Biden admits truth Finally amazing

Nomad said:
Biased Faux News BS.

Why does the gy need an AR-15 to defend his home?

Why can't he use a 12 ga shotgun or a 30.30 or a 30.06?

Why can't he use a Glock or some other hand gun?

Where is it written that an AR-15 is the only weapon that you can use to defend your home against intruders?
Click to expand...

Because maybe .223 ammunition is cheaper than 30.06 or .30? What's the difference if he has this:

wm_6558038.jpg


or this other than the top gun fires .223 while the bottom fires 7.62mm

wm_5432624.jpg


They both have 20 to 30 round magazines. They both have semi-automatic fire. "Assault" rifle is about nothing but cosmetics.

Oh, and as for gun buy back programs... Unless Congress is willing to cough up several trillion dollars to do one nationally, it ain't happening. The 4th and 6th amendments require that such a program pay fair market value for weapons bought back if it were mandatory to turn them in. That would be considered a case of eminent domain and no different than the government having to pay you fair market value for land they take to build say, a highway. Zero difference.
 
Bulletbob said:
Port Tack said:
Stupid argument, knives are essential and everyone uses one every day, you can't make them illegal, you can outlaw assault weapons.[/QUOTE

15 death a year out of 340,000,000 is nothing just.
you using this as a political talking point to advance what radicals want a unarmed public unable to defend its self. You know thats true,
Click to expand...

Why cant you make them illegal ? You your self said if the government decided to make ar 15s illegal there was nothing I could do about it.
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because maybe .223 ammunition is cheaper than 30.06 or .30? What's the difference if he has this:

wm_6558038.jpg


or this other than the top gun fires .223 while the bottom fires 7.62mm

wm_5432624.jpg


They both have 20 to 30 round magazines. They both have semi-automatic fire. "Assault" rifle is about nothing but cosmetics.
Click to expand...

You have to realize one of them thinks any rifle thats semi automatic and holds more the 5 rounds such as a tube fed .22 lr is a assault weapon .

Many calling for bans don't even know what a true assault weapon is.
As I posted about 15 people per year are killed with a ar 15 in a nation of 340,000,000 . The media is the real guilty party here and the fact that some people can be influenced and motivated so easy, I think they just need a cause to battle or have weak minds .

Its totally political. one talks about public safety yet claims numbers dont matter . 15 per year on average die from a ar 15. Yet democrats are pushing for legalized drugs which kill about 70,000 a year from overdoses . they make no sense.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because maybe .223 ammunition is cheaper than 30.06 or .30? What's the difference if he has this:

wm_6558038.jpg


or this other than the top gun fires .223 while the bottom fires 7.62mm

wm_5432624.jpg


They both have 20 to 30 round magazines. They both have semi-automatic fire. "Assault" rifle is about nothing but cosmetics.
Click to expand...

You have to realize one of them thinks any rifle thats semi automatic and holds more the 5 rounds such as a tube fed .22 lr is a assault weapon .

Many calling for bans don't even know what a true assault weapon is.
As I posted about 15 people per year are killed with a ar 15 in a nation of 340,000,000 . The media is the real guilty party here and the fact that some people can be influenced and motivated so easy, I think they just need a cause to battle or have weak minds .

Its totally political. one talks about public safety yet claims numbers dont matter . 15 per year on average die from a ar 15. Yet democrats are pushing for legalized drugs which kill about 70,000 a year from overdoses . they make no sense.
 
Nordberg said:
If you use a weapon and innocent people get hurt, you should pay for the damage you caused. That is how auto insurance work. If you hurt someone by your bad actions, their pain and suffering is compensated. An auto is dangerous. So are guns. Guns are worse because they are designed to hurt or kill people.
Click to expand...

Personal accountability is a good thing. Taking away people's rights because you or a group dictates that's what's best for them is a bad thing.
 
Bulletbob said:
You have to realize one of them thinks any rifle thats semi automatic and holds more the 5 rounds such as a tube fed .22 lr is a assault weapon .

Many calling for bans don't even know what a true assault weapon is.
As I posted about 15 people per year are killed with a ar 15 in a nation of 340,000,000 . The media is the real guilty party here and the fact that some people can be influenced and motivated so easy, I think they just need a cause to battle or have weak minds .

