46
   

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

 
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 05:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Repeating weapon of war doesn't make it true. You want it to be a weapon of war because it scares you and you want it banned. If the only justification the courts can make is "weapon of war" then jump on that and hold it tight because it won't last.

No serious war fighter would ever bring an AR-15 into a war zone and let their lives depend on it. Hell, a majority of the Special Forces doen't even use the AR-platform let alone the 5.56mm rounds, they move to a heavier round like the 7.62 because of it's stopping power. The AR-platform is very generic and is simply a semi-auto firing and ejection system. It still takes the single pull of the trigger to fire a round. We already banned "weapons of war" when we made full auto and burst fire illegal back in the 80's. Banning the AR-15 now is just a political move that is on the way to complete gun ban. Watch what states like CA do next.

Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 05:14 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Repeating weapon of war doesn't make it true. You want it to be a weapon of war because it scares you and you want it banned. If the only justification the courts can make is "weapon of war" then jump on that and hold it tight because it won't last.


You're correct, my repeating it doesn't make it true.

The fact that it was a weapon designed for the military and marketed and sold to militaries makes it true. Can you admit that both of those things are facts, or are you just in denial of reality?

I don't give a **** about your opinion of whether it's a 'serious' weapon of war or not. I don't care, because it's immaterial to the conversation. The fact of the matter is that it was designed and sold to militaries, by arms manufacturers, and it's entirely accurate to call it a 'weapon of war.' It serves no legitimate civilian purpose, other than for gun nuts to pretend they are soldiers and have toys to play with. Isn't that correct?

Cycloptichorn
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 07:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
You're correct, my repeating it doesn't make it true. The fact that it was a weapon designed for the military and marketed and sold to militaries makes it true. Can you admit that both of those things are facts, or are you just in denial of reality?

I'm not in denial I just don't buy into the political language of "weapon of war". It's being used for scare tactics. While there were several early models marketed for the military, they did indeed have a separate civilian model that was being sold as early as the mid 1960's. Weapons of war are intended for war and no one would take an AR-15 into a war zone. That is a fact.

Quote:
I don't give a **** about your opinion of whether it's a 'serious' weapon of war or not. I don't care, because it's immaterial to the conversation. The fact of the matter is that it was designed and sold to militaries, by arms manufacturers, and it's entirely accurate to call it a 'weapon of war.'

It makes all the difference if it's a serious weapon of war or not. It isn't so calling it a weapon of war is purely political. It actually serves no basis in reality for why a so many of them are sold in the US. You say no practical purpose and I say I know many many hunters who use that platform for a hunting rifle. It's perfect for coyotes and hogs when used in the 5.56mm or .223 caliber, and you can even get it in a larger 308 round that can be used for a variety of deer or elk. To say it serves no purpose in the civilian world is again more political BS by the anti-gun left. Guns were invented for war after all... civilians found a use for them as well and the Founders even understood that. Let the gun bans begin... with this cheap justification you anti-gunners might just repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Don't forget the bow and arrow, it was also built and marketed as a weapon of war.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 07:40 pm
@TheCobbler,
TheCobbler wrote:
Court: The 2nd Amendment Does Not Cover ‘Weapons Of War’

That is hardly an accurate statement. The weapons involved are not weapons of war. And "a decision not to enforce the Constitution" is not "a statement about what the Constitution does or does not protect".

However, this ruling does illustrate why it is important to vote for Republicans. Democrats hate freedom and civil rights, and they nominate justices who oppose freedom and civil rights.


TheCobbler wrote:
SHAME on the republicans, their unregulated militias and the NRA!!! SHAME!!!

Why should anyone be ashamed of fighting for freedom and civil rights?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 07:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well that's ******* hilarious of you to say, considering that the M-16 is an adaptation of the Armalite AR-15 rifle. Not only that, but the AR-15 was specifically marketed and sold as a military weapon, to militaries, by Colt in the '60's.

Can you provide any cites of Colt marketing SEMI-AUTO-ONLY versions to militaries as a military weapon?


Cycloptichorn wrote:
So yes, it's a weapon of war. Explicitly.

I'm sure there are still some militaries who use bolt action sniper rifles.

Are you out to ban all bolt action hunting rifles? If so, please make this clear to all hunters that you know, so they are under no illusions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 07:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The AR-15 was LITERALLY sold to militaries by Colt in the '60s. Fact.

The *semi-auto-only* version?

If so, cite?


Cycloptichorn wrote:
The M-16 is an adaptation of the AR-15. Fact.

Why does this fact matter?


Cycloptichorn wrote:
The AR-15 is a weapon of war because it was DESIGNED by the manufacturer to be a weapon of war. Explicitly. The fact that the US Military insisted on changes before adopting the platform led to the M-16 doesn't change the fact that the original AR-15 was and is a weapon of warfare.

