57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 12:34 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Al right, there you hve a perfect example of something untrue you have repeated over and over for years, and it's stil untrue. No one is trying to bsn pistol grips on rifles,

That is incorrect. You are trying to do just that.


MontereyJack wrote:
they re want to ban a group of rifles, some of which have pisto grips, some of which do not.

Trying to ban other things on semi-auto rifles does not change the fact that you are also trying to ban pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.

The ban on all the other items is just as much of a civil liberties violation, by the way. The focus on pistol grips is just to simplify the argument.


MontereyJack wrote:
Ban the RIFLES, not the grips.

That's sophistry. "Banning rifles because they have a pistol grip" is "banning pistol grips on rifles".


MontereyJack wrote:
It was silly the first time you propounded it, it's even sillier the 50th time, or so it seems countwise. .

Calling you out on your bad behavior is hardly silly.


MontereyJack wrote:
And I might add, another federal court of appeals just let a ban on assault-style weapons stand as constitutional, and nowhere did it mention pistol grips being banned.

Irrelevant.


MontereyJack wrote:
You're trying to foist your fantasy on the rest of us

No fantasy. I have actual evidence that you are trying to ban pistol grips on semi-auto rifles.


MontereyJack wrote:
and it is not working,

Sure it is. You are rightfully condemned for your bad behavior, and you have no way to argue against that condemnation.

Every time you try to deny your guilt, it only results in another response from me that proves your guilt.


MontereyJack wrote:
nor is it working on the courts.

Your hope that the Supreme Court will refuse to uphold the Constitution is unlikely to come to fruition.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 12:40 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
So semi auto rifles are clearly weapons of war.

Only in the same sense that the English longbow is a weapon of war.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 02:55 am
@oralloy,
The Supreme Court is upholding the constitution and is allowing bans on assault-style weapons to remain since they are constitutional. Sorry you're wrong.
What is it you think I'm guilty of. What alternate reality are you in today? Provide cites and evidence that demonstrate the validity of your fantasy allegations. and you still never offered any proof for the previous requests for the verification you promised and didn't deliver.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 03:16 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The Supreme Court is upholding the constitution and is allowing bans on assault-style weapons to remain since they are constitutional. Sorry you're wrong.

That is incorrect. What is the compelling government interest in banning rifles with pistol grips?


MontereyJack wrote:
What is it you think I'm guilty of.

You are guilty of violating people's civil liberties, and are guilty of doing so for the sole reason that you think that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties.


MontereyJack wrote:
What alternate reality are you in today?

You cannot point to anyplace where I have been wrong about anything.


MontereyJack wrote:
Provide cites and evidence that demonstrate the validity of your fantasy allegations.

Here is a recent post where you confessed to trying to ban rifles with pistol grips:
http://able2know.org/topic/131081-290#post-6890079


MontereyJack wrote:
and you still never offered any proof for the previous requests for the verification you promised and didn't deliver.

That is incorrect. I have provided evidence to back up everything that I've said.
MontereyJack
 
  5  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 04:06 am
@oralloy,
Pistol grips are purely your obsession, not the courts' and not the people's. The government's compelling interest in assault weapons bans is probably to reduce the unacceptably high level of gun violence and the attendant denial on a huge scale of people's civil rights. Assault style weapons have a high share of those civil rights violations, and the bans should contribute to lessening that violence. The bans are on weapons, not pistol grips. Yu are promulgating the reddest of red herrings, and the courts and the people of the country see no validity in your argument, no matter what you say. or how often you say it.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 04:21 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Pistol grips are purely your obsession, not the courts' and not the people's.

You're the one who keeps trying to ban them.


MontereyJack wrote:
The government's compelling interest in assault weapons bans is probably to reduce the unacceptably high level of gun violence and the attendant denial on a huge scale of people's civil rights. Assault style weapons have a high share of those civil rights violations, and the bans should contribute to lessening that violence.

That is incorrect. Banning rifles with pistol grips will not reduce violence in any way. Nor will it preserve civil rights in any way.


MontereyJack wrote:
The bans are on weapons, not pistol grips.

More sophistry. "Banning rifles that have pistol grips" is the same as "banning pistol grips on rifles".


MontereyJack wrote:
Yu are promulgating the reddest of red herrings,

Condemning you for your actual bad behavior is not a red herring.


MontereyJack wrote:
and the courts and the people of the country see no validity in your argument, no matter what you say. or how often you say it.

You don't speak for either the courts or the people.

But for those people who enjoy violating people's civil liberties for fun, I say: No new gun laws for you!

I oppose all new gun legislation, even if it is not otherwise objectionable and would actually save lives, until you've stopped violating people's civil liberties, and until you've paid hefty compensation to the people whose civil liberties you've grievously violated.

In the meantime, stack all the bodies in a nice neat pile so I can piss on them.
MontereyJack
 
  6  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 07:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy says:
Quote:

But for those people who enjoy violating people's civil liberties for fun, I say: No new gun laws for you!

I oppose all new gun legislation, even if it is not otherwise objectionable and would actually save lives, until you've stopped violating people's civil liberties, and until you've paid hefty compensation to the people whose civil liberties you've grievously violated.

In the meantime, stack all the bodies in a nice neat pile so I can piss on them

Is this the temper tantrum of a sociopathic troll or is it not?


Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 08:37 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Have you ever fired an M-*******-16???

Yes I've fired a ******* M-16, I was in the Army and actually carried the M203, which is an M-16 with the the grenade launcher slung underneath. So I know what I'm talking about. I qualified as expert with both the M-16A2 and the M4 and the Beretta M9, as well as the M240 Bravo, we used them on our Chinooks for the door guns, I was a crew chief on the Chinook before I got out.

