The AR-15 Has No Business Being in the Hands of Civilians

Taichiliberal said:
Gee, what the hell did all those hunters do for generations before the AR-15? I mean, you had NATIONS of people living and thriving in this land over a thousand years that hunted (and unfortunately, had wars) without (GASP!) guns. They put food on the table, clothes on their backs and made all types of utensils/tools from their kills.

IT WAS CALLED SKILL.

The AR-15 was NOT designed to hunt. It does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....deliver multiple high impact, light but strong ammo with a rapid trigger squeeze accurately with minimal recoil. Somehow, the hunters of old using single shot bolt action hunting rifles managed to put food on the table and a head on the mantle piece/rug on the floor.

IT WAS CALLED SKILL!

So spare me all the BS justification for weapons now used for mass shooting that weren't available during the 1994 AWB. I grew up and was taught that just because you want it doesn't me you need it, much less that you should have it.

Maybe a whole lot of folk should grow up.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct, the AR was designed to kill. You're not breaking any news here.
 
Guille said:
You're absolutely correct, the AR was designed to kill. You're not breaking any news here.
Click to expand...

The AR was designed for civilian target practice and competition. It is not a weapon designed for war.
 
Guille said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Gee, what the hell did all those hunters do for generations before the AR-15? I mean, you had NATIONS of people living and thriving in this land over a thousand years that hunted (and unfortunately, had wars) without (GASP!) guns. They put food on the table, clothes on their backs and made all types of utensils/tools from their kills.

IT WAS CALLED SKILL.

The AR-15 was NOT designed to hunt. It does EXACTLY what it was designed to do....deliver multiple high impact, light but strong ammo with a rapid trigger squeeze accurately with minimal recoil. Somehow, the hunters of old using single shot bolt action hunting rifles managed to put food on the table and a head on the mantle piece/rug on the floor.

IT WAS CALLED SKILL!

So spare me all the BS justification for weapons now used for mass shooting that weren't available during the 1994 AWB. I grew up and was taught that just because you want it doesn't me you need it, much less that you should have it.

Maybe a whole lot of folk should grow up.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely correct, the AR was designed to kill. You're not breaking any news here.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was originally designed to sell to the military ... the semi-auto only version came after the sale fell through. Currently, versions that can alternate from semi to full auto are used by para-military units like S.W.A.T.

Yes, designed to kill MULTIPLE TARGETS. That's why the majority of mass shooters, like the clown in Texa recently, choose this weapon, because it does exactly as it was designed and suits their purpose.

No need for this in the civilian population, which is why it was on the 1994 AWB list, and the gun lobby flunkies in Congress did not renew it. And why in the last 25 to 30 years it's the weapon of CHOICE for mass shooters.

Got that now?
 
Guille said:
Akshually...it was designed for the military.
Click to expand...

Partially true. It was designed in the 50's as a fully automatic rifle for the military, but ArmaLite had little success selling it to the military.
Colt bought the patent, redesigned it and sold it to the military as the (fully automatic or select fire) M-16. It then made a "knock-off" semi-automatic version and sold it to police and the public.
When Colt's patent expired in the 70's, many manufacturers designed and sold similar designs, but the (ignorant) general public refers every "knock-off" version as an AR-15.
So, the AR-15 is not a military grade weapon, nor was it ever used by the military..
 
Guille said:
The AR-15 Has No Business Being in the Hands of Civilians

It's protected by the Second Amendment so...yea it does.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Which is why folks couldn't have a canon when the 2nd Amendment was laid out. Gun regulation and control happened in early Americana for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. There's NOTHING there that says you can have any type of weapon that comes down the pike. That's why YOU cannot have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on your garage roof.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, it was originally designed to sell to the military ... the semi-auto only version came after the sale fell through. Currently, versions that can alternate from semi to full auto are used by para-military units like S.W.A.T.

Yes, designed to kill MULTIPLE TARGETS. That's why the majority of mass shooters, like the clown in Texa recently, choose this weapon, because it does exactly as it was designed and suits their purpose.

No need for this in the civilian population, which is why it was on the 1994 AWB list, and the gun lobby flunkies in Congress did not renew it. And why in the last 25 to 30 years it's the weapon of CHOICE for mass shooters.