I question the claim that the *semi-auto-only* version was designed to be a weapon of war.

As above, cite?


Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't know why you assume people don't know about guns. I've been firing guns my whole life and own guns. I've fired both an AR-15 and a M-16. Is it because I disagree with you?

It's because you are making a number of highly questionable claims about the gun.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 07:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're correct, my repeating it doesn't make it true.

The fact that it was a weapon designed for the military and marketed and sold to militaries makes it true. Can you admit that both of those things are facts, or are you just in denial of reality?

I'd like to see a cite before I accept a claim that the *semi-auto-only* version was ever intended as a weapon of war.

If you only have a cite for full-auto versions, that is not a fair comparison to a *semi-auto-only* version of the gun.


Cycloptichorn wrote:
It serves no legitimate civilian purpose, other than for gun nuts to pretend they are soldiers and have toys to play with. Isn't that correct?

That is not even remotely correct. Civilians use AR-15s for hunting, self defense, and competitive sports.
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 10:22 pm
From light
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23843170_1646182535419961_3417192716154210297_n.jpg?oh=302c727de26809b6c5ee91ca739cafba&oe=5A9E7B8E

To darkness
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24131079_1646182598753288_3144524766456991955_n.jpg?oh=0401b1ff0642023f021a664bb1200a39&oe=5AA04D70

An American Horror Story.
0 Replies
 
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 10:33 pm
@oralloy,
You voted republican and got a criminal, pedophile, rapist in the White House?

Happy now?

And Reagan who banned assault weapons adamantly DISSAGRED with you. He was a republican too.

What is it, do you think Trump is gonna shower some of his lavish, ill begotten money on you for being his ass kisser, ORALloy?

Dose this EMPTY promise of MONEY help you in turning a blind eye to Trump's indecency?

Shame on YOU fool!
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 11:15 pm
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24059267_390812694674168_7439351088242232208_n.jpg?oh=ff15bceea446cfd2230c32e111668559&oe=5AD178DF
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2017 11:24 pm
@TheCobbler,
TheCobbler wrote:
You voted republican

Yes. I had no choice. The Democrats hate my freedom and want to enslave me.


TheCobbler wrote:
and got a criminal, pedophile, rapist in the White House

Nonsense.


TheCobbler wrote:
Happy now?

I'll be happy when the SHARE Act is passed.


TheCobbler wrote:
And Reagan who banned assault weapons adamantly DISSAGRED with you. He was a republican too.

IF Reagan hated the Constitution, shame on him. But that's no reason for me to hate the Constitution.


TheCobbler wrote:
What is it, do you think Trump is gonna shower some of his lavish, ill begotten money on you for being his ass kisser, ORALloy?

I'm kind of hoping that he'll get the SHARE Act passed.


TheCobbler wrote:
Dose this EMPTY promise of MONEY help you in turning a blind eye to Trump's indecency?

No such indecency.

No one has promised me any money either.

I'll be watching closely to see if they pass the SHARE Act however.


TheCobbler wrote:
Shame on YOU fool!

Shame for believing in freedom and civil rights? Never!
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 12:37 am
@oralloy,
There is nothing civil about your stupidity.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 12:59 am
@TheCobbler,
I remind you that I'm a trillion times smarter than you are.
0 Replies
 
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 01:36 am
https://www.thedailybeast.com/roy-moore-super-pac-financier-finally-revealed
Time to Boycott Taco Bell, the owner of Taco Bell is the main financial backer of Roy Moore.

Taco Bell, where ground beef resembles skunk meat.
0 Replies
 
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 02:28 am
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24129945_891119461043335_424154884942792941_n.jpg?oh=6fcf9e7e906feb1fd4733de09afd6309&oe=5A9F9883
0 Replies
 
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 02:48 am
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/24131422_390777894677648_3406223062170761204_n.jpg?oh=044c4b2d99e8d067aa4a1936552b5ae9&oe=5A986A6F
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:22 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

I'd like to see a cite before I accept a claim that the *semi-auto-only* version was ever intended as a weapon of war.


This is immaterial, and what more, contradictory to gun-nut messaging. You guys just can't seem to get your story straight on full-autos; one minute, it'll be 'they're hard to hit with so it's ridiculous that they are banned, they should be legal;' the next minute, it's 'full-autos are weapons of war and semis are not, so there's a real difference between the two.' The recent events in Vegas show that this is an meaningless difference anyway, as a semi-auto can fire just as fast as a full-auto and is just as deadly if not more so.

