Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

... I am a supporter of 2nd amendment...

Except when you don't?

You on the other hand cling to your beliefs that you need military grade weapons to defend yourself from come unknown futuristic threat. Aliens? Red army invasion?

I'm sure you just missed it, or maybe I missed the response.

Yesterday I asked you what specifically about "military grade" rifles is it you think makes them worth banning vs say a 10 round semi auto "hunting" rifle.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

"Just look at all these mass shootings...they are mostly done by law abiding citizens"

WTF

Your whole statement is speculation, and wrong at that. I am a law abiding citizen. I could figure out how to get a firearm illegally if I wanted to do so. And it would be relatively easy.

In fact, it would be as easy as figuring out how to get drugs, which is ALSO illegal.

Yes, most of them have no criminal history at all, in case you did not know. Just mental issues.

You would, but you a responsible citizen with no mental issues. CT or Virginia tech piece of shits would not even know where to look for illegal gun, let alone being able to close the deal.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from RedDuke:

Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or obsessive enthusiasm.

That pretty much describes you guys. I am a supporter of 2nd amendment and understand that certain class of weapons have no real need in hand of citizens.

You on the other hand cling to your beliefs that you need military grade weapons to defend yourself from come unknown futuristic threat. Aliens? Red army invasion?

You're as much a supporter of the Second Amendment as obama, who also implausibly claimed to be in favor of gun rights.

IOW, you're either a liar, delusional or perhaps just confused exactly why we have a Second Amendment. Hint: it isn't to protect hunting and target shooting.

And what is with the endless repeating of the phrase "military grade weapons?" Is that the latest talking point from the gun grabbers? What does it even mean? A bolt action 1903 Springfield is a "military grade weapon." In the right hands it can be devastating. I guess you would want to ban them too.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

Back in the 80's the Afghans defeated the second largest super power at the time with not much more than AK 47's and RPG's.

Come on, we all know the reason why these invasions fail. All these invasion, even the Soviet one, were conducted to preserve as much civilian population as they could. This is done for international appeal. If Soviets in Afghanistan or US in Iraq, went full force in, these countries would be wiped out of the face of the planet.

That is why it is futile to cling to AR15 and think it can be used against government. Tactical airstrikes and drones will get the job if suppressing easily.

God forbids this ever happens on our soil.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

Bazookas didn't exist at the time. But then no specific type of "arms" were mentioned one way or the other.

Exactly why I say, that it is the job of government and supreme court to define it.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

So...who has the stats on how many mass shooters purchased their weapons at a gun show and submitted to no background check because of it?

....

I am not saying gun shows is the only problem. The types of weapons that are allowed to be purchased legally are.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...

Liberals always want to burden the responsible, law-abiding members of society. I haven't heard one proposal from them about closer monitoring of mentally disturbed people or requiring mental health pprofessionals to report possibly dangerous people. They would fight that kind of thing tooth and nail. They are even against drug testing of welfare recipients. It stigmatizes them, they claim.

....

I am genuinely surprised that we not only agree on one but few topics. I stand by every word in this paragraph. These stupid policies are despicable.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

Come on, we all know the reason why these invasions fail. All these invasion, even the Soviet one, were conducted to preserve as much civilian population as they could. This is done for international appeal. If Soviets in Afghanistan or US in Iraq, went full force in, these countries would be wiped out of the face of the planet.

That is why it is futile to cling to AR15 and think it can be used against government. Tactical airstrikes and drones will get the job if suppressing easily.

God forbids this ever happens on our soil.

If it did happen here, wouldn't "they" be trying to preserve as much civilian population as possible as well? Meaning we could certainly use AR15's and the like to good effect.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

Exactly why I say, that it is the job of government and supreme court to define it.

From where I'm sitting. YOU seem to be trying to define it though.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

Except when you don't?

I'm sure you just missed it, or maybe I missed the response.

Yesterday I asked you what specifically about "military grade" rifles is it you think makes them worth banning vs say a 10 round semi auto "hunting" rifle.

I am sure you shot a hand gun before and know that even after 10 rounds the slide gets hot, and the more you shoot the hotter it gets. Therefore the possibility of jam increases. Between hot slide and its slide stop there is another possibility to stop the shooter.

This is obviously not the case with rifles.

One 10 bullet clip is more than enough for almost any situation to protect ones life from criminals. I am sure you know most will just run away at first hint of a gun.

I was unlucky to face few daring situations, these bastards run away the moment they see their well being is in jeopardy in any way.