We Knew It All Along

You know who I feel sorry for in all of this? ExLax.

Their sales must slumped dramatically judging from all the collective pant shitting.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I can't believe that the precious little gunbunnies are now trembling with fear because they heard that "Beto O'Rourke is coming for your guns, wingnut!"

I don't know who is trembling in fear over this. I don't why you and so many other liberals feel the need to attack the masculinity of 2nd Amendment supporters. It's entirely unnecessary from a policy standpoint and politically pretty stupid.

The point is that when a Democrat running for president declares that his administration will seize weapons from American citizens and gets a standing ovation from members of the audience, it's silly (and dishonest) for even those who don't want such a thing to happen to declare that concern over it is crazy paranoia.

The same thing went on with Obamacare: "You crazy wingnuts! We're not trying to shove socialized medicine down your throat!" Meanwhile, behind the scenes, prominent Democrats agreed it was a necessary step to a single-payer system.

BTW the reason O'Rourke feels he can take this position is that his campaign is failing miserably and he is desperately seeking any way to jumpstart it. Similar to his recent tactic of dropping f-bombs at every opportunity so he can sound cool and impassioned.

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

This may surprise you but there quite a lot of people who support 2nd Amendment rights who don't own guns.

I don't own one.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I don't why you and so many other liberals feel the need to attack the masculinity of 2nd Amendment supporters.

It's from studying them close up, in the military and in the local rifle and pistol club where I used to be a member.

Quote:

It's entirely unnecessary from a policy standpoint and politically pretty stupid.

Well, you may have a point there. But I think I can get away with it on a message board like this. As opposed to the commentator on Fox displaying the still life of plastic straws and incandescent light bulbs. These threads have a pretty limited audience. When Fox tries to "own the libtards" it's seen by millions. So which is more politically stupid?

Quote:

The same thing went on with Obamacare: "You crazy wingnuts! We're not trying to shove socialized medicine down your throat!"

Well if Republicans had done anything to make the program work instead of doing everything to make the program fail, socialized medicine would have had the rug pulled from under it.

Quote:

BTW the reason O'Rourke feels he can take this position is that his campaign is failing miserably and he is desperately seeking any way to jumpstart it. Similar to his recent tactic of dropping f-bombs at every opportunity so he can sound cool and impassioned.

I agree. But why try to make it seem like a done deal, as if this is the actual position endorsed by the DNC and all the candidates?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

This may surprise you but there quite a lot of people who support 2nd Amendment rights who don't own guns.

This may surprise you but there are quite a lot of people who own firearms and think the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.

I own several — two shotguns and three rifles.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I don't think it's a done deal that the government will ever confiscate guns from Americans, and I don't think O'Rourke runs the Democratic Party.

I do think that his calling for it and being well received by party members puts a lie to the widely used taunt described in the article. I also think that if he gets any traction with it, other candidates will be calling for it as well.

I think "Beto" is an incredibly vacuous fool but he was someone a lot of Democratic money went to support in 2016 and who is likely to be encouraged to run for the Senate again.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Actually, throughout these threads you continually confuse assault weapons with assault rifles. You're beyond remediation.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Glennn has not confused anything.

Assault rifles:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.

This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault rifles.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault rifles.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault rifles.

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.

This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Actually, you're just another one of the many fools who hope that calling an AR-15 a weapon instead of a rifle magically gives it automatic fire power. It doesn't!

Maybe you'd have better luck working the barrel-shroud angle. You'll get a lot of support from other anti-gun nuts. They think that a barrel shroud makes a rifle more deadly. It doesn't make sense, but that's what they think. The shroud is there to keep your hands from being burned. But to an anti-gun nut, it's evil. It's black and it has ominous looking holes in it. The holes are to let the heat escape, but to an anti-gun nut, those holes are where the demons enter the gun, and then travel to the trigger, and then into the finger of the shooter, and finally possessing their brain, if not their soul.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Other definitions of assault weapons are found in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It refers to, among other things, certain semi-automatic rifles that it defines as assault weapons.

Quote:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed
to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘‘(v) a grenade launcher;

Additionally, it refers to certain semi-automatic pistols.

Quote:

‘‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
‘‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter
to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned;
‘‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when
the pistol is unloaded; and
‘‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

Finally, it includes certain semi-automatic shotguns.

Quote:

‘‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—
‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
‘‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;
and
‘‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’’.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Guide your obdurate ass to my reply above to oralloy.

Thank you.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Other definitions of assault weapons are found in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It refers to, among other things, certain semi-automatic rifles that it defines as assault weapons.

Those are fraudulent definitions. Assault weapons have either full-auto or burst-fire capability.

Semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

InfraBlue wrote:

Additionally, it refers to certain semi-automatic pistols.

InfraBlue wrote:

Finally, it includes certain semi-automatic shotguns.

A weapon has to be effective at 300 meters to count as an assault weapon.

No gun that fires handgun or shotgun ammo has enough range to count as an assault weapon.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

We might assure the gunbunnies that, the inaccurate statements of hack politicians aside, when actual laws are drawn up for the confiscation and destruction of semi-automatic weapons, the firearms will be accurately identified and referred to in the correct technical terms.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Neither the NRA nor the Supreme Court will allow such laws to go into effect.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Guide your obdurate ass to my reply above to oralloy.

You're referring to the 1994 ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. If I'm not mistaken, that ban was lifted, and I can purchase an AR-15 if I like.

Live in the past much?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your opinion is duly noted.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
Guide your obdurate ass to my reply above to oralloy.

You're referring to the 1994 ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. If I'm not mistaken, that ban was lifted, and I can purchase an AR-15 if I like.

Live in the past much?

The point was to present other definitions, legal ones, of "automatic weapons."

In regard to The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban, many people want it's reinstatement.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Too bad for them. The Constitution says no, and the NRA enforces the Constitution.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Your opinion is duly noted.

Reality is not an opinion, no matter how inconvenient it is for the left.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Too bad for them. The Constitution says no, and the NRA enforces the Constitution.

That is incorrect. The Constitution does not say no.

1 Reply

We Knew It All Along

Quick Links

My Account

able2know