quo?
when it was created, personal cannons and battleships existed. you really want to go there? sure, play that card.
I'm pretty sure I made my line quite clear. If you are mentally fit, have a clean criminal record, and are trained, you should be able to own whatever you want.
The status quo? No, more people should be armed. School officials should be armed. The more people carrying results in a deterrent for criminals.
Don't kid yourself, the criminals already have weapons. I just want it to be a fair fight.
'm pretty sure you can go buy a cannon. They are very inefficient for killing a lot of people.
Again, stop being a lazy asshole. We banned assault weapons in the 90s, you can go and look up the definition. I don't recall rifles ever being banned.
Lol, the guy who talks out his ass and posts false and misleading information is calling me a "lazy asshole".
Hilarious.
Why don't you go educate yourself, dummy, instead of making yourself look stupid?
"Hurrr durrrr, I don't even remember them banning rifles"...
"Congress didn't want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an "assault weapon." But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-assault-weapons-in-one-post/?noredirect=on
Last I checked both the AR-15 and AK-47 platforms are "rifles". So please, "lazy asshole" tell us again how they weren't banned?
I could use some more laughs at your expense.
So you are well aware of what constitutes an assault weapon but made this dumbass post anyway? Man you're stupid.
rifle or an assault weapon.
Yes I'm well aware an "assault weapon" is a "rifle".
Unlike you.
Continue embarrassing yourself.
Why do you think people need assault weapons?
I'm all for protecting yourself and your property if you go through stringent mental health checks etc, but why do you NEED an AR15?