Quote:
How old are you?

I'm 45 and was actually deployed while I was a member of this board. I was in Pakistan for 5 months in late 2005/early 2006 after the massive Earthquakes they had. Operation Lifeline, look it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KMH2ZEkAqs

Quote:
I had that monster pointed at me by my first husband...

You've mentioned this many times, I fail to see how it relates to firearm ownership for the vast majority of Americans who commit no crimes? Other than being an emotional plee, I don't know what else it serves. You had mentioned before that he stole the gun from his unit, sounds like it as illegal all the way around.

Quote:
if Baldimo ever served he may have gone thru basic and learned to fire rifles, but if he were in a support unit he didn't have to qualify regularly or to practice going thru gas chamber exercises.

I was actually in an aviation unit, Chinooks, we had a plenty active roll while I served. If you recall the Navy Seals that went down on a Chinook, that was my unit, Extortion 17.

Everyone in the military has to qualify twice a year with all weapons you have to fire. As noted above, I was qualified on the M16, M4, M9 M203, M240 Bravo. As a crew chief we carry and use all of the weapons systems either on our person, M4 and M9, or on the helicopter M240 Bravo.

As I stated before, if Snood was being honest, which he isn't, he would know the AR15 is not used in the military and has several differences from the M-16, mainly that there is no selective fire switch like there is on the M16 and M4, none which can be owned by civilians.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 08:49 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Whaere do you get of calling them not weapons of war.

Because they are not weapons of war, I've fired weapons of war and the AR15 isn't one of them.

Quote:
I trust you remember that World War 2, the Korean War, and to some extent the War in Vietnam, all well within the memory of thousands of living veterans who did not spend their military years serving in the motor pool, were fought in large part with the semi automatic Garand, similar to the AR-15.

The M1 Garand is nothing like the AR-15, first off they shoot different rounds, the Garand shot 7.62 ammo, while the AR fires 5.56. The AR-15 was never used by the military and the company did a redesign of the AR before selling it to the military. Not the same weapon.

Quote:
And the AR-15 has at a rough estimate, something lie 30 times the fire power of the single shot unrifled muzzleloaders the Revolution was fought with, which was al the Founding Fathers had to look at when they were writing the 2nd amendment, so thoroughly misunderstood by rightists today. They would have considered it a Terror Weapon/

This is where you history goes wrong. The Founding Fathers and their military had access to guns other than muzzle loaders, they only authorized the muzzle loader for the military because it was cheaper than the multishot rifles that were indeed available at that time. This has been mentioned dozens of times on this board, but you anti-gunners ignore the historical facts. The Founding Fathers had just fought a war for Independence, do you really think they were limiting weapns?

Belton Flintlock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 09:51 am
@oralloy,
It's made in versions that fire.233 ammo and kits are on the aftermarket to make them auto to make then as close to M-16s as possible. An AK-47 isn't a M-16 either.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 09:53 am
@MontereyJack,
Kinda harsh on fleas aren'cha, Jack?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 09:56 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
It's made in versions that fire.233 ammo and kits are on the aftermarket to make them auto to make then as close to M-16s as possible. An AK-47 isn't a M-16 either.

.223 and 5.56 are exactly the same except for a small measurement at the throat of the casing. Round size is just a bit bigger than a .22LR.

As for the kits, they don't exist and the bump stock was banned, there is nothing else that makes them alike or close to an M16A2. M16's have a fire selector switch for 3 round burst or semi. It's illegal to modify a semi-auto to make it a full auto.
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 10:19 am
@Baldimo,
BS. NYT had a long article on guys who make and sell kits legally because kits are not themselves considered guns or even gun parts and are unregulated.

I can even buy a simple kit that makes my AR-15's trigger double action - it would fire in both directions. Cheap, simple and almost as good as full automatic, and easier on ammo costs. The kit is around $50. I can buy an AR-15 at the monthly local gun show in Kingsland Tx for under $400 with an auto kit already installed.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 10:52 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
BS. NYT had a long article on guys who make and sell kits legally because kits are not themselves considered guns or even gun parts and are unregulated.

When was this article published? I'll take the NYT with a grain of salt, they are anti-gun and have no reason to publish accurate info on guns.

Quote:
I can even buy a simple kit that makes my AR-15's trigger double action - it would fire in both directions. Cheap, simple and almost as good as full automatic, and easier on ammo costs. The kit is around $50. I can buy an AR-15 at the monthly local gun show in Kingsland Tx for under $400 with an auto kit already installed.

Converting a gun to full auto is illegal. Got any info on these kits you are claiming? Any links?
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:07 am
All this arguing about what gun does what doesn't solve the issue that people are dying from gun shot wounds. Instead of pages upon pages of....****..., let's DO something about that.



izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:13 am
@neptuneblue,
They don't want to do anything about it, just talk **** about pistol grips.
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:16 am
@izzythepush,
Anyone who's been in front of a gun instead of behind one doesn't care if it's an M16, AR15, bump stocked or not.

They just want to live.

Then figure out how to stop that from happening in the first place.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:20 am
@neptuneblue,
We have stopped it, we stopped it after Dunblane in 1996.

It can be done, but only if you're prepared to stand up to the NRA.
glitterbag
 
  6  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:34 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:

Anyone who's been in front of a gun instead of behind one doesn't care if it's an M16, AR15, bump stocked or not.

They just want to live.

Then figure out how to stop that from happening in the first place.


That's absolutely correct, some people seem to be sayin that gun violence victims are simply the price this country must shoulder so a few irresponsible people can stock pile weapons and ammo.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Aug, 2019 11:40 am
@glitterbag,
It's pure callousness that this discussion denigrated into a argument based on objects instead of human life.



 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 10:00:43