Wouldn't it be ironic if a bunch of armed cracker Trump secessionists led to a real and permanent assault weapons ban?
- Thread starter bundee1
- Start date
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
blu3bird
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure only assault rifles is what they want to restrict/outlaw
You can keep your shotgun or hunting rifles and still have free speech
I don't know about you, but I don't need an assault rifle to speak freely
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
What is an "assault rifle" ?
Why is the restriction of them, using soldiers / militarized police armed with "assault rifles" to effectuate it, not ironic?
You have a "guard dog", a nice medium sized docile old animal. I have 4 vicious well trained 200 pound face ripping guard dogs. I tell you to shut up, will your dog protect you against my dogs ? Your dog will be torn apart like a stuffed animal. That is how you will you loose free speech. Now go lie down!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good morning hypocrite incessant liar. I'm hear to instruct you in manners and stimulate your pea brain.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
mens (mind) … precedes ment.
Tell me how any person could possibly delegate a right they don't possess, Pea Brain ?
blu3bird
Well-Known Member
You're smart enough to know what an assault rifle is, Rob. Let's not split hairs over that
Freedom of speech is a right, I know you'll agree with that
Rights come with responsibilities, I don't know if you agree with that, it's just the way it is though
So if I speak freely and responsibly, why would you tell me to shut up and have your dogs attack me?
If I don't exercise responsibility with my speech, I can understand being attacked
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's just it, I wouldn't attack you. My example was an example, meant for you to extrapolate.
Apparently you are okay with some people having assault rifles and following thru with threatening to attack anybody that isn't designated as privileged to have an assault rifle though.
If some people are "allowed" to have something that you aren't allowed to have, you don't have the same rights. If you don't have the same ability to defend your rights as the people trying to strip you of your rights....you will lose other rights. It's not a possibility....it's an inevitability.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
When are you going to apologize to the rest of the forum for spamming them with white trash supremacists propaganda?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
kgp
Well-Known Member
Never gonna happen. They tried it once. Good thing we still have folks in congress that love the constitution more than sensitive snow flakes that are more likely to get hit by a car then get shot with an "assault rifle". Which is not an assault rifle at all. Its a semi auto just like most other guns. Assault rifle is defined as any gun with a selector switch. Coming from a cracker who knows what hes talking about.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
kgp
Well-Known Member
Stop with the making up shit. If you dont know what your talking about do some research first.
Its stands for armalite, the first manufacturer and designer of the AR15.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
kgp
Well-Known Member
There are 5 to 10 million in america. If you do the math, 173 mass shooting deaths caused by ar15's in a decade. Lets go low and say 5 million, thats a 0.0000346 % chance an ar15 will be used to kill anyone, even lower if your talking about kids, and if you deduct the suicide rates its way less.
1700 people were murdered with knives or sharp object in the same time frame. If no one was ever murdered by a knife again, it would take 100 years for ar15's to catch up to the amount of deaths caused by knives.
327 million people in the USA, so basically you will have better odds of being struck by lighting. 490 people got struck by lighting in 10 years.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When American citizen kids turn 16, Obama uses a drone to fry them without due process.