Its totally political. one talks about public safety yet claims numbers dont matter . 15 per year on average die from a ar 15. Yet democrats are pushing for legalized drugs which kill about 70,000 a year from overdoses . they make no sense.
Click to expand...

Many of them don't know the difference between a rifle and a pistol or even which end the bullets come out of...

fernsteins-ignorance-she-may-talk-it-but-she-sure-can-amp-039-t-walk-it_o_1561749.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Personal accountability is a good thing. Taking away people's rights because you or a group dictates that's what's best for them is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

tell us do you have to have a blanket policy insurance on each gun and how much should it cost.
It is nothing more then a radical plan to discourage gun ownership.
it will have no affect on illegal gun owners the real criminals who could care less about the law.
also cars on on public road ways guns are not .
 
Bulletbob said:
tell us do you have to have a blanket policy insurance on each gun and how much should it cost.
It is nothing more then a radical plan to discourage gun ownership.
it will have no affect on illegal gun owners the real criminals who could care less about the law.
also cars on on public road ways guns are not .
Click to expand...
Who is "us"? No. Agreed. Correct. Agreed.
 
archives said:
How is demanding liability insurance for gun owners “taking away people’s rights?”
Click to expand...

The same reason requiring a photo ID for voting but not providing a free one is a back door poll tax. Is that taking away people's rights? If so, then you should understand. If not, then I continue to disagree but at least you'd be consistent.
 
Bulletbob said:
tell us do you have to have a blanket policy insurance on each gun and how much should it cost.
It is nothing more then a radical plan to discourage gun ownership.
it will have no affect on illegal gun owners the real criminals who could care less about the law.
also cars on on public road ways guns are not .
Click to expand...

Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from
 
Bulletbob said:
You mean you can not figure out who us are, seriously? Us are the people reading these posts.
Click to expand...
I can guess that you've put yourself in charge as JPP spokesperson but I could be wrong and it could also be just you and your tape worm so I asked rather than assumed.

You were never in the military, were ya?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The same reason requiring a photo ID for voting but not providing a free one is a back door poll tax. Is that taking away people's rights? If so, then you should understand. If not, then I continue to disagree but at least you'd be consistent.
Click to expand...

Well sorry but that inst really a valid argument , you see you need a Id to open a bank account cash a check by cigarettes or booze even if stopped by the police you should have one or expect issues. and they are fairly inexpensive under 20.00 in most states and are good for several years.

now if your talking about a insurance policy that will cost 20.00 for 4 years and cover all my guns that would be fine but we all know thats not how it would work is it .
It would be far more money then that and probably come with all kinds of restrictions.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The same reason requiring a photo ID for voting but not providing a free one is a back door poll tax. Is that taking away people's rights? If so, then you should understand. If not, then I continue to disagree but at least you'd be consistent.
Click to expand...

There is no analogy there between the two, one is addressing a defined right, the other, debatable, plus, one is specified in law, again the other, not so, no existing law that says you can not regulate firearms
 
archives said:
Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from
Click to expand...
Back door poll tax.

Chris Rock had a bit where he said the gang gun violence problem could be solved by charging $5000 for each bullet. A gang-banger would say to another gang-banger "I'd put a cap in you ass if I could AFFORD it!"

By your logic, we could solve cyberbullying by charging everyone $1/minute on the Internet. Free Speech be damned, eh?
 
archives said:
Just like automobiles, the more guns you possess the more insurance you need, and, similar to auto liability insurance, you have to obtain the insurance annually. Why shouldn’t those that have no need for guns have some protection from those that misuse guns

And it is always interesting how the many forget that Stephen Paddock and others like him were all “good guys” with a gun prior to the second they pulled the trigger making them the “real criminals” gun owners are supposedly protecting themselves from
Click to expand...

and misuse is the a key word isn't it. do you think gang banger in Chicago are going to pay for insurance ?
 
Bulletbob said:
and misuse is the a key word isn't it. do you think gang banger in Chicago are going to pay for insurance ?
Click to expand...

No, although it may make stolen weapons more difficult to obtain, and I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are worried as much about a “gangbanger in Chicago” as they are the guy next door arguing with his significant other and losing it with his guns at the local shopping center
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top