The fact of the matter is that everything I wrote was accurate: the M-16 was an adaptation of the AR-15, which was a rifle marketed to militaries. And it should be banned, as it's nothing more than a weapon of warfare and toy for wannabe soldier gun-nuts.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:25 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Don't forget the bow and arrow, it was also built and marketed as a weapon of war.


The bow and arrow was a weapon of hunting far before the concept of 'war' even existed for mankind, so I can't say this is very accurate. You'd also have a hard time mass murdering people with a bow.

Quote:
Let the gun bans begin... with this cheap justification you anti-gunners might just repeal the 2nd Amendment.


I'd modify it heavily if I could, I've never made any bones about that.

I've hunted both deer and elk. Using an AR-15 to do so is retarded. It is a poor choice when compared to any number of other long rifles.

Cycloptichorn
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 11:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The bow and arrow was a weapon of hunting far before the concept of 'war' even existed for mankind, so I can't say this is very accurate. You'd also have a hard time mass murdering people with a bow.

If you really think the bow and arrow was only used for hunting in the ancient days then you don't understand the nature of humans. How do you think the tribes handled things, an arm wrestling match?
You can't mass murder people with a bow and arrow but does that really matter? To take your message of "weapon of war" we must follow through will all weapons of war, their ability to kill the masses shouldn't matter since most deaths by guns are not committed by AR-15 type guns. You just want to pick the cases that back your dislike of specific guns, which will turn into all guns. This type of BS and false claim about "weapons of war" proves it.

Quote:
I'd modify it heavily if I could, I've never made any bones about that.

That's why people like you shouldn't be allowed near our nations gun laws, just as you feel people who are against abortion shouldn't be let near abortion laws.

Quote:
I've hunted both deer and elk. Using an AR-15 to do so is retarded. It is a poor choice when compared to any number of other long rifles.

I have a hard time believing you have ever hunted anything. As for your uneducated opinion on the AR-15 and it's use as a hunting weapon, you prove you don't know what you are talking about. Are you going to ban all semi-auto style hunting weapons and only allow bolt action guns?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2017 02:50 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
The bow and arrow was a weapon of hunting far before the concept of 'war' even existed for mankind, so I can't say this is very accurate. You'd also have a hard time mass murdering people with a bow.

If you really think the bow and arrow was only used for hunting in the ancient days then you don't understand the nature of humans. How do you think the tribes handled things, an arm wrestling match?
You can't mass murder people with a bow and arrow but does that really matter? To take your message of "weapon of war" we must follow through will all weapons of war, their ability to kill the masses shouldn't matter since most deaths by guns are not committed by AR-15 type guns. You just want to pick the cases that back your dislike of specific guns, which will turn into all guns. This type of BS and false claim about "weapons of war" proves it.


Literally none of that logically follows, it's just stream of consciousness ranting.

Re: the bow and arrow, while it works perfectly fine in warfare (when used correctly), it was developed to hunt animals with. I say that with confidence as the bow and arrow predates a time in which there were sufficient numbers of humans to engage in what we would consider 'warfare.'

Quote:
Quote:
I'd modify it heavily if I could, I've never made any bones about that.

That's why people like you shouldn't be allowed near our nations gun laws, just as you feel people who are against abortion shouldn't be let near abortion laws.


On the contrary. All citizens have the opportunity and right to weigh in on all of our laws. I have never once advocated that those who opppose abortion should be disallowed from passing laws that attempt to ban it. If they feel they have significant enough numbers in our society to do so: let them attempt to do so.

Quote:
Quote:
I've hunted both deer and elk. Using an AR-15 to do so is retarded. It is a poor choice when compared to any number of other long rifles.

I have a hard time believing you have ever hunted anything.


That's because I don't agree with you or fit your stereotype. But I have hunted many times. I grew up in TX with plenty of family and friends who hunt and I went every year, and I still go today occasionally (though I prefer to fish).

Quote:
As for your uneducated opinion on the AR-15 and it's use as a hunting weapon, you prove you don't know what you are talking about.


That's the opposite of the truth. The AR-15 is not a good weapon for hunting deer unless it's been modified. A .223 is too small to reliably drop a deer in a single shot, let alone an elk. The fact that it's semi-auto doesn't help much imho as I've never personally hit something with a second shot that I missed with the first one, ever, even when firing a semi-auto weapon. There's really not much to recommend it over a proper long rifle.

Great at killing big groups of people though. Really, really good at that.

Quote:
Are you going to ban all semi-auto style hunting weapons and only allow bolt action guns?


I would personally like to see permits for said weapons, coupled with mandatory safety training and registrations. I wouldn't ban them. If any type of gun should be banned, it's a pistol, not a rifle, as pistols are mostly a coward's weapon and what's used in the vast majority of gun crimes.

Cycloptichorn

[/quote]
 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 01:29:39