Got that now?
Click to expand...

I understand it better than you do. Your problem is that it's designed to kill. Yes, it is, you'll get no argument from me. What you need to do is move beyond the Captain Obvious routine and explain exactly why it should be banned.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, it doesn't. Which is why folks couldn't have a canon when the 2nd Amendment was laid out. Gun regulation and control happened in early Americana for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. There's NOTHING there that says you can have any type of weapon that comes down the pike. That's why YOU cannot have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on your garage roof.
Click to expand...

Akshually, people could have cannons back then. And, I don't remember saying anything about any old weapon that comes down the pike. We're talking about AR-15s not the Death Star. Stop being such a faggy drama queen and make your case for banning it and your "feels" aren't a legit reason to ban it.
 
Guille said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Actually, it was originally designed to sell to the military ... the semi-auto only version came after the sale fell through. Currently, versions that can alternate from semi to full auto are used by para-military units like S.W.A.T.

Yes, designed to kill MULTIPLE TARGETS. That's why the majority of mass shooters, like the clown in Texa recently, choose this weapon, because it does exactly as it was designed and suits their purpose.

No need for this in the civilian population, which is why it was on the 1994 AWB list, and the gun lobby flunkies in Congress did not renew it. And why in the last 25 to 30 years it's the weapon of CHOICE for mass shooters.

Got that now?
Click to expand...



I understand it better than you do. Your problem is that it's designed to kill. Yes, it is, you'll get no argument from me. What you need to do is move beyond the Captain Obvious routine and explain exactly why it should be banned.
Click to expand...

You "understand" nothing, as it's plain you like to revise what others say and then pretend that is a fact for your false narrative. The chronology of the posts always makes these attempts of yours to be painfully obvious lies to the intellectually honest and objective reader.

It's clear that since you can't fault the analysis of what I put forth, you just indulge your own myopic version of reality. This makes you either in need of a refresher course in English Composition or a just a bad liar. Now in typical fashion, you'll just regurgitate your absurd accusation ad nausea. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You "understand" nothing, as it's plain you like to revise what others say and then pretend that is a fact for your false narrative. The chronology of the posts always makes these attempts of yours to be painfully obvious lies to the intellectually honest and objective reader.

It's clear that since you can't fault the analysis of what I put forth, you just indulge your own myopic version of reality. This makes you either in need of a refresher course in English Composition or a just a bad liar. Now in typical fashion, you'll just regurgitate your absurd accusation ad nausea. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I'm not revising anything. ARs are designed to kill people is an accurate portrayal of what you have said. I agree with you that they are designed to kill people. So, now that we have found common ground tell us all why they should be banned.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, it was originally designed to sell to the military ... the semi-auto only version came after the sale fell through. Currently, versions that can alternate from semi to full auto are used by para-military units like S.W.A.T.

Yes, designed to kill MULTIPLE TARGETS. That's why the majority of mass shooters, like the clown in Texa recently, choose this weapon, because it does exactly as it was designed and suits their purpose.

No need for this in the civilian population, which is why it was on the 1994 AWB list, and the gun lobby flunkies in Congress did not renew it. And why in the last 25 to 30 years it's the weapon of CHOICE for mass shooters.

Got that now?
Click to expand...

The reason it's "the weapon of CHOICE for mass shooters" is because you fucks and the media keep claiming it as the preferred weapon of assholes who shoot people. Shut the fuck up about what weapon is used, you'd find less AR styled weapons would be used by these asshole kids shooting up schools.
 
Guille said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No, it doesn't. Which is why folks couldn't have a canon when the 2nd Amendment was laid out. Gun regulation and control happened in early Americana for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. There's NOTHING there that says you can have any type of weapon that comes down the pike. That's why YOU cannot have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on your garage roof.
Click to expand...


Akshually, people could have cannons back then. And, I don't remember saying anything about any old weapon that comes down the pike. We're talking about AR-15s not the Death Star. Stop being such a faggy drama queen and make your case for banning it and your "feels" aren't a legit reason to ban it.
Click to expand...

