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

That is a rather odd comment.

What part of the article that you quoted do you think addresses or explains or has anything whatsoever to do with the executive order?

But what about an executive order mandating that all cars be gray colored?

That would show how much you care about drunk driving.

Don't you care about the victims of drunk driving?

Wrong. The pistol grip does not make them any deadlier than other rifles with large detachable magazines.



Wrong. Laws against pistol grips are all about outlawing pistol grips.

Nothing moronic about telling the truth.



Wrong. Laws against pistol grips outlaw pistol grips.



Wrong. That law does not ban semi-autos with detachable magazines if there is no pistol grip on the weapons.



Wrong. The reason why they are called assault weapons bans is because progressives lie about what the law addresses.

Those laws do not address a single assault weapon.

Assault weapons were outlawed nearly 90 years ago.



There is nothing silly about pointing out facts and reality.



In other words, the law bans pistol grips and leaves guns alone if they don't have pistol grips.



I always post facts. Progressives are the ones who run screaming in terror whenever they see a fact.

It's clear you don't as is shown by the utter idiocy of your suggestion. the color of a car is utterly unrelated to the state of inebriation of the driver. Now, on the other hand, if everyone cited for drunk driving were required by law to drive only cars painted shocking pink, with lights that flash continuously and a horn that blared nonstop when they were driving, with a mandatory governor limiting their speed to 18 miles an hour and a mandatory notice on their license and a mandatory two years in jail if they drive a car not so equiepped, Than the color (NOT GRAY) MIGHT MEAN SOMETHING. UNTIL THEN YOU'RE JUST BLWING SMOKE. aS USUAL.

laws that say y are about banning weapons are about banning weapons. lif you want to maintain t hey are no more deadly than other weaponsswithoit pistol grips, then that is apotent arument for banning those guns as well. ban em all til mass shootings stop.q.e.d.

as amatter of fact that law does ban semi-autos without pistol grips too. and of course those laws are more than a quarter century out of date as gunmakers figured out wasys to circumvent it. time to just follow NZ and updat it to .ban semiautos altogether. time to stop facilitating mass shooters.

the law and the language have mocved beyond you. you're obsolete/ get used to it.

Good luck passing any new gun laws without the support of moderates like me.

That is incorrect. Guns without any of the prohibited cosmetic features are completely legal.



The law says not to have pistol grips. The gunmakers make guns without pistol grips.

Complying with the law is not circumventing the law. How Orwellian can progressives get?



Unconstitutional. Semi-autos are not the problem. The problem is large detachable rifle magazines.

If you focus on anything other than large detachable rifle magazines, you are not addressing the problem.

Not if what they do is ban pistol grips.



Yet here you are still arguing about laws against harmless pistol grips.

Wrong. I proposed doing something.

I am shocked and appalled that you don't care about the victims.

That's sociopathy at it's worst.



Pistol grips are utterly unrelated to the deadliness of a weapon.

Precisely. That's why they are there only to specify which deadly semi
Autos are banned. They are only informational. Only someone spectacularly loopy would claim a ban on a lethal weapon was really a ban on a handhold rather than the lethaal weapon itself.

When a law informs you that it outlaws pistol grips, then you know that the law is not about lethality, but rather is only about pistol grips.

the more you say thast,the stu[pider it sounds.

You're not the first progressive to dislike facts and reality.

Basic synopsis:

1) Based off the AR-15 and necessitated by the need for a superior weapon to that of the enemy, the M16 made its debut in the Vietnam War.
2) The M16 was an icon for protagonists in movies and TV, a symbol for democracy, and it became the image for American or NATO forces for decades to come.
3) The 7.62 (x 51mm NATO round) was a heavy round, and soldiers found it difficult to maneuver through a battlefield and retain their stamina while carrying scores of heavy clips.
3a) The bullet’s weight also slowed its velocity, which caused its trajectory to drop and made it vulnerable to wind resistance.
4) A major reason an upgrade was needed was the weapon’s ammunition capacity and reload speed. Reloading the M1 was time-consuming and had to be done with careful precision.
5) If the only issue at hand was that the United States had inferior weapons to the AK-47, why would the military not just adopt the Kalashnikov AK-47 as a standard issue rifle? .........The U.S. military’s goal was not to match the enemy’s ability, but rather to create a superior rifle. Using Soviet weapons would not tip the scales.
6) The M16 was ergonomically a superior weapon to the AK-47 in almost every way. Reloads on the M16 were faster, getting empty weapons and vulnerable soldiers back into the fight much quicker.
7) Dr. Martin L. Fackler conducted tests at the Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco, California in 1990, and determined that while the AK-47’s penetrative power was superior, it actually caused less damage to the human body. His studies confirmed what Eugene Stoner had envisioned with his weapon design. The large mass of 7.62 rounds propelled it clean through flesh, creating a clear path that could be easily patched up. A shot from the M16, however, with its lighter round, would create more internal bleeding. Once the lighter round hit a solid target, it tumbled, which created massive internal bleeding. This could not be fixed during a firefight and required surgery to repair.
8) The M16 proved to be a superior weapon to that of the enemy’s AK-47. The M16 excelled in crucial comparisons between the two rifles — namely in accuracy at long range, accuracy in fully automatic fire, quick reload capabilities, its lighter weight (both for the rifle itself and for its ammunition), and the damage possible against an enemy force. Having the M16 also gave American soldiers an edge over the Viet Minh because it served to boost soldiers’ confidence during a firefight, which helped eliminate complete reliance on the squad’s machine guns.

One mention of "pistol grip" in the entire article:


In conclusion - The M16 in Vietnam: A History of the Necessity of its Creation? As a weapon of war to KILL PEOPLE!

Yep. Pistol grips are a harmless cosmetic feature that have nothing to do with the lethality of a weapon.

And you afre certainbly not the first conservastive who has absolutely nok connection with reality or facts, but cetsinly one of the most repletititive and mule stubborn in repleating over and over the same nonsense.

You cannot point out anything untrue in my posts.



Facts and reality are hardly nonsense.