An honest question on assault rifles.

d4bn6y86pcwz.png
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yep, like I previously said, you've got nothing else but belching forth the SOS of which the chronology of the posts makes out to be lies. You're done. Adios.
Click to expand...

Looks like Taicheeze had a YUGE meltdown two weeks ago, and finally stopped sobbing long enough to come back and grace us with his presence. If only he wouldn't lie so much...
 
Here's an excellent article shredding the left's latest lie about the Bill of Rights:

Charles C. W. Cooke said:
And why wouldn’t they, when the right had such a long and broad pedigree? The 1689 English Bill of Rights — to which so many colonists had appealed warmly when appealing to the Crown — contained a right to bear arms that had precisely nothing to do with human bondage, and that had never been linked to it in either the British or colonial imaginations. Moreover, nothing in Blackstone’s widely read discussion of that right so much as touched on the issue (nor, for that matter, was it addressed by the great jurists who succeeded him). To those familiar with the antecedents of the federal right, it should come as no surprise that, before 1791, three of the four jurisdictions that boasted Second Amendment–style provisions within their constitutions were in the North (they were Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts; North Carolina was the only Southern state that had codified such a right). If, magically, the idea of the private ownership of arms had become linked to bondage at the moment it hit North America, one would expect to see a connection between its adoption and the spread of slavery. In fact, one sees the opposite.
Click to expand...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/second-amendment-slavery-nyt-piece-misleading-claims/
 
Taichiliberal said:
that's it?!!? You give a "I know you are but what am I?" and just regurgitate your already disproven attack? Damn boy, you're just plain lame! No point in wasting any more time, space or effort on you. Adios.
Click to expand...

Again you twit. The FACTS in this thread show that you not only made up definitions, but you also lie repeatedly about what is said. I know you are desperate to run away from your moronic comments and the above is your way of running. Everyone can see you for the hack that you are.
 
BodyDouble said:
Is sitting in the back of the bus going to get you to your destination any faster or slower? Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit in front of the bus. But, in a free society, there is no requirement to show "need" in order to exercise a right.
Click to expand...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

For instance; I can bang your wife; I probably shouldn't unless I want Chlamydia.
 
The Derp said:
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

For instance; I can bang your wife; I probably shouldn't unless I want Chlamydia.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant bigots find a way to vent their bile no matter what the topic of discussion. Oh well, yet another dummy for the IA pile.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry, but your opinion laden descriptions varies from the history of the weapon described in previous posts, as well as how this weapon was marketed by retailers. Also, you fail to answer the question of the OP. Try again.
Click to expand...
The AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic version of the fully-automatic and military M-16. It is not a military weapon. That's the M-16. It just looks like an M-16. That seems to give some a hard-on, which scares them. If one wanted to do as much damage as possible in a mass shooting, they'd do 'better' with an ordinary 12 gauge pump shotgun. The .223 cartridge is underpowered for hunting anything larger than a pig. Multiple states don't allow it to be used to hunt deer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top