To your first sentence: Prove it. Provide historical records that the average schmoe in those times after the 2nd Amendment could have a canon in addition to his rifle.

https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

And stop parroting the ignorant LaPierre mantras of old. Grow the hell up and deal with the FACTS: AR-15 weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooting perpetrators....formally NOT available until the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2004, of which the GOP voted against renewal.

Matters of fact, matters of history. The victim's families don't give a damn about your troll BS. If you're going to debate the issue, then GTFU and deal with the reality, not some childish fact dodging BS you and your troll buddies at the bar think is clever.
 
Taichiliberal said:
To your first sentence: Prove it. Provide historical records that the average schmoe in those times after the 2nd Amendment could have a canon in addition to his rifle.

https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

And stop parroting the ignorant LaPierre mantras of old. Grow the hell up and deal with the FACTS: AR-15 weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooting perpetrators....formally NOT available until the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2004, of which the GOP voted against renewal.

Matters of fact, matters of history. The victim's families don't give a damn about your troll BS. If you're going to debate the issue, then GTFU and deal with the reality, not some childish fact dodging BS you and your troll buddies at the bar think is clever.
Click to expand...

I don't need to, this has been fact checked many times since Resident Biden started making this dumb claim. Maybe you should read more.
 
Guille said:
Akshually, people could have cannons back then. And, I don't remember saying anything about any old weapon that comes down the pike. We're talking about AR-15s not the Death Star. Stop being such a faggy drama queen and make your case for banning it and your "feels" aren't a legit reason to ban it.
Click to expand...

Yep. When the 2nd. Amendment was written, it was meant that any civilian could own any weapon (including cannons) used by the Army that won our freedom.
 
Guille said:
I'm not revising anything. ARs are designed to kill people is an accurate portrayal of what you have said. I agree with you that they are designed to kill people. So, now that we have found common ground tell us all why they should be banned.
Click to expand...

I'm not revising anything.

A lie, as the chronology of the posts shows. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word and then apply it to how you keep categorizing what I post.

ARs are designed to kill people is an accurate portrayal of what you have said. I agree with you that they are designed to kill people.

Yes, they were NOT designed for hunting or target shooting, as other gunners have asserted.

So, now that we have found common ground tell us all why they should be banned.

You know, or should know why. Gunners just love to rehash what they can't logically or factually defend. But in case you are truly ignorant of recent history:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/
 
Guille said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
To your first sentence: Prove it. Provide historical records that the average schmoe in those times after the 2nd Amendment could have a canon in addition to his rifle.

https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/

And stop parroting the ignorant LaPierre mantras of old. Grow the hell up and deal with the FACTS: AR-15 weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooting perpetrators....formally NOT available until the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2004, of which the GOP voted against renewal.

Matters of fact, matters of history. The victim's families don't give a damn about your troll BS. If you're going to debate the issue, then GTFU and deal with the reality, not some childish fact dodging BS you and your troll buddies at the bar think is clever.
Click to expand...



I don't need to, this has been fact checked many times since Resident Biden started making this dumb claim. Maybe you should read more.
Click to expand...

translation: Guille makes a statement he cannot provide valid documentation to support. Yet he constantly demands others to prove what they say and repeats his unprovable claims ad nausea.

Typical intellectually dishonest and impotent tactics of gunner lobby trolls.
 
Taichiliberal said:
translation: Guille makes a statement he cannot provide valid documentation to support. Yet he constantly demands others to prove what they say and repeats his unprovable claims ad nausea.

Typical intellectually dishonest and impotent tactics of gunner lobby trolls.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to step and fetch to find something for you that was literally in the news 4 hours ago. It's painfully obvious at this point that you cannot explain why AR-15s should be banned. Alrighty then. To be fair to you though I only asked you 4 times, perhaps I should have asked the same question a few more times?
 
Guille said:
I'm not going to step and fetch to find something for you that was literally in the news 4 hours ago. It's painfully obvious at this point that you cannot explain why AR-15s should be banned. Alrighty then. To be fair to you though I only asked you 4 times, perhaps I should have asked the same question a few more times?
Click to expand...

You're full of it as usual...YOU make a claim, assertion, statement, then the burden of proof is on YOU. If you can't pony up, then what you say is worthless at best, a lie at most.

Parroting moot points while BS'ing about the rest of what you say won't cut it, as the chronology of the posts shows. You're done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top