NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

originally posted by: Sunwolf
Explain to me what a cop killer bullet is,please.

Teflon coated bullets that go though vests.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's pretty easy to comprehend what I meant.


FBI, CIA, ATF, DHS, Air Force, Navy, Marines, SEALs, PD's...

Statistically all of them contain elements that would take your guns, so rightly you keep your guns...

But what do you do about those bad apples in the meantime...

If they'd hang you out to dry, an American born and bred citizen, what chance does anyone who interacts with them daily have?


It's a better discussion than some OpEd in my opinion.

But it's bed time for me (6am), I'll end by saying those lists are as slippery a slope as the infiltration of your protective forces.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

You see not many round here will admit that there is an enemy within your own protective forces, and that is the question I was trying to get an answer to.

Thanks FT.

I'm not sure what you mean by enemy within your own protective force, please explain. Cops many times are crime investigators after the crime happens, so I'm not sure who will protect me other than myself if needed. I would also say that a billion guns in civilian hands is a calculating factor if we ever went to war with Russia or China and there was an invasion. Who might take my guns...well lets see... The democrats want to vote in "lists" to take guns. Today it is no fly list...bye guns, oh lets make a person watch list bye guns, how about a veteran list you know PTSD and all, bye guns, you know someone with a speeding ticket is just not mature enough to have guns, so bye guns, have an argument with your wife..bye guns...lol

Exactly!

It is called due process, being on a list is not due process.

What that proposes is guilty by finger pointing, reminds me of the Salem witch trials....disgusting, especially from the " we can't blame them all for the acts of a few" lefties.

How do they not see the hypocritical nature of that?

Oh ya...." the ends always justify the means" been the lefts moto for their entire existence.

Just like when they founded the KKK, and fought long and hard in Congress to keep slaves, and Jim crow laws, and segregation....should I even continue?

a reply to: Sunwolf

In that instance they are referring to these.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sunwolf

In that instance they are referring to these.

In which case I have a lot of those moly disulfide bullets then.

The US government will probably make semi-auto rifles & shot guns illegal (or heavily regulated) when cannabis becomes legal... you know, to ensure the prison industrial complex keeps thriving. There won't be any shortage of police willing to up hold the law either, since they love getting a few easy busts under there belt, whether they agree with the law or not.

Better stock up on those precious pistol grip rifles guys, there the ones they'll come for first... bury them in your backyard, for the day when the government starts rounding up citizens into camps and all that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xtrozero

Guns don't do it for me.....

Like I said correct me if I am wrong.... I assumed the term assault rifle was referring to either semi or automatic rifles...

AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, an assault is military use full automatic. Not really a big deal other than anything not with a wood stock is an evil assault rifle. Its like people want to band guns on their looks.

GH


Please excuse my lack of knowledge here.....so they want to remove rifles like AR15s....? Are you able to modify these into automatics and how many rounds do the hold?.... I'm not sure I get it but from what you are saying these rifles are essentially hunting rifles not military ....so what then is the point of taking them... It doesn't make sense as just as many people could be killed with handguns.....

I know I could research this I would rather hear from someone with knowledge on the matter

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Guess someone missed the red herring in the New York Times article.

The only made up words in this thread is 'assault' weapon.

But that term came from politicos pushing fascism.

1) I don't read that trash

2) Incroyable is not a word

3) Sure thing, king

Actually "incroyable" is a word.incroyable meaning

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

FBI, CIA, ATF, DHS, Air Force, Navy, Marines, SEALs, PD's...

Statistically all of them contain elements that would take your guns, so rightly you keep your guns...

There is also a slight difference in all this. You see we are 50 Unities States not a Democracy so every state has their own Air force, Army etc, and every state has their own police force, sheriff etc also. There are checks and balances in the US to prevent a military coup or dictator situation and a well armed militia is a big part of that too, so would you say that if we limited guns to pea shooters would that kind of go against the whole well armed part?

But what do you do about those bad apples in the meantime...

