Transgender Democrat shoots up Christian school a hate crime.

[Taichiliberal]

He lives in fear. A coward's story...

You're the one who shits his pants based on a paranoid fear that the "gub'mit" is going to "grab" your guns (no law in 60 years ever proposed such), or that you can't buy the latest shiny toy to add to your collection if the ban re-enacts.

I, on the other hand, have no problem being able to choose from a plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994-2004 AWB for home protection or to hunt.

So who's living in fear and too much of a coward to concede a point, my cranky old friend?

 

[RB 60]

I added "production" AR-15. would assume you added those accessories.

OMG! My M1-A has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug (and the capacity for a 30 round magazine).
The twisted libturd Taichiliberal probably needs a diaper change about now

 

[Lightbringer]

You're the one who shits his pants based on a paranoid fear that the "gub'mit" is going to "grab" your guns (no law in 60 years ever proposed such), or that you can't buy the latest shiny toy to add to your collection if the ban re-enacts.

I, on the other hand, have no problem being able to choose from a plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994-2004 AWB for home protection or to hunt.

So who's living in fear and too much of a coward to concede a point, my cranky old friend?

Bullshit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

He does, and he likes knowing other people agree with him. It makes him feel safe but...I see signs he's waking up. I'm willing to give him time.

Two mutual masturbating MAGA clowns who don't have the intellectual honesty or courage to concede a point. Sad.

 

[Lightbringer]

Two mutual masturbating MAGA clowns who don't have the intellectual honesty or courage to concede a point. Sad.

You still on this? You don't see the latest posts? I just agreed with you...twice. You have no comment on that?

AR rifles are designed and meant for killing human beings. I agree with you on this. Comments?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Are you drunk, high, tired or just really dense, Guillermo? Get an adult (or someone not in your circle jerk of compadres here) to explain that by this response YOU are saying that the number of people killed by AR-15 style weapons is acceptable, and therefor the 1994 AWB need not be re-enacted.



Yeah, it's not your family or friends getting wiped out, so your little mental comfort zone to beat out the libs is safe. Try reading some of the info in the links I provided (if you've got the guts). You and your kind disgust me.

Mad nuch?

At intellectually dishonest/impotent MAGA minions with a gun flunky troll complex? Because simpletons like you can vote and are okay with death rates so long as your childish/selfish whims are satisfied, yes.

 

[Lightbringer]

At intellectually dishonest/impotent MAGA minions with a gun flunky troll complex? Because simpletons like you can vote and are okay with death rates so long as your childish/selfish whims are satisfied, yes.

Srill not going to address what I said about the AR? Why are you afraid of what I said?

 

[RB 60]

You're the one who shits his pants based on a paranoid fear that the "gub'mit" is going to "grab" your guns (no law in 60 years ever proposed such), or that you can't buy the latest shiny toy to add to your collection if the ban re-enacts.

I, on the other hand, have no problem being able to choose from a plethora of weapons that were available during the 1994-2004 AWB for home protection or to hunt.

So who's living in fear and too much of a coward to concede a point, my cranky old friend?

I really don't give a fuck if my weapons are banned. I won't be giving them up. Rest assured.
I occasionally take them to the gun range and know the safety rules of the shooting sports.

You've made no point to concede. The AWB was ineffective at stopping criminal use of firearms. That is a fact.

Cope.

 

[Lightbringer]

I really don't give a fuck if my weapons are banned. I won't be giving them up. Rest assured.
I occasionally take them to the gun range and know the safety rules of the shooting sports.

You've made no point to concede. The AWB was ineffective at stopping criminal use of firearms. That is a fact.

Cope.

Me neither.

 

[RB 60]

Bullshit, the point of owning these weapons is to kill human beings who want to establish tyranny. An AR ain't for duck hunting...it's for killing cops and feds.

