Redwes25
Footballguy
It means you can adjust it easily so people can customize. For example Change the typo of ammo it uses. Google is your friend on this one.No. What does this mean?
It means you can adjust it easily so people can customize. For example Change the typo of ammo it uses. Google is your friend on this one.No. What does this mean?
I'm surprised that with your profound understanding of firearms that you're still arriving at the wrong conclusion.Do you morons realize that AR-15 is a platform and not a gun?
As I posted in the Orlando thread, there's a "Real Sports" segment on the popularity of sporting assault rifles. They showed a $99 mod (legal) that made the semi-auto approximate a fully auto. However in the same segment, it was pointed out that military manuals suggest soldiers operate their guns in semi mode as it was more accurate, economical and provided a better kill ratio.Bump stocks and replacement triggers are the legal methods I'm aware of.
This seems about as easy as modding an xbox controller for Call of Duty.Damn
Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.The speed limit is 70 in some areas?
I'd actually be fine with cars being made/modified to not go over 80ish as a law.
Brilliant stuff here.Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.
What is magical about 55?Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.
You never will, but after nothing changed post Sandy Hook I don't expect anything to change in any of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, our nation is populated by a lot of very dumb people and enough of them also have a lot of money.Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.
Not true. Even if you stick to roads where the limit is 55, personal safety calls for you to be able to accelerate in certain circumstances.Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.
The tide is turning on assault rifles... Maybe 10, 20, or 30 years, but one day these things will be bannedYou never will, but after nothing changed post Sandy Hook I don't expect anything to change in any of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, our nation is populated by a lot of very dumb people and enough of them also have a lot of money.
Successful deflection.Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.
Clearly if nobody had access to cars that go faster than 55mph it would save more lives.What is magical about 55?
Ctrl+F through the Constitution and couldn't find the word platformDo you morons realize that AR-15 is a platform and not a gun?
To extend that thought, what if the government fails? If it does, I want to be as heavily armed as possible.I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution.
All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Its a reasonable reading of the amendment, but then you should be pushing for opening up the sale of RPGs, grenade launchers, tanks, Reaper drones, etc. to US citizens.I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution.
All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
You mock this reason, but its legit. 99% (guess, obviously) of people who buy an assault rifle will take it out to have fun shooting a target and never do anything illegal with it.2) They're fun
Because when the speed limit is 70, you'll get run over otherwise.Why would anyone need a car that goes faster than 55 mph?
Of course its reasonable to block the private ownership of these weapons regardless of a person's training. The police departments and federal agencies own those weapons, not the officers or agents.I have no problem "banning" them, but...
We're never going to stop the military and federal agents from having them.
We're not going to stop letting the police have them.
The Orlando shooter was a licensed security guard who worked for a federal Dept. of Homeland Security subcontractor and had taken police training. I don't know if it's been specified if he just took classes or, at some point, was enrolled in police academy.
But, preventing someone with those credentials from getting an assault rifle is not reasonable.
And a few of these incidents have come from military personnel, from cops, from federal agents, etc.
Better screening is my key, not stopping the guns themselves.
What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it.I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution.
All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Take a different road.Because the minimum speed on one of the highways near my house is 60.
Distinction without a difference. Who cares that the government owns them if nutsos can still get their hands on them?Of course its reasonable to block the private ownership of these weapons regardless of a person's training. The police departments and federal agencies own those weapons, not the officers or agents.
I can see why you'd go that route, but I actually disagree with that. I think those types of weapons are too dangerous for random people to own and literally serve no purpose other than to fight a revolution or something similar. Guns still have sporting or pleasure uses that are reasonable. My rationale is that, if 'revolution' comes, guns are enough. All of those fancy things need supplies to function and are largely dispersed throughout the entire country. A despot would struggle immensely to secure all of those stockpiles and armories across an entire country during a revolution. I'd also expect that at least some of the army wouldn't want to shoot their friends and family.Its a reasonable reading of the amendment, but then you should be pushing for opening up the sale of RPGs, grenade launchers, tanks, Reaper drones, etc. to US citizens.
So, you're recommending more strenuous screening of law enforcement? Sure, sounds great.Distinction without a difference. Who cares that the government owns them if nutsos can still get their hands on them?
And that's where you're probably right. The part of me that loves to stand on principal wants to hold on, but the pragmatist in me screams it isn't close to worth it. It's a belief that I've been struggling over for years now.What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it.
Ski Ball is life or death, mang.only ever bring my Kalashnikov when we go to Chuck E Cheese. let's the older kids know i'm ####### serious about the ball pit rules. some kid gets a little casual and starts throwing the balls a little too hard and i pop off a handful of rounds in to the ceiling to let them know i'm not to be ####ed with. mom & dad want a piece? they can go home without a leg.
it's my right to defend myself
No, just more strenuous screening for everyone.So, you're recommending more strenuous screening of law enforcement? Sure, sounds great.
you won't believe how many people don't ####### understand that you don't roll the ball with backspin in Ski Ball. not my fault they can't abide by the rules. i've dropped a few dads with a ball to the face and a gun butt. guess who doesn't ever have to wait for SKi Ball anymore.Ski Ball is life or death, mang.
This makes zero sense. I'm pretty sure firing an RPG and exploding a old car would be fun as ####. And guns are enough? Is that why the insurgents in Iraq created so many IEDs?I can see why you'd go that route, but I actually disagree with that. I think those types of weapons are too dangerous for random people to own and literally serve no purpose other than to fight a revolution or something similar. Guns still have sporting or pleasure uses that are reasonable. My rationale is that, if 'revolution' comes, guns are enough. All of those fancy things need supplies to function and are largely dispersed throughout the entire country. A despot would struggle immensely to secure all of those stockpiles and armories across an entire country during a revolution. I'd also expect that at least some of the army wouldn't want to shoot their friends and family.
Please add hunting T-Rex to the list.
THAT I could see needing one.
only ever bring my Kalashnikov when we go to Chuck E Cheese. let's the older kids know i'm ####### serious about the ball pit rules. some kid gets a little casual and starts throwing the balls a little too hard and i pop off a handful of rounds in to the ceiling to let them know i'm not to be ####ed with. mom & dad want a piece? they can go home without a leg.
it's my right to defend myself
Made Sammy Hagar a whole lot of money.What is magical about 55?
I thought I was fairly clear, but I guess I'll reiterate, the guns are enough to get you the rest if the time comes.This makes zero sense. I'm pretty sure firing an RPG and exploding a old car would be fun as ####. And guns are enough? Is that why the insurgents in Iraq created so many IEDs?
far as you know i've been home all day
Police: 5 teens injured in playground shooting
A gunman shot and wounded five teens in an East Flatbush playground Monday, police say.
If you listen to some of the Clinton supporters we might need to violently overthrow the government as early as next January if Trump is elected...What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it.
I don't disagree with the thinking around this but it goes to the militia language and the constitution prior to incorporation of 14th amendment that said constitiution applies to states. Think real intent was that the federal government could not ban guns in a manner that would infringe the states rights to have local militias to fight against the evil central government. Limiting the sale of assault rifles like the ar15 to individuals doesn't impact the right of states to have militias.I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution.
All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
If it were a popular uprising, rifles, shotguns and handguns would be enough.I thought I was fairly clear, but I guess I'll reiterate, the guns are enough to get you the rest if the time comes.
You've clearly never been to rural Louisiana.Take a different road.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/00/99/86/0099860b3061e8aa47f8f58c432956ee.jpgYou've clearly never been to rural Louisiana.
That's probably a compliment.You've clearly never been to rural Louisiana.