What if I said that out of 330 million people 8000 are killed each year by guns. 5000 of that 8000 are handguns and mostly bad guys with illegal guns shooting at bad guys. 4000 are killed by other means than guns, and if we fixed the illegal aspects of people with guns that should not have them then gun murders would be lower than knives most likely. I'm just not sure what we are trying to fix here by saying guns are bad. As I said before if we are so worried about deaths then lets lower all speeding signs to 25 miles per hour and we would most likely save 30,000 just their.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xtrozero

Guns don't do it for me.....

Like I said correct me if I am wrong.... I assumed the term assault rifle was referring to either semi or automatic rifles...

AR actually stands for ArmaLite rifle, an assault is military use full automatic. Not really a big deal other than anything not with a wood stock is an evil assault rifle. Its like people want to band guns on their looks.

GH


Please excuse my lack of knowledge here.....so they want to remove rifles like AR15s....? Are you able to modify these into automatics and how many rounds do the hold?.... I'm not sure I get it but from what you are saying these rifles are essentially hunting rifles not military ....so what then is the point of taking them... It doesn't make sense as just as many people could be killed with handguns.....

I know I could research this I would rather hear from someone with knowledge on the matter

Factors more people are killed by handguns than rifles, factors more handguns are used in mass shootings than rifles.

Notice I didn't just single out 1 type of rifle, like the AR.

I said rifles, as in all of them.

Handguns are by far a much bigger problem.

Feet and hammers kill more people every year than high powered rifles like the AR.

Yes it can be modified to fire full automatic, but it is not as easy as they make it sound, and it takes knowledge to do so.

As far as capacity, it can hold as many rounds as the magazine can hold.

All the way from 10-100 though there are specialty magazines that can hold more.

But that is holy wood stuff, not really practical.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

It is called due process, being on a list is not due process.

But they still try and make it sound horrible when people say hay wait a minute that is wrong. Old Hillary tweeted how horrible it all was. She scares the crap out of me if she thinks lists are ok to remove rights...wow.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't know much about guns either. But the AR-15 was the gun used in the Port Arthur massacre, he managed to kill 35 people and wound 23... A very efficient ratio for your average mass shooting and also quite an astonishing kill rate for a person who apparently had the mental capacity of a 10 year old.

I guess so called "assault rifles" (semi-auto or fully auto) just have a structure that makes them very efficient at taking out a large amount of moving targets in a short period... Add a high capacity magazine to the situation and it becomes very apparent they are firearms that the public really shouldn't be able to easily obtain.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: forkedtongue

It is called due process, being on a list is not due process.

But they still try and make it sound horrible when people say hay wait a minute that is wrong. Old Hillary tweeted how horrible it all was. She scares the crap out of me if she thinks lists are ok to remove rights...wow.

Banana republic stuff, I can't believe they even voiced that insanity in public.

She scares the crap out of me too!

a reply to: RoadCourse

What is a "Gun nut"?

No assault rifle comes without one.

And the NYT?

Phfff!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't know much about guns either. But the AR-15 was the gun used in the Port Arthur massacre, he managed to kill 35 people and wound 23... A very efficient ratio for your average mass shooting and also quite an astonishing kill rate for a person who apparently had the mental capacity of a 10 year old.

I guess so called "assault rifles" (semi-auto or fully auto) just have a structure that makes them every efficient in taking out a large amount of moving targets in a short period... Add a high capacity magazine to the situation and it becomes very apparent they are firearms that the public really shouldn't be able to easily obtain.

Yes,isn`t that amazing?Mental capacity of a 10 yr old?35 people?Way too amazing to be believable,especially as they were all shot in the head and neck from the hip of the perpetrator.

I know I couldn`t do it and I know several operators who say they couldn`t do it.


No,the AR does not have a special structure that makes it any better than any other semi-auto rifle for taking out moving targets.In fact the weapon of choice for close quarters would have been a pump shotgun.
The whole scenario is unbelievable.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

This is why I am struggling to understand.....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Please excuse my lack of knowledge here.....so they want to remove rifles like AR15s....? Are you able to modify these into automatics and how many rounds do the hold?....