That's what the more accurate Model 70, Model 700 and the Model 1100 are for. If ever needed...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice try, bunky. BUT that DOJ report (linked in your article) has a lot of "could be, might be, can be, possibly, potentially" in it that is rather shaky for the final declarative asserted. From the report;

Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is
likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement. A 5%
reduction in gunshot victimizations is perhaps a reasonable upper bound estimate of the
ban’s potential impact (based on the only available estimate of gunshot victimizations
resulting from attacks in which more than 10 shots were fired), but the actual impact is
likely to be smaller and may not be fully realized for many years into the future,
particularly if pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. from abroad. Just as
the restrictions imposed by the ban are modest – they are essentially limits on weapon
accessories like LCMs, flash hiders, threaded barrels, and the like – so too are the
potential benefits.118 In time, the ban may be seen as an effective prevention measure
that stopped further spread of weaponry considered to be particularly dangerous (in a
manner similar to federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons). But that conclusion
will be contingent on further research validating the dangers of AWs and LCM

Ask the family of the victims of mass shootings using assault rifles AR-15 style (that were on the 1994 list) if they're okay with being part of a "too small" percentage or the "no discernible impact" group that's not worth the reinstatement of the ban. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

Damn, you are one illiterate fucktard. The AR was not completely banned, just with a combination of accessories. Those accessories weren't banned as stand alone additions to existing weapons.
No production AR-15 has a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a folding stock or a grenade launcher.

From my above link;
"A 2004 report commissioned by the Department of Justice on the effects of the assault weapons ban concluded that the law was largely ineffective at limiting access to weapons with the power of the AR-15. According to the report, the ban focused on “features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal.” The report noted that several semi-automatic rifles were functionally equivalent to the AR-15 and untouched by the ban."

Pay attention, genius: DID I EVER SAY ALL WEAPONS WERE COMPLETELY BANNED? NO! I repeatedly pointed to what AR15 style weapons were banned on that 1994-2004 AWB list....all weapons purchased prior to such enactment were legal. Yes, we all know that the gun sellers made adjustments to said weapons to circumvent the Ban requirements. That's why you had all that legal wrangling about selling parts to reinstate those "adjustments". And yes, "functional equivalent" is not EXACTLY THE SAME....just like buying a car that is the "functional equivalent" of a Rolls Royce or Ferrari. What you focus on DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE
REPORT STATED THAT I EXCERPTED. And once again, you gun monkeys make the same mistake....YOU PROVE THAT THERE WERE WEAPONS THAT WEREN'T ON THE LIST THAT COULD "DO THE JOB" THE SAME.

But again, when the ban sunset, the AR-15's sold like hot cakes AS ADVERTISED. And as the mass shooters who used them demonstrated, they performed as advertised. So why continue to market a weapon that makes the rank amateur a better marksman with a near military equivalent delivery when you don't have to, given the current results?

Like I said, Ask the family of the victims of mass shootings using assault rifles AR-15 style (that were on the 1994 list) if they're okay with being part of a "too small" percentage or the "no discernible impact" group that's not worth the reinstatement of the ban. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

Blather on, bumpkin. We've heard your broken record before.

 

[Lightbringer]

That's what the more accurate Model 70, Model 700 and the Model 1100 are for. If ever needed...

It's always needed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
This is a printed medium, you delirious dunce. That's why the chronology of the posts makes your repeated lies or the more pathetic. Posts #328,331, 360 & 440. Now, dance like a MAGA monkey to another claim while never having the guts to admit error that stares you in the face.

The OP was disproven. Your picking up the gauntlet for Dutch's unproven assertion fails. But do tell the guy you see in the mirror of your victory, then circle jerk with your compadres. I'll just sit back and laugh.

No. That's not the latest post to quote. Go quote my last post and respond to that.

You stated that I didn't supply links to support my statements. That was a lie, which I proved. Now you're trying to create some new assertion of yours that I'm suppose to disprove? Sorry jackass, but the chronology of the posts shows you're just going in circles and denying what is in front of you. You've introduced nothing new to the discussion that I have not already answered. That's a typical MAGA mook ploy....repeat an entire discussion, pretend answers weren't given or you're suddenly unable to understand a response or whatever else you can blow smoke and doge with.

GTFU, Guillermo...or do your usual BS, repeat your false claims ad nausea. I'll catch you later.

 

[Lightbringer]

You stated that I didn't supply links to support my statements. That was a lie, which I proved. Now you're trying to create some new assertion of yours that I'm suppose to disprove? Sorry jackass, but the chronology of the posts shows you're just going in circles and denying what is in front of you. You've introduced nothing new to the discussion that I have not already answered. That's a typical MAGA mook ploy....repeat an entire discussion, pretend answers weren't given or you're suddenly unable to understand a response or whatever else you can blow smoke and doge with.

GTFU, Guillermo...or do your usual BS, repeat your false claims ad nausea. I'll catch you later.

That was a few posts ago coward. I agreed with you about the AR being for killing people. Why are you so afraid to address that? That's what AR's are for...to kill human beings.

 

[RB 60]

Pay attention, genius: DID I EVER SAY ALL WEAPONS WERE COMPLETELY BANNED? NO! I repeatedly pointed to what AR15 style weapons were banned on that 1994-2004 AWB list....all weapons purchased prior to such enactment were legal. Yes, we all know that the gun sellers made adjustments to said weapons to circumvent the Ban requirements. That's why you had all that legal wrangling about selling parts to reinstate those "adjustments". And yes, "functional equivalent" is not EXACTLY THE SAME....just like buying a car that is the "functional equivalent" of a Rolls Royce or Ferrari. What you focus on DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE
REPORT STATED THAT I EXCERPTED. And once again, you gun monkeys make the same mistake....YOU PROVE THAT THERE WERE WEAPONS THAT WEREN'T ON THE LIST THAT COULD "DO THE JOB" THE SAME.

But again, when the ban sunset, the AR-15's sold like hot cakes AS ADVERTISED. And as the mass shooters who used them demonstrated, they performed as advertised. So why continue to market a weapon that makes the rank amateur a better marksman with a near military equivalent delivery when you don't have to, given the current results?

Like I said, Ask the family of the victims of mass shootings using assault rifles AR-15 style (that were on the 1994 list) if they're okay with being part of a "too small" percentage or the "no discernible impact" group that's not worth the reinstatement of the ban. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

Blather on, bumpkin. We've heard your broken record before.

You said the AR was on the AWB list. It wasn't, and I pointed that fact out to you in simple wording. Sorry you're too illiterate to comprehend simple English.

You and your fucking liberal media keep the AR in the spotlight, so idiot shooters will naturally use what you keep screaming about.

Why don't you ask the families of victims who have been stabbed? How about the families of victims who were killed by a drunk driver?

You'll never concede the point that you are (most often) full of shit. I win AGAIN

 

[Taichiliberal]

I really don't give a fuck if my weapons are banned. I won't be giving them up. Rest assured.
I occasionally take them to the gun range and know the safety rules of the shooting sports.

You've made no point to concede. The AWB was ineffective at stopping criminal use of firearms. That is a fact.

Cope.

And when the ban was in place, was there any legislation or ruling that said any/all weapons purchased or owned previous to enactment would be illegal and subject to confiscation or penalty fines?

Nope. And in the last 60 years there was NEVER a law past that ruled confiscation of legally purchased weapons.

So right there you parrot a LIE that POS like LaPierre and the NRA once pushed. That makes you either willfully ignorant of just another piss poor lying gun flunky....which makes your subsequent declarations dubious at best.

Past your bed time, toodles. Put down the JB and turn it. Catch you later.

 

[RB 60]

That was a few posts ago coward. I agreed with you about the AR being for killing people. Why are you so afraid to address that? That's what AR's are for...to kill human beings.

The AR was designed as a sporting rifle, to be used for a target and/or competition shooting.

My M-1 Garands and my M1-A were designed, produced and distributed for killing people. I just use them for occasional target shooting.

 

[Lightbringer]

The AR was designed as a sporting rifle, to be used for a target and/or competition shooting.

My M-1 Garands and my M1-A were designed, produced and distributed for killing people. I just use them for occasional target shooting.

Bullshit. It's designed to kill people. Stop being a fucking symp. The AR is for killing human beings and so is the Second Amendment.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Still waiting for that explanation Dutch...and there is no post of yours that gives that explanation, so stop foolishly lying. Just buck up, be an adult and either explain your assertion or admit you can't. The reading audience awaits.

Why, TCL? You believe the Federal government should determine the unalienable rights of innocent Americans. I disagree.

You won't change your mind about using the full weight of the Federal government to strip Americans of their rights "for the children" and "their own good" and I won't change my mind that banning things and stripping rights is the wrong way to handle problems.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Bullshit. It's designed to kill people. Stop being a fucking symp. The AR is for killing human beings and so is the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was designed for the universal unalienable right of self-defense. Even the UN recognizes the right of self-defense.

https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml
Article 51
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law)
Self determination (international law)
Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”