Not easy and highly illegal to try and modify them. They look just like their military counter parts, but different guts so the military can do full auto or 3 round burst too. Bigger the gun lesser the rounds hehe. In CA 10 rounds is max so people buy bigger 45s that can hold 7 and not the 9M that can hold 17. But there are 30 round mags and even 100 round barrels, but I would never use one for they are prone to jam as in the case of Homes. 30 round on ARs is the most common unless your in CA then it is 10.

I'm not sure I get it but from what you are saying these rifles are essentially hunting rifles not military ....

They are not military and are anything you want them to be.

so what then is the point of taking them... It doesn't make sense as just as many people could be killed with handguns.....

Lol I do not think you understand... Less than 300 people are killed each year from rifles and those evil ARs, 5000 to 6000 are killed by hand guns, 300 to 400 are killed by shotguns and so on. The crazy criminal with the cheep handgun is your biggest threat, but they want to take rifles because they look mean. Solve the gang violence where in every case it is illegal hand guns being used, and as I wrote before 50 people shot 8 dead in one weekend in Chicago all with ilegal handguns.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't know much about guns either. But the AR-15 was the gun used in the Port Arthur massacre, he managed to kill 35 people and wound 23... A very efficient ratio for your average mass shooting and also quite an astonishing kill rate for a person who apparently had the mental capacity of a 10 year old.

I guess so called "assault rifles" (semi-auto or fully auto) just have a structure that makes them very efficient at taking out a large amount of moving targets in a short period... Add a high capacity magazine to the situation and it becomes very apparent they are firearms that the public really shouldn't be able to easily obtain.

Lol, if I put a bugatti body on a pinto does it turn it into a super car?

If I wear the same clothes as brad Pitt do I get to go home with Angelina?

Because the outside cosmetic look of an AR and M-4 is the same thing.

No an AR is no more deadly than any other high powered rifle.

Modern guns are designed to be easy to shoot, all of them.

What is a " high capacity" magazine?

You are just repeating talking points you heard in the news aren't you?

Ask away, I'm very knowledgeable about military and civy guns, I'm a vet of the US ARMY, and been shooting since I could walk.

It is my belief that basically every anti gun person is simply ignorant about guns.

Because I have never been scared of them, because I have intimate knowledge of them.

An AR in no way meets military grade specs period.

It is not a weapon of war, it is not automatic.

It shoots exactly as fast as a revolver pistol..

1 trigger pull 1bullet.

Sure it looks like an M-4, but so does my kids air soft gun.

Doesn't make them equal.

They reload and fire as fast as any other semiautomatic magazine fed gun, be it a little 25 pistol , or a Remington 10/22 riffle.

Though rifles are much more accurate, especially at range.

I live in a small town in NC, I have first hand information from a gun club that 60% of our police force are in. If it comes down the pipe to confiscate our guns, the police have already made it clear they will go home and defend their families and will never carry out such a Tyrannical order.

Yes, Americans have a right to assault rifles, if our government turns against the people we have the God given rights to defend ourselves.

We Americans have learned and watched in horror what Tyrannical governments do when they disarm their citizens and will not allow history to repeat it's self here in America.

I agree with a poster on here who said this: Who is going to take our guns, the military, The UN, The CIA, and we all know the answer to that, it will never happened.

The problem is we out number all of them.

Now I do agree there are Americans who should not own a gun, criminals, and the mentally ill. However we have a problem with who do we say no to with Americans with miner mental illness to serious mental illness.

My understanding there are hundreds of thousands of Americans with mild mental illness that are treatable with the right medications such as depression.

Should these Americans have their gun rights taken? My opinion is no, I know a few people who suffer from depression and take their medications regular and none of these people would ever go on any shooting spree.

Then you have Americans that suffer from schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, It is my opinion these people should not have guns period. Its a well known fact people with these disorders are dangerous with any kind of weapons.

The fact is, Mental illness is not being address by politions concerning gun violence which is the root cause in many of the mass shootings in America.

Then we have the issue of our government training and funding terrorist abroad and they have no problems handing guns to radicals.

What was it the George Bush said after 911, we do not do business with Terrorists. Really!

The fact is, 14 years later our government has admitted to doing business with terrorist. So my question is: what kind of example is our government given to the American people when it